Re: Advances in Vertebrate Paleontology "Hen to Panta"

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

Just in case the following hasn't already been noted in this thread (no,
I haven't been paying attention):

First Revision may be a moot point here.  George Olshevsky (1992)
published the corrected spelling in his serial publication _Mesozoic
Meanderings #2 (2nd Printing)_.

On the other hand, does/did M.M. have a wide enough distribution to be
considered a valid medium?

<pb>
--

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:49:07 +0200 David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> writes:
> > http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Feb/msg00768.html
> 
> I disagree, because both versions are in the original paper. So 
> there is no
> problem of emendation, just one of choosing.
> 
> Oopsie. Is the one famous occurrence without h in a caption? Then 
> the above
> is wrong. But the 2nd phenomenon still kicks in: The _editor_ is the 
> author
> of the spelling with h, _not_ Currie et al.. "*Richardoestesia 
> gilmorei*
> anonymous vide Currie, Rigby & Sloan 1990".
> 
> > http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Jul/msg00559.html
> 
> Because there is no opportunity for choosing, no First Revisor is 
> needed. I
> haven't seen a convincing rebuttal to
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Jul/msg00881.html.
> 
> 
> 



________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!