Brontosaurus

[Michael Gochfeld]

As a non-codologist, I'll pose another question.  The late Gene
Eisenmann (AMNH Neotropicologist) once pointed out that Audubon (if
memory serves me) had spelled the name of a something pensylvanicus,
with one 'n' in the first mention, but with two 'n's (pennsylvanicus) in
all subsequent writings.  He told me (this would have been 30 years
ago), that when it was apparent that the original describer had made a
typo (as reflected in his [presumably female scientists had better
things to do than worry about such things] own subsequent writings, then
the "corrected" spelling prevailed (even, I think if the original author
did not issue a formal mea culpa and correct the spelling).  Is that or
was that true


MIKE GOCHFELD


"Chris J. Durden" wrote:
> 
> >Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 13:09:19 -0600
> >To: lept-l at lists.yale.edu
> >From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Brontosaurus
> >In-Reply-To: <1001104075947.ZM3622 at Gochfeld>
> >References: <Anne Kilmer <viceroy at gate.net>        "Re: Gillett's
> Checkerspot" (Oct 27, 11:13am)>
> <Pine.OSF.4.21.0010262328070.18414-100000 at aurora.uaf.edu>
> <001401c03ff1$ec8e7080$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
> <39F9833A.B4E9A150 at helsinki.fi> <39F99B87.32A054E3 at gate.net>
> >
> >Brontosaurus is a perfectly good vernacular name that is still in common
> use. Most of us have at least a vague idea of what it looks like even if we
> don't remember the correct generic name or what its new feet look like.
> >  On the "50-year rule" - do we still have this silliness in the recent
> revision of the ICZN code? It seems very presumptuous to give execeptional
> standing to the name of one's own generation at the expense of the name of
> one's father's or great-grandfather's generation! Is our half century
> somehow more significant than our children's half century?
> >  Rules can lead to nomenclatorial stability. Exceptions prolong the
> agony. Let's stick with strict priority. *Amlystoma* or *Ambystoma*? *H.
> charithonia* or *H. charitonius*?
> >........Chris
> >
> >At 07:59  4/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >>And yes, there was no excuse for changing "brontosaurus", it must have
> >>been covered under the 50 year rule (which I recall states that a name
> >>that has been used consistently in publications for 50 years, can be
> >>applied for as the correct name, even when someone discovers a prior
> >>name that has not been used).
> >>
> >>M. Gochfeld
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> 

-- 

================================================
Michael Gochfeld, MD, PhD
Professor of Environmental and Community Medicine
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
170 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854  USA
732-445-0123 X627  fax 732-445-0130

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl