A false prophet can be recognized when he proclaims even one thing that is
untrue. But a good scientist will admit to error when proven wrong. Even
Tucker Abbott made mistakes. Of course, if someone's work is always full of
mistakes, it's hard to call him an "expert," no matter how humble he is.
Eventually people catch on and stop reading or citing books that are full
of errors.
 
Then again, we have names for people who take pleasure in finding fault
with others: nitpickers, for instance, which is really ugly when you
consider what nits are. And what about "going over the manuscript with a
fine-toothed comb"?
 
As to practicalities, it is usually not worth pointing out previous faults
unless you are discussing the same topic in a later article, and the tone
should be matter-of-fact: "Conrad Morton (1843) assigned Balzacia excessiva
to the Calibanidae. Apparently he failed to notice the curled ctenolium
that is present in his type specimen, and which makes it necessary to
reassign the species to Monfilsoconcha, in family Scheuinidae." Not, shall
we say, "Conrad Morton sure goofed! You'd think he'd have noticed an
obvious feature like a curled ctenolium. Ah, he probably never even saw the
type."
 
But there is a fine old tradition of publishing lists of errors ("errata")
found in major reference works, such as "American Seashells." We've done it
on Conch-L. Lists of errata are highly valuable to correct typographical
errors, slips of the pen, and the occasional goof. Lists of updated names
are also useful, but please bear in mind that an item that needs updating
is not the same as an error, since it was not wrong when it was published.
In either case, the effort needed to correct and/or update a major work can
be a heroic task in itself, and sometimes it is the first step toward a
new, revised edition. In other words, a normal process in scientific
publishing.
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama