> > Both "buses" and "busses" are acceptable plurals of "bus". At least according to dictionary.com, anyway.
>
> "Busses" is the second spelling listed in some dictionaries and not listed at all in other dictionaries. Generally one should not trust the second spelling or pronunciation variation listed in dictionaries. Lexicographers tend to be too permissive and eager to decrease the literacy rate by making language errors correct as quickly as they occur.

I just popped into a bookshop during lunch and checked the OED entry. The only version of the OED I could find was the 1 volume Condensed Reference Dictionary, so I'll also check my 9 volume Condensed (which will have more on the etymology) when I get home.

But the point of this is that the OED lists "busses" as an American alternative to "buses". Given that it is an American English word rather than a British English word (according to OED), I would be interested to know what Webster's has on the subject, if anyone has a copy.

But given that it has been used in an "official" context (according to Ticia), I would be inclined to say that it is a valid spelling.

I do agree with Sam that lexographers seem to spend far too much time looking for new words or new variations of old words. Perhaps they need to increase the word count in each edition of the dictionary to prove they're doing something?

winter"I now know that the 'busses' I recently saw in a London newspaper is wrong, though"mute