[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: DINOSAUR digest 877

> Subject: Re: Reptiles
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:06:42 -0500
> From: chris brochu <cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org>
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> >Next they'll try to formally redefine the term 'fish' to include all
> >gnathostomes
> >(and once again abandon an already perfectly good and well-established formal
> >name)!
> >
> Actually, since "fish" is not a formal taxon name at all, we won't be
> redefining fish that way, and can't.  "Fish" is a colloquial name.
> chris
> Christopher Brochu
> Department of Geology
> Field Museum of Natural History
> Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
> Chicago, IL 60605

The formal taxonomic name I was referring to (very obviously I thought) was 
Ganathostomata. The entire gist of my argument was that 'fish' should STAY a 
colloquial name, just as 'reptile' should be.