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

Re:Lizard of Oz

You know, this idea of using frivolity in the designation of organisms,dead
or alive, is terrifically distasteful.  Whenever an organism is named, the
name should reflect something about the organism itself.  I particularly do
not like the naming of things for either their discoverers or their
discoverer's major prof and I do not even think that using place of
discovery names is appropriate.  For dinos and forms that we can only
know from a few fossils, place names only indicate where the thing was
found originally and that may have been outside the normal range even
for the time in which the critter was alive.  Worst of all are such inanities
as, what is it?, Ozraptor.  Or the frivolousness of "Heerz lukinatcha" and
the like.  

Utahraptor is one with which I have particular problems. What is at all
descriptive about this name?  What does it conjure up in the imagination
about the creature itself?  Did it live in a desert (Utah usually brings to
mind Southern Utah which is mostly desert)?  Did it live in the mountains
(Northern Utah)?  Did it have divergent religious beliefs (no explanation
needed for that one)?  

When Utahraptor was alive, Utah was not like it is now and yet the name
brings forth the image.  I think it should be avoided in favour of something
structural about the creature and, preferably, diagnostic. 


>>> TRUETT GARNER <DINOBOY@worldnet.att.net> 06/08/98 08:11pm
What's next ? Dorthysaura ? Totolestes ?Munchkinraptor ? I know ,
RayBolgervenator . 
Sorry , couldn't resist

Regards , Truett Garner
" Never underestimate the power of human stupidity " Lazarus Long