[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: OH NO! NOT "RAPTORS" AGAIN!
Brian, et al:
Sorry, yes you're right, they do not match the body plan as I described
it. (Different sizes, different theropod groups, etc.). However,
_Oviraptor_ was named in 1924, well before the current 'rage', and therefore
should have been one of the bases for describing further "raptors". (Instead
However, the names are still 'good' names:
"Egg plunderer" (even though it wasn't stealing and eating the
eggs - that was Osborn's idea - supported by R.C.A. and Granger);
"Dawn plunderer" - what might _you_ call the first [i.e. earliest]
and "China plunderer" - well, it was kinda big, and certainly was
from China. :-)
I am not trying to suggest that the term "raptor" should be used as a
shorthand for these various animals, just that the use of raptor as a suffix
IS legitimate on several levels, one of which is that it does currently
evoke an image, and is therefore somewhat descriptive of a type.
(Of course, it is very likely to be over-used, just as the 'saurus"
suffix is a bit overdone).
From: Brian Franczak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 7:11 AM
Subject: OH NO! NOT "RAPTORS" AGAIN!
>What about _Eoraptor_, _Sinraptor_, and _Oviraptor_, none of which fit