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

Re: Nomenclature- It is to laugh

Dinogeorge asks the burning question "why is it so difficult to get
across?" and then proceeds with his reply.  To merely refer to his
Ceratopia-Ceratopsia answer is to answer his first question.  Sorry, but
"HUH?"  I guess I don't have the right kind of brain to absorb this stuff. 
It seems like ridiculously complicated gibberish.  This is not to fault
George or the Nomenclaturalists of the world at all.  But to some of us
poor slobs, this stuff is like wading through a sea of bubble gum.  And I
think THAT is why it's so hard to get it across.  I blame myself.

> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: gbabcock@best.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Nomenclature
> Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 11:54 AM
> In a message dated 10/17/98 8:08:03 AM EST, gbabcock@best.com writes:
> << Is there a distinction between the correct or preferred uses of the
>  following terms (which appear to be used interchangeably)?>>
> Yes, there is, but nobody seems to give a damn. So the terms are used
> interchangeably, with consequent loss of precision. (This kind of stuff
> very straightforward, but every few months this problem reappears on this
> list. Why is it so difficult to get across??)
> << ceratopian vs. ceratopid>>
> The former is a member of the order, suborder, or clade Ceratopia (unlike
> Ceratopsia, this is the properly formed name from the genus _Ceratops_);
> latter is a member of the family Ceratopidae (= incorrectly formed name
> Ceratopsidae). Ceratopidae is included within Ceratopia, so every
ceratopid is
> also a ceratopian, but not every ceratopian is a ceratopid (e.g.,
> _Psittacosaurus_, _Protoceratops_).