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

Re: Nomenclature- It is to laugh

This is what I got out of DinoGeorge's explanation-

everything that is 'ceratopian' is like enough to the group Ceratopidae
to be considered family.
everything that is "ceratopid" IS the group Ceratopidae

Thus ALL bits and pieces of bone from the family Ceratopidae are
and bits and pieces of similar-to-Ceratopidae bones are ceratopian
(which would include specimens which were similar but as yet unnamed or

yes? no?


Peter Von Sholly wrote:
> 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.

DinoGeorge said:
> > << 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_);
> the
> > 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_).