[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bambiraptor feinbergi
Matthew Celeskey wrote:
>>Can't help but wonder where the opposition is to other
culturally-derived generic names, like _Garudamimus_, _Kakuru_,
_Achelousaurus_, Erlikosaurus_, etc. Surely these don't tell us much
about the animals in question. Should there be a cutoff point for
cultural characters in taxonomy? e.g.: All allusions to
characters/stories from before 1000 AD are acceptible, but
referencing characters/stories more recent than 1000 is undignified?<<
While names like _Kakuru_ and _Garudimimus_ may not contain the same sort of
descriptive data contained in a name like _Micropachycephalosaurus_ or
_Dilophosaurus_, they do have a dignity entirely lacking in an absurdity like
"Bambiraptor" (and to a lesser degree, _Irritator_). If this *is* in any way
about culture, then it's about a preference for classical Western and
non-Western mythology over pop Western culture. I'll admit to that prejudice.
I like to hope that we haven't yet degenerated to the point where we view the
ancient Greek pantheon (or Hindu or Native American or whatever) and Disney
cartoons in quite the same light.
I suspect that I'm reaching the point in this thread where I'm beating a dead
horse (or at least a dead theropod). I do have a sense of humor. I just don't
believe that the naming of taxa is an appropriate place the express it.
Caitlin R. Kiernan