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

RE: Bambiraptor



No name is dumb when it thanks those that made it financially, physically 
or politically possible to get the bones out.  Descriptive names are easier 
on the scientists, but it would be ungrateful as well as foolish to forget 
the folks who make it possible to do the science.

  --Toby White

Vertebrate Notes at
http://home.houston.rr.com/vnotes/index.html
and http://www.dinodata.net



-----Original Message-----
From:   Steve  Brusatte [SMTP:dinoland@mailcity.com]
Sent:   Sunday, April 09, 2000 1:24 PM
To:     j_mallon@hotmail.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject:        Re: Bambiraptor

Jordan Mallon wrote:

>Just out if curiosity, is the name Atlascopcosaurus also dumb because it 
is
>not descriptive?  If its a physical description we want, then no, 
because
>it does not provide even an inkling as to the dinosaurs characteristics. 
>However, I think it is descriptive in that it provides some case history
>into the background of the dinosaurs discovery (Atlas Copco was the name 
of
>the company that helped excavate this dinos bones).  Same case scenario 
for
>Leaellynasaura (named after the discoverers daughter) and Bambiraptor 
(the
>boy who found it nicknamed it Bambi because of its small and cute
>appearance).

How about Qantasaurus, named after the Australian airline?  To a lesser 
extent, what about dinosaurs and other creatures named after mythical 
figures, like the recently named Jobaria?  Sereno and his colleagues named 
this sauropod after a mythical figure of Tuareg tradition (and the name 
that the nomads gave the dinosaur bones).  Is this 'unscientific', too? 
 Or, are these names dumb?

Steve

Dino Land Paleontology http://www.geocities.com/stegob



Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct