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


> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:14:07 -0700
> From: "Jerry D. Harris" <dinogami@hotmail.com>
> Restricting the use of "anterior" and "posterior" and expanding the
> use of "cranial," "caudal," "rostral," etc. has been the norm in
> anatomical circles for quite a long time now.

I suppose the problem is not just with the change per se, but that the
new terms are such rubbish.  I mean really, different terms for "the
bit that faces forwards" depending on whether you're talking about
part of the skull or something somewhere else.  Pah.  And _then_
naming the forward-within-the-skull direction after a bone that only
occurs in ceratopsians anyway!  Honestly.  You'd think that the term
"rostral process" in a theropod would refer to something that points
in the direction of the nearest Triceratops!  :-)

On the related subject of metric vs. imperial, given that we all agree
(don't we?) that metric _has_ to be The Right Thing, I wonder how many
more of you share with me a total lack of intuition for what meters
and kilograms _feel_ like.  That is, if I read that a certain theropod
is 4m long, I can't form much of a mental picture of it; but once I've
multiplied by 39/12ths, I'm fine envisaging an animal thirteen feet
long.  Is it just me?

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor -- <mirk@mail.org> -- http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/
)_v__/\  "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual 600MHz Pentium
         processors if I am to do battle with this code!" -- Klingon
         Programming Mantra.