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

re: "Megapnosaurus" says farewell...



We actually considered that name (Megaloapnoosaurus), but in its latinized
form it is not euphonious and would add 2 unneeded and unwelcome
syllables. We we went with the MEGA, as given as an alternative to MEGALO
for a combining form in Borror 1960, and dropped the double combining
vowel because of the change in syllabification it would engender in
Americanized Pseudolatin pronunciation, i.e. for euphony in the Latinized
form. 

Although it would properly be ap-new-saur-us, which is kind of nice, we
know it would come out ap-no-oh-saur-us -- Yuck.  You see, we were trying
to find a name that would be good to actually use.  

Mike

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 NJPharris@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated Sun, 3 Feb 2002  5:57:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael 
> Ivie <mivie@gemini.oscs.montana.edu> writes:
> 
> > your petty name would not be valid anyway. Further, if it
> > were, it would be too bad you don't know something about languages so at
> > least you could derive it properly (recommendation 11A of ICZN), as we
> > did, 
> 
> Well, you almost did.  The stem of _megas_ is _megal-_, and the Greek
word for 'lifeless, dead' (literally 'breathless, unbreathing') is
_apnoos_, not _apnos_.  Thus, "megalapnoosaurus" would be more correctly 
derived than _Megapnosaurus_.
> 
> --Nick P.
> 
>