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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186



> Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:15:20 EDT
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> 
> << Excuse my ignorance, but really, _why_ is it necessary to add
>    these names? >>
> 
> Well, they're part of the history of the genus Eotyrannus, for one
> thing.  Same kind of reason that Elvisaurus (for Cryolophosaurus),
> Chihuahuasaurus (for Sonorasaurus), and Umarsaurus (for Barsboldia)
> are in the list, for example.

But as Kevin Coster was once told, "If you ignore them, they will go
away", no?  Wouldn't that be better?  As Jamie's original message
points out, "These [names] are [...] completely, utterly useless to
science."

Not just being awkward here -- I truly don't understand why anyone
would want to perpetuate them.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "It's the wrong kind of snow" -- British Rail spokesman,
         explaining why trains aren't running.