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

Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186

Not to mention names that come up from long forgotten abyss _like Syntarsus_
(no pun intended)
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Dinosaur Genera List update #186

> In a message dated 5/2/02 7:53:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
> << 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." >>
> Once a name is published, it has a nasty habit of showing up unbidden.
> would it not be interesting to know whether paleontologists such as
> Owen, Cope, and Marsh had considered other names for their fossils before
> publishing the names they eventually did? This kind of information is not
> usually available in the scientific literature, and when it appears in the
> popular literature it deserves to be preserved. For example, it was going
> be Utahraptor spielbergi before it became Utahraptor ostrommaysorum. The
> former name appeared only in a Walt Disney digest article, as far as I
> And Barnum Brown was going to name Kritosaurus Nectosaurus, until he
> that Nectosaurus had been used a few years earlier for an aquatic reptile
> had to choose another name.