[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 18:51:34 EDT
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> << 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." >>
> [...] would it not be interesting to know whether paleontologists
> such as Seeley, Owen, Cope, and Marsh had considered other names for
> their fossils before publishing the names they eventually did?
Er ... yeah ...
> For example, it was going to be Utahraptor spielbergi before it
> became Utahraptor ostrommaysorum. The former name appeared only in a
> Walt Disney digest article, as far as I know. And Barnum Brown was
> going to name Kritosaurus Nectosaurus, until he learned that
> Nectosaurus had been used a few years earlier for an aquatic reptile
> and had to choose another name.
OK, I admit these are all interesting examples! So I guess, we'd
agree with Jaime that the names have no _scientific_ value, but they
do have historical and entertainment value. OK, I'm convinced!
Thanks for filling me in.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers" --