[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Darren Naish <email@example.com> wrote:
This begs the question: when is someone going to give _I. atherfieldensis_
its own genus?
Does _Vectisaurus_ qualify as an available genus name for this species?
Presumably this is the new generic name for _Rhabdodon
In the past, _Rhabdodon_ has often been used as a catch-all for fragmentary
(and sometimes well-preserved) ornithopod material from the
Campanian-Maastrichtian of Europe. Certain material from the Hateg Basin of
Romania has been discussed in the past as a possible new genus.
Tommy Tyrberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The Goths (east germans) and the Getae (thracians) were two completely
different tribes that weren't even contemporary.
True, they weren't contemporary. However, several authors of late antiquity
(Philostorgius, Cassiodorus, Iordanes) identified the Goths as descendents
of the older Getic tribes. There is no evidence that such an identification
is true - most likely it's an invention to provide the Goths with an
illustrious and ancient pedigree. Nevertheless, the Getae/Goth link has
been mentioned in the same context as the existence of Zalmoxes.
Zalmoxis by the way was a semi-mythical culture hero of the getae rather
than a king.
Ancient sources refer to him as both a god and a king. In general, the
distinction between the two is often subtle or non-existent in these
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*