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

Re: Who put the anus in zhaoianus?

The reason for why I did so is that *Tyrannosaurus* is a genus name and
*rex* a specific epithet. On the species level, genus names _are_ proper
names, even though they aren't on their own level. ~:-)

Any taxon name represents a large number of individuals, as such they are not Eigennamen but nouns for a class of items with some shared characteristics, but unlike 'house', which denotes a single such item out of all 'houses'. The White House is an Eigenname, although more White Houses exist and of course many white houses. Tyrannosaurus is not this kind of name. Thus it is improper to speak of Tyrannosauruses. Tyrannosaurus is the sum of all 'Tyrannosauruses', the plural is inherent in the nominative singular word. And again, on the species level: Tyrannosaurus rex is not The King.

I'm not talking about philosophy or linguistics here. Here I'm talking about Linnaean taxonomy. *Tyrannosaurus rex* is the one (kind of) *T.* that is the king -- like *Turdus merula* is the one kind of thrush (turdus, masculine) that is a blackbird (merula, female).

Othnielia rex formerly was Nanosaurus rex (male).


Edmarka is named after William Edmark (male) [and Othnielia after Charles Othniel Marsh], so, if one follows your logic, "Edmarka rex" should have been named Edmarkus rex in the first place.

Not necessarily. They're not meant to be identical with William Edmark and O. C. Marsh (...the shark *Galeocerdo cuvier* notwithstanding...).

Anyhow, the gender issue is a difficulty which is not felt in every culture the same.

That's of course true. Here we are supposed to choose the perception of the Latin language, or at least we were under earlier ICZN editions.