[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds
Agreed, we should stick to names like the
awe-inspiring Allosaurus. Wow, what imagination!
You know, with the discovery of larger theropods, even
'tyrant lizard king' has lost its gloss. Really, so
long as a name is memorable, and pronouncable, does it
matter if becomes a bit innaccurate? I think it adds
to the charm of a species if there's a little story
behind its name.
--- Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andrew Simpson wrote:
> >That's all I'm really saying. Descriptive names are
> >better for everyone and keep the place names,
> >names and funny names to a minimum.
> Alas, descriptive names often turn out to be
> misleading. A descriptive
> genus or species name often contains an author's
> inference about the
> physical characters or lifestyle of a creature. For
> example, I've been told
> that the name _Phorusrhacus_ translates as
> "branch-holder", because the
> person (Ameghino) who named it thought he'd found
> the remains of a
> prehistoric sloth. As we now know, _Phorusrhacus_
> was a bird, and a fully
> terrestrial one at that.
> Other examples abound, and the Dinosauria is full of
> them. _Sarcolestes_
> ("flesh-robber") was likely a herbivore.
> _Arrhinoceratops_ ("without
> nose-horn face") DID have a nasal horn.
> _Telmatosaurus_ ("swamp lizard")
> probably did not live in marshes or swamps. Ditto
> for _Elosaurus_ (now a
> synonym of _Apatosaurus_). Perhaps the most
> notorious example is
> _Oviraptor_ ("egg-thief"), so named because (says
> Osborn) it was thought to
> have been caught "in the very act of robbing the
> dinosaur egg nest [of
> _Protoceratops_]." (Hence the derivation of the
> species name
> _philoceratops_). It turns out that the nest
> belonged to _Oviraptor_. This
> does not mean that _Oviraptor_ did not feed on eggs,
> only that the
> circumstances that gave rise to its descriptive name
> were wrong.
> _Nanotyrannus_ ("dwarf tyrant") may turn out to be a
> "descriptive" name too. The genus was so named
> because the smallish-sized
> type specimen was thought to come from an adult, and
> the specimen was
> smaller than other tyrannosaurs, like _T. rex_. Now
> it seems fairly certain
> that the type specimen is juvenile, possibly of _T.
> rex_. However,
> "Nanotyrannus" may represent a young specimen of a
> new and LARGE species of
> tyrannosaur. I'm not faulting the esteemed persons
> who named it so; but it
> does illustrate the limitations of purely
> descriptive names.
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail