[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Triassic mammal-like reptiles?
How about calling the animal in question "previously know as mammal-like
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Triassic mammal-like reptiles?
> From: "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tue, November 08, 2005 12:18 pm
> To: Dinosaur Mailing List <email@example.com>
> On 11/8/05, John Hunt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Lets face it, it is a lot more comprehensible to the layman than the more
> > correct names used by professionals.
> But it's *incorrect*. "Mammal relative" is just as comprehensible (if
> not moreso), more concise, and, to top it off, correct. (And, as Tom
> Holtz mentioned, Bakker's "protomammal" is not half-bad, either.)
> Calling them "mammal-like reptiles" is like calling _Deinonychus_ a
> bird-like lizard.
> Mike Keesey
> The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
> Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com