[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur a tecnical term; fish is not (was RE: Fish with milk (Sheesh spinoff))
On 10/26/06, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. writes:
>>> But also, to be fair, "fish" is an ancient English word far
>>> predating the science of biology, while "dinosaur" is a term from
>>> technical literature, dates only to 1842, and created specifically
>>> for use in scientific contexts.
>> I suppose the next step will be insisting that all bilaterians are
>> worms ...
> Actually, that is NOT the next step from the point I was just making
> (i.e., that the word "dinosaur" was ONLY coined for a technical
> taxonomic context, just like "plesiosaur" or "entelodont" or
I seem to've missed Mr Holtz mail here, but I should clarify that I
was joking - my post could've used a smiley.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?