[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))
> From: Mike Taylor [mailto:email@example.com]
> 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
> > "cnidarian".
> I know I'm flogging a deal bilaterian here, but ...
> It is true that the word "dinosaur" was originally coined for a
> technical taxonomic content. But that content, as of the original
> coinage, most surely did not include birds. And as knowledge of
> dinosaur diversity has grown in the time since to encompass, for
> example, sauropods, the _scientific_ meaning of the name "dinosaur"
> quickly settled on its classic content, which remained unchanged for a
> century or more before this new-fangled move to co-opt the word to
> name a different group.
Except, of course, for much of the 20th Century, when monophyly of Dinosauria
was rejected, and the texts would say that "dinosaurs
do not represent a real group, but are two unrelated groups of archosaurs" or
words to that effect. Like on the Smithosonian's
dinosaur exhibit... :-S
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796