[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Strange thoughts on PN - was Re: BAD vs. BADD
Tommy Tyrberg wrote:
"Pulchrapollia" does not mean "beautiful parrot" but simply "Pretty Polly".
At least that is the information I got from one of the authors.
This is what the paper says:
"Derivation of name. From the Latin pulchra, beautiful, and the English
?Polly?, a common name for a parrot."
So although "Pretty Polly" is humorous, the paper gives a blander and more
prosaic derivation of the name: "beautiful parrot".
Interestingly, Dyke and Cooper (2000) also discuss _Palaeopsittacus_,
another fossil bird from the same London Clay as _Pulchrapollia_; the
authors conclude that the former is based on unassociated material (with no
evidence that it's actually a psittaciform), while the latter is a primitive
psittaciform (sister taxon to Psittacidae). Thus, _Palaeopsittacus_ is
polyphyletic, and _Pulchrapollia_ is pollyphyletic (sensu Taylor, 2006).
Hey, Mike's pun was bad, but that doesn't stop it from being funny IMHO.
At 20:08 2006-09-03, Tim Williams wrote:
Mike Taylor wrote:
No, but parrots are Pollyphyletic.
Incidentally, this pun isn't as bad as you might think (though it is
pretty bad). In 2000, Gareth Dyke and Joanne Cooper named a new fossil
parrot _Pulchrapollia_ ("beautiful parrot"). Thus, "Polly" (for parrot)
officially entered the scientific nomenclature.