[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sarahsaurus - new(ish) sauropodomorph from Arizona
Ronald Orenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Oh, good - you had me worried for a moment......
_Palintropus_ is similarly innocent of any such association... ;-)
Dann Pigdon <email@example.com> wrote:
> As for the generic name; is there no real need to use the feminine version of
> 'saurus' (as in
> Leaellynasaura) if it is being named after a woman?
No real need at all. _Avaceratops_ and _Auroraceratops_ are both
named after women, but _ceratops_ (specifically _ops_) is masculine.
Names like _Maiasaura_ or _Bonitasaura_ or _Aviatyrannis_ or
_Amargatitanis_, where both parts of the name are feminine, are not
mandatory. Hence we have _Avaceratops_, _Auroraceratops_,
_Laplatasaurus_, and (now) _Sarahsaurus_.
> 'Sarahsaura' would have rolled off the tongue so nicely...
Yes, personally I think it would have been a nice touch. But anyhoo.
I'm still trying to figure out where *exactly* _Sarahsaurus_ fits in
sauropodomorph evolution. And were its hands any more powerful than
the hands of any other large, non-obligately quadrupedal