[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Aussie ?tyrannosaur?
If you want to go around proclaiming that "birds are dinosaurs" all
the time, then you have no choice but to accept that dinosaurs are
That means that both *Tyrannus* and *Tyrannosaurus* are "reptiles" in
general and "tyrant reptiles" in particular.
And then, of course, there's an alternative: dropping the name Reptilia
altogether and using Amniota and Sauropsida instead*. I prefer it
because it (still) comes with connotations that don't even necessarily
hold for lacertids.
* Or just being more specific. Often people talk about "reptiles" and
mean only some of them.
> Why not simply "a southern tyrannosaur"? That would even have been
> shorter, and is familiar to a lot _more_ people than the term
> "tyrant reptile" which I don't think I've ever seen before.
I'm not sure. I also don't know why there is this current trend in
dinosaur paleontology to refer to turkeys and chickens as "living
dinosaurs" instead of calling them birds, avians, galliformes, or any
number of other more familiar, and more specific terms.
"Instead"? No, it's just to avoid implying, when talking about
dinosaurs, that "dinosaurs" and "birds" are non-overlapping categories
when in fact they're nesting ones.
Also; I know that you know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway.
_Tyrannosaurus_ = "tyrant reptile." While it is more commonly
translated as "tyrant lizard" I have still seen plenty of
translations refer to the more correct (conceptually, if not
grammatically) "tyrant reptile king."
"Lizard" fits the original meaning much better than "reptile". The very
concept of "reptile" is less than 200 years old, and von Huene still
didn't accept it (that is, the distinction between Amphibia and
Reptilia) in the 1950s.
Given that _Tyrannosaurus_ is the most popular dinosaur genus of all
time, it would appear that "tyrant reptile" should be the name that
you have seen to death at this point.
Not as far as I remember.