[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium
Why not? The name used, Marsh's, is so easily modified for a prefix, which
results in three dozen current variations. It, like using -pelta, or -don, or
-titan, or -raptor, is an effective means of conveying information without
having to pull up arcade philosophical points. For example, no matter how
clever, *Antetonitrus* does not always immediately recall the sense of a
precursor for *Brotosaurus,* a recollection of the Hesiod name of a cyclops who
forged the thunderbolts of Zeus. Once the stem is known (bronto, or ceratops)
it is easy to use to convey the idea. Hence *Xenoposeidon* on the heels of
This is NO DIFFERENT (as I can see) from using the same root to chain
suffices as preffices.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:51:25 +0100
> Subject: Re: Platecarpus tympaniticus - how to analyze a nomen dubium
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> On 22 September 2010 20:48, Jaime Headden wrote:
> > I gotta back Mickey up on this. It is unreasonably naive to assume that
> > *Ceratopsia* was not, intrinsically, based on *Ceratops*, rather than the
> > stems of the combined words _keratos_ and _ops_. As such, the name (as was
> > *Ceratopsomorpha*) were based on usage of the name of Marsh's very original
> > taxon.
> I didn't for a moment think that this wasn't true.
> But I don't see why that means we have to follow suit in naming a clade.