[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> 1. *Averostra* is linguistically inaccurate; "Avirostra" is correct, as the
> stem of _aves_ is not _ave-_ but _avi-_.
Yeah, but we already have Avemetatarsalia and Avetheropoda. I'm not
enamored of either of them, but they seem to have stuck. It'd be
great if people who come up with new taxon names at least gain a
rudimentary understanding on how to form names correctly - or consult
with someone who does. (GSP, are you out there?) Avepoda is
particularly noisome, because it's a hybrid of Latin and Greek - so
it's linguistically inaccurate in *two* languages.
> 2. If we were just around making words that "look" good, then we'd hardly
> bother with language, would we? We'd just make up pretty words and say they
> mean stuff.
I thought that's what language was. ;-)
> 3. And speaking of, the term "bird snout" is really, really inaccurate under
> virtually ANYONE'S concept of bird (well, I guess not people who think "bird"
> means the stem of the total/crown).
> *Dilophosaurus* doesn't look like at has anything similar to a bird's snout
> that, say *Archosaurus,* especially when birds _don't_ have those accessory
> pneumatic openings that are being referred to
A great many entrenched names are anatomically inaccurate or
misleading. Saurischia. Sauropoda. Theropoda. Ornithischia.
Ornithopoda. But we're stuck with them. (Avepoda was originally
proposed as a replacement name for Theropoda. And I much prefer
Predentata to Ornithischia.)
I take your point that we should cease and desist from coining any
more daft names. But Averostra isn't so bad. It's not the worst name
GSP has come up with. (Stiff competition there. Intertheropoda?
Protoavia?) However, like Mike K., I'd prefer that the spelling was
changed from Averostra to Avirostra.