[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race
I've allways favoured Allosaurus over Tyrannosaurus, the big guy got
all the limelight.
*Allosaurus* has awesome hands, with that gaping hole where you'd expect
the ulnare, but in everything else *Tyrannosaurus* is more awesome. More
awesome teeth, more awesome skull, more awesome arms, more awesome legs
including feet, more awesome size...
As far as names, Epidendrosaurus is a pretty damned awesome
Except for the loathsome -saurus part.
although it'd end up being silly if the thing was really aquatic
(because ALL dinosaurs are aquatic now right!?) And I know
Megapnosaurus is not a popular name with some people, but really, who
can't appreciate 'big dead lizard'?!
First, it should be Megalapnoosaurus. Second, like *Epidendrosaurus*,
it's just slightly closer to the lizards than *Mastodonsaurus*,
*Plagiosaurus* and *Dvinosaurus* are (look them up -- and
*Mastodonsaurus* has the weak excuse that it was named from a single
I also kinda trip myself up on names like Shanag and Mahakala or
Tsaagan. Not saying I don't like them, just that they require some
Oh, those are easy. *Nqwebasaurus* and *Seitaad* are for the nerds like me!
BTW, *Tsaagan* should have been Tsagaan. Similarly, *Tarbosaurus bataar*
should be baatar. Mongolian distinguishes long and short vowels.
It also seems to raise the question of when it's appropriate to use
english words in the name? Could a Chinese paleontologist working in
North Dakota name a new find "totallyawesome dakotaensis"?
As far as the ICZN is concerned, yes, absolutely. It already happened
with *Juratyrant*; the -t at the end is specifically English.