[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
 descriptive name,

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 damaged tooth).

 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.