[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



Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:


>  If he feels its a distinct genus, why not?


I think one can do better than "Totallyawesome dakotaensis".


> the finder gets to pick the name, as I understand it.


More or less.  The person or persons responsible for describing the
new genus or species also gets to name it.


In the microbial literature, all authors have to provide an explicit
etymology for their new name, plus a recommended pronunciation.  The
etymology is checked by one of the reviewers.  I think this should be
standard practise for all new genus and species names - including
paleontological ones.  Alas, it will never happen.  But I do
appreciate those authors who do take the time to provide a detailed
etymology, and an intended pronunciation - such as Harris and Dodson's
_Suuwassea_.


Having strict rules for new microbial genera/species does allow for
some highly imaginative names.  For example, _Pyrococcus furiosus_
("rushing fireball") for a species of thermophilic microbe that is
round in shape, and has an optimum growth temperature of around 100°C.






Cheers

Tim