[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
Mike Taylor <email@example.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, 'Brontosaurus' is more euphonious than 'Apatosaurus'. Fewer
>> syllables, and it sounds more spectacular.
> No argument there. It's part of the reason that we used the name
> Brontomerus for the Hotel Mesa sauropod last year -- it was a sort of
> tribute to the Great Lost Name.
There's also _Eobrontosaurus_ (which may be a species of _Apatosaurus,
so back to square one).
A "Brontoraptor" (a theropod) was reputedly also in the pipeline.
Yick. I don't think we need too many Bronto-names.
Nevertheless, I personally think 'Brontosauria' would be a more
appropriate name than the bland and anatomically incorrect Sauropoda
("lizard-feet"). Unfortunately, the name Brontosauria has a bizarre
history, having been originally been proposed to include prosauropods
and sauropods in a classification in which Brontosauria and
Segnosauria were most closely related to each other.
Perhaps 'massopod' or 'gravisaur' will effectively replace 'sauropod',
despite the clades Massopoda (Yates, 2007) and Gravisauria (Allain and
Aquesbi, 2008) having different contents to Sauropoda. I've never
liked the name 'Sauropoda'.
>> I feel as if some paleontologists have trouble thinking before they come up
>> with a memorable name for a dinosaur...
> Holy poop, yes! You find the world's biggest terrestrial animal in
> Argentina and call it: Argentinosaurus. Makes me want to week.
If you were from Argentina, you might feel a little differently. :-)