[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New theropod material from Cretaceous of Brazil
I think any English teacher would agree with me that the title states the
"first Brazilian carcharodontosaurid" is one of the "new theropod fossils from
the Campanian–Maastrichtian Presidente Prudente Formation, São Paulo State,
southeastern Brazil". It's not just the grammar, but the pointlessness of
stating a Brazilian carcharodontosaurid was the first one found from a
formation in Brazil. But with your statement in mind, perhaps it's just a case
of English not being the authors' first language as opposed to an attempt to
artificially increase the importance of their finding.
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:58:34 -0500
> Subject: Re: New theropod material from Cretaceous of Brazil
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com
> But that's their abstract, not their title. Where's "latest
> Cretaceous" or "non-dental" in "First Brazilian carcharodontosaurid and
> other new theropod dinosaur fossils from the Campanian–Maastrichtian
> Presidente Prudente Formation, São Paulo State, southeastern Brazil"?
> Doesn't that really answer your question, though? They said it's the
> first such material *from that particular time and formation.* It does
> say "first Brazilian carcharodontosaur *and other* material *from* that
> place" not "first Brazilian carcharodontosaur, period". . . so unless
> carcharodontosaur+their other new materials have in fact been found in
> the Campanian–Maastrichtian Presidente Prudente Formation before, then
> their title is still semantically (and historically) accurate . . .
> Campanian-Maastrichtian is how they say "latest Cretaceous" for
> purposes of the title, and everything else is clearly specific to the
> formation (what with the "and" and the "other" and the "from.") It's
> the first Brazilian carc *from there,* not from just anywhere in the
> I dunno, seemed clear to me.