How about "primeval"? From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>
Sent: November 29, 2020 9:31 PM To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosaurus rex forelimb use + simulations in paleobiology + more
Pretty sure they said in the paper it's right out, lol. It's a beautiful word but unfortunately too confusing in an age when young-earth creationism is still a widespread belief.
Thomas Yazbeck From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 9:16 PM To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosaurus rex forelimb use + simulations in paleobiology + more On Fri, Nov 27th, 2020 at 2:02 PM, "Yazbeck, Thomas" <yazbeckt@msu.edu> wrote: > Nowhere in Romano & Sardella's article do they recommend an alternate term > for "prehistoric" to refer to organisms from deep time. In the interest of > stimulating discussion, is there an alternative word out there that we can > use? If so, what is it? I assume 'antediluvian' isn't an option. :-) -- Dann Pigdon |