Re: Use of the term "raptor" for theropod dinosaurs

[slaz@electriciti.com (Steven S. Lazarus)]

On 4/30/96 Colin Swift wrote:

>Perhaps we can at least start a movement to put an apostrophe at the
>beginning of the word( " 'raptor ") - to acknowledge that it's a
>contraction?  But on the other hand, it's being used for _all_ dromaeosaurs,
>isn't it?

>Who to blame?  In this case, it's obvious.  But I'm sure Mr. Crichton
>doesn't much care, as it's made him a wealthi(er) man...

Why must we always negatively characterize the base motivations of people
we don't know?

Incidently, it isn't Mr. Crichton's fault nor his responsibility for the
enlargement and mutation of the word Raptor. It is an evolutionary function
of sociology and linguistics that's been happening since the invention of
language as a means of transferring information. Proper scientific terms
also change and evolve as we have seen. Many, many words have more than one
meaning and complex relationships. In fact, words evolve much as species
do. To argue against this process is to argue against evolution. Yes to the
Toronto Raptors or 'Raptors (it doesn't really matter) whether they be
birds of prey or dromaeosaurs.

Change is inevitable.

S.S. Lazarus