Re: Layperson

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-08-24 13:49:22 EDT, EDELS@classic.msn.com (Allan )
writes:

<< Personally, while I like Apatosaurus, and realize the rules governing its 
 precedence over Brontosaurus, I have to agree to a certain extent with
Stephen 
 J. Gould who wrote that the name Brontosaurus is such a good name, an apt 
 name, and it should be kept.  >>

The name _Brontosaurus_ could replace _Apatosaurus_ if the ICZN were
petitioned to do so and voted to apply their plenary powers. Petitioning the
ICZN to change the name, and directing his vast powers of persuasion at the
ICZN members, is something Bob Bakker could have done a long time ago,
instead of simply using the incorrect name in his publications. Likewise
Stephen J. Gould.
 
<<      I know that the general public is usually flabbergasted when told that
their 
 favorite giant herbivore {I know, I know, some people REALLY like 
 Indracatherium}, is no longer called Brontosaurus.  Now, imagine their
chagrin 
 when they hear mutterings about T. rex really being Dynamosaurus!!!   
 (Personally, I think T. rex should stay - I think whatever evidence there is

 about Dynamosaurus is scant).>>

_Dynamosaurus_ was sunk as a synonym of _Tyrannosaurus_ by Osborn in 1906.
Osborn had coined both names (_Tyrannosaurus_ has "page precedence" over
_Dynamosaurus_, which may have meant something then but doesn't any more) the
previous year, but after publishing the 1905 paper he figured out that the
_Dynamosaurus_ type skeleton was simply another _Tyrannosaurus_ skeleton that
had jumbled together with other material (ankylosaur scutes) that he thought
made it different. There's no danger of _Tyrannosaurus_ being supplanted by
_Dynamosaurus_. At one time during the 1980s a few dinosaurologists thought
they could separate the two genera, but this opinion has been laid to rest.
(Indeed, there's a firmer basis for separating some of the other 20-odd
skeletons referred to _Tyrannosaurus_ into their own species or genera, but
not _Dynamosaurus_.)
 
<<      I think the general public has no clue about how science really
works...>>

Or about much else, either. Except how to drink beer and carry on at sporting
events.