Re: Lizard of Oz

[JAMES SUTTON <SUTTON.JAMES@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>]

I really have no problem at all with "common names".  But are there really
any "common names" for dinos?  Sure, in common parlance we can refer
to "archies", "steggies", "dromies", and "Uties"... no problem.  But when it
comes to applying a binomial that the organism will bear (until you are
shown to have gotten the head on the wrong body) in the literature, I
think it is quite apposite to use descriptive terms grounded in structure
and language... not "cuteness" or "politics."  

Wiwaxia

>>> <Danvarner@aol.com> 06/09/98 12:30pm >>>
I have to agree with Wiwaxia to a great extent, although I rather like
geographical names. The problem lies in the fact that we have come so
far from
the days when Cope would dream up wonderful greek names for his
animals when
he was sacked-out in his cot (before he started having his nightmares
wherein
those creatures would impale and eat him forcing old Sternberg to have
to give
him a shake). Now everything is political and creatures are named with
thoughts of future funding in mind. You almost HAVE to do it. Dan Varner.