Re: OH NO! NOT "RAPTORS" AGAIN!

["Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

Brian, et al:

    Sorry, yes you're right, they do not match the body plan as I described
it.  (Different sizes, different theropod groups, etc.).  However,
_Oviraptor_ was named in 1924, well before the current 'rage', and therefore
should have been one of the bases for describing further "raptors". (Instead
of _Velociraptor_!).

    However, the names are still 'good' names:
        "Egg plunderer" (even though it wasn't stealing and eating the
eggs - that was Osborn's idea - supported by R.C.A. and Granger);
        "Dawn plunderer" - what might _you_ call the first [i.e. earliest]
carnivorous dinosaur?;
        and "China plunderer"  -  well, it was kinda big, and certainly was
from China.    :-)

    I am not trying to suggest that the term "raptor" should be used as a
shorthand for these various animals, just that the use of raptor as a suffix
IS legitimate on several levels, one of which is that it does currently
evoke an image, and is therefore somewhat descriptive of a type.

    (Of course, it is very likely to be over-used, just as the 'saurus"
suffix is a bit overdone).

    Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Franczak <franczak@ntplx.net>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 7:11 AM
Subject: OH NO! NOT "RAPTORS" AGAIN!

SNIP

>What about _Eoraptor_, _Sinraptor_, and _Oviraptor_, none of which fit
>your description?
>
>Brian (franczak@ntplx.net)
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2045/
>