RE: Collected from USENET

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

> Screw that noise; it's still a Brontosaurus to me, even if it had the
> wrong head on it. And while we are at it, it's not a Dynamosaurus
> imperiosus, it's a Tyrannosaurus Rex!

This guy sure has his wires crossed.  As Jaime pointed out, the 
_Apatosaurus_ vs _Brontosaurus_ issue has NOTHING to do with somebody 
erroneously restoring _Apatosaurus_ with a _Camarasaurus_-like head.  The 
issue concerns nomenclatural priority: the two genera do appear to be the 
same, and _Apatosaurus_ was named first.  When he described _Brontosaurus_, 
Marsh did not believe it to be the same genus as _Apatosaurus_ because it 
had more sacral vertebrae than _Apatosaurus_.  We know know that this is an 
ontogenetic character, and _Apato_ was based on a younger individual than 
_Bronto_.

As for _Tyrannosaurus_ being renamed _Dynamosaurus_ ... where is he getting 
this from?  This has NEVER been an issue.  Perhaps he's thinking of 
_Manospondylus_, which was named before _Tyrannosaurus_ and probably belongs 
to the same genus.  (_Manospondylus_ is based on material that is 
generically indeterminate, and so is a _nomen dubium_.  So _Tyrannosaurus_ 
will never be sunk into _Manospondylus_, just as _Allosaurus_ will never be 
sunk into _Antrodemus_).

> and knows that Oviraptor fossils are as
> irresistible to a paleontologist as a whorehouse is to a sailor;

Just how lonely is it out there in the Gobi?

> Meanwhile, the old busybody name-mucker dies like the petty little
> wastrel he is- crushed beneath toppling leg bone of a sauropod he was
> trying to rename; his mummified body found years later by the next
> little piss-ant "paleontologist" who ventures into the museum basement
> on the same despicable mission!

Yikes!  This is a little harsh.

_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win 
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp