[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: opisthotic vs. ophisthotic

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: opisthotic vs. ophisthotic
From: Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:23:08 +1000
Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <4091D5E8327241619B5C2579E5E85E8A@LENOVO>
References: <650874.62598.qm@web83701.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4091D5E8327241619B5C2579E5E85E8A@LENOVO>
Reply-to: dannj@alphalink.com.au
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Thu, May 21st, 2009 at 6:58 AM, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> 
wrote:

> > Is ophisthotic a common misspelling of opisthotic?
> 
> Must be a misspelling, though I'm not sure I've ever seen it. The name means 
> "behind the ear", and "behind" is _opisthos_ in Greek. 

Behind a snakes ear perhaps? :)

-- 
___________________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist              http://dannsdinosaurs.dyn-o-saur.com
Melbourne, Australia             http://heretichides.game-host.org
___________________________________________________________________

References:
- opisthotic vs. ophisthotic
  - From: David Peters <davidpeters@att.net>
- Re: opisthotic vs. ophisthotic
  - From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel
Next by Date: Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel
Previous by thread: Re: opisthotic vs. ophisthotic
Next by thread: Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel
Indexes: