Re: Sarahsaurus - new(ish) sauropodomorph from Arizona

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

Ronald Orenstein <ron.orenstein@rogers.com> wrote:


> Oh, good - you had me worried for a moment......


_Palintropus_ is similarly innocent of any such association...  ;-)



Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au> wrote:


> As for the generic name; is there no real need to use the feminine version of 
> 'saurus' (as in
> Leaellynasaura) if it is being named after a woman?


No real need at all.  _Avaceratops_ and _Auroraceratops_ are both
named after women, but _ceratops_ (specifically _ops_) is masculine.

Names like _Maiasaura_ or _Bonitasaura_ or _Aviatyrannis_ or
_Amargatitanis_, where both parts of the name are feminine, are not
mandatory.  Hence we have _Avaceratops_, _Auroraceratops_,
_Laplatasaurus_, and (now) _Sarahsaurus_.


> 'Sarahsaura' would have rolled off the tongue so nicely...


Yes, personally I think it would have been a nice touch.  But anyhoo.


I'm still trying to figure out where *exactly* _Sarahsaurus_ fits in
sauropodomorph evolution.  And were its hands any more powerful than
the hands of any other large, non-obligately quadrupedal
sauropodomorph?



Cheers

Tim