[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] Party like it's 1758!
Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> wrote:
> How are Notatesseraptor and Aberrantiodontus incorrect?
Aberratiodontus speaks for itself. For Notatesseraeraptor, see
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dml.cmnh.org/2019Jul/msg00115.html__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!4apGgU1g6_fxx_51uVDFoA4hJn84ujwJBGjqftslbgVklkIyqFXj-8UfBJbruo1C$
> So were Cetartiodactyla etc. renamed because mammalogists are idiots?
Ummm.. no. The Cet- prefix was to emphasize the inclusion of whales
in the expanded Artiodactyla. I can appreciate why it was done; I
just don't think it was necessary.
> Do you think naming a species after, say, a Star Wars character or a rock
> star is good fun, or unnecessarily mucking up taxonomy with frivolity?
All fine by me. Nothing wrong with frivolity and/or referencing
contemporary pop culture. Some names are especially apt: _Gollum_ is
a genus of shark (smooth-hound) named in 1973, and it has a certain
resemblance to the Tolkien character. (Newer members of the genus are
even referred to as 'gollumsharks').
When a group of microbiologists decided to name a symbiotic bacterium
_Midichloria_ there was some resistance: not everyone is in favor of Star
Wars-based names. But genus _Midichloria_ went ahead (named 2006).