John D'Angelo <
dangelojohne@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a fan of pop-cultural names either, but at least they're not placenameosauruses. Personally, I'm fond of names that are evocative of the characteristics of the taxon in question, such as Brontomerus or Carnotaurus.
> Clever references to the significance of the taxon are also good, such as Antetonitrus or Asteriornis. Being named for the place of discovery or pop culture isn't necessarily bad, but you have to be clever—I'm fond of
> Stygimoloch and Zuul as well.
I thought _Asteriornis_ was a particularly thoughtful and inventive
name, because it has dual meanings: "In Greek mythology Asteria is the
goddess of falling stars and transforms herself into a quail -
attributes that are reflected by both the impending
Cretaceous-Palaeogene (K-Pg) asteroid impact and the galloanseran
affinities of _Asteriornis_."
In general, I don't mind the origin of names (place-names; pop culture
references; whatever). Just as long as names are formed correctly.
Also, it's best to avoid names that could be interpreted as offensive
(irrespective of whether that's the intention). I'm not a fan of the
name _Atsinganosaurus_, even though I've no doubt that the authors
were unaware of the historical baggage contained in the name. The
etymology is based on the Byzantine Greek word 'atsinganos' for gypsy
("in reference to the existence of Late Cretaceous migrations between
western and eastern Europe)". The word 'atsinganos' literally means
'untouchable', and was intended by the Byzantine Greeks as a slur. I
know this shouldn't be a concern since the fall of Constantinople in
1453; but similar names (derived from the same root 'atsinganos') are
still used today in Europe, and have a derogatory intent. I enjoy the
history of the Byzantine Empire, but I don't always appreciate the
attitudes of the Byzantine Greeks themselves.
> I think Australodocus actually has a decent chance of being a titanosaur—and depending on what definition of Titanosauria you use it might already be one. Janenschia isn't, though, since that was based on
> Wamweracaudia, which isn't a titanosaur either.
Yes, good point re _Australodocus_.
Maybe Werner Janenensch was right all along, and the sauropods we now
call _Janenschia_, _Tendaguria_, and _Wamwericaudia_ actually
represent a single genus? Don't get me wrong - overall, I find
Mannion &c's argument for splitting up the three Tendaguru taxa
persuasive. However, I do note that Britt et al. (2017) put forward
an argument for combining material from these three taxa into one
based on similarities of the cervicals and dorsals (_Tendaguria_),
ulnae (_Janenschia_), and caudals (_Wamweracaudia_) to the respective
elements of the turiasaur _Moabosaurus_.