>> |
Anonymous
>>287656
This, kind of. As a paleo-fag, I can kind of attest to the fact that it gets hard to give several genera a name that describes a physical feature distinct to them because, say, for hypsilophodonts, there're only so many ways to say "small little fucker with long legs and a beak." Hence Othnielosaurus (after Othniel Charles Marsh), Qantassaurus (after the local airline), and Atlascopcosaurus (after the company on whose property it was found).
And even when you do manage to name an animal after its physical features, oftentimes said names get a bit vague, as gets to be the case with sauropods, rendering that practice kind of inane. Of all the amazing features the animals have that they could be named for, half of them are given names vaguely referencing a small, rather unimpressive feature of their vertebrae (Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, the now-defunct Pleurocoelus). Okay, so we now have an animal named "Deceptive Reptile" for its physical features, but how is anyone going to figure out just what the fuck on the animal that's referencing without a lengthy explanation beforehand?
Point is, I don't mind naming an animal after, say, someone or someplace significant to that field of science (this Colbert shit's just silly, but say, naming Lambeosaurus after *paleontologist* Lawrence Lambe or naming Edmontosaurus after the Edmonton Formation *in which it was found* is fine by me), so long as it provides a distinctive name that allows one to readily identify the animal from others of the same family.
|