Re: Bambiraptor feinbergi

[KiernanCR@aol.com]

Matthew Celeskey wrote:

>>Can't help but wonder where the opposition is to other 
culturally-derived generic names, like _Garudamimus_, _Kakuru_, 
_Achelousaurus_, Erlikosaurus_, etc. Surely these don't tell us much 
about the animals in question. Should there be a cutoff point for 
cultural characters in taxonomy? e.g.: All allusions to 
characters/stories from before 1000 AD are acceptible, but 
referencing characters/stories more recent than 1000 is undignified?<<

While names like _Kakuru_ and _Garudimimus_ may not contain the same sort of 
descriptive data contained in a name like _Micropachycephalosaurus_ or 
_Dilophosaurus_, they do have a dignity entirely lacking in an absurdity like 
"Bambiraptor" (and to a lesser degree, _Irritator_). If this *is* in any way 
about culture, then it's about a preference for classical Western and 
non-Western mythology over pop Western culture. I'll admit to that prejudice. 
I like to hope that we haven't yet degenerated to the point where we view the 
ancient Greek pantheon (or Hindu or Native American or whatever) and Disney 
cartoons in quite the same light.

I suspect that I'm reaching the point in this thread where I'm beating a dead 
horse (or at least a dead theropod). I do have a sense of humor. I just don't 
believe that the naming of taxa is an appropriate place the express it.

Caitlin R. Kiernan