Re: BAD vs. BADD (was: Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions)

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>:

> Jamie Stearns wrote:
>
> > "Non-tetrapod fish" sounds a bit ridiculous to me, though...

Fortunately, "fish" is in the public domain.  It is defined by its 
usage.  Though, in that case, where do we get off telling people that 
whales aren't fish?  Hmmm...

> The word 'fish' is very vague, and its meaning varies widely 
> according to context.  Try "non-tetrapod osteichthyan" or 
> "non-tetrapod sarcopterygian" instead.  Though technically correct, 
> "non-tetrapod osteichthyan" is not used very often, though I've seen 
> "non-tetrapod sarcopterygian" used many times in the literature.

Sorry to butt my head in here again to argue for names that actually 
make sense etymologically, but I hate both those names.

Have they ever been defined phylogenetically?  If not, I'd suggest 
replacements, perhaps something on the order of Osteophora ('bone 
bearers') for Osteichthyes and Sarcoscelidea ('fleshy limbs') for 
Sarcopterygia.

--
Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan

"Creativity is the sudden cessation of stupidity."
    --Edwin H. Land