[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

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

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? 

I think so. Sarcopterygii certainly has been.

If not, I'd suggest replacements, perhaps something on the
order of Osteophora ('bone bearers') for Osteichthyes
and Sarcoscelidea ('fleshy limbs') for Sarcopterygia.

Please go ahead and publish Osteophora, so we can use it!!! At present the only alternatives are Euteleostomi and Neoteleostomi, which nobody has heard about and which don't make sense unless you've heard of Teleostomi (which includes the underresearched Acanthodii, too).

On the other hand, I don't find Sarcopterygii so bad. The term "ch(e)iropterygium" for that special type of vertebrate extremity that contains digits has been invented many decades ago, and it makes rather more sense than "leg" once we get to, say, *Acanthostega*.

Wouldn't "Ostei" just mean "bones"?