Now the names of some birds are offensive.

[BrianL]

Actually the Apatosaurus name was first.
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed

Yeah, but there is debate as to whether or not Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus

Brontosaurus is a genus in the subfamily Apatosaurinae, which includes only it and Apatosaurus, which are distinguished by their firm builds and thick necks. Although Apatosaurinae was named in 1929, the group was not used validly until an extensive 2015 paper, which found Brontosaurus to be valid. However, the status of Brontosaurus is still uncertain, with some paleontologists still considering it a synonym of Apatosaurus.

I'm not picking a side or anything, just saying. Dinosaur studies are often changing as our understanding of them is based only on fossils.

 

[Disneychick13]

Now if we can have more creatures named like this….please. https://www.livescience.com/57181-harry-potter-sorting-hat-spider.html

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Yeah, but there is debate as to whether or not Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus

Brontosaurus is a genus in the subfamily Apatosaurinae, which includes only it and Apatosaurus, which are distinguished by their firm builds and thick necks. Although Apatosaurinae was named in 1929, the group was not used validly until an extensive 2015 paper, which found Brontosaurus to be valid. However, the status of Brontosaurus is still uncertain, with some paleontologists still considering it a synonym of Apatosaurus.

I'm not picking a side or anything, just saying. Dinosaur studies are often changing as our understanding of them is based only on fossils.

Naah. It's clear that there is only the one species Personally, I think bronty should be the name because when it was named apty, it didn't have a head. Then they put the wrong head on it. Sorry. But if you mess up so badly, you put the wrong head on a dino, your naming shouldn't count. But my point was, Apty came first. And it did.

 

[Imzadi]

Actually the Apatosaurus name was first.
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed

Stop being technical. Brontosaurus still is a better sounding name.

 

[BrianL]

Naah. It's clear that there is only the one species Personally, I think bronty should be the name because when it was named apty, it didn't have a head. Then they put the wrong head on it. Sorry. But if you mess up so badly, you put the wrong head on a dino, your naming shouldn't count.

Well, that's a fair argument, but there is also debate in the community about it. They make a lot of leaps when studying dinosaurs.

 

[john7994]

Stop being technical. Brontosaurus still is a better sounding name.

Meh …

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Meh …

No. We're not naming any Dinos Meh. Or any birds either.

 

[Mysterian]

Since dinosaurs were early birds (and yes, their worm was theirs), the dino talk is technically on topic.

 

[jimmymc]

Well, you wouldn’t be confused if you actually read that McCown’s Longspur was named after amateur ornithologist John P. McCown 10 years before he became a confederate general. And as far as I know, that’s the only bird that has a name associated with a confederate general.

We should probably consider his entire career history, not just the part where he was an amateur ornithologist.

 

[john7994]

No. We're not naming any Dinos Meh. Or any birds either.

Love your response in general - but I was more sharing my gut feel in responding to another poster’s view specifically

 

[Disneychick13]

I'm still confused why birds were named after confederate generals in the first place.

We should probably consider his entire career history, not just the part where he was an amateur ornithologist.

Well yes but that’s in hindsight. My point was that the bird in question was named after an amateur ornithologist. It was not named after a confederate general. The individual became a confederate general 10 years later.

Things happen all the time that look different in hindsight. We are not time travelers or seers. But the nitpicking of names (for anything!) unless we are talking about schools or pigeons named after dictators or serial killers seems a bit….much.

 

[john7994]

Well yes but that’s in hindsight. My point was that the bird in question was named after an amateur ornithologist. It was not named after a confederate general. The individual became a confederate general 10 years later.

Things happen all the time that look different in hindsight. We are not time travelers or seers. But the nitpicking of names (for anything!) unless we are talking about schools or pigeons named after dictators or serial killers seems a bit….much.

Not really - they lost - change the name … not without its precedent in the attempts to re-write history these days …

 

[Mysterian]

Looking for something to be offended by just makes a person angry for no reason.

So true!

 

[White Cat]

Not really - they lost - change the name … not without its precedent in the attempts to re-write history these days …

Should the AKC change the name of the German Shepard.

 

[Moliphino]

Should the AKC change the name of the German Shepard.

The UK actually did for a while. Called them Alsatians until the 70s when anti-German sentiment decreased.

 

[Minnie1222]

Should the AKC change the name of the German Shepard.

German Shepherd was not named after a specific person.

 

[soccerdad72]

I couldn't agree more, they've tried to monetize all the public athletic buildings around here... you know the ones that the TAXPAYERS paid for with corporate names. I refuse to call them by their fictitious names and call them by their given names when they opened. Throws the newcomers to town, but I'd say the vast majority here agree and hate the various bank and auto dealership names. If they want their name on it, then build it and do what you want. Shout out to the Rose Bowl... the one stadium and game that said no to the whole name game.

You mean this Rose Bowl game? The one “presented by Prudential”?

 

[dcassetta]

You mean this Rose Bowl game? The one “presented by Prudential”?

But, at least they play it at the actual Rose Bowl. The Cotton Bowl hasn't been played at the Cotton Bowl for years.

 

[Imzadi]

Looking for something to be offended by just makes a person angry for no reason.

People live in emotional habits. So, the person would have been angry anyway. So, they look for things to be angry about because they are going to be angry anyway.

For instance, another emotional habit: I have a new co-worker who LOVES to have and be in trauma dramas. Over everything. All. the. time. And when you offer her solutions, instead of being solution oriented and wanting to get out of it, she offers reasons why she has to stay in her perpetual trauma dramas. She wants people to emotionally take care of her, instead of her taking care of herself. So, she unconsciously tries to involve people close by into her trauma dramas if she can. If she can't she will complain about how people stay away from her, are mean to her, etc. And has a trauma over that. So, either way, she has a trauma. This is the emotional habit where she lives, probably since age seven, since this is the age she seems to emotionally be stuck at. This is normal for her.

 

[SteveH]

You mean this Rose Bowl game? The one “presented by Prudential”?

Yep, but as as the other person noted its still the Rose Bowl played in the Rose Bowl. More important though it has always been the "Rose Bowl presented by..." They never sold out to things like the absurd sponsorships like "Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl" or "Famous Idaho Potato Bowl" or the less absurd "Capital One Orange Bowl" or "Tostitos Fiesta Bowl"