Re: Why paleo?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Stephen Barnard: "Re: Question regarding evolution."
• Previous message: debra mckay: "Re: Australopith query"
• Maybe in reply to: Rohinton Collins: "Why paleo?"

In <01bbbce1$9f390bc0$LocalHost@dan-pc> "Rohinton Collins"
<rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> writes:
>
>Why sci.anthropology.paleo? Surely it should be
sci.anthropology.palaeo?
>
>Do you miss out the 'e' in palaeoanthropology in America?
>
>Roh

That would appear to be the case, at least according to the Random
House Unabridged Dictionary.

paleoanthropology
paleology
paleontology

Although I have no clue as to which if any of the above was intended,
doesn't sci.anthropology.paleoanthropology seem a trifle redundant,
even abbreviated?

Hob

• Next message: Stephen Barnard: "Re: Question regarding evolution."
• Previous message: debra mckay: "Re: Australopith query"
• Maybe in reply to: Rohinton Collins: "Why paleo?"