读《化石》1992年第2期《“活化石”异议》一文后,笔者认为对长期沿用的科学名词的去向一般宜顺其自然发展,生硬对待,未必妥善。从字面讲,“化石”应为“石”。但《辞海》“化石”条目明确指出:“也有少数是未经改变的完整遗体,如冻土中的猛犸、琥珀中的昆虫等”。若拘泥于“未经改变的”都未“化”,都非“石”,势必将其从“化石”中排除出去。再以《化石》杂志中频繁出现的“恐龙”为例,就更值得推敲。我们可以说,“龙”是传说中动物,在现实世界中从未存在过,怎么能用“龙”来命名呢?过于谨小 After reading the article “Fossils”, No. 2, 1992, “Living Fossils”, I think it is not necessary to properly address the whereabouts of long-term scientific nouns in accordance with their natural development. Literally, “fossils” should be “stones.” However, “Cihai” “Fossils” entry clearly states: “There are a few intact intact remains, such as frozen soil in the mammoth, amber insects.” It is bound to be excluded from “fossils” if they adhere to the unaltered “unification” and are not “stone”. Again, “fossil” magazine frequently appear in the “dinosaur” as an example, more worthy of scrutiny. We can say that the “dragon” is the legendary animal, which has never existed in the real world before. How can it be named “dragon”?