When describing a whole species of animal, is it correct to omit the article?

Question

The following is an excerpt from an article at Testbig:

Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammal known as Repenornamus robustus (R. robustus). Interestingly, the mammal's stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers have therefore suggested that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs. However, a closer analysis has made the hypothesis that R. robustus was an active hunter unlikely. It was probably just a scavenger that sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs containing unhatched dinosaurs.

When describing an animal species as a whole, we say "a dog is", "the dog is", "dogs are". Why does the passage above use simply "R.robustus was"?

Please quote the text, don't post a picture. This is very annoying for blind people. — Stuart F, Jul 07 '23 at 06:33
A smith is hard to find nowadays [which is inconvenient when your horse needs reshoeing] / The smith was once a key worker in the village / I know John Smith. // A gorilla is a formidable animal / The gorilla is protected in certain areas / Gorilla gorilla gorilla is listed as a Critically Endangered subspecies. — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 07 '23 at 15:29
Does this answer your question? Definite article before proper nouns? — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 07 '23 at 15:30

score 3 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 07 '23 at 15:29

Traditionally, when biologists and paleontologists refer to a species by its formal, Latin name, they treat it like a proper noun (capitalizing the genus), so no article is used with it. And even though it refers to a group of animals/plants, it's usually conjugated as a singular noun.

So we say "dogs are man's best friend" but "Canis familiaris is Homo sapiens's best friend".

When describing a whole species of animal, is it correct to omit the article?

1 Answers1