Capital T
There’s no good alternative to this.
In a fantasy world where dinosaurs survived (or were created by the gods significantly closer in time to mortal peoples) there’s no good reason they would use the Latin derived names we use for them. 4th Edition D&D went this route, with “daggerclaws”, “skinwings”, and “macetails”. Evocative names that *mostly* identified the species. Which is the catch: we know what they’re called in the real world and giving them fancy in-world names makes them harder to identify and thus harder to describe. If I describe a “snake neck” am I referring to an apatosaurus, a brachiosaurus, a diplodocus, or even a plesiosaur?
I always liked the idea of a compromise. An in-world name with the real world name in parenthesis afterwards. But dinosaur names are pretty long, and I imagine that would be a space hog.
Druids communicated with them using magic, and that was their answer. Dinosaurs can understand (but not speak) Latin.
New headcanon accepted.
I was going with the 4th edition way (maybe the only thing about it worth saving)… until your comment. Jester is right: new headcanon! Yay!
Not to mention that a number of dinosaur species are named after the places their fossils where first discovered at, like the Utahraptor. When converting their dog Latin names wholesale to a more descriptive English names, you’ll likely get an odd reaction from players hearing a behemoth being called “Utah Robber”, while characters would not know what or where “Utah” is.
Although, I really like the descriptive names. I always like calling Tyrannosauruses “Sharpteeth”, due to an animated film I seen as a kid. Likewise, I like calling Saber-toothed Tigers “Saber-fangs” due to the anime Zoids, as it sounds cool.
Another good example of a classic “behemoth-name” is the Axe Beak from 1e AD&D. It look like it was based on a phorusrhacidae (terror bird), which is no surprise, as Gary Gygax used to based a number of iconic D&D monsters, like the Bulette and Rust Monster, on a set of old dinosaur toys.