Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[Phillip Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

Jamie,

You forgot to mention the biggest conspiratorial lie about dinos that has
ever been perpetrated on the public:

"Dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous".

<pb>
--


On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:44:03 -0400 Jamie Stearns <stearns5@cox.net>
writes:
> Taking a break from cladistics for now, I would like to list some of 
> the 
> more common misconceptions about dinosaurs that I've noticed. These 
> really 
> tend to get on my nerves after I hear them enough. Anything you'd 
> like to 
> add, or any comments on what I've listed?
> 
> 1. Considering pterosaurs to be dinosaurs
> I often hear people saying things like "My favorite dinosaur is the 
> 
> pterodactyl," and when I attempt to point out that the creature 
> mentioned is 
> not actually a dinosaur, they often act surprised at this. It seems 
> that 
> regardless of the number of books, videos, museum displays, etc. 
> clearly 
> stating what a dinosaur actually is, most people seem to think that 
> any 
> large prehistoric animal that looks "reptilian" is a dinosaur. To my 
> 
> knowledge, pterosaurs were never placed within Dinosauria, even in 
> the 
> 1800s.
> 
> 2. Referring to Apatosaurus as "Brontosaurus"
> It has been frequently mentioned on the list that most people are 
> past the 
> Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus confusion and know the correct name by now. 
> 
> Actually, speaking from personal experience, most people, young and 
> old, 
> that I've discussed the subject with during my high school years 
> (2002-2006) 
> still called the dinosaur Brontosaurus and had no idea that the name 
> was 
> invalid. This remains a common misconception, despite the fact that 
> the two 
> genera were synonymized way back in 1903. I really don't know why 
> the change 
> didn't get as much recognition as it should have then. If dinosaurs 
> were so 
> popular at that time that Brontosaurus was a commonly-used name, why 
> wasn't 
> the name change publicized more?
> 
> 3. Velociraptor was as tall as an adult human, hunted in packs, and 
> was as 
> intelligent as modern primates.
> While Achillobator and Utahraptor were taller than an adult human 
> and there 
> is some evidence for Deinonychus having been a pack-hunter, there is 
> no 
> evidence for either in Velociraptor, and certainly no indication 
> that any 
> dromaeosaur was as intelligent as modern primates. The popular 
> image, of 
> course, is a direct result of the dinosaur's depiction in Jurassic 
> Park, a 
> depiction that even National Geographic, The Discovery channel, etc. 
> don't 
> seem to want to change much, possibly due to the thought that the 
> real thing 
> may not have been as "exciting" as Hollywood would have it. However, 
> the 
> general public seems to think that Jurassic Park depicts dinosaurs 
> with 
> complete accuracy, despite the fact that Hollywood frequently fails 
> to 
> portray anything with complete accuracy.
> 
> 4. Dilophosaurus was venomous and could spit poison.
> Another Jurassic Park gimmick that has unfortunately come across as 
> fact. 
> Even my biology teacher was surprised when I pointed out that there 
> was no 
> evidence for Dilophosaurus being venomous. Honestly, I think the 
> reason this 
> misconception is so common is because Dilophosaurus was not 
> well-known 
> outside of the scientific community until Jurassic Park was 
> released. 
> However, I still wonder exactly why animatronic dinosaur exhibits 
> claim to 
> portray the dinosaurs accurately and yet give Dilophosaurus a pair 
> of "venom 
> glands" behind the head while having it spit water at the visitors 
> (though 
> it is the right size...).
> 
> 5. Tyrannosaurus rex was an obligate scavenger.
> This, of course, is Jack Horner's hypothesis. Mostly, though, this 
> misconception likely became common due to the media having portrayed 
> 
> Horner's ideas as "revolutionary new theories" (my words, not 
> theirs) and 
> cast those of other scientists as "the established ideas being 
> challenged" 
> (again, my words). I agree with the sentiment that the media 
> portrays "the 
> scavenger/predator debate" as this kind of conflict to make it sound 
> 
> exciting. Unfortunately, this also seems to have caused the public 
> to think 
> that "well, maybe T. rex wasn't a predator..." Hardly surprising, 
> considering that some of the "evidence" backing up Horner's position 
> 
> (tyrannosaurs having poor eyesight, pack-hunting dromaeosaurs being 
> "the 
> real hunters") listed in "Valley of the T. rex" echoes Jurassic Park 
> pretty 
> well. (Note: this is not directed solely at Horner, more at the 
> media's 
> portrayal of his ideas)
> 
> -Jamie Stearns 
>