Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[Andrew Simpson <deathspresso@yahoo.com>]

Jamie is bringing the heat to wake us up out of our
summer stuper. I field my own opinions below.

--- Jamie Stearns <stearns5@cox.net> wrote:

> 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.

I think Pterosaurs should be considered dinosaurs.
They're Arco-(or is in sinclair?) saurs, we don't know
their origions yet. No, they've never been classified
as Dinosauria but I think it's time. They are
terrible, they are reptiles. Well maybe they're not
reptiles exactly but they are all very terrible. I
also am of the mind that we should do away with the
ugly word Pterosaur and replace it with Pterodactyl.
The word more people know and sounds sooo much better
and cooler to the ear. 
> 
> 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?

Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are completely seperate
animals. Of  course you'll have to read my as yet
unpublished issue of Dinosaur Comics to know why I
think that so I'll move along.
> 
> 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.

Jurassic Park is the worst movie ever made. (tied with
passion of the Christ) The book is brilliant and
should someday be made into a movie. 
> 
> 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...).

In the book at least it was making a point to say we
don't know what dangers the dinosaurs have and will
bring when they're actually alive. The bones don't
tell the whole tale. But yeah, the lay person don't
care. They want Newman to get it in the face when he
steals the embreos. 
> 
> 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)

I get this question more than anything and am always
quick to disprove any theories that T was exclusivly a
scavenger. I doubt anyone on this list thinks that
either. When I hear Mr. Horner speak of it he never
gives very convincing arguments and he sounds pretty
dumb. I know he's smart and read his stuff all the
time but in this one area he is either playing a game
to get attention or has a deep seeded fear of Giant
Preditors and has to tell himself that to sleep at
night. 

My opinion of a misconception, that will get me lots
of good disagreement on this list, is that Birds are
dinosaurs. NOT. Decended from yes, one could argue
based on nomenclature symantics that it is so but I
think we have to draw the line somewhere. A dinosaur
is a creature I'll never see and bird, a pair of them,
live on my house and poop on my steps. I and some of
my buds collect dinosaur comic covers and we don't
include tweedy. 

Andrew Simpson


> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com