Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com>]

Not to divert attention away from the main point of
this thread (though the direction seems to be flowing
slightly this way anyway).

Regarding the whole "birds are dinosaurs" argument
that comes and goes on the list, both HP Tim Williams
and HP Jaime Headen gave mention that calling birds
dinosaurs is equivalent to calling bats, or opossums
mammals. This line of reasoning is also used by the
AMNH in the Dinosaur Halls to explain why birds are
including in the dinosaur exhibit (though very
sparingly). 

In both cases, I feel it is a false comparison.
Calling a bird a dinosaur is a completely different
thing from calling a bat a mammal. It is more akin to
calling a mammal a therapsid, or a snake a lizard.
It's attempting to lump two large and diverse groups
(both of which were originally named based on
morphological criteria) into one, strictly for the
sake of monophyly. This is confusing and disconcerting
because it assumes no real change occured between the
groups and invites the use of superfluous (and frankly
unwelcome) qualifying terms to indicate a separation
that was already assumed before the lumping occured.
Of course I'm referring to the term: "non-avian
dinosaur" to indicate what was originally just called
a dinosaur. I can think of dozens of papers that have
come out over the past decade where the term
"non-avian dinosaur" could be replaced simply with the
term "dinosaur" without changing the paper's meaning
one bit. 

Theoretically the term non-mammalian therapsid, or
non-ophidian lacertillian might also crop up now and
again, but I've yet to see it (admittedly the
lacertillian one doesn't show up mostly due to the
weirdness of lacertillian phylogeny). This particular
thorny part of taxonomy seems to be limited to
dinosaur paleontology (though Eric Pianka & Laurie
Vitt are guilty of throwing out an occasional "snakes
are just lizards"). The lack of this kind of
insistence of cladistic classification in other realms
of taxonomy (even in entomology; where all this
started) still makes me feel like the only real point
to calling birds dinosaurs is to either: 

A) Make birds sound like these even more amazing
creatures (historically, birds never seemed to have
needed help in this area).

or 

B) Dispel the misconception that dinosaurs were
failures by showing that in some small way, they
didn't go extinct. 

My vote is on choice B, which fits in well with the
initial point of this thread. One need only see those
fairly recent IBM commercials featuring office workers
wearing dinosaur masks to see that the the common
misconception of dinosaurs as failures continues to
persist.

Finally, as an aside, I think listmembers my be taken
HP Andrew Simpson's reply a bit too seriously. Judging
from the (implied) tone in many of the answers, I
think he was being facetious.

Jason

--- Andrew Simpson <deathspresso@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 


"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer

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