Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jeff Hecht wrote:

> There are levels of problems with what the astronomers are doing, and from 
> what I've heard the proposed new nomenclature is in trouble.

To be fair to the astronomers, they are actually trying to address a public 
concern.  In this case the concern is, "What is a planet?".  The issue is of 
actually of little concern to most astronomers, who focus on the continuum 
of objects and see the divisions as somewhat arbitrary (as you pointed out).

(Personally, I was all for cutting Pluto, and just having eight planets.)

> This undermining of public confidence is a serious problem, and scientists 
> should be _very_ sure that the change is important and accurate before they 
> charge ahead with something as highly visible and contentious.

But in overturning the old idea about birds being separate from dinosaurs, 
scientists are trying to *correct* an inaccurate and outdated concept.  I 
think this is fundamental to the very principal of education.  
Unfortunately, some very old and very wrong ideas happen to be very 
persistent, and are sometimes almost seductive in their simplicity.  That 
makes the job of education even more difficult, but I would say even more 
essential.

> And astronomers made one very foolish terminological choice -- they decided 
> to call the Pluto-like subset of small planets "Plutons," a term which has 
> a quite distinct geological meaning.

Sugarloaf Mountain comes to mind.

> And I think that's a lesson in teaching about evolution -- we tend to sort 
> and classify almost instinctively, but we also need to recognize evolution 
> is a continuum.

I agree, 100%.  Unfortunately, until the last 20-30 years, too much emphasis 
was placed on typological differences, manifested as "key" characters.  For 
a very long time people were stuck on the idea that birds could *not* have 
evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs allegedly lacked clavicles or a 
furcula.

Cheers

Tim