4 ms·
What the general public considers dinosaurs has no overlap with the existing animals that scientists consider dinosaurs. While technically correct, it’s not us
by lazide 2y ago
What the general public considers dinosaurs has no overlap with the existing animals that scientists consider dinosaurs.
While technically correct, it’s not useful nomenclature for public discussion.
- blueflow 2y ago[flagged]
- madmountaingoat 2y agoThe audience of Ars isn't "general" and the usage wasn't colloquial. The article is about evolution and the pressures that caused the adaptation. It would have been nice if the author had demonstrated a bit more knowledge of the topic. Its a mistake that grows less forgivable the more years that pass. Hell, I recall the days when people frequently called whales fish. That wouldn't fly in article about evolution now, and neither should this.
- lazide 2y agoDinosaur literally means ‘terrible lizard’. It was originally coined as a description for the large, extinct, giant lizards. T-Rex, etc. That it has later come to encompass things like seagulls is more a bait and switch on the public, than the public being idiots. You might as well beat up on someone for calling Pluto a planet. Oh wait, it technically is again? My bad. Oh wait, it’s technically a dwarf planet. My mistake again! Clearly, I’m the one who is an idiot, and it has nothing to do with experts causing confusion because it gets them headlines/justifies their existence and makes them feel superior to everyone else.
- madmountaingoat 2y agoBait and switch? Idiots? We are just saying we expect more from science communicators. Adding "non-avian" before the word "dinosaurs" wouldn't have made the article inaccessible to folks who haven't internalized the whole notion of clades.
- lazide 2y agoFunny you skipped over all my actual examples, eh? How are seagulls ‘terrible lizards’? Isn’t the public perception the actually more honest one?
- madmountaingoat 2y agoBack in the 1800s when the name Dinosaur was coined no one suspected their connection to birds. The point has never been that the word, in most peoples minds, doesn't conjures up pictures of t-rex and triceratops. There's no argument there. The point is that someone writing an article for Ars should have not have perpetuated the common misconception that they all went extinct.
- lazide 2y agoAll the ‘terrible lizards’ DID go extinct.
- madmountaingoat 2y agoNot the clade of 'terrible lizards'. Paleontology accepts the cladistic view and so should a popular science article.
- lazide 2y agoThe clade has been expanded well beyond its literal, historic, or popular understanding. Which is why the popular science article is confused, because the articles point is actually more correct from a popular point of view, while being at odds with the technical (but weird) newer definition. Because the ‘terrible lizards’ DID go extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, and what ended up evolving from their not really terrible, and not really land bound brethren at the time, while still with us, weren’t generally what any reasonable person would call a Terrible Lizard. The taxonomy argument is a technical one that for the most part only interests people whose sole job is arguing about taxonomy. Which is a thing, but c’mon. Which is why stuff like this exists and isn’t really wrong. [https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/when-did-dinosaurs-become-extinct https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/when-did-dinosaurs-become-extinct]. Because 99.99% of people looking for Dinosaur Bones are going to be really really confused if you hand them some chicken drumsticks. Even if technically it is correct.