tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post1428771051414995484..comments2023-10-29T06:50:22.166-04:00Comments on Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs: Prehistory and the Press - Part 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post-41589570285821754832011-06-17T22:43:51.987-04:002011-06-17T22:43:51.987-04:00@Marc
"It lived during the Lower Cretaceous ...@Marc<br /><br />"It lived during the Lower Cretaceous period, between 100 million and 145 million years ago, and would have run around with 10-metre-long Iguanodons and 12-metre Giganotosauruses."<br /><br />Hilarious. Not only did they get the plural wrong, but there is no way it coexisted with Giganotosaurus. Thanks for sharing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post-59034250410917550272011-06-17T10:49:22.389-04:002011-06-17T10:49:22.389-04:00@dinogami & Mike: Thanks for the replies. Alwa...@dinogami & Mike: Thanks for the replies. Always happy to be educated about taxonomy. (No, that's not sarcasm...)<br /><br />@Taylor: The Daily Fail had an article on that too, and it's hilarious http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003349/Smallest-dinosaur-amateur-fossil-hunter--kept-drawer-2-years.htmlMarc Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894846069567096349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post-29641265009128219522011-06-16T23:31:35.064-04:002011-06-16T23:31:35.064-04:00Speaking of *FAIL* paleontological findings writte...Speaking of *FAIL* paleontological findings written about in the press, Darren Naish's possible oviraptorosaur (Naish and Sweetman, et al. 2011) was victim to this same behavior:<br /><br />http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNY7UzsGXrMQF5qQgmTzg_DHfPkA?docId=CNG.ce314b42a686bcd8dd1384d9dcbaf7ad.f1<br /><br />* "Experts said the dinosaur was similar to maniraptorans, the group of theropods that includes birds and other feathered bird-like creatures."<br /><br />Its almost as if they are trying to say that Maniraptora is a node-based genus or species. This new "Ashdown fossil" is obviously, yet certainly, a maniraptor.<br /><br />* "The scientists said the tiny prehistoric creature would have roamed Britain over 250 million years ago."<br /><br />Odd how Naish nor Sweetman ever said that. Apparently if the Mesozoic began 250 ma, the press thinks that's EXACTLY when it lived.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post-28320396380617481652011-06-16T20:48:58.808-04:002011-06-16T20:48:58.808-04:00Actually, strictly speaking "crocodile" ...Actually, strictly speaking "crocodile" refers to <i>Crocodylidae</i>, not <i>Crocodylia</i>. So it's wrong even if you go to the other extreme and make <i>Crocodylia</i> a total group.Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9107291904794625632.post-79632455262178301062011-06-16T18:14:30.273-04:002011-06-16T18:14:30.273-04:00One such example is the case of the Cretaceous cro...<b><i>One such example is the case of the Cretaceous crocodilian Pakasuchus. Articles repeatedly referred to the animal as a 'crocodile' - for example in the Guardian here and Telegraph here. This may be somewhat more pedantic than mistaking a pterosaur for a dinosaur, for example, but Pakasuchus, being a notosuchian, lies even outside of the clade Neouschia that includes modern crocodilians (in the clade Crocodylia). Therefore it cannot really be called a 'crocodile',</i></b><br /><br />This depends on whether or not you're an advocate of a "crown-group-only" definition for Crocodylia. If you are, then yes, crocodylians are only members of the Crocodylia, which are neosuchians, as you point out. However, if you do not subscribe to the "crown-group-only" definition for Crocodylia, and want to use it in the historical sense (going back almost, but not quite, to Linnaeus), then Crocodylia is the same as the "crown-group-only" Crocodyliformes, in which case yes, notosuchians are crocodylians. (This is the same problem of whether or not <i>Archaeopteryx</i> is an avian--that is also a "crown-group-only" definition problem.)dinogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14959197175594052460noreply@blogger.com