Friday, March 29, 2013

Who Cares About "Dinosaurs"?

Question: Who cares about dinosaurs?

Short Answer: Marketing departments and monster movie fans.

Above: Not what most people think of when you say "dinosaur."
(Ashdown Maniraptoran by Matt Martyniuk, all rights reserved).

Long Answer:
This is a philosophical issue that's been on my mind for a while now, inspired by some recent and heated debates over the content of the Dinosaur article at Wikipedia. It also seems to be simmering in the background of a lot of discussions about the recent suggestion that Jurassic Park 4 will not feature modern, scientifically accurate dinosaurians.

The Wikipedia article on dinosaurs was overhauled in recent years to include the consensus scientific opinion that birds evolved from a group of theropod dinosaurs and should therefore be classified as a subset of theropod dinosaurs themselves. Despite the protests of a few diehard Linnaean taxonomy fans, this has pretty much been implemented. The challenge was then to write an article that essentially serves two purposes--address the topic most people expect to see when they search for "dinosaur" in an encyclopedia (big, dead lizards) while including the basics of the entire field of ornithology. Essentially,  the article needed to provide facts and discussions that could apply to all dinosaurs, birds included.

The result, as you can currently read it, is a bit of a nightmare shot through with hedged statements like "most dinosaurs" this and "many dinosaurs that" and "some extinct dinosaur groups are notable for" another thing. The entire article could very reasonably be edited down to the following: "Dinosauria is an extremely diverse group of vertebrates which includes pretty much any anatomical feature, diet, lifestyle, or mode of locomotion you can imagine. For more information please click the links to the various, better-demarcated sub-groups."

I'm starting to believe that Dinosauria, as an extremely popular taxon to talk about, is actually pretty useless. My experience at Wikipedia has suggested that there is nothing really useful or interesting to say about the group as a whole, outside arcane anatomical details.

In practical experience, is anybody really interested in "dinosaurs"? I always say so, but that's more because it's a term people are familiar with. I'm far more interested in pterosaurs than I am hadrosaurs, but pterosaurs are not dinosaurs because Owen chose not to include Pterodactylus in his definition for whatever reason. I am interested in the overall diversity of animals along the line leading to modern birds, but admittedly somewhat less interested in modern bird themselves. So it would probably be more accurate to say I'm interested in stem birds (or, more broadly, pan-avians avemetatarsalians, ornithosuchians, dracones, or whatever you want to call the entirety of bird line archosaurs) than it is to say I'm interested in dinosaurs. I'm just as interested in dinosaurs as I am in eusaurischians or dinosauromorphans.

There are scientists who specialize in studying dinosaurs, but in reality they almost always specialize in one of the various subgroups that actually share close morphological similarity. Mike Taylor is not really a dinosaur paleontologist, he's a sauropod paleontologist. He studies sauropods. Sauropods are a fascinating and unique group of vertebrates that evolved from members of the clade Dinosauria, so we include them as dinosaurs even though Owen did not (just like birds). But when we specify that yes, sauropods are dinosaurs, well, who cares?

Non-specialists. "Dinosaurs" are a cultural artifact as much as a scientific term. I worry that if I tell most people I am interested in stem birds, they would have no idea what I'm talking about. So I say I'm interested in dinosaurs, and in particular the evolution of birds and flight. "So, pterodactyls right?" Now I'm obligated to say "No, pterodactyls are not technically considered to be dinosaurs for arcane reasons I could never hope to explain in casual conversation." Even though, yes, I'm also very interested in pterosaurs. This is a terrible state of affairs for science communication.

Who else cares about dinosaurs? Fans of Jurassic Park and other monster movie franchises. At some point during the 20th Century, dinosaurs became a cultural institution. People became fascinated by these giant, lumbering, reptilian nightmares that once roamed the ancient Earth.

Except they didn't. The animals most people think of when you talk about "dinosaurs" never existed. They're as "fictional" as Brontosaurus, if not more so. Brontosaurus is a real animal that had it's name changed. Dinosaurs are a kind of animal we once thought existed, but our ideas about their appearance and behavior have changed so much over the years that they're no longer recognizable to the general public, to the point that dinosaur movies like JP4 must go out of their way to stick to old, "classic" versions of them to satisfy demand for big, reptilian monster movies. We just don't have the benefit of changing the name, of leaving the label "dinosaur" attached to the outdated relics of the past it is synonymous with. People love big, reptilian monsters. They probably always will. The fact that they were once thought to be real added mystique. Now we're telling them those big reptilian monsters were really big weird-looking birds. "Ok," they reply, "but that's a completely different thing." People still want dinosaurs, and when they say dinosaur they mean Godzilla. Maybe someday people will think stem birds are as "awesomebro!" as dinosaurs, but that day is a long way off.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of the term dinosaur or taxon Dinosauria. It's useful in some scientific contexts. But I'm suggesting that maybe we're better off ignoring it in contexts where a broader term or more specific term is more appropriate, especially in science outreach and communication. I can talk about my interest in stem birds and patiently explain how they include various things we know as dinosaurs as well as everything more like a bird than like a crocodile. That's fairly simple. I can be more specific around people who are already in the know.

Of course, I'm still happy to use the term in the title of my (shameless plug) Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs. Let's not kid ourselves, "dinosaurs" move books!

25 comments:

  1. I'm a bit extremist: who cares about paleontologically-ignorant people?
    They are good people for most of their life, but I won't stop using "dinosaur" just because their brains elaborate "Godzilla" when I'm talking about a member of the least inclusive clade including Iguanodon and Megalosaurus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mostly agree about that (go back and forth I guess), but my main point is that I don't often see the usefulness of talking about that clade *except* to let people know the general area I'm talking about. Very rarely do I need to talk about something specific to Megalosaurus + Iguanodon that isn't shared by Passer > Crocodylus or specific to some dinosaurian sub-group.

      Delete
    2. I think we should use the best available name relative to the context. For example, if you're talking about Jurassic archosaurs, you call the members of the Passer>Pterodactylus group as "dinosaurs", because no non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs are known in the Jurassic. Talking about "Jurassic dinosauromorphs" instead of "Jurassic dinosaurs" would be, in my opinion, an useless notionism.

      Delete
    3. Andrea, you're actually a pretty good example of what he's talking about here, seeing as you're blog's called "Theropoda" rather than "Dinosauria". :)

      Delete
    4. It's called "Theropoda" because (Mesozoic) theropods are its main theme. I post very few about non-theropodan dinosauromorphs. As I wrote just above, we should use the best available name relative to the context.
      I mostly agree with Matt's words, but think that "dinosaur" is not a "special" word that deserves a different approach from any other vernacular name based on taxonomy.
      The term "dinosaur" is perfect in many situations, and I won't stop using it (or replace it with less familiar terms) just because many people don't understand its current scientific meaning. Note that most people don't known the meaning of all taxonomic terms: the meaning of "dinosaur" is as misunderstood as "coronosaur", "macronarian" or "metasuchian". Should we avoid mentioning them just because people don't know their meaning?
      The meaning of the vernacular "dinosaur" (sensu most people) is something we should not care much about.


      Delete
  2. I haven't bothered telling laypeople I'm interested in dinosaurs for a while now. I just say I'm into birds and crocodiles, or the evolution of birds and crocodiles; thinking to myself "close enough."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your image of a fluffy Leaellynasaura is just as much a product of memes and speculation as whatever you're railing against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where'd you get the idea that i'm railing against memes and speculation? I'm trying to sort out the difference between "dinosaur" as a cultural term vs "dinosaur" as a scientific term.

      Delete
    2. You're saying that "The animals most people think of when you talk about "dinosaurs" never existed," and the caption on your Leaellynasaura is "Not what most people think of when you say "dinosaur."" So if your Leaellynasaura does not represent dinosaurs sensu Culture, does it represent dinosaurs sensu Science? It's possible that your interpretation of Leaellynasaura never existed either. It's possible that the real Leaellynasaura lacked any filamentous integument, and only differed from the Walking With Dinosaurs interpretation in having a longer tail (and that's how it's currently depicted on Wikipedia). The truth is that Leaellynasaura is an animal we really don't know much about, and the implication that your version has actually superseded the traditional pop culture version is misleading.

      Delete
    3. Ok, I see what you're saying. A speculative recon of a poorly known species may not have been the best choice to make that point. May have to substitute a Microraptor or something.

      Delete
  4. This is a great question to ponder (and I think a lot of the commenters are sort of missing the point). I wrestled with it myself back when I ran the Dinosauricon. By its end it had species-level coverage of all Mesozoic stem-avians, but I couldn't very well call it "The Stem-Avicon", could I?

    I did toy with the idea of changing it to "The Mesozoicon", but never really went anywhere with it. Would have been a lot of work.

    (Note: I think you know this, but to clarify for everyone -- "stem-bird" is a synonym for "non-avian pan-avian", not "pan-avian".)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mesozoicon does sound awesome though.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that sentence was supposed to mean I'm interested in stem birds or more broadly bird-line archosaurs, whatever you want to call those, but reads as if the parenthetical lists synonyms for stem-birds.

      Delete
  5. I always tell people I'm not interested in "dinosaurs", I'm interested in paleontology and ornithology. There is a HUGE cultural difference and interesting to see how differently people react when you tell them one vs. the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've found exactly the same thing in telling people I'm interested in "the evolution of birds and crocodiles" rather than "dinosaurs." Which I suppose all just confirms what Matt is saying.

      Delete
    2. Agree. I usually say I'm interested in birds, crocodiles and their fossil relatives.

      Delete
  6. 'Let's not kid ourselves, "dinosaurs" move books!'

    The sad side of this is all the fascinating groups that get less coverage because they don't have a recognizable name. The popular literature on stem-mammals is almost nonexistent (and that's without even leaving the narrow little world of tetrapods that can believably say, "RAWR!").

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The result, as you can currently read it, is a bit of a nightmare shot through with hedged statements like "most dinosaurs" this and "many dinosaurs that" and "some extinct dinosaur groups are notable for" another thing."

    I'm probably missing something, but why not just use the term "non-avian dinosaurs"?

    "Now I'm obligated to say "No, pterodactyls are not technically considered to be dinosaurs for arcane reasons I could never hope to explain in casual conversation.""

    Again, I'm probably missing something, but why not say "While I'm also interested in pterosaurs, they're not dinos but close relatives b/c they lack the features all dinos inherited from their common ancestor"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is some disagreement as to what "avian" should mean (crown group vs. Archaeopteryx node, mostly), so that term is problematic in a general article.

      Delete
    2. Even if we said non-avian or non-avialan dinosaurs, there's still not much you can say that would apply to every non-avian dinosaur, other than that it's the group that were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates of the Mesozoic. It's nearly impossible to think of any interesting or useful fact that can be generalized to ALL non-avialan dinosaurs.

      Delete
  8. Personally, when I think about "mammals", I tend to think about elephants and giraffe rather than mice and bats. It's not that I shun the latter, but the former are unlike other mammals we see. I think that's why most people prefer to think about the ceratopsians and sauropods rather than things that can, quite frankly, easily be described as birds with teeth. Trying explain the intricacies of dinosaur evolution and how birds are really dinosaurs to be a rather futile endeavor as the average person just won't learn the damn thing. I know it's not the the scientific way to just "give up", but there's this thing where we just go "yes, pterodactyl is a dinosaurus" so we don't bother people and don't get bothered by their, ahem, inexperience.

    Plus, pardon me to express these feelings, I think everyone is just overeacting about something that ultimately doesn't matter that much (JP4 not having feathered dinosaurus, I mean).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I feel like this might be a general problem with cladistics (as opposed to the Linnaean system) that the discipline has yet to resolve. Broad categorical terms that are rather useful in the Linnaean system (like "dinosaur" or even "bird") are rendered nearly meaningless in cladistics. Don't get me wrong, I think cladistics is more useful overall, but we're still in something of a transition phase, and we haven't smoothed all the bumps yet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dinosaurs are bird-like animals belonging to clade Dinosauria that actually existed.

    We already have a name for big reptilian Godzilla-type monsters that do not exist, their called Dragons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with this post. It is also worth noting that another important factor is the fact that dinosaurs are usually considered a childish topic, and people who say that they are interested in dinosaurs are sometimes stereotyped as being immature or mentally-challenged.

    So basically, this is what comes up in the average layperson's mind when he/she hears the word "dinosaur": a gigantic, extinct reptile with a terrifying, monstrous appearance, and which usually captures the interest of young children

    People do not usually think of relatively modest-sized, cute feathered creatures that are not monsters, and don't behave that much differently from other animals. I agree that it might be a good idea to replace the word "dinosaur" with something else when trying to educate the public about the animals that actually existed. Let's leave the word "dinosaur" to the movies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the namecheck :-)

    That said, I am also more interested in prosauropods, theropods, thyreophorans and marginocephalians than I am in almost any other group; and even ornithopods more than anything but azhdarchids and pliosaurs.

    So maybe I am a dinosaur palaeontologist after all.

    If only we could get rid of this idiot superstition that naming a paraphyletic group causes seven years' bad luck, we could coin Eudinosauria for the group (Dinosauria - Aves) and talk about eudinosaurs.

    Oh, and:

    "Dinosaur movies like JP4 must go out of their way to stick to old, "classic" versions of them to satisfy demand for big, reptilian monster movies."

    I don't buy that. I think it's simply an idiot move by an idiot director, and that the public is just as ready now for more avian dinosaurs as it was in 1993 for dinosaurs that at that time were more avian than they'd then seen. This is blaming the general public for one person's fool manoeuvre.

    ReplyDelete