Skip to main content

This is a Dinosaur; That is Not a Dinosaur

Camarasaurus - very definitely a dinosaur


Last time, I wrote about bad science in terrible creature features. One of the things I noted was the tendency of the actors and writers to refer to anything old and extinct as a dinosaur. Of course, this is a problem in that it displays a poor understanding of what a dinosaur actually is, but this misunderstanding isn't limited to bad science fiction films. It instead reflects a larger societal misunderstanding of what constitutes a dinosaur--any big, dead reptile gets lumped into the category of "dinosaur." But in reality, paleontologists have a very specific definition of what a dinosaur is.

In the first place, dinosaurs are diapsids, animals that have two openings in their skull behind the eyes (fenestra). Other diapsids include birds, lizards, and crocodiles, but this characteristic alone separates them from the synapsids (one opening behind the eye), a group that includes mammals, and from the anapsids (no openings behind the eye), organisms like turtles. To narrow our definition down further, dinosaurs are part of a group of extinct reptiles known as archosaurs, a group that also includes pterosaurs. What makes dinosaurs different is in their hips--the hip bones of dinosaurs have an opening in them. There are several other characteristics that distinguish dinosaurs from other archosaurs, very technical details about their skeletal anatomy that can be viewed here, including modifications to the bones of their hands and feet.

With those semi-technical details out of the way, we can translate this definition into a way of weeding out non-dinosaurs that are commonly referred to by that name, whether in movies or everyday life. These can include:

Sharks - sharks pre-date dinosaurs in the fossil record by over 200 million years, before vertebrates even took to the land. Why anyone would ever call them "dinosaurs" except as a figure of speech is beyond me.

Pterosaurs - as noted earlier, pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, though they were part of the archosaur group. Some dinosaurs did fly, but pterosaurs can be more properly thought of as flying reptiles rather than dinosaurs. 

Pterosaurs - not a dinosaur

Mosasaurs, icthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs - these extinct reptiles dominated the oceans in the same period that dinosaurs did. But as no dinosaurs swam, these creatures, while fascinating, cannot be thought of as dinosaurs, even as they get lumped together with them in popular books and toys.

Dimetrodon - an extinct reptile, dimetrodon was a synapsid and a precursor to mammals. Thus, the famous sail-backed monster of popular imagination is more closely related to humans than it is to dinosaurs!

Dimetrodon - terrible, ferocious, but also not a dinosaur!

Dinosaurs themselves are divided up into two main groups, the ornithischians (bird-hipped) and saurischians (lizard-hipped), reflecting differences in the structure of the hip bone. Saurischians include dinosaurs like Diplodocus and Tyrannosaurus rex, while the ornithischians include dinosaurs like Triceratops and the stegosaurs. Ironically, it is from the so-called "lizard-hipped" saurischians that birds evolved. Which brings me to the last point of this post:

Birds - descended from theropod dinosaurs, these animals are the only surviving dinosaur, an idea which was highly debated but is now generally accepted by scientists. That's right, birds are dinosaurs! This is surely one of the most fascinating conclusions of modern dinosaur paleontology, though I don't expect to start seeing figurines of chickens or doves included in sets of toy dinosaurs anytime soon.

Postscript:
While many of the sources for the information above are linked, in discussing some of the characteristics that define dinosaurs, and distinguish them from other extinct reptiles, I relied also on the essay "The Osteology of the Dinosaurs" by Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. and M.K. Brett-Surman, as printed in the first edition of The Complete Dinosaur (Indiana University Press, 1997) as well as information contained in John Foster's Jurassic West: The Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation and Their World (Indiana University Press, 2007). Finding a clear, scientific definition of what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur was, surprisingly, hard to come by, perhaps one of the reasons why there is so much popular confusion on the issue.

All images are through Wikipedia Commons and are copyright-cleared for use.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...