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

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...