Amid the perpetual noise of the internet and the jockeying for additional outrage over the latest political scandal--an almost daily occurrence these days--there's been a lot of clicks baited through headlines (which I'm quoting, not linking to, because I don't want to give them the satisfaction of having another visitor to their websites) such as "A 130-Year-Old Fact About Dinosaurs Might Be Wrong" and "Astonishing Discovery About Dinosaurs Shocks Scientists"* and my personal favorite, "A new theory could overturn one of the most central 'facts' about dinosaurs".
Curious about this, I followed the link provided by one of the many paleontologists I follow on Twitter, which pointed me to a blog post by Dr. Paul Barrett. In his post "Shaking the tree...", he explains the basic thesis of what he's conceived of, though the full article is behind a paywall from Nature magazine**. It's not particularly technical, and I think it's clear enough on its own that I don't really want to rehash what's being said. I will give you a tl;dr, though: Dinosaurs have long been split into two major chunks, based upon hip-structure. This new way of thinking about dinosaurs redefines what these chunks should be, based upon a myriad of anatomical features, and introduces a new group name: Ornithoscelida (meaning "bird-limbed").
Here's the thing about this reclassification: It's about time. For far too long, dinosaurs were grouped into saurischian and ornithschian groups, the former meaning "reptile-hipped" and the latter meaning "bird-hipped". However, as we learned more and more about dinosaur evolution, we realized that theropod dinosaurs (the "famous ones" like Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus rex) were the ancestors to birds. Confusingly, theropods were within, not the ornithschian group, but the saurischian one. The reasons are many and tedious, so the important aspect to remember here is that the classification--that is, the human designed concept for labeling what we observe--was inadequate for what we learned.
So now there's a proposal of redrafting the lines. As Dr. Barrett says in his post, "In addition to giving us a new dinosaur tree, if our results stand up to detailed scrutiny by other palaeontologists [sic], then they might be used to provide many new insights into dinosaur evolution." This is an important part of the process. Much like the Brontosaurus hullabaloo of a couple years ago, the idea, while exciting, is not the newly accepted understanding. It's a hypothesis, one that needs to be verified, tested, and expanded. Indeed, Dr. Barrett says that, too:
As with anything in science, our tree is a hypothesis - it is there to be stretched and tested to see if it is stronger than those that have come before and if it has the power to explain more about dinosaur evolution than other competing schemes. If we're wrong and there are better alternative explanations for the patterns we see then we'll have to accept that evidence and move on - that's how science works.I want to repeat that last line: "That's how science works." So the doctor and his crew have put together a new way of looking at dinosaurs. His proposal could even upend what we can qualify as a dinosaur. That's fine--that's the whole point of continuing to explore the voices coming out of the dust in the form of fossils. Cladistics have already stirred the pot, which has allowed us to understand more about the interaction of different species throughout time. This "shaking of the tree" doesn't suddenly change the reality of dinosaurs, their appeal, or what we can learn from the treasures in the ground.
Part of what has bothered me about this announcement isn't that people have been excited to talk dinosaurs again (which is always pleasing to me), but instead that the click-bait headlines I quoted earlier became the copy. Here's some specific stuff about each one that's sticking in my craw.
Number One
"A 130-Year-Old Fact About Dinosaurs Might Be Wrong". Well, no, actually, there's nothing about what's being proposed that fits this description. In fact, that's the whole point: our description of dinosaurs, dating back 130 years, might be wrong (and I appreciate that they leave that in the subjunctive sense). You can classify dinosaurs as saurischian or ornithschian. There's nothing right or wrong about that classification. The classification, however, may be insufficient for describing everything about dinosaurs. It's a fact that we see two hip types. It's a fact that we classified them that way. And these facts have no impact on the veracity of paleontology or the hard work of dinosaur enthusiasts.
Number Two
"Astonishing Discovery About Dinosaurs Shocks Scientists". Okay, so I have to be honest here: This one is actually about where dinosaurs originated (Scotland), instead of farther south as has long been assumed. However, like everything I mentioned above, there isn't a lot of "shock" when a new hypothesis comes out. Not in the way that laymen are shocked by, say, the fact that the Kardashians are still famous for being famous. Instead, there's a new idea that needs to be thoroughly discussed, peer reviewed, and implemented--providing its merits are greater than the current explanations. This may shift some paradigms, but the headline makes it sound much more profound--and verified--than it actually is. Though the story is different, the headline is making all sorts of assumptions about what makes for "astonishing discoveries" and the long-term requirements needed to show that new assertions have validity. The whole scientific method seems lost on the headline writers, who are far too eager to throw buzz words into the fray, regardless of how pertinent they are.
Number Three
"A new theory could overturn one of the most central 'facts' about dinosaurs". I love how facts is in quotation marks. As I mentioned in Number One, the idea of fact is being misappropriated in headlines such as this. Facts simply are. They can't, actually, be overturned. Our understanding of something can change, sure. Does all the time. That's the point of science--to learn more about the world. But the fact doesn't change. We orbit the sun. That is and always has been a fact, which didn't overturn any other "facts" when Copernicus made his revolutionary (pun!) explanation about heliocentrism. The prevailing belief at the time wasn't a fact: It was a falsehood that people misbelieved. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars /But in ourselves." We learn more and more about what things are, and though we may believe something that isn't real, our belief in it doesn't make it a fact.
Also, why in quotes? The only thing I can think of is the dismissive way in which people consider scientific process, assuming that because our understanding evolves, it somehow means that nothing can be known. I don't know if I'm right on this point, but I get a sense of smugness from people when they point out history (that they often get wrong) showing how science believed something that was later disproved. As if that invalidates science? While far from perfect, science is the best tool we have to consistently explore, expand, and experience the vastness of the worlds. It will make mistakes along the way, sure. That's what's so fantastic about the scientific method: It provides mechanisms for reducing the impact of mistakes. And while damage can be done (I think of the whole debacle about autism and vaccines, shuddering at the false link that has caused so much misery), it's only by applying our rationality that we see the scientific processes advance with the rapidity we've enjoyed in the last three centuries.
Getting back to the headline, I should say that, in terms of the hip structure being one of the "most central" aspects of dinosaur anatomy...well, I think that may come down to preference. See, I think the bodacity of dinosaurs is their "most central" fact. However, even if we're talking about the hips' shapes, that is, in my opinion, secondary to the way the hips work. See, it's not about the configuration of the illium, pubis, and ischium bones are arranged that really makes it a dinosaur; it's about the posture. For my money, having upright posture (that is, all dinosaur hips descend straight down from the hip socket) is a much more important characteristic. That is the great differentiation between the strange amalgam animals of dinosaurs (part reptile, part crocodile, part bird) and their pure reptile cousins. No dinosaur looked like a Komodo dragon, and that, to me, is the most central aspect of their hip anatomy.
Dinosaur News
I love dinosaurs. I'm glad people are talking about them. I love that there's interest and intrigue and that the golden age of paleontology marches forward. But I'd really appreciate it if the news tried something new for once and reported things with less breathless misunderstanding than they've done in the past.
Please? Is that too much to ask?
---
* This is such poor headline writing that I have officially sworn off the website...*squints*...BABW News? Yeah. Done with that one forever.
** If I see this at a newsstand, I'll probably buy a copy. I'm a sucker for a dinosaur, what can I say?