Dinosaurs may go extinct...again

[clockworkgirl21]

news.discovery.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-extinct-again-110517.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

Certain dinosaurs may go extinct -- again -- since they may have only existed in the minds of paleontologists.

Dino expert John Horner and others suspect that at least 50 dinosaurs on the record books now have been incorrectly identified. According to a Science journal report, "it's time to start culling the herd."

This almost makes me want to sob.

[Admiral Lithp]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that a few here & there were miscategorized, but 51%? What the Hell?

[arrowdeath]

Lithp, it's just 50 species, not 51%. If we managed to miscategorize 51% of all dinosaur species discovered we'd be really having problems.

[MaybeNever]

That kind of thing mostly comes down to us from the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Paleontology wasn't exactly a well-regulated pursuit in those days, and dinosaurs were kind of a big deal with lots of fame to discoverers. Some parts of astronomy were that way too. It's only in the last thirty-ish years that astronomy has been put aright.

[Art Vandelay]

When I read the title I thought this thread would be about birds going extinct.

[MaybeNever]

May 22, 2011 3:36:49 GMT -5 arrowdeath said:

Lithp, it's just 50 species, not 51%. If we managed to miscategorize 51% of all dinosaur species discovered we'd be really having problems.

The article says otherwise.

Paleontologist Michael J. Benton, at the University of Bristol, told Science that up to 51.7 percent of all dinosaur species are miscategorized. He said that's a "frightening figure. This means that more than half the species of dinosaurs ever named were in error.”

[shykid]

Just wait for the fundies to pounce on this one.

[arrowdeath]

May 22, 2011 3:53:04 GMT -5 MaybeNever said:

May 22, 2011 3:36:49 GMT -5 arrowdeath said:

Lithp, it's just 50 species, not 51%. If we managed to miscategorize 51% of all dinosaur species discovered we'd be really having problems.

The article says otherwise.

Paleontologist Michael J. Benton, at the University of Bristol, told Science that up to 51.7 percent of all dinosaur species are miscategorized. He said that's a "frightening figure. This means that more than half the species of dinosaurs ever named were in error.”

Ah, did not see that. Then yes, we do have problems.

[Mira]

May 22, 2011 3:44:28 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

When I read the title I thought this thread would be about birds going extinct.

Same.

[Vene]

May 22, 2011 4:17:55 GMT -5 arrowdeath said:

May 22, 2011 3:53:04 GMT -5 MaybeNever said:

The article says otherwise.

Ah, did not see that. Then yes, we do have problems.

That's what happens when you only see snapshots of development.

[Admiral Lithp]

I fully expect the Fundies to pounce on this, completely ignoring that it wasn't a Creationist who actually figured out the problems.

[SimSim]

May 23, 2011 19:57:50 GMT -5 Vene said:

May 22, 2011 4:17:55 GMT -5 arrowdeath said:

Ah, did not see that. Then yes, we do have problems.

That's what happens when you only see snapshots of development.

I suspect it's more than just that. I know for a fact that with paleoanthropology if a skeleton is found that doesn't seem to fully fit within the normal rage of aspects of a species, you claim you found a new species or subspecies. Worst case DNA testing or further study shows it isn't new, best case you get famous.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with palentology. Then add in things like lack of modern testing tools like DNA to further compound the problem.

[Vene]

May 23, 2011 21:12:46 GMT -5 SimSim said:

May 23, 2011 19:57:50 GMT -5 Vene said:

That's what happens when you only see snapshots of development.

I suspect it's more than just that. I know for a fact that with paleoanthropology if a skeleton is found that doesn't seem to fully fit within the normal rage of aspects of a species, you claim you found a new species or subspecies. Worst case DNA testing or further study shows it isn't new, best case you get famous.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with palentology. Then add in things like lack of modern testing tools like DNA to further compound the problem.

It's probably just Rickets.

[Shane for Wax]

May 23, 2011 21:12:46 GMT -5 SimSim said:

May 23, 2011 19:57:50 GMT -5 Vene said:

That's what happens when you only see snapshots of development.

I suspect it's more than just that. I know for a fact that with paleoanthropology if a skeleton is found that doesn't seem to fully fit within the normal rage of aspects of a species, you claim you found a new species or subspecies. Worst case DNA testing or further study shows it isn't new, best case you get famous.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with palentology. Then add in things like lack of modern testing tools like DNA to further compound the problem.

it also doesn't help that bones can be changed by disease. And sometimes you will end up destroying the specimen in order to get the testing done. And some people just aren't willing to do that.

[SimSim]

May 23, 2011 22:23:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

May 23, 2011 21:12:46 GMT -5 SimSim said:

I suspect it's more than just that. I know for a fact that with paleoanthropology if a skeleton is found that doesn't seem to fully fit within the normal rage of aspects of a species, you claim you found a new species or subspecies. Worst case DNA testing or further study shows it isn't new, best case you get famous.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same with palentology. Then add in things like lack of modern testing tools like DNA to further compound the problem.

It's probably just Rickets.

So you're a creationist now, eh?
@shane, yeah that too.