Too many dinosaur names
Photos by Don Batten
Skulls given different genus names Apatosaurus (top) and Diplodocus
(bottom) which are clearly the same biblical kind.
by David Catchpoole
Published: 15 January 2009(GMT+10)
A recent analysis of the 1,401 scientific names given to dinosaurs from 1824 to
2004 shows that about 16% of names were duplicates, and 32% embodied other sorts
of errors.1,2,3
‘It’s a bit scary,’ said paleontologist Michael Benton of the
University of Bristol (UK). ‘The bane of the dinosaurologist’s life
is species that have been named on the basis of incomplete specimens.’4
It also seems that some fossils might have been claimed as new dinosaur species
because of funding agency and journal pressures, and the ‘quest for glory’
or ‘a lust for headlines’ on the part of the discoverer.
‘In Victorian times, palaeontologists were keen to name new species, and in
the excitement of the great “bone wars” for example, from 1870 to 1890,
they rushed into print with new names for every odd leg bone, tooth, or skull cap
that came their way,’ explained Benton. ‘Later work, on more complete
specimens, reduced more than 1,000 named dinosaurs to 500 or so.’
And Noah didn’t need to take those hundreds of named dinosaur species aboard
the Ark; rather, just the representative ‘kinds’ (Genesis 6:20)—of which it has been estimated there
were only 55. For example, Apatosaurus and Diplodocus [skulls
pictured above], though different species (in fact, genera), are clearly the same
biblical kind. So skeptics who claim Noah couldn’t have fitted all the dinosaurs
on board the Ark are wrong—note, too, that he didn’t need to take full-grown
dinosaurs, but juveniles. For more on this see Chapter 19 (‘What about dinosaurs?’)
in The Creation Answers Book, also see
Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s article about dinosaur growth rates.
some fossils might have been claimed as new dinosaur species because of funding
agency and journal pressures, and the ‘quest for glory’ or ‘a
lust for headlines’ on the part of the discoverer
These recent findings have implications for scientific recommendations concerning
species protection programs, too, as Benton points out. ‘This is important
also for studies of modern biodiversity,’ he says. ‘People have also
been looking at our current knowledge of mammals and insects and other animal groups
and asking the simple question: are the species totals and lists we use for important
conclusions—including to give political advice about endangered species—are
they correct?’
Benton continues, ‘There’s been a big debate about vast extinctions
among amphibians. We have to know what the species are first, before we can talk
about that.’
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Dalton, R., In search of Thingummyjigosaurus—There are
errors in almost half the names given to dinosaurs, NatureNews, <www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/
news.2008.1111.html>, 17 September 2008. Return to text.
- Benton, M., Fossil quality and naming dinosaurs, Biology
Letters, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0402, 16 September 2008. Return
to text.
- Benton, M., How to find a dinosaur, and the role of synonymy
in biodiversity studies, Paleobiology 34(4):516–533,
December 2008. Return to text.
- Amos, J., Will the real dinosaurs stand up? BBC News,
<news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7620621.stm>, 17 September 2008.
Return to text.
| They say time is money. Well, this site provides over 30 years of information. That’s a lot of money and time. Would you support our efforts to keep this information coming for 30 more years?  | | |
|
