@steveoc86

1 year ago

A few corrections for this video. (There would be more if I could be bothered) (Also, I've made some edits to this comment to clarify some areas) At 4:29, they show a silhouette of a dromeosaur when talking about the size of the Amphicoelias fragillimus vertebra (now called Maraapunisaurus). Straight after, they then show other images of theropod dinosaurs. Maraapunisaurus is a sauropod, or long-necked dinosaur. Showing a theropod is a weird editing choice and potentially misleading/confusing for the audience. Creative commons scale charts are available on Wikimedia Commons, which you can freely use to show the audience the size estimates generated from this vertebra. They also mention the length estimate of 60 meters, but the graphics show a line measuring height?? At 4:50, the presenter proclaims, ''most likely, Cope just made it up''. Whilst that is what some palaeontologists think, not all do. In fact, one palaeontologist even gave it a new genus name in 2018. It has been independently noticed that the vertebra looks like it belongs to a rebbachisaurid sauropod. Slightly better wording would be, ''some palaeontologists think that Cope made it up''. For the presenter to proclaim that Cope ''most likely... made it up'' is misleading and doesn't reflect the science. At 5:25, when talking about the name 'Jurassic Park', the presenter says, ''all of the dinosaurs showed in the movie actually lived in the Cretaceous''; they then cut to a clip of Brachiosaurus, a dinosaur that lived in the Jurassic Period. Dilophosaurus is also from the Jurassic. It would be better to say, ''only two out of the seven dinosaurs shown in the movie lived in the Jurassic'' At 6:10, ''And that's why they were turned into giant toothy reptiles''. At 6:12, ''and the truth is, not all dinosaurs were reptiles''. At 8:21, ''Most likely Velociraptors were closer to birds than reptiles''. Edited: There seems to be some confusion around the word reptile in this video, leading to nonsensical statements. Admittedly, this is tricky to discuss because there are two words to consider here, 'Reptile', and 'Reptilia'. 'Reptile' is a more general word that can have slightly varying meanings. However, many definitions of 'reptile' refer to anything cold-blooded and scaly, like lizards and crocs; this is not an evolutionary definition. 'Reptilia', on the other hand, is the name of a scientifically defined evolutionary group. Generally speaking, the word 'reptile' can substitute for 'reptilia'. However, birds complicate this usage. This is because birds ARE dinosaurs, all of them. And ALL dinosaurs are members of the group reptilia. And, because these names are hierarchical, that means birds are also members of reptilia. Once an animal is a member of an evolutionary group, it never leaves it, no matter how much it evolves and changes in the future. So, for example, platypus, bats, whales, and apes are all members of Mammalia, even though they look and behave very differently. Aves > Dinosauria > Reptilia So, in the traditional sense, the word 'reptile' is treated as a 'paraphyletic' name, effectively referring to any animal that is a member of the group reptilia, but excluding birds; this is unfortunate historical baggage. The word 'reptile' was coined before we knew that birds are dinosaurs. And frustratingly, this is causing part of the confusion. For example, Velociraptor is closely related to birds and shares many features with the earliest birds, but it is also a member of reptilia. So, in evolutionary terms the statement that it is 'closer to birds than reptiles'' is nonsensical because it can be said that Velociraptor IS a reptile; if we treat the word reptile to equal reptilia (i.e. as a monophyletic name). At 6:27, ''this information was picked up by Mythbusters''. What!? What relevance does that have to anything?? It seems to imply they were pivotal/influential as to how dinosaurs are depicted? or something? Since when did Mythbusters become palaeontologists? A bizarre script writing/editing choice; why not use that time to show the myriad of feathered fossils instead? (Edited) At 6:40, you fade between older interpretations and feathered interpretations. One of these is a slightly ropy Triceratops restoration, and then you fade to a brilliant restoration of Regaliceratops; not the same genus, even though the caption stays the same. Also, it is strange to show a group of dinosaurs that, apart from some early ancestors having sparsely populated quills, generally are known to have scaly skin, and scientific restorations haven't changed drastically without mentioning it. (Edit) Since Jurassic Park came out, well-preserved Triceratops skin has been discovered. It would have been great to show that. At 7:50, regarding hand/forelimb orientation, it has been known for a long time, well before 2018, that dinosaurs could not pronate their wrists. At 8:10, ''They're consistent with the ones that pigeons have''. Not sure why pigeons were singled out here? Many birds have quill knobs. Overall, this video is, at times, hyperbolic and needs better research and editing. For example, the presenter shouldn't be saying one thing, and then the video cutting to images/videos showing another. Unfortunately, this is common problem palaeontology docs have. It is almost hypocritical for a video like this, criticising dinosaur movies for making mistakes and 'lying to the audience', if this video is going to do the same. Finally, we live in an age of misinformation/disinformation and getting the details right on informative videos matters.

79 |