Do you miss the dinosaurs that never existed?

[Dinoguy2]

I do miss the old school depictions of dinosaurs to some degree. I think in the past you had people reconstructing them based on principles from modern large animals, which while inaccurate gave them more... inherent realism or believability I guess? It's easier to intuitively imagine a big lumbering tail dragging Brontosaurus as a "real animal" because well... we know big things have weight, we know that tail must be heavy, we know heavy things tend to be slow (even though modern animals often disprove this, it's still counter-intuitive). So modern ideas of dinosaurs, while based more in fact, feel more alien and unbelievable to us. There's something comforting and familiar about the old ones beyond nostalgia, because they were inaccurate and their inaccuracies were based more on human intuition about how we think things should work than actual biomechanics, which barely existed as a field of study back then.

[ceratopsian]

I love the sound and rhythm of the name Monoclonius. When I was a small child in the 60s, it was there in my very earliest dinosaur books. I used to recite the names to myself like a mantra, wrapping my tongue and lips round the unfamiliar syllables. And this name in particular had a wonderfully satisfying quality. So yes, it carries a great weight of nostalgia for me.

[andrewsaurus rex]

I just thought of something I miss...the slashing toe claws of velociraptor, deinonychus et al.   The images of them disembowelling prey many times their size was fun. 

[Bowhead Whale]

I do miss the SCOLOSAURUS. You know, the little "Ankylosaurid" with two spikes at the end of its tail? Starlux made one in the 1970's. However, it is now known that the "scolosaurus" bones actually belonged to the Euoplocephalus. I know that is part of the evolution of knowledge, but... you know, I still miss it.

[Stegotyranno420]

Scolosaurus was one of the first dinosaurs I knew actually.

[Mamasaurus]

I definitely hold some nostalgia for dinosaurs like those reconstructed by Charles R. Knight or the statues at the Crystal Palace. I don't exactly miss the reconstructions themselves, since the art and photos of the statues are still there for me to enjoy whenever I wish (hopefully the statues will still be there when I can finally visit). What I miss is the character of the reconstructions. That naturalist look and appeal that can only come from an artist who observes life and real animals often, coupled with their skill as an artist may it be sculpture, paint, or some other medium. I greatly admire more recent paleoarts that also strive for that same level of artistic skill and natural portrayal of prehistoric creatures...it's pop culture and children's' books I find myself most frustrated with, since they are full of CG monstronsities or photos of Schleich or Papo figures.

There are also a few genera that I will truly miss. Dracorex hogwartsia is such an epic dinosaur name for a really cool-looking animal. Now it is essentially a nomen dubium because it is a growth stage of Pachycephalosaurus. I suppose one can still refer to it as Dracorex for clarity when talking about the different growth stages, but the name will never have status as its own genus anymore, and cannot be used for another animal. Just seems a bit of a shame, when a really cool name becomes unusable. This is especially true when the valid name for a genus is difficult to remember. Just for example, Brontosaurus the Thunder Lizard has better "branding" than Apatosaurus the Deceptive Lizard. It's a poor example because Brontosaurus has been reinstated as a unique genus, and Apatosaurus is still a good name. It's just that as a kid I was forever correcting people, simply because everyone knows Brontosaurus and never remembers Apatosaurus.

Simply for the purposes of making animals more easily recognizable and therefore more likely to get the public excited about dinosaurs and science in general, names that offer opportunities for easy recognition (like Dracorex the Dragon King of Hogwarts) are valuable for fossil-loving communities like us. So it's a hard hit when we lose a good name, and certainly something I miss.

[Bowhead Whale]

I definitely hold some nostalgia for dinosaurs like those reconstructed by Charles R. Knight or the statues at the Crystal Palace. I don't exactly miss the reconstructions themselves, since the art and photos of the statues are still there for me to enjoy whenever I wish (hopefully the statues will still be there when I can finally visit). What I miss is the character of the reconstructions. That naturalist look and appeal that can only come from an artist who observes life and real animals often, coupled with their skill as an artist may it be sculpture, paint, or some other medium. I greatly admire more recent paleoarts that also strive for that same level of artistic skill and natural portrayal of prehistoric creatures...it's pop culture and children's' books I find myself most frustrated with, since they are full of CG monstronsities or photos of Schleich or Papo figures.

There are also a few genera that I will truly miss. Dracorex hogwartsia is such an epic dinosaur name for a really cool-looking animal. Now it is essentially a nomen dubium because it is a growth stage of Pachycephalosaurus. I suppose one can still refer to it as Dracorex for clarity when talking about the different growth stages, but the name will never have status as its own genus anymore, and cannot be used for another animal. Just seems a bit of a shame, when a really cool name becomes unusable. This is especially true when the valid name for a genus is difficult to remember. Just for example, Brontosaurus the Thunder Lizard has better "branding" than Apatosaurus the Deceptive Lizard. It's a poor example because Brontosaurus has been reinstated as a unique genus, and Apatosaurus is still a good name. It's just that as a kid I was forever correcting people, simply because everyone knows Brontosaurus and never remembers Apatosaurus.

Simply for the purposes of making animals more easily recognizable and therefore more likely to get the public excited about dinosaurs and science in general, names that offer opportunities for easy recognition (like Dracorex the Dragon King of Hogwarts) are valuable for fossil-loving communities like us. So it's a hard hit when we lose a good name, and certainly something I miss.

Maybe we still can use "Dracosaurus" for a future species discovered. No?

[Newt]

@Bowhead Whale - I'm afraid Dracosaurus is also unavailable; it is a synonym of Nothosaurus (an officially suppressed senior synonym; the two names were published in the same paper in 1834, but Nothosaurus got a lot more use, and when it was determined they were the same animal a petition was filed with the ICZN to preserve Nothosaurus instead of Dracosaurus).

If names we miss count, I miss Antrodemus (synonym of Allosaurus), Podokesaurus (probably a synonym of Coelophysis), and good old Trachodon (synonym of Edmontosaurus).

[Stegotyranno420]

I miss sonic boom Diplodocus now

[Halichoeres]

I do miss the SCOLOSAURUS. You know, the little "Ankylosaurid" with two spikes at the end of its tail? Starlux made one in the 1970's. However, it is now known that the "scolosaurus" bones actually belonged to the Euoplocephalus. I know that is part of the evolution of knowledge, but... you know, I still miss it.

You might already know that the name Scolosaurus is regarded as valid again. The tail club as you describe it isn't; however, maybe you'll enjoy the funky horizontal hammer tail of Anodontosaurus (left in this image):

(from here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320349340_Unusual_cranial_and_postcranial_anatomy_in_the_archetypal_ankylosaur_Ankylosaurus_magniventris)

[Bowhead Whale]

Why was the name "Trachodon" replaced by "Edmontosaurus"?

[andrewsaurus rex]

i don't think Edomontosaurus replaced Trachodon per se.  Trachodon doesn't really exist.  It was based on just teeth and many of those teeth turned out to be actually ceratopsian, not hadrosaur. 

[Eatmycar]

Not in the least. Frankly, the more we learn and the more we discover about these things makes them so much more interesting to me. As a child of the 90s, I grew up with Jurassic Park. Dinosaurs were these things that disappeared eons ago.

Knowing that they were so much more dynamic than we ever imagined? So much closer to their avian  relatives? That we weren't even close to correct with our understanding of these creatures?

It's humbling. It's a reminder that we can't know everything, and that we may never know everything in our lifetime. It keeps us learning, and I think that's beautiful! I love seeing the scientific community at work whenever a paper drops that flips everything upside down.

[Funk]

I miss Troodon and I miss the venomous Sinornithosaurus. Two-legged spino was cool too, but I love the new reconstruction.

I don't think quadrupedal Spinosaurus has ever been seriously supported scientifically, and it seems it (and the M-shaped sail) is being abandoned. Figure from the latest Sereno paper:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/80092

[dyno77]

In a way i do esp when they get name changes ,but at the same time ...so many dinosaurs and others esp fossils are still to be found...with potentially huge amounts to be named in the next decades..
There also seems to be maybe tonnes of fossils in storage rooms from decades ago that remain unpacked and unpublished...new finds could be made just in the storage basements of museums...

I read that a huge amount of fossils have been lost to weathering...in fact some experts claim more fossils get lost to erosion than what get excavated by a huge margin...i often wonder which dinosaurs and others get lost every year to erosion and other natural disasters....

Iv read that a huge amount of the fossils from the bones wars had also been lost,but i though the remaining ones were in the vaults of the peabody or ny nhm...