Is it time for the term dinosaur to be retired?

[laticauda]

Is it time for the term dinosaur to be retired?  Should the different species of animals be grouped by what they are, reptile, bird, instead of the confusing term of dinosaur.  When the term dinosaur was first uttered, no one thought that they might be ancestral to birds.  That makes the meaning unclear and confusing. The new idea of the name makes them reptile/birds.  Shouldn't we start using appropriate terms and call them birds or some new name and retire the Dinosaur.  Science does it everywhere else, why don't we make it accurate?  Just a thought!

[Gwangi]

Dinosauria is still a valid group of classification, I see no reason to retire it. Sure, the general public might not know what is or is not a dinosaur but that's their own ignorance. The term still works.

[tyrantqueen]

Shouldn't we start using appropriate terms and call them birds or some new name and retire the Dinosaur

But not all dinosaurs are birds. Sauropods are not birds. The situation is the same with mammals. Cats and whales are both mammals, but I don't see anyone advocating that we drop the term mammal and just call them both cats Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow.

Besides, the word "dinosaur" is ingrained into the public consciousness and would be extremely difficult to eradicate. Remember how difficult it was (and still is) to get people to stop using the term "Brontosaurus" when it wasn't appropriate? It would be even harder when taking a word like "dinosaur", which is even more popular.

[Manatee]

Dinosauria is still a valid group of classification, I see no reason to retire it. Sure, the general public might not know what is or is not a dinosaur but that's their own ignorance. The term still works.

Very true. Dinosauria is still a clade that "exists" as the last common ancestor of Triceratops and the Neornithes or any of its descendants, so scientifically speaking removing Dinosauria as a clade would be much more confusing than counting both ornithischians and saurischians under it.

[Concavenator]

All dinosaurs may not be birds,but I think of almost every dinosaur as fearhered.

[DinoToyForum]

Language isn't always scientific, but it is always utilitarian. I use, and will continue to use the word 'dinosaur', in the same way I use the word 'fish'. There's nothing wrong with using a taxonomic term in the real world, even if it describes a paraphyletic/polyphyletic group. It is simple and useful. There's no doubt that birds descended from dinosaurs, but I don't know how useful it is to change our terminology to account for this.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, especially as a museum educator. There seems to be a bias towards referring to birds in dinosaurian terminology, which confuses me. We talk of 'non-avian dinosaurs', but not of, say, 'non-sauropodomorph dinosaurs'. Why? because birds are extant? Because birds are generally not regarded as dinosaurs by the public? Because birds are considered more important, different, or abundant? I think we really only need to invoke such technical terminology when we are focussing on technical issues, such as the evolutionary transition from one group to another, or when writing scientific papers. Anything more than this strikes me as overkill, and can lead to confusion, just as it would lead to confusion to say humans are fish (which is also true in a sense, but not useful). For the purposes of language (non-scientific language), why can't a dinosaur be a dinosaur and a bird be a bird, and it be satisfactory to know (and teach) that one evolved from the other during a transitionary period?

[Paleogene Pals]

Identify them with a strange symbol and refer to them as 'Creatures Formerly Known as Dinosaurs'

[Newt]

Language isn't always scientific, but it is always utilitarian. I use, and will continue to use the word 'dinosaur', in the same way I use the word 'fish'. There's nothing wrong with using a taxonomic term in the real world, even if it describes a paraphyletic/polyphyletic group. It is simple and useful. There's no doubt that birds descended from dinosaurs, but I don't know how useful it is to change our terminology to account for this.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, especially as a museum educator. There seems to be a bias towards referring to birds in dinosaurian terminology, which confuses me. We talk of 'non-avian dinosaurs', but not of, say, 'non-sauropodomorph dinosaurs'. Why? because birds are extant? Because birds are generally not regarded as dinosaurs by the public? Because birds are considered more important, different, or abundant? I think we really only need to invoke such technical terminology when we are focussing on technical issues, such as the evolutionary transition from one group to another, or when writing scientific papers. Anything more than this strikes me as overkill, and can lead to confusion, just as it would lead to confusion to say humans are fish (which is also true in a sense, but not useful). For the purposes of language (non-scientific language), why can't a dinosaur be a dinosaur and a bird be a bird, and it be satisfactory to know (and teach) that one evolved from the other during a transitionary period?

Hear, hear. I've had this same argument with a number of colleagues who refuse to admit that vernacular language is not obligated to obey taxonomy. You must speak your audience's language, and in vernacular English, "non-avian dinosaur" is a redundant term.

[Patrx]

I think one of the reasons a lot of researchers like to specify "non-avian dinosaurs" in articles and blog posts is just to drive the point home to the general public. The fact that birds are dinosaurs - not just some distant relation, but real, living dinosaurs is revolutionary. That by itself has a lot of power to make an impression on readers and change the way they think about dinosaurs. By saying "non-avian dinosaur" one might create an opportunity to open up a dialogue regarding current dinosaur research and phylogenetic bracketing. I mean, there are dinosaurs in your backyard! Turtles are (probably) closer to birds than to lizards! This kind of stuff changes the way people see the world. To get a sense of just how complex and mysterious life on earth really is,  that's powerful.

I'll grant that it's a bit biased, making that distinction, and you're right to say that scientific nomenclature and common vernacular are different things. For example, calling dromaeosaurids "raptors" doesn't make a lot of sense taxonomically, but it's a good way to get the point across to most people. Even substituting "pterodactyl" for "pterosaur" can be useful. I just think your average paleo-blogger or otherwise dinosaur-savvy writer gets understandably psyched about the whole dinosaur/bird thing and wants to get people thinking about it

[Crackington]

Shouldn't we start using appropriate terms and call them birds or some new name and retire the Dinosaur

But not all dinosaurs are birds. Sauropods are not birds. The situation is the same with mammals. Cats and whales are both mammals, but I don't see anyone advocating that we drop the term mammal and just call them both cats Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow.

Besides, the word "dinosaur" is ingrained into the public consciousness and would be extremely difficult to eradicate. Remember how difficult it was (and still is) to get people to stop using the term "Brontosaurus" when it wasn't appropriate? It would be even harder when taking a word like "dinosaur", which is even more popular.

Wasn't it recently suggested that Brontosaurus might make a comeback as a valid species? That'd be great. I think the biologist Stephen Jay Gold argued that the strict rules on nomenclature should be relaxed where a species has entered the public consciousness in a big way ("Bully for Brontosaurus").

Anyway, we'd have to start a campaign if they invalidated "dinosaur" - Save our Dinos! 

[tyrantqueen]

Shouldn't we start using appropriate terms and call them birds or some new name and retire the Dinosaur

But not all dinosaurs are birds. Sauropods are not birds. The situation is the same with mammals. Cats and whales are both mammals, but I don't see anyone advocating that we drop the term mammal and just call them both cats Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow.

Besides, the word "dinosaur" is ingrained into the public consciousness and would be extremely difficult to eradicate. Remember how difficult it was (and still is) to get people to stop using the term "Brontosaurus" when it wasn't appropriate? It would be even harder when taking a word like "dinosaur", which is even more popular.

Wasn't it recently suggested that Brontosaurus might make a comeback as a valid species? That'd be great. I think the biologist Stephen Jay Gold argued that the strict rules on nomenclature should be relaxed where a species has entered the public consciousness in a big way ("Bully for Brontosaurus").

Anyway, we'd have to start a campaign if they invalidated "dinosaur" - Save our Dinos! 

Yes, it might be possible: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2577.0

[Newt]

Wasn't it recently suggested that Brontosaurus might make a comeback as a valid species? That'd be great.

Yes, though in this case it has nothing to do with priority; the argument is that Apatosaurus excelsus is not, in fact, a member of the same genus as A. ajax, the type of the genus Apatosaurus.  The oldest valid name for A. excelsus is Brontosaurus excelsus, so that name will be revived (presumably).  A. ajax will remain an Apatosaurus. I don't know how this would affect the other species currently in Apatosaurus. This is totally different from replacing the older name Apatosaurus with its junior synonym, Brontosaurus.

I think the biologist Stephen Jay Gold argued that the strict rules on nomenclature should be relaxed where a species has entered the public consciousness in a big way ("Bully for Brontosaurus").

There is a mechanism for this; a petition may be submitted to the ICZN, which rules on such matters, to suppress the name that has priority in favor of the more widely-used name. This happens with some frequency. Say that next month, somebody discovered that a scrap of bone named Obscurosaurus neglectus in 1904 is actually from Tyrannosaurus rex. If the name is valid, it has priority over the name Tyrannosaurus rex and, by the rules of priority, Tyrannosaurus rex would be suppressed in favor of Obscurosaurus neglectus. But almost certainly a petition would be submitted to ICZN to suppress the older name, as Tyrannosaurus rex has been so widely used for so long.

[Patrx]

There is a mechanism for this; a petition may be submitted to the ICZN, which rules on such matters, to suppress the name that has priority in favor of the more widely-used name. This happens with some frequency. Say that next month, somebody discovered that a scrap of bone named Obscurosaurus neglectus in 1904 is actually from Tyrannosaurus rex. If the name is valid, it has priority over the name Tyrannosaurus rex and, by the rules of priority, Tyrannosaurus rex would be suppressed in favor of Obscurosaurus neglectus. But almost certainly a petition would be submitted to ICZN to suppress the older name, as Tyrannosaurus rex has been so widely used for so long.

Didn't something like that actually happen once with the taxon "Manospondylus gigas"?

[Newt]

Yes, though apparently the ICZN never actually published anything. The palaeontological community has just collectively chosen to ignore M. gigas.

[laticauda]

Shouldn't we start using appropriate terms and call them birds or some new name and retire the Dinosaur

But not all dinosaurs are birds. Sauropods are not birds. The situation is the same with mammals. Cats and whales are both mammals, but I don't see anyone advocating that we drop the term mammal and just call them both cats Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow.

Besides, the word "dinosaur" is ingrained into the public consciousness and would be extremely difficult to eradicate. Remember how difficult it was (and still is) to get people to stop using the term "Brontosaurus" when it wasn't appropriate? It would be even harder when taking a word like "dinosaur", which is even more popular.

Yes, Dinosaur is a valid classification, but it is a confusing one to explain since the general public thinks of Dinosaurs as the seventh major animal group instead of thinking of them as part of the current groups.  If you are looking at an owl, you could say you are looking at a dinosaur, not a bird.  I am not advocating that we drop the term mammal I just think it might be time to reorganize. Its just a thought to make things clearer. 

I agree the public (I love the name Dinosaur too) is slow at changing their understandings due to our long memories and social conscious.  You should see the looks my two year old get when she corrects tour groups at the zoo or museum when they say," hey look at the Buffalo", and my daughter shakes her head and say "no, Bison".

[tyrantqueen]

If you are looking at an owl, you could say you are looking at a dinosaur, not a bird.

I do that sometimes anyway, just to see the reaction I get from other people

[Balaur]

If you are looking at an owl, you could say you are looking at a dinosaur, not a bird.

I do that sometimes anyway, just to see the reaction I get from other people

Ha! Same here.

Dinosaur has been in the culture for so long, that it would nearly impossible to try and give them a new name. The name doesn't make since anymore surely, but there are plenty of names that don't make since (like Basilosaurus) and are widely used. I think that people are starting to get the idea that dinosaurs are not lizards (but for every fish in a barrel there is a rotten one right? No.) While it would be nice to give a new name that describes them better, I would find it impossible to do that. So, dinosaurs will be continued in use. I would like a new name, but I really think we can't convince the public to change words, and also I think that dinosaur creates a certain image in the mind, and even if the meaning doesn't make since, nothing as such a huge recognition than that word.

[Crackington]

Probably showing my age, but can't help thinking of John Cleese every time I hear Basilosaurus  !

[Gwangi]

If you are looking at an owl, you could say you are looking at a dinosaur, not a bird.

I do that sometimes anyway, just to see the reaction I get from other people

Ha! Same here.

Dinosaur has been in the culture for so long, that it would nearly impossible to try and give them a new name. The name doesn't make since anymore surely, but there are plenty of names that don't make since (like Basilosaurus) and are widely used. I think that people are starting to get the idea that dinosaurs are not lizards (but for every fish in a barrel there is a rotten one right? No.) While it would be nice to give a new name that describes them better, I would find it impossible to do that. So, dinosaurs will be continued in use. I would like a new name, but I really think we can't convince the public to change words, and also I think that dinosaur creates a certain image in the mind, and even if the meaning doesn't make since, nothing as such a huge recognition than that word.

I'm not sure why the name doesn't make sense anymore. Are you talking about as a level of classification or the meaning of the name itself? "Terrible lizards" is not really a bad name for the group. Granted, they aren't lizards but they are reptiles.

[HD-man]

EDIT: Never mind.