Is it time for the term dinosaur to be retired?

[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.

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.

I'm talking about the meaning of the name. They aren't lizards, but it has a certain ring to it, so I'm comfortable with it, just the meaning is odd.

[Newt]

Neither the ancient Greeks nor the ancient Romans were thoughtful enough to invent a word for everyone's favorite Mesozoic beasts, so we've got to do the best we can. "Terrible lizards" is good enough for me. Even if "Freaky things sort of like crocodiles but more like birds" would be more accurate.

[Gwangi]

Neither the ancient Greeks nor the ancient Romans were thoughtful enough to invent a word for everyone's favorite Mesozoic beasts, so we've got to do the best we can. "Terrible lizards" is good enough for me. Even if "Freaky things sort of like crocodiles but more like birds" would be more accurate.

That's right, "terrible lizard" is not supposed to be a literal definition of what the dinosaurs were, just a descriptive term. And it works. The terrible part is really supposed to mean "fearfully great" and not terrible in a negative context. Again I stress that dinosaurs are reptiles and so comparing them to lizards is not completely inappropriate even if they were not proper lizards. Pterosaurs weren't lizards either, nor were icthyosaurs. And guess what, gorgonopsids were in no way related to actual Gorgons (you know, like Medusa?).

[HD-man]

When the term dinosaur was first uttered, no one thought that they might be ancestral to birds.

When linnaean taxonomy was 1st developed, no 1 thought that anything might be ancestral to anything else. Does that mean it's time for every classification term from b-4 cladistics to be retired?

The terrible part is really supposed to mean "fearfully great" and not terrible in a negative context. Again I stress that dinosaurs are reptiles and so comparing them to lizards is not completely inappropriate even if they were not proper lizards.

I always preferred "Fearfully Great Reptiles".

[SBell]

When the term dinosaur was first uttered, no one thought that they might be ancestral to birds.

When linnaean taxonomy was 1st developed, no 1 thought that anything might be ancestral to anything else. Does that mean it's time for every classification term from b-4 cladistics to be retired?

Agreed--common names can change all they want, but the clade is Dinosauria, and that won't change; just the positioning and relationships among and between taxa. It's like arguing that Reptilia technically includes birds, so we should retire the word 'bird'? No, because 'bird' means something, and moreover is a common name for a specific set of taxa within the large clade. If a discussion is about something more specific, then the more specific words will be used. If anything, the phrase non-avian dinosaur is a phrase to be retired, because it discusses an entire diverse clade except for one tiny branch--even though the included organisms are remarkably broad in morphology and time.

And I have to chip in here that pedantic or smug correcting of terms in front of others by calling birds 'dinosaurs' in general usage does no one any favours either--it makes dino-fans look like like know-it-alls, and causes people who otherwise don't really care to care even less (because who would want to risk being corrected yet again over such a thing?). It's worth teaching these thing to your own kids and those who listen to you, but IRL trolling is rarely productive.

We have a Birds of Prey rehab centre just outside of town where I live, and it would be ridiculous for them, or me as a visitor, to start referring to all of the raptors and owls as dinosaurs. It would make people sound silly. It doesn't mean they can't point out the relationship (they do) but they won't be changing the name to the dinosaurs-of-prey centre just to satisfy cladistic rigor.

[Dinoguy2]

My 2 cents... http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2013/03/who-cares-about-dinosaurs.html

[tyrantqueen]

And I have to chip in here that pedantic or smug correcting of terms in front of others by calling birds 'dinosaurs' in general usage does no one any favours either--it makes dino-fans look like like know-it-alls, and causes people who otherwise don't really care to care even less (because who would want to risk being corrected yet again over such a thing?). It's worth teaching these thing to your own kids and those who listen to you, but IRL trolling is rarely productive.

I don't do it in that sort of way, though. I only say it as a joke, and it's always with people who know me and my interest in palaeontology. I don't do it with random people off the street or whatever. I should have been more specific.

Here's an example:
Dad: "There's a magpie sitting on the bush outside"
Me: "A magpie...don't you mean a DINOSAUR?
Dad: "Yes..very funny"

My dad is interested in birds and general ornithology and natural history, so it's sort of an inside joke between us.

[SBell]

My 2 cents... http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2013/03/who-cares-about-dinosaurs.html

I mostly agree, although there is a cladistic definition of Dinosauria. But yes, it exists now as much as a marketing term.

Like dog. Cat. Goldfish. Snake. Cow...you know, everything familiar enough to warrant a common name as opposed to just the proper taxonomic term. They all have meanings, and their meanings may not line up with reality (a gold fish would be too heavy to swim!) but it is what it is.

[DinoToyForum]

My 2 cents... http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2013/03/who-cares-about-dinosaurs.html

I mostly agree, although there is a cladistic definition of Dinosauria. But yes, it exists now as much as a marketing term.

Like dog. Cat. Goldfish. Snake. Cow...you know, everything familiar enough to warrant a common name as opposed to just the proper taxonomic term. They all have meanings, and their meanings may not line up with reality (a gold fish would be too heavy to swim!) but it is what it is.

To avoid ambiguity I limit use of the word 'plesiosaur' in my papers. This is because different people use the word differently, sometimes to refer to Plesiosauria and sometimes to refer to Plesiosauroidea. Now, in papers, I use the words plesiosaurian and plesiosauroid to be explicit (or define my use of the word plesiosaur up front).

There's no Dinosauroidea superfamily, so there's no such ambiguity to avoid, but perhaps it would still make sense for dinosaur workers to use the word 'dinosaurian' to refer to the clade Dinosauria (including birds). That would leave the word 'dinosaur' for the traditional concept (excluding birds).

Just thinking aloud.

[SBell]

And I have to chip in here that pedantic or smug correcting of terms in front of others by calling birds 'dinosaurs' in general usage does no one any favours either--it makes dino-fans look like like know-it-alls, and causes people who otherwise don't really care to care even less (because who would want to risk being corrected yet again over such a thing?). It's worth teaching these thing to your own kids and those who listen to you, but IRL trolling is rarely productive.

I don't do it in that sort of way, though. I only say it as a joke, and it's always with people who know me and my interest in palaeontology. I don't do it with random people off the street or whatever. I should have been more specific.

Here's an example:
Dad: "There's a magpie sitting on the bush outside"
Me: "A magpie...don't you mean a DINOSAUR?
Dad: "Yes..very funny"

My dad is interested in birds and general ornithology and natural history, so it's sort of an inside joke between us.

Technically, it's still a magpie anyway--he's jsut being more specific about what kind of dinosaur

[Newt]

If we had to give up on all common names for paraphyletic groups of organisms, we'd have to go with...

lizards non-serpentean squamates

turtles non-testudinid chelonians

fish non-tetrapodan craniates

monkeys non-hominoid simiiforms

wasps non-formicid and non-anthophilan apocritans

moths non-papilionoid lepidopterans

cockroaches non-isopteran and non-mantodean dictyopterans

et cetera, ad nauseam.

[SBell]

If we had to give up on all common names for paraphyletic groups of organisms, we'd have to go with...

lizards non-serpentean squamates

turtles non-testudinid chelonians

fish non-tetrapodan craniates

monkeys non-hominoid simiiforms

wasps non-formicid and non-anthophilan apocritans

moths non-papilionoid lepidopterans

cockroaches non-isopteran and non-mantodean dictyopterans

et cetera, ad nauseam.

I'm going to start talking like that! 

[Dinoguy2]

If we had to give up on all common names for paraphyletic groups of organisms, we'd have to go with...

lizards non-serpentean squamates

turtles non-testudinid chelonians

fish non-tetrapodan craniates

monkeys non-hominoid simiiforms

wasps non-formicid and non-anthophilan apocritans

moths non-papilionoid lepidopterans

cockroaches non-isopteran and non-mantodean dictyopterans

et cetera, ad nauseam.

The point is these are common names not scientific. Dinosaur, mammal, etc. are scientific names first so it's ambiguous.

Another problem: writing things like dinosaur, tyrannosaur, etc. technically are short versions of genus names. Tyrannosaur means a Tyrannosaurus, otherwise you'd say tyrannosaurid, tyrannosauroid, etc. it really should be dinosaurian to make clear you're not talking about the genus Dinosaurus

[DinoToyForum]

If we had to give up on all common names for paraphyletic groups of organisms, we'd have to go with...

lizards non-serpentean squamates

turtles non-testudinid chelonians

fish non-tetrapodan craniates

monkeys non-hominoid simiiforms

wasps non-formicid and non-anthophilan apocritans

moths non-papilionoid lepidopterans

cockroaches non-isopteran and non-mantodean dictyopterans

et cetera, ad nauseam.

The point is these are common names not scientific. Dinosaur, mammal, etc. are scientific names first so it's ambiguous.

Another problem: writing things like dinosaur, tyrannosaur, etc. technically are short versions of genus names. Tyrannosaur means a Tyrannosaurus, otherwise you'd say tyrannosaurid, tyrannosauroid, etc. it really should be dinosaurian to make clear you're not talking about the genus Dinosaurus

Yep, this is what I suggested above too, I think it is a good solution. It's an approach I've applied to my own field of research - plesiosaurians (for different reasons).

Dinosaur workers are lucky there are no such taxa as Dinosauroidea, Dinosauridae, or Dinosaurus!

[Newt]

The point is these are common names not scientific. Dinosaur, mammal, etc. are scientific names first so it's ambiguous.

Many of the groups I listed were, until recently, recognized with a scientific name. The point I was trying to make is that we still find it useful- even in scientific discourse- to recognize these groups even though they are non-monophyletic, and at the moment, "dinosaur" is the common name of choice for the non-monophyletic group "Dinosauria exclusive of Aves".

I am in complete agreement with Dr. Admin's and your suggestions for more precise formation of adjectives/substantives from taxon names. The trouble will be getting folks to use the terms consistently. See "carnivore" vs. "carnivoran" for members of Carnivora.

[Libraraptor]

Interesting discussion here, but I won´t join in. Firstly because everything important has already been said, secondly because my short answer to the thread question is "NO".

[tyrantqueen]

Interesting discussion here, but I won´t join in. Firstly because everything important has already been said, secondly because my short answer to the thread question is "NO".

This

[stargatedalek]

the term may be dated and confusing in a scientific context, but in a more general context it serves its purpose

[Concavenator]

I think it should be retired.You can't call dinosaur a dromeosaur because they weren't lizards (they were birds) and they weren't terrible.I wouldn't name a tyrannosaur,troodontid,etc a lozard either because they had feathers.How can it be a lizard?No way!
Also,there are a lot of dinosaurs that need a new name.Speaking of maniraptors,Dromaeosaurus.It should be Dromaeornis,and Tyrannosaurus,for example,Tyrannornis.

[SBell]

I think it should be retired.You can't call dinosaur a dromeosaur because they weren't lizards (they were birds) and they weren't terrible.I wouldn't name a tyrannosaur,troodontid,etc a lozard either because they had feathers.How can it be a lizard?No way!
Also,there are a lot of dinosaurs that need a new name.Speaking of maniraptors,Dromaeosaurus.It should be Dromaeornis,and Tyrannosaurus,for example,Tyrannornis.

Wow. This thread is almost a year and a half old since its last post...

Taxonomically, names don't change just because systematics do. It would get very hard to keep track of things (synonymies make it hard enough). So no one is giving them new names just to suit pedants.