[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Thousands of dinosaur footprints found in Australia
Is it just me, or does everyone here groan when they see a message
that came from Reuter? (In passing I'll caution people again that
it's probably not a good idea to distribute copyrighted materials, but
since I'm not approving messages prior to distribution I think I'm
safe -- the risks you take are to yourself alone...)
In any case, since it's here:
> SYDNEY, Australia (Reuter) - Thousands of dinosaur
> footprints have been discovered on the remote northwest coast of
> Australia, revealing giant creatures up to 100 feet tall, a
> scientist said Tuesday.
Anybody want to lay odds that the "scientist" actually said 100 feet
*long* rather than "tall"?
> The footprints range in size from a few inches in length, left by
> plant-eating two-legged dinosaurs, to five foot seven inch
> footprints, created by a giant four-legged sauropod like a
> brontosaurus or stegosaurus.
Geez, I knew taxonomy was unstable, but how did I miss _Stegosaurus_'
move to Sauropoda? (I won't comment on "brontosaurus" or the
implication that the four-leggers didn't eat plants...).
> A 130-million-year-old stegosaurus footprint was stolen from the
> area in October 1996.
Someone else correct me please, but that date also seems a bit young
for _Stegosaurus_. It seems odd to me that the animals they mention
explicitly are Jurassic animals but all the times they mention are
Cretaceous. I do know of the stolen Stegosaur footprints, but I don't
remember their age.
Anybody have any ideas on what can be done to improve Reuter's
accuracy of reporting? I think just about every such report I've seen
on dinosaurs has had glaring errors; I presume that their inaccuracies
aren't limited to their coverage of paleontology...
Mickey Rowe (firstname.lastname@example.org)