Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Heidi Henderson | September 9th 2008 01:04 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Fossil Huntress articles

All

About Heidi Henderson

Chair of the Vancouver Paleontological Society. Co-author of In Search of Ancient BC, Volume I, Heartland Publishing.
... Full Bio

We can thank Mr. Spielberg and popular culture for the fact that most people think of dinosaurs when they think of fossils. The bone record is actually far less abundant that the plant record. While calcium rich bones and teeth fossilize well, they often do not get laid down in a situation that makes this possible.



If you visit fossil sites from the Pacific Northwest today, particularly the Eocene sites along Chuckanut Drive, take a boo and ponder the abundance of plants and lack of visible animal life.

They are far fewer animals than plants and consequently far fewer animals in the fossil record. It is the reverse at some sites, i.e. the Gobi desert and Alberta, but in the Chuckanut, this is the way it plays out.

In Alberta, most of what we find are small bone fragments from vertebrates. This colors our notions of what the world must have looked like. It shows us only one small piece of the puzzle as to what life must have been like in an area when part of the fossil record is missing.

So, Jurassic Park it is not. Less sexy but perhaps a better tale.



Comments

The cheaters way to marketing a blog is to include someone's name who is recognizable. You're not a smart as you think you are.

Hank's picture
I agree when people think of dinosaurs they think of Jurassic Park - and that's Spielberg. So who would you have used as an example of pop culturing bad science?

By making a reference to him, the author, who does not appear to have the credentials of a paleontologist, moves on to make further generalizations and is actually presenting their own version of 'bad science.' Overall, the piece is poorly written, lacks references to documented findings, and employs the royal use of "We." Instead of needing to trash the approach presented by this filmaker, the same approach used in chidren's books and by science centres, why doesn't this author recognize the value of presenting dinosaurs as a portal for introducing people to the wonders of paleontology? There is no need to even reference the filmaker, except to simply build hits, or because the author is simply that uniformed.

We would like to add some more valuable information regarding Jeholosaurus dinosaurs fossil, which was the worlds' largest dinosaur discovered in 2006

Does "Anonymous" then object to

Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics?

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.