History Trivia / TheNewDinosaursAnAlternativeEvolution

** Many dinosaurs and pterosaurs are depicted as nearly one-to-one {{Fantastic Fauna Counterpart}}s of modern birds and mammals, but many later studies indicate that they were very different ecologically. In particular, it's now known many non-avian dinosaur and pterosaur species occupied different niches as they aged, changing their diet and habitat as they grew up. Hence why most pterosaur and dinosaur species were enormous by the end of the Cretaceous and there were very few small ones: there's not much need for small or medium-sized species if the huge species could occupy those niches as juveniles and adolescents.

** Relating to this, the Gourmand is presented as an exclusive scavenger, which was part of a hypothesis at the time that carnosaurs (which, as stated above, included tyrannosaurs at the time) were simply growing bigger, slower, and bulkier. The Gourmand was presented as the ultimate culmination of this, a fifteen-ton, cumbersome, armoured scavenger. This idea has not been taken seriously for a long time now, for multiple reasons (aside from the aforementioned fact tyrannosaurs are not carnosaurs, it's since been concluded tyrannosaurs were certainly active hunters, they were actually built for speed, and the unlikelihood of such a huge and slow animal somehow subsisting entirely off of bodies lying around).

* UnintentionalPeriodPiece: See under ScienceMarchesOn. Special mention, however, goes to the Gourmand, which is a tyrannosaur that is a specialized scavenger. This firmly dates the book's publication to the late 1980s or early 1990s, when the "Was ''T. rex'' a predator or a scavenger?" debate was a big deal in pop culture, and was inevitably brought up in discussions of the animal.

** Inversely, the two titanosaur species from the Ethiopian realm, stated to have changed little from their Jurassic and Cretaceous ancestors, are depicted with nostrils on their foreheads. Starting in the early 2000s, [[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-reveals-dinosaur/ newer]] [[https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/08/19/3166796.html research]] has indicated it's much more likely sauropods had nostrils near the end of the snout, like most land vertebrates.

** During the introduction on flying animals, it's mentioned the largest pterosaurs "must have fed on carrion". This was a common hypothesis at the time for ''Quetzalcoatlus'' and other azhdarchids, but closer anatomical studies starting in the 1990s showed they were poorly suited for scavenging. By the late 2000s, the prevailing view is that they were most likely land stalking predators like huge herons or storks.

*** The concept of the "saurornithoid" Jinx hunting by disguising itself as the "hypsilophodont" Coneater, aside from relying on superficial similarities between the two groups being exaggerated (the forelimb and skull anatomy of the Jinx in particular being fudged in order to make it work) wouldn't make sense at with the current knowledge that "saurornithoid" dinosaurs (read: troodontids) were as fully feathered as birds, including having wings (some may have even been able to fly).

** The Ethiopian realm (Africa) is said to still retain much of the wildlife it's had since since the time of ancient Gondwana, due to its isolation. However, this is not true of Africa in our timeline, where much of the current native life is descended from species that immigrated from Asia and Europe, with most of its earlier fauna wiped out. Much of the reason why Africa retains its diversity of megafauna is more due to related megafauna dying out everywhere else before the present day rather than Africa having any faunal uniqueness.

*** Other errors include the inclusion of "fabrosaurs" at the base of the ornithischian tree (a group now considered obsolete), the ceratosaurs as a short-lived group that became extinct in the Jurassic (ceratosaurs are now known to include the abelisaurs, meaning they survived, and were very successful, up until the very end of the Cretaceous), therizinosaurs being considered carnosaurs (like tyrannosaurs, they are now considered giant coelurosaurs), heterodontosaurs dying out in the Triassic (they're now known to have survived into the Early Cretaceous), triconodonts and symmetrodonts dying out at the end of the Jurassic (both groups are now known to have survived until the end of the Cretaceous, on top of the traditional symmetrodont group considered polyphyletic nowadays), placental mammals and marsupials diverging in the Cretaceous (newer fossil and genetic studies indicate they split during the Early to Mid Jurassic) and "camptosaurs" being a distinct branch (Camptosauridae still only contains one genus, ''Camptosaurus'', and is now considered a subgroup of iguanodonts).

*** The complete absence of abelisaurs, which are not mentioned even once despite being widespread during the Late Cretaceous, can be chalked up to the fact they were only just discovered and named at the time the book was being published. Hence why only tyrannosaurs and "megalosaurs" among large predatory dinosaurs are shown to have survived to the present day (ironically in the places where abelisaurs were known dominate).

** Related to this, the only South American animals explicitly mentioned to come from its old stock rather than recent northern immigrants are the titanosaurs (with the Turtosaur in particular clearly based on ''Saltasaurus''). This is likely due to the fact that South American paleontology was still in its infancy (with the aforementioned ''Saltasaurus'' being an early exception), only becoming famous fossil bonebeds in the 1990s.

** The pterosaurs are often far too bird-like, standing bipedally on long digitigrade legs and capable of grabbing things with their feet. They also have many other errors, such as mammal-like heterodont dentition (completely unknown in pterosaurs, not even counting the fact there are no toothed pterosaurs known from near the end of the Late Cretaceous), incorrect wing anatomy (membrane is too thin and no pteroid bones) and aren't referred to any specific group, which may be just as well, since they don't resemble species from any known pterosaur groups. Ironically, the Lank, which was one of the most criticized designs of the book back when it was released, is actually the most accurate one.

** On many of the entries, it's stated how this species has changed very little from its Mesozoic ancestor (such as the Numbskull, the Rajaphant, the Monocorn, the Coneater, and numerous others). This can probably be ascribed due to the fact that dinosaur evolutionary trends back in the 1980s were poorly understood (as seen with numerous more specific examples already noted here), so the book went for a very conservative view of their future development.

** The description of dinosaur evolution is extremely out of date, as it states that the distinct archosaur lineages evolved from aquatic "thecodonts" (a group now considered a wasketbasket taxon and therefore useless for biological classification) and even implies that dinosaurs are not monophyletic, as it states ornithischians evolved from different thecodont ancestors than saurischians.

** A large number of modern dinosaurs are said to be descended from "coelurosaurs" or "hypsilophodonts", but as far as it is known, generic primitive coelurosaurs didn't exist in the Late Cretaceous (with the possible exception of the strange South American ''Bicentenaria''), and Hypsilophodontidae is now generally considered paraphyletic. This is similar to Dixon's use of "insectivores" in ''Literature/AfterMan''.

*** Other errors include the inclusion of "fabrosaurs" at the base of the ornithischian tree (a group now considered obsolete), the ceratosaurs as a short-lived group that became extinct in the Jurassic (ceratosaurs are now known to include the abelisaurs, meaning they survived, and were very successful, up until the very end of the Cretaceous), therizinosaurs being considered carnosaurs (like tyrannosaurs, they are now considered giant coelurosaurs), heterodontosaurs dying out in the Triassic (they're now known to have survived into the Early Cretaceous), triconodonts and symmetrodonts dying out at the end of the Jurassic (both groups are now known to have survived until the end of the Cretaceous, on top of the traditional symmetrodont group considered polyphyletic nowadays), and "camptosaurs" being a distinct branch (Camptosauridae still only contains one genus, ''Camptosaurus'', and is now considered a subgroup of iguanodonts).
** Iguanodonts are presented a group that is separate from hadrosaurs and it's stated that hadrosaurs replaced iguanodonts in most parts of the world. The traditional iguanodont grouping is now thought of as paraphyletic; the hadrosaurs didn't ''replace'' iguanodonts, the iguanodonts evolved ''into'' hadrosaurs.

** It's stated that there is no record of tree-living dinosaurs from the Mesozoic, and all the arboreal dinosaurs featured in the book are recently evolved. From exceptional fossil formations in China, we now know many species of bird-like dinosaur that likely lived in trees, as well as [[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/abs/new-heterodontosaurid-remains-from-the-canadon-asfalto-formation-cursoriality-and-the-functional-importance-of-the-pes-in-small-heterodontosaurids/7E5BA9BACC6FD50F167845272C05391D anatomical evidence]] to suggest heterodontosaurs were also capable of tree-climbing.

** The zwim is a shrew-like mammal with a paddle tail, highlighting how mammals remained tiny rodent-like critters in an alternate world where dinosaurs had lived. However, mammal fossils from the Mesozoic showed a surprising lot of diversity: there were tree-climbing squirrel-like forms, some of which could glide, some were aquatic otter-like species, or hoofed ones resembling a mouse deer, or burrowing gopher like forms. One, called ''Repenomamus'', was a badger-like predator that ate small dinosaurs.
** The Gourmand, as a tyrannosaur, is described as being a gigantic carnosaur. At the time, Carnosauria was a wastebasket taxon where theropods were dumped based on large size alone, but it has subsequently been found that carnivorous theropods repeatedly reached large sizes independently and many supposed "carnosaurs" weren't really related. Carnosauria is now a much more inclusive group that excludes tyrannosaurs, which are now considered coelurosaurs.

** In the Neotropical section, it's noted how hadrosaurs never reached South America, allowing sauropods to continue dominating. It has since become known that hadrosaurs had already dispersed into South America before the end of the Cretaceous (never mind that sauropod and hadrosaur coexistence was already known from other continents), in genera such as ''Secernosaurus'' and ''Bonapartesaurus''.

** The Ethiopian realm (Africa) is said to still retain much of the wildlife it's had since since the time of ancient Gondwana. However, this is not true of Africa in our timeline, where much of the current native life is descended from species that immigrated from Asia and Europe, with most of its earlier fauna wiped out.

** A few times it's suggested that dinosaurs lack the intelligence had by mammals in our timeline; in the afterword, Dixon suggests that if intelligence were to develop among dinosaurs, it would only be savage cunning, rather than any sophisticated learning capabilities. Overall, the book's narrative is presented during the awkward period of pop culture palaeontology where the image of tail-dragging, PrehistoricMonster DumbDinos still persisted, and that of agile, warm-blooded animals presented by the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_renaissance dinosaur renaissance]] were only just starting to replace it.

* ScienceMarchesOn: Even at the time, some of the depictions of dinosaurs were sketchy at best, but nowadays many of them are completely outdated. To wit:

*** Other errors include the inclusion of "fabrosaurs" at the base of the ornithischian tree (a group now considered obsolete), the ceratosaurs as a short-lived group that became extinct in the Jurassic (ceratosaurs are now known to include the abelisaurs, meaning they survived, and were very successful, up until the very end of the Cretaceous), therizinosaurs being considered carnosaurs (like tyrannosaurs, they are now considered giant coelurosaurs), heterodontosaurs dying out in the Triassic (they're now known to have survived into the Early Cretaceous), and "camptosaurs" being a distinct branch (Camptosauridae still only contains one genus, ''Camptosaurus'', and is now considered a subgroup of iguanodonts).

** It's stated that there is no record of tree-living dinosaurs from the Mesozoic, and all the arboreal dinosaurs featured in the book are recently evolved. From exceptional fossil formations in China, we now know many species of bird-like dinosaur that likely lived in trees, as well as anatomical evidence to suggest heterodontosaurs were also capable of tree-climbing.

** A few times, the lack of a collarbone (or clavicle) in theropods is noted, with the arbosaurs stated to have re-evolved it for their brachiating movement. Later finds starting in the 1990s indicate a collarbone is present and widespread among theropod groups.

** Multiple concepts are shown that actually would make sense if derived from a different ancestor. The tree-climbing hornbill-like Crackbeak is described as a hypsilophodont, despite very closely resembling an oviraptorosaur, the Cutlasstooth is described as a giant "primitive coelurosaur" even though it more likely should have been a tyrannosaur descendant, and most notably, the armless, scavenging Gourmand would make far more sense had it been an abelisaur, which indeed did live in South America and had fully vestigal arms.

** The Ethiopian realm (Africa) is said to still retain much of the wildlife it's had since since the time of ancient Gondwana. However, this is not true of Africa in our timeline, where much of the current native life is descended from species that immigrated from Asia and Europe.

** In the introduction, where the cause of dinosaur mass extinction is examined, multiple ideas are given, with asteroid impact among them. Dixon questions that, if an asteroid was indeed the cause of this extinction event, where would the crater be? The location of the impactor in question was documented and confirmed in the 1990s (actually, it was discovered in the 1970s, but wasn't confirmed as an impact crater until then); it's now known as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater Chicxulub crater]]. An asteroid impact is now widely considered the primary reason for the end-Cretaceous extinction event.

** Relating to this, the Gourmand is presented as an exclusive scavenger, which was part of a hypothesis at the time that carnosaurs (which, as stated above, included tyrannosaurs at the time) were simply growing bigger, slower, and bulkier. The Gourmand was presented as the ultimate culmination of this, a fifteen-ton, cumbersome, armoured scavenger. This idea has not been taken seriously for a long time now, for multiple reasons (aside from the aforementioned fact tyrannosaurs are not carnosaurs, it's since been concluded tyrannosaurs were certainly active hunters, they were actually built for speed, and the unlikelihood of such a huge and slow animal subsisting entirely off of bodies lying around).

** Under the cladogram, it's stated that titanosaurs managed to survive over other sauropod groups because they were the most lightly-built sauropods. This couldn't be any more inaccurate, since titanosaurs included most massive land animals to ever live, and had extremely wide and heavy builds among sauropods. The cladogram itself places them as being related to diplodocids (which actually were slenderly built), but we now consider titanosaurs related to brachiosaurs.

** Many dinosaurs are illustrated in upright stances or have their tails dragging on the ground. The Balaclav and the Pangaloon are heavy offenders.

** On the bright side, it was one of the first media to depict dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary structures (because at the time adding covering to dinosaurs was highly controversial, but being speculative, this book didn't need to worry about such things). Unfortunately, [[MostWritersAreHuman Dixon calls it fur]].[[labelnote:note]]though to be fair, many non-theropod dinosaurs have been known to possess coats of simple, unbranched filaments, which, superficially, would be near-identical to mammalian hair or fur (as opposed to most coelurusaurian theropods which possess down-like branched integuement or maniraptorans, including modern birds, which possesed vaned feathers with central shafts.)[[/labelnote]]

** Oddly enough, some of the concepts originally thought to be implausible or ridiculous at the time of the book's publication have been partially supported by later paleontological finds- including long-legged running pterosaurs, insularly dwarfed dinosaurs, and even brightly-coloured tree-climbing theropods. See AccidentallyCorrectZoology for more detail.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged almost as badly as the book itself. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods, notably one of the few herbivorous ones), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters (azdarchids were predators of small dinosaurs and tapejarids were omnivorous fruit-eaters), and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed (prior, of course, to the discovery that ''Spinosaurus'' was aquatic, and before the discovery of ''Halszkaraptor'')[[labelnote:note]]and of course, counting ''avian'' dinosaurs, there are ducks.[[/labelnote]]. He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged almost as badly as the book itself. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods, notably one of the few herbivorous ones), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters (azdarchids were predators of small dinosaurs and tapejarids were omnivorous fruit-eaters), and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed (prior, of course, to the discovery that ''Spinosaurus'' was aquatic, and before the discovery of ''Halszkaraptor''). He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged almost as badly as the book itself. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods, notably one of the few herbivorous ones), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters (azdarchids were predators of small dinosaurs and tapejarids were omnivorous fruit-eaters), and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed (prior, of course, to the discovery that ''Spinosaurus'' was aquatic). He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged almost as badly as the book itself. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods, notably the only herbivorous ones), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters (azdarchids were predators of small dinosaurs and tapejarids were omnivorous fruit-eaters), and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed (prior, of course, to the discovery that ''Spinosaurus'' was aquatic). He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged almost as badly as the book itself. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters, and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed. He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged equally poorly. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters, and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed. He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

* Ironically, [[http://www.gspauldino.com/Tertiary.pdf this criticism of the book]]-- written by paleontologist Greg Paul, no less-- has aged equally poorly. Despite taking Dixon to task for many of the book's mistakes, Paul says a number of things that are now known to be inaccurate. He says that therizinosaurs were related to sauropods (they were actually theropods), that all pterosaurs were fish- or insect-eaters, and that no burrowing or aquatic dinosaurs existed. He even singles out the Lank as "the worst beast in the book", despite it being arguably the ''most'' realistic of Dixon's flightless pterosaurs.

** Long-necked, long-legged running pterosaurs like the Lank became reality once better remains of azhdarchids were discovered. They were, however, still carnivores as opposed to the herbivorous Lank, as pterosaurs lacked any means of grinding vegetation and likely had simple digestive tracts, with all known pterosaurs being carnivorous (though some of the tapejarids may have on occasion suppelemented their diet with fruit.)

* ScienceMarchesOn:
** Even at the time, some of the depictions of dinosaurs were sketchy at best, but nowadays many of them are completely outdated.

** Oddly enough, some of the concepts originally thought to be implausible or ridiculous at the time of the book's publication have been partially supported by later paleontological finds- including long-legged running pterosaurs, insularly dwarfed dinosaurs, and even brightly-coloured tree-climbing theropods. See AccidentallyCorrectZoology for more detail.

** Long-necked, long-legged running pterosaurs like the Lank became reality once better remains of azhdarchids were discovered.

** On the bright side, it was one of the first media to depict dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary structures (because at the time adding covering to dinosaurs was highly controversial, but being speculative, this book didn't need to worry about such things). Unfortunately, [[MostWritersAreHuman Dixon calls it fur]].[[labelnote]]:though to be fair, many non-theropod dinosaurs have been known to possess coats of simple, unbranched filaments, which, superficially, would be near-identical to mammalian hair or fur (as opposed to most coelurusaurian theropods which possess down-like branched integuement or maniraptorans, including modern birds, which possesed vaned feathers with central shafts.)[[/labelnote]]

** On the bright side, it was one of the first media to depict dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary structures (because at the time adding covering to dinosaurs was highly controversial, but being speculative, this book didn't need to worry about such things). Unfortunately, [[MostWritersAreHuman Dixon calls it fur]].[[labelnote:though to be fair, many non-theropod dinosaurs have been known to possess coats of simple, unbranched filaments, which, superficially, would be near-identical to mammalian hair or fur (as opposed to most coelurusaurian theropods which possess down-like branched integuement or maniraptorans, including modern birds, which possesed vaned feathers with central shafts.)[[/labelnote]]

** On the bright side, it was one of the first media to depict dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary structures (because at the time adding covering to dinosaurs was highly controversial, but being speculative, this book didn't need to worry about such things). Unfortunately, [[MostWritersAreHuman Dixon calls it fur]].[[labelnote: though to be fair, many non-theropod dinosaurs have been known to possess coats of simple, unbranched filaments, which, superficially, would be near-identical to mammalian hair or fur (as opposed to most coelurusaurian theropods which possess down-like branched integuement or maniraptorans, including modern birds, which possesed vaned feathers with contral shafts.)[[/labelnote]]

** On the bright side, it was one of the first media to depict dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary structures (because at the time adding covering to dinosaurs was highly controversial, but being speculative, this book didn't need to worry about such things). Unfortunately, [[MostWritersAreHuman Dixon calls it fur]].

** Dwarf island dinosaurs were discovered in the form of Hațeg Island dinosaurs and ''Europasaurus''.

** The pterosaurs are often far too bird-like, standing bipedally on long digitigrade legs and capable of grabbing things with their feet. They also have many other errors, such as mammal-like heterodont dentition (completely unknown in pterosaurs, not even counting the fact there are no toothed pterosaurs known from near the end of the Late Cretaceous), incorrect wing anatomy (membrane is too thin and no pteroid bones) and aren't referred to any specific group, which may be just as well, since they don't resemble species from any known pterosaur groups.