06:02:37 AM Jun 10th 2014
11:36:06 AM Sep 28th 2013
edited by 18.104.22.168
edited by 22.214.171.124
"Anytime T. rex is spelled "T-rex" or some variation thereof (even "T. Rex" is unacceptable)." Oh, come now. This is like complaining that someone calls a dog a "dog" instead of C. lupus familiaris. Animals have binomial zoological names, and they have common, everyday names. If paleontologists are crying because someone uses the common name "T-rex" rather than the zoological name Tyrannosaurus rex, then they need to suck it up. Even the pronunciation (TEE-rex, with emphasis on the T.) shows that we're not attempting to say the Latin name.
12:19:45 PM Sep 28th 2013
edited by 126.96.36.199
edited by 188.8.131.52
Except "T-rex" is grammatically incorrect, Chalkie. "T-rex" is incorrect grammar, T.rex is correct grammar. Specific names always are *genus*.*species*, not *genus*-*species*. Informally it may be known as "T-rex", but scientific usage is more important then informal usage here, and there T.rex is the clear winner. And we don't cry because they use "T-rex" instead of Tyrannosaurus, we cry since it's grammatically incorrect to call it "T-rex" or any variation thereof. The _only_ grammatically correct nickname for the genus is T.rex.
10:15:17 PM Nov 14th 2012
I've seen (I can't remember if it was on a work's page or on this page) it said that a 'naked' tyrannosaurus was a case of this trope, despite the fact that A) we don't know if they had feathers or not B) We know they had scales on at least part of their bodies C) From what I've been able to research, its looking unlikely that Tyrannosaurus itself had feathers, at least in its adult stage. So how would that be an example of this trope.
02:23:58 AM Dec 30th 2012
Though whether or not it's concrete enough to peg a naked tyrannosaurid under this trope is arguably debatable, it's actually looking more likely even adult tyrannosaurids had feathers thanks to the publication of Yutyrannus. (See also paleontologist comments on this find here and here.) In most instances though Science Marches On may be more appropriate.
02:03:36 PM Feb 5th 2013
But we know that T.rex didn't have feathers in the areas Yutyrannus did. So while it could have still had feathers, it probably wouldn't be as feathered.
04:39:42 PM Mar 25th 2013
It wouldn't surprise me if that were true. (Though I don't think it's necessarily safe◊ to say that even known scaly areas in tyrannosaurids were featherless.) Either way, my point was that a feathered Tyrannosaurus is not unlikely, but we simply don't know enough about tyrannosaurid integument to confidently evaluate how accurate most depictions are in that respect.
02:29:57 PM May 14th 2012
Drinking game, anyone? Could combine this with raptor attack and pterosoarer as well into one prehistoric megafauna drinking game. Anybody wish to continue?
07:44:28 AM Oct 29th 2011
"Please don't list this on a work's page as a trope. " And why not?
06:07:07 PM Aug 30th 2011
Would a work be this trope if it was from a Creationist point of view? it wouldn't be a lack of research.
09:24:28 PM Aug 30th 2011
Frankly, creationism in general is in itself a Did Not Do The Research.
12:25:48 PM Aug 31st 2011
Not really, its simply not accepting what the scientists tell them. A tad Naive, i'll grant, but frankly, if you throw God into the equation, nothing is for certain.
06:58:12 PM Aug 31st 2011
I'm more referring to their supposed arguments against evolution, all of which tend to be horribly misinformed, outdated, or simply wrong.
02:58:46 PM Feb 14th 2011
Cut this bit: "(Also, lava is really more of a Cretaceous thing.)" ....WHAT?!
09:40:45 PM Jul 19th 2010
The correct spelling should be paleontologist, not palaeontologist. I don't know the process to fix the page link, so I'll leave that to someone better acquainted with tvtropes.
01:52:11 PM Oct 20th 2010
Palaeontology is the British spelling, I'm British and if I am not mistaken I was the person who suggested the name for this trope back when it was a YKTTW. At least I think I was, it was either me or another Brit. Anyway someone made the suggestion with the British spelling and it just stuck.
05:06:09 PM Jun 13th 2010
Wait a minute - dinosaurs and humans "never" co-existed? What about the compythysaurus spotted in Italy in the 14th century? What about the pteranodons who the Egyptians had to drive away from their spice crops? What about the triceratops killed by knights in medieval France? What about the pleiosaur spotted by a hundred witnesses aboard a naval vessel off the coast of Japan during World War II??? Even Charles Darwin would agree that humans existed by those times.
07:53:22 PM Jun 13th 2010
Lies and misinformation. None of the sources are reputable nor do the claims constitute evidence. It's creationist BS. In other words, THIS TROPE.
10:42:21 PM Aug 29th 2010
That does nothing to refute the claim. Your counter argument is essentially fingers-in-ears. Basically the old fall back of "It's only evidence if it agrees with what I believe." Two websites, Godsaidmansaid.com and answersingenesis.org, offer scientific explanations and cite sources of evidence. Though most will treat their creationist position as grounds for dismissal rather than try to find a valid reason.
03:05:38 PM Feb 14th 2011
05:46:12 PM Feb 14th 2011
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
Man, the things I miss... Okay. "Compythysaurus" isn't even a proper dinosaur name. It probably refers to Compsognathus. The lizard like animal described does not match what we know about such theropods anyway. Science Marches On plays hell on Creationist Dogma and lies. Pteranodon in Egypt? Triceratops in France? Plesiosaurs in the Pacific? Misplaced Wildlife to the extreme. Further, Pteranodon was a sea going fish eater, it'd have little to no interest in spices. Triceratops are herd animals, so a knight finding one alone (let alone killing it dragon-style) is ridiculous beyond words. Plesiosaur "sightings" play up their swan like necks, something their musculuature could not support nor could their vertebra allow them to move that fluidly. Appeals to authority are just that and thus easily ignored as non-evidence. Kendai, projection is an ugly thing. Creationism has never published anything of value. No scientific journals, no discoveries, not break throughs, no peer review. Any idiot can make a website. It's failed in the scientific literature, it's failed in courts mutliple times due to a blatant re-naming campaign ("Creationism" replaced with "Intelligent Design" in Of Pandas and People, the Creationist and Intelligent Design textbook). I can clearly call creationists lying because they've been convicted of it. Multiple times. You want Creatsionism to be taken seriously as a science? Pointed to something published in a peer reviewed journal, or some medidical or scientific break through that uses creation theory to make human lives better in an objective physical way? Furbearingbrick gave some good links. I'd throw in Creationtheory.org, which breaks down all the common arguments and has example debates...er...dismantelings of creation theory in action.
02:03:50 PM Aug 11th 2011
If some dinosaurs somehow persisted into modern times, it still wouldn't confirm Creationism (any more than living cœlacanths confirm Creationism). All that would mean is that it's hard to judge the date of extinction due to the haphazard process of fossilization, which we already know.