[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Sarcosuchus

At 5:58 AM -0400 10/26/01, chris brochu 


"croc" could be an abbreviation for "crocodile," "crocodylian/crocodilian"
(since these terms sound identical when spoken, they should be regarded as
the same), "crocodyliform," "crocodylomorph," "Crocodylus," or anything
else beginning with "croc".

And I DO blame the news media, because I know for a fact that many of us
tried to explain patiently to some of these groups that Sarcosuchus is not
a crocodylian/crocodilian, but a very close relative of them (something
called a "crocodyliform.")  They decided that the public would simply never
get it - something I also know for a fact is bunk.


Having seen and reacted to the press release from Science, I think the blame starts with whoever wrote the Science release. The headline boldly proclaims

"**SUPER-CROCODILE OUT OF AFRICA"

and when I scanned the paragraph describing the paper, nothing explicitly warned that Sarcosuchus was not a true crocodile. You have to look carefully to find the qualifier "crocodile-like reptile", and I'm sure I was not the only one who missed it on the first pass. The release also contains another phrase that is misleading: "Unlike its exclusively fish-eating crocodilian cousins, Sarcosuchus..." Modern crocodiles are not exclusive fish eaters, so I don't know what that was supposed to mean.

Science also put out a more detailed press release which quoted Sereno as saying: "This new material gives us a good look at hyper giant crocodiles--there's been rampant speculation about what they looked like and where they fit in the croc family tree, but no one had enough of the skull and skeleton to really nail any the of true croc giants down until now," says Sereno. The releases uses "crocodile-like reptile" once, but "crocodilian" several times. My scientific dictionary defines Crocodilia as "an order of the class reptilia which is composed of large, voracious aquatic species, including the alligators, caimans, crocodiles, and gavials," so it sounds just like a variant form for the broad family called crocodiles.

Unfortunately, reporters can be thrown as easily as general readers by a bad headline. If the press release heralds a "super crocodile," the reporter draws the reasonable conclusion that it was indeed a crocodile. Nothing in the release stresses that it was not a true crocodile, but an ancient relative. Usually scientists will point out mistakes in the press release when you interview them. However, some reporters don't interview the scientists (either from lack of time of because the scientists are inaccessible), and some scientists have never seen the press release to know the errors exist.

The terminology also doesn't help. My scientific dictionary and Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology (my standard reference for general vertebrate paleontology) don't list "crocodyliform," or "crocodylomorph." I did find "crocodylomorph" in the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs but not "crocodyliform." Paleontologists can't expect reporters to know their technical terminology, and if subtle distinctions are important, they should point them out not just in the paper, but in their institutional press releases and in interviews.

New Scientist didn't cover this story, but if I had I would have made exactly the same error unless one of the scientists I talked with had pointed out the misleading statement. My point for the paleontologists here is to take care when issuing press releases as well as when talking to reporters. I've seen press releases containing much more serious errors than this. -- Jeff Hecht
--
Jeff Hecht science & technology writer
525 Auburn St. Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
V 617-965-3834 f 617-332-4760
jhecht@world.std.com or jeff.hecht@sff.net
http://www.sff.net/people/jeff.hecht
For fiber optics: http://www.fiberhome.com
Correspondent, New Scientist magazine
Contributing editor, Laser Focus World