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