I know it must seem like I get a real kick out of spotting other’s taxonomic mistakes and pointing them out here, but really I’d be a much happier man if it wasn’t necessary. All it would take would be for journalists to double check their terms before going to press, or to make sure they got their pieces proof read by someone familiar with the subject. It’s the BBC’s turn again this time, and in the midst of what is, otherwise, an excellent piece about recent pioneering work on determining the colour of dinosaur feathers, by using an electron microscope to examine the shape and structure of fossilised melanosomes. There’s nothing at all wrong with most of the article. In fact, go and read it now; I’ll wait.
See? It’s all very interesting; well researched, and well written, and it avoids the two most grating errors science pieces in the mainstream media usually make; making it sound like this has overturned everything we’ve previously thought about the subject, and giving ‘equal time’ to some wacko who disagrees with the research. So, yes, it’s a great piece. With one small error:
A relatively benign mistake to make while sat at a desk in a nice comfortable office, but there are scenarios where you might want to be a little more careful in checking your definitions…
OK, this is getting out of hand now. I mean, it was out of hand before, but it just got passed the point where even I can stay quiet about it. It’s like we’ve just passed the event-horizon of some new kind of publicity black hole and are now tumbling helplessly towards a singularity of overstatement where, rather than the laws of physics, it’s our sense of proportion that breaks down.
If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, take a look at this YouTube clip, and see if you can guess.
Edit: Unfortunately, YouTube have removed the video in question for ‘terms of use violation.’ It was a trailer that described a TV program on the History Channel as the most important event in 47 million years. It was utterly over the top.
Seen it? Any ideas?
It’s a TV show about a fossil. Seriously. Granted, it’s a pretty interesting, particularly complete fossil of a 47 million year-old transitive primate called Ida (who was a member of a species we’ve called Darwinius masillae), which is something you don’t exactly see every day. But still: a fossil.
It’s not going to change the world, it’s not going to revolutionise the way we think about ourselves and it most certainly is not the missing link (which is — as I understand it — a term no serious palaeontologist would use anyway.) But somehow, the media have got hold of it as some kind of world-changing event and are running with it, reality be damned. The hype machine has been in full swing for about a week now and, if this video is to be believed, is showing no signs of slowing down. If it wasn’t quite so depressing, it’d be quite amazing how much they can make of so little.
Hat tip to Carl Zimmer over at The Loom for thisand other sensible writingabout Darwinius.
By now you’ll have all noticed the stories about a newly discovered breed of giant sea scorpion, which terrorised aquatic environments 300 million years ago. The BBC and CNN have both reported on it. Sloppily.
Quite aside from Kevin Z’s valid criticisms of the CNN coverage, the thing both sites have utterly failed to mention is that this isn’t that remarkable. I mean, it’s good, interesting science, and the team involved have done a great job, but two-and-a-half metre sea scorpions are not a new discovery. In fact it’s only because this recent work has lowered the estimated size of a previous find by 40cm that this new discovery is considered the largest yet found. I know it makes for better news if you can make out this is some sort of amazing discovery of hitherto unknown giant bugs, but that doesn’t justify neglecting to mention the background to the work.