Author Topic: Dinosaur Playsets  (Read 139505 times)

ravenloft

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #480 on: November 14, 2020, 02:53:05 PM »
I have a very serious problem with the newly hatched non-dinosaur concept. Way back in 1841 paleontologist Sir Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" from the Greek term "terrible, fearfully great lizard"  to refer to the "distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles" that were then being recognized in England and around the world. But his "distinct tribe" included pterosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and Dimetrodon. Therefore not only was the word "dinosaur" coined to describe these animals, but these animals, e.g. plesiosaur, actually served to define the concept of dinosaurs. The word "dinosaur" immediately gained widespread currency to refer to this subset of ancient animals which included the ones listed above. Through popular usage "dinosaur" quickly became an accepted part of the English and other languages.

But many/most modern day paleontologists now seek to exclude pteranodons, plesiosaurs, Dimetrodon, etc. from the "dinosaur" classification upon the premise that e.g. plesiosaurs are a "marine reptile". Well it's too late. Plesiosaurs were not only used to define the concept "dinosaur" but for 150 years the accepted meaning of the word in the English language included plesiosaurs. And languages are both shaped and defined by popular usage and not by scientific bodies.

Therefore if paleontologists now want to separate out pterosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and Dimetrodon etc. from the other dinosaurs, they must coin a new term for the other dinosaurs. They can't mess with the word "dinosaur" since it already has an accepted meaning.

 C:)
Brace yourself, probably sit down. The term dinosaur is now just a minor subset of "archosaur "which also includes birds, crocodilians and pterosaurs.

In fact, the modern grouping of the word "reptiles" is not scientifically parsimonious (an unnatural grouping of animals not closely related) and now is split into smaller groups:
living archosaurs (birds and crocodilians), squamates (snakes, lizards, and the tuatara) and chelonians (fresh water turtles, tortoises, terrapins, sea turtles)

Dimetrodons are far older than dinosaurs and are synapsids far closer to mammals in relationship than they are to any dinosaur or living reptile today.

Plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and ichthyosaurs are each large groups of marine reptiles that comprise many species similar to the term dinosaur in group sizes.
Mosasaurs are actually more closely related to living monitor lizards such as the Komodo Dragon, and helodermids such as the gila monster (both squamates) than they are to dinosaurs.

If iguanodons hadn't been found relatively early on the whole dinosaur group might have been named something completely different.  the iguana lizard-like teeth inspiring the reptile comparison as the basis for the terrible-lizard dinosaur name.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 03:06:57 PM by ravenloft »

Hepcat

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 17963
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #481 on: November 14, 2020, 03:18:05 PM »
Nope. Won't wash. All the intellectual masturbation on the part of paleontologists won't/can't override the accepted usage of a word within any language. Like I say, just because the meaning of a word becomes inconvenient to some special interest group for classification or other purposes is no reason to change the meaning of said word within the language.

 cl:)

Collecting! It's what I do!

ravenloft

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #482 on: November 14, 2020, 04:12:04 PM »
Here are my new world Tim Mee dinosaurs, probably the most common dinosaur toys when I was a kid.

Here are my Winneco cheap dinos that are knock offs of MPC which are themselves knockoffs of Marx


My Hong Kong Dinosaurs and "chinasaurs" kaiju. Some are poor Marx knockoffs and some are strange imaginary beasts. Indeed a few of these strange figures did inspire D&D monsters, sadly I don't own an owlbear chinasaur (the little yellow guy in the second picture below) they command big bucks 400-700 dollars now at auction for a toy that could be bought in a bag of other "dinos" for less than a buck or two.


The rust monster, bulette, and owlbear entries in the AD&D Monster Manual (1977) were unquestionably drawn directly from a bag of dime store dinosaurs purchased in the early 1970s that Gary Gygax used as monsters in his first Dungeons & Dragons home games circa 1974.
Some say the umberhulk was inspired by the red pincer dragon, the Su-monster inspired by the gray "hooray pose" guy on the left, troglodytes from the green guy in the back, and the basilisk from the nose horned beastie on the right here as well.

see Tony DiTerlizzi's (a former D&D illustrator) blog post about it here:  https://diterlizzi.com/essay/owlbears-rust-monsters-and-bulettes-oh-my/

here are my MPC dinosaurs (1961-1980s)

most are direct knock offs of MARX dinos but these below are original creatures and poses
[/url]
Cerratogaulus 1961 (an early rodent-like mammal), Glyptodont 1961 (extinct mammal) and 1962 Macrauchenia (extinct mammal)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 04:18:02 PM by ravenloft »

ravenloft

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #483 on: November 14, 2020, 04:14:47 PM »
Nope. Won't wash. All the intellectual masturbation on the part of paleontologists won't/can't override the accepted usage of a word within any language. Like I say, just because the meaning of a word becomes inconvenient to some special interest group for classification or other purposes is no reason to change the meaning of said word within the language.

 cl:)

just because most of the general public use the scientific terms incorrectly doesn't mean that the general usage is correct. Ignorance and popular perception do not make it so.

horrorhunter

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 9445
  • Haunted Hulk...The Horror Of The Seven Seas
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #484 on: November 14, 2020, 05:14:29 PM »
here are my MPC dinosaurs (1961-1980s)

most are direct knock offs of MARX dinos but these below are original creatures and poses
[/url]
Cerratogaulus 1961 (an early rodent-like mammal), Glyptodont 1961 (extinct mammal) and 1962 Macrauchenia (extinct mammal)

Also, the MPC Diatryma and Dire Wolf figures were new prehistoric animals not knocked off of Marx figures. I used a few Dire Wolves in my custom monster playset to represent the big wolves summoned by the vampire lord as well as a few Cerratogaulus as giant, monstrous rats. There again monsters and dinosaurs/prehistoric animals going hand in claw.



http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=23441.msg447625#msg447625







« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 05:26:04 PM by horrorhunter »
ALWAYS MONSTERING...

Hepcat

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 17963
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #485 on: November 14, 2020, 06:53:56 PM »
just because most of the general public use the scientific terms incorrectly doesn't mean that the general usage is correct.

First of all "dinosaur" has been no more of a scientific term than "bird", "tree" or "squirrel" for more than 150 years and I've never needed a scientist to define those for me. I know those when I see them.

Ignorance and popular perception do not make it so.

No. I flatly disagree. Accepted usage is not "ignorant". It just "is". What's ignorant is denying this and referring to the general public's usage as "ignorant".

Moreover in this case commonly accepted usage is based on a scientific categorization that was used from the start and for a period of 150 years. Like I say, dimetrodons were a part of the subset of animals for which the word "dinosaurs" was coined to describe their characteristics. That can't just be changed to reflect whatever the currently prevailing convention among the scientific community happens to be. In fact, just try to retroactively change the members of a set you've been given just to make it easier to work with the set. Your math teacher would cane you silly.

Scientists have been changing their classifications for natural phenomenon for 2500+ years. It's a good bet that these will continue to be changed for another 2500 years, and probably at an ever faster rate. For scientists to therefore think they can dictate language usage to the general public as their own whims change is at best an incredible conceit. At worst it stinks of 1984 in which sanctioned usage of words comes down from the authorities and woe to those who don't toe the official party line.

Finally the word "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard". How does a marine reptile the size of a plesiosaur not fit that exact definition?

 u6juu
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 11:05:17 PM by Hepcat »
Collecting! It's what I do!

ravenloft

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #486 on: November 14, 2020, 10:23:35 PM »
My two MARX sets PREHISTORIC Play Set 1971 (#3398) the reissue of the one my dad grew up with in 1963 and PREHISTORIC Dinosaur Play Set 1978 (#4208) the one I had as a kid with the crazy blue and yellow colors.



Legend and rumor has it that the MARX dinosaur sculpts for the toy molds were based off of famous paleo-art of the time from legendary greats such as Charles M. Knight, Rudolph F. Zallinger, and Zdenek Burian who painted fantastic murals and paintings for many of the world's museum dinosaur collection halls.
But which art pictures actually inspired the MARX toys?  Sit back, relax. After a little homework and I've prepared a lesson for you kids.


Let's start with perhaps the most famous dinosaur painting in the world:
 the magnificent Rudolph F. Zallinger mural, THE AGE OF REPTILES (1947) at the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Nearly every species of the MARX dinosaur toy line can be found on this painting.



Zallinger was fond of putting ornamental triangle scales down the spines of his dinosaurs, like some reptiles alive today such as the green iguana, even though no such direct evidence exists for the fossilized skeletal remains of dinosaurs.
If we look at the MARX large mold group PL-749 (1957) Tyrannosaurus rex, Kronosaurus, and Brontosaurus, we can then compare it to the painting


Because the MARX "Pot Bellied" T-rex has such triangle scales on it's back and it bears striking resemblance to the painting in overall body proportions (but not the limb positions) of Zallinger's T-rex we can say it most likely directly inspired the MARX toy. Even the muscle striation on the leg matches. I don't own a "pot belly" T-rex so can't put it against the painting for direct comparison.

The Brontosaurus has a similar head and wrinkles at the neck but not enough to say for certain that the toy was inspired by the painting. I have not yet been able to locate any painting with the correct pose or proportions of the toy. The Kronosaurus toy doesn't match any existing animal (certainly doesn't look like an actual Kronosaurus) and seems to be an amalgam of a few ancient marine reptiles.

The MARX Small Mold Group (1957) PL-755 consisting of Cynognathus, Sphenacodon, Plateosaurus, Triceratops and Dimetrodon species are all found on the painting

Sphenacodon was probably directly inspired from this painting as it is a close match in style (and rare enough that not many paintings even exist of the species) while the Dimetrodon doesn't seem to match the artwork here, nor any others I could find. Unfortunately some animals have limited positioning because of their anatomy so can look similar to dozens of paintings. The head, sail and tail are different so beyond the species name, no direct connection can be made with the Dimetrodon toy and the Yale painting.

the Plateosaurus and Cynognatus were likely directly inspired by the painting even though the poses aren't identical

The Triceratops toy matches the strange long face and neck frill knobs of the Zallinger painting but not the limb positions, most likely some direct inspiration here
While the Ankylosaurus from the MARX Medium Mold Group (1957) PL-750 [Allosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Hadrosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pteranodon, Trachodon] has an identical head right down to the scales and can be directly connected to the painting, although other paintings we know MARX toys modelers looked at for inspiration have similar looking ankylosaurs.

The Allosaurus toy from the medium group has the exact body proportions of the dumb "Barney The Dinosaur" constipated looking Allosaurus in the far background instead of the much cooler Allosaurus in the middle. In my opinion the dumbest looking MARX dino. The only difference is the limb position. No doubt directly sculpted from the painting.


Likewise the stegosaurus toy from the medium group has the same long face and body proportions right down to the tail spines and looks to be directly sculpted from the painting.


Now we leave this painting to look at others for possible inspiration for the medium mold group


the duck billed Hadrosaur with it's curious pose and the Trachodon (both old and revised version) look like a few different paintings were combined and used as inspiration

Hadrosaurus (1897) by Charles R. Knight gouache on paper is certainly where the name, head turned, tail position, feet, left arm and neck folds came from on the MARX toy

but the right arm up and leg positions of the Hadrosaurus toy match Zdenek Burian's painting Tyrannosaurus rex attacking Trachodon annectens (1938) oil on canvas. Likely the source of the Trachodon toy name and positioning for that figure, as the middle Trachodon figure is an 100% match on leg and arm positions with the slight head turn. The "sleek" T-rex toy of the MARX Revised Mold Group (1958) PL-977 has nearly identical body proportions, leg, foot and tail (reversed) positioning and ear hole of this painting as well but another painting influenced the head somewhat.



A final painting showing duckbills that MARX sculptors certainly looked at is Duck-Billed and Crested Dinosaurs (1931) by Charles R. Knight

while it most likely had some influence on the duck-bill toys and the ankylosaurus it is the source of the Parasaurlophus toy and Struthomimus toy of the MARX Second Series Mold Group (1961) PL-1083 with near exact matches (although a similar struth was in the Zallinger mural)


The Iguanodon of the second series group (1961) looks to be directly inspired by this painting from Zdenek Burian 1962 oil on canvas, which then becomes problematic because the toys were released in 1961 a year earlier; if in fact that painting wasn't based on another Z. Burian sketch and painting done in 1941, which it is.




Moschops from the 1961 second series group 1961 is definitely based on this Zdenek Burian sketch from 1941


The Wooly Mammoth (only Marx toy not identified by it's scientific Genus name, Mammuthus) from the 1961 second series group is based on this head-on oil painting on fiberboard by Zdenek Burian Mammoth (1941) 100% match pose with head tilt, tusks, forehead wrinkles and trunk position tip up to the right. The leg positions and side profile look like the mammoth in the back but could have been influenced by any contemporary artist of the time, too similar to differentiate




the Pteranodon toy from the medium group (1957) is based on this painting by British artist Neave Parker ink and gouache on paper circa 1950'S an exact 100% match in pose right down to the head tilt to the right. every other artist of the time period who painted them resting has them sprawled nearly flat or even hanging like a bat.



The Styracosaurus from the second series mold group 1961 is likely based on this painting Horned Herbivorous Dinosaur Styracosauros (1941) oil on fiberboard by Zdenek Burian




The Smilodon from the second series group 1961 is possibly more influenced by this famous museum mounted skeleton than the Charles R. Knight 1909 painting behind it at the American Museum of Natural History, but because many similar sabertooth cat paintings have been painted it is too tough to tell any direct influence. None of the many paintings have the exact tail, limb position, and head position as the toy and none are that sleek with the fur.



The Megatherium from the second series group 1961 seems to be influenced by this painting by Rudolph F. Zallinger in a second mural depicting prehistoric mammals but the pose isn't exact so no direct claim can be made here



The sleek T-rex from the revised group 1958 looks like it got it's form from the picture with the trachodons (see earlier above), but the head proportions more closely match this painting by Charles R. Knight even though the mouth is closed.


Human figures are much easier for artists to visualize and more references are readily available so no exact matches with the cave man group could be made despite looking at dozens of vintage cave man paintings. but here are a couple of curious pose matches for the rock over the head (MARX) and the Rock to the side of the head (DFC) cavemen in a Z. Burian painting



Lastly the Golden library Of Knowledge book (Time Life books) PREHISTORIC ANIMALS tree on the inside cover bears more than a passing similarity to the MARX demi flat tree, and the book itself (well actually the 1956 Time Magazine article it is based on) is the likely source of their Zallinger mural comparisons as it was one of the very few published sources showing the Age Of Reptiles painting at the time (1955-1957) of the MARX dino line development. I doubt they went in person to Yale.


These are the important books I used for reference
Dinosaur Playsets Expanded edition (revised) Jeffrey S. Pfeiffer 2019 Authorhouse
Paleoart: Visions of the Prehistoric Past Zoë Lescaze 2017 Taschen
Life Before Man Zdeněk Špinar 1972 Cresent Books
The age of Monsters Josef Augusta 1966 Paul Hamlyn Ltd.
Prehistoric Animals Josef Augusta 1967 Paul Hamlyn Ltd.
The Age of Reptiles The Great Dinosaur Mural at Yale Vincent Scully 1990 Harry N. Adams inc.
Charles R. Knight the artist who saw through time Richard Milner 2012 Abrams
and my two favorite dino books as a youth:
Prehistoric Animals Dinosaurs and other Reptiles and Mammals Lincoln barnett Golden Press 1956 (1958)
The Dinosaur Encyclopedia Michael Benton 1984 Wanderer Books





ravenloft

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #487 on: November 14, 2020, 11:03:11 PM »
First of all "dinosaur" has been no more of a scientific term than "bird", "tree" or "squirrel" for more than 150 years and I've never needed a scientist to define those for me. I know those when I see them.

No. I flatly disagree. Accepted usage is not "ignorant". It just "is". What's ignorant is denying this and referring to the general public's usage as "ignorant".

Moreover in this case commonly accepted usage is based on a scientific categorization that was used from the start and for a period of 150 years. Like I say, dimetrodons were a part of the subset of animals for which the word "dinosaurs" was coined to describe their characteristics. That can't just be changed to reflect whatever the currently prevailing convention among the scientific community happens to be. In fact, just try to retroactively change the members of a set you've been given just to make it easier to work with the set. Your math teacher would cane you silly.

Scientists have been changing their classifications for natural phenomenon for 2500+ years. It's a good bet that these will continue to be changed for another 2500 years, and probably at an ever faster rate. For scientists to therefore think they can dictate language usage to the general public as their own whims change is at best an incredible conceit. At worst it stinks of 1984 in which sanctioned usage of words comes down from the authorities and woe to those who don't toe the official party line.

Finally the word "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard". How does a marine reptile the size of a plesiosaur not fit that exact definition?

 u6juu
I doubt you could tell many ground squirrel species from chipmunk species on sight. Taxonomy and scientific species names are very important.

Accepted usage is absolutely ignorant when it is flat wrong. Let me give you a few examples:
Most people believe that "daddy Long legs" are a very dangerous type of spider but fortunately their teeth aren't big enough to puncture human skin, a very popular urban legend when in FACT they are not a spider at all they are in their own Order Opiliones and are not spiders nor do they have any venom at all, correctly being called Harvestmen. Popular notions or acceptance don't mean squat compared to facts.
Most people incorrectly use venom and poison as synonyms even though they are very different types of toxins based on molecule size and delivery method.
Killer Whales (Orcas) are often called blackfish despite being marine mammals that are clearly not fish.
I could go on for days with "popular" examples of accepted usage in our speech or belief that are dead wrong and solidly against the facts.

You seem to be basing your quaint semantics argument on a frozen point in time. A thousand years earlier they would have been calling and in fact did call Protoceratops, sauropod and Mammoth fossils griffons, giants, and cyclops respectively, simply because they didn't have the understanding that we have today of the same fossil materials.  Science continually makes advancements in our understanding, sometimes that causes terminology to shift or change.

Dimetrodons lived millions of years before any dinosaur and went extinct in a major extinction event that separates the time of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic) from the time when Gorgons and dimetrodon lived (Paleozoic). They are in completely separate geologic time periods. It is a indisputable fact, that they aren't dinosaurs, actually being more closely related to mammals than reptiles, despite any previous century labelling they might have had as dinosaurs.
Do you know how many mammals were incorrectly labeled as reptiles long ago? How about Basilosaurus for example which is in fact a whale ancestor. By your logic that would be a reptile because that is what it was called 150 years ago. Also by your logic as a marine "reptile" it would be a dinosaur as well. That is why it was named Basilo-SAURUS right? Wrong. It's a mammal and a whale. At one time everything in the ocean was called a fish even though we know a great many are not even closely related. Starfish, shellfish, whales viewed as fish, etc. for example. 
As our understanding grew the terminology was updated. Seastars, bivalves and crustaceans, marine mammals.

As a scientist myself, I can only chuckle at your last paragraph. Science will change? Of course it will. Science is just our best current understanding of the universe given all the available evidence at the present, and will continually change based on new evidence. That is why science IS our best understanding at any given time; because it can improve and update based on new discoveries and even discard old ideas once held to be true if they no longer adequately explain all the facts and observations.

Most people believe that all reptiles are cold blooded (ectothermic, unable to produce their own body heat relying on external sources) including dinosaurs. The idea isn't just popular it is universal. It also is wrong. For some 400 years or so that would have been thought to have been the correct scientific answer, until some scientists published a study in 2016 of Tegu lizards in South America that were consistently 10 degrees Celsius warmer than their environment, an impossibility for any cold blooded animal. Huh, how about that we found a warm blooded endothermic (more precisely poikilothermic) reptile. Time to revise the science books yet again with the most current information. Now that we know dinosaurs are in fact archosaurs closely related to birds and crocodilians rather than other reptiles such as lizards and snakes, chances are most if not all dinosaurs were warm blooded too.

But you don't have to just take my word on any of this, just check literally any other source of information on the matter to see how your concept or definition of the word "dinosaur" is in fact incorrect, and yes, ignorant.

P.S. I'm certain being face to face with an extinct marine reptile such as a plesiosaur would in fact be terrible, but that still doesn't make it a dinosaur. Unless we are talking about plastic toys and common misperceptions.

P.P.S. take a super close look at the title of the first book on the left published in 1958
Prehistoric Animals Dinosaurs and other Reptiles and Mammals. Conveniently with a dimetrodon on the cover.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 11:35:41 PM by ravenloft »

horrorhunter

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 9445
  • Haunted Hulk...The Horror Of The Seven Seas
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #488 on: November 14, 2020, 11:41:12 PM »
Legend and rumor has it that the MARX dinosaur sculpts for the toy molds were based off of famous paleo-art of the time from legendary greats such as Charles M. Knight, Rudolph F. Zallinger, and Zdenek Burian who painted fantastic murals and paintings for many of the world's museum dinosaur collection halls.
But which art pictures actually inspired the MARX toys?  Sit back, relax. After a little homework and I've prepared a lesson for you kids.


Let's start with perhaps the most famous dinosaur painting in the world:
 the magnificent Rudolph F. Zallinger mural, THE AGE OF REPTILES (1947) at the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Nearly every species of the MARX dinosaur toy line can be found on this painting.





Very impressive dino-toy detective work, ravenloft!

Here's a pic of some of my original dinokid books and flash cards I dug up a few years ago, including the mutually beloved Prehistoric Animals Dinosaurs and other Reptiles and Mammals by Golden Press.



I also had the My Weekly Reader issue with the Zallinger mural from school, but that one got swallowed by time and bad luck. Oh, the treasures that fall by the wayside during the journey through kidhood... very lamentable.  :'(
ALWAYS MONSTERING...

Hepcat

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 17963
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #489 on: November 17, 2020, 01:14:44 PM »
How did you remove the photobucket watermark on his photo Hepcat?

I could explain the technique but it won't work unless you have some sort of reliable picture hosting service that you can use.

 :-\
Collecting! It's what I do!

Hepcat

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 17963
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #490 on: November 21, 2020, 12:13:56 AM »
I doubt you could tell many ground squirrel species from chipmunk species on sight. Taxonomy and scientific species names are very important.

Accepted usage is absolutely ignorant when it is flat wrong. Let me give you a few examples:

Most people believe that "daddy Long legs" are a very dangerous type of spider but fortunately their teeth aren't big enough to puncture human skin, a very popular urban legend when in FACT they are not a spider at all they are in their own Order Opiliones and are not spiders nor do they have any venom at all, correctly being called Harvestmen. Popular notions or acceptance don't mean squat compared to facts.

Most people incorrectly use venom and poison as synonyms even though they are very different types of toxins based on molecule size and delivery method.

Killer Whales (Orcas) are often called blackfish despite being marine mammals that are clearly not fish.

I could go on for days....

Don't bother. I have no problem agreeing that you can go on and on. And while those examples you gave were all very nice, they were also completely beside the point - that being whether the plesiosaurs with which we started this discussion and pteranodons (which is the other group I've long championed) can and should be called "dinosaurs".





So let's cut to the chase. We've both agreed that the word "dinosaurs" means "terrible lizards". How then do plesiosaurs which are enormous marine reptiles and pterosaurs which are enormous flying reptiles not fit the "terrible lizards" definition? That plesiosaurs and pteranodons fit the exact "terrible lizard" definition isn't surprising since Sir Richard Owen coined the term in 1841 to refer to a distinct set of Saurian Reptiles which included plesiosaurs and pterosaurs meaning they represented key definitional elements for the term.

Since Dr. Owen previously defined the word "dinosaur" and it immediately gained widespread currency within the English language under this definition, if scientists now find Sir Owen's term administratively inconvenient and want to exclude certain members of his set from the dinosaur classification they can't mess with the word "dinosaur". They must coin a new term for the smaller subset of other dinosaurs.

I could go on for days with "popular" examples of accepted usage in our speech or belief that are dead wrong and solidly against the facts.

Since popular usage of the word "dinosaur" is just about entirely consistent with Sir Owen's "terrible lizard" definition while the current taxonomic convention in vogue with paleontologists is not, it's actually your usage that's against the fact of the definition. The word "dinosaur" was defined with sufficient precision to become an accepted part of language over 150 years ago. Live with it.

You seem to be basing your quaint semantics argument on a frozen point in time.

So semantics is "quaint" to you, is it? Well the study of the meaning of words is not quaint to me. Personally I don't cotton to a 1984 type of totalitarian society in which the meaning of words comes down from above and is mandated by the authorities. In case you don't know, such mandating is called "fascism".
 
As a scientist myself, I can only chuckle at your last paragraph. Science will change? Of course it will. Science is just our best current understanding of the universe given all the available evidence at the present, and will continually change based on new evidence. That is why science IS our best understanding at any given time; because it can improve and update based on new discoveries and even discard old ideas once held to be true if they no longer adequately explain all the facts and observations.

Fine let it change. That doesn't constitute a problem. Where we disagree is that I'm arguing that being ephemeral, scientific classifications should not necessarily trump generally accepted linguistic conventions/meanings. You though have this incredible conceit to think that English usage must automatically change for your cataloguing convenience. But language needs to be no more impacted by your cataloguing efforts than brontosauri were 150 million years ago when for a number of decades until very recently brontosaurus denying was the vogue among paleontologists. But did brontosauri care? No. The brontosauri continued to happily munch on marsh grasses in their swamps regardless of the botherings of paleontologists.

But you don't have to just take my word on any of this, just check literally any other source of information on the matter to see how your concept or definition of the word "dinosaur" is in fact incorrect, and yes, ignorant.

Excuse me but I need to take no more than Sir Richard Owen's word for it. After all, it was his set. And he named it.

And speaking of ignorance, it's you that's revealing ignorance both in your cavalier dismissal of semantics and in displaying your lack of schooling when it comes to set theory.

Let me illustrate the latter point. Consider this set I'll name and define for you. Set A = {07, 17, 23, 27, 37, 47, 67}. Does it need any further description? Is there anything wrong with Set A?

 ???


« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 11:15:57 AM by Hepcat »
Collecting! It's what I do!

japfeif

  • New Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #491 on: January 10, 2021, 07:51:42 PM »
Hey guys, cheap plug here....for anyone interested, the newest version of my book Dinosaur Playsets: An Illustrated Guide to the Prehistoric Playsets of Marx and MPC is once again in stock and for sale after a lengthy absence.

The original version sold so well that a revised & expanded version was due, and as it runs out of stock it's generally a fairly simple matter to have more printed up. But with the current pandemic situation and all, things were shut down and THEN substantially backed up with my publisher, and so the book has been out of print for nearly a year.  This new version has updated info and nearly 50 more photos than the first edition, and it is also is printed on glossy paper with glossy pics (something earlier versions lacked), so the numerous (250+) high quality color photos literally pop off the page!

Lots of folks have been contacting me about when (or if) it was going to become available again, and most of the folks who left me return contact info have been notified and have received their copies, but I wanted to hit up with you guys here for anyone who might be interested in getting a copy (hopefully I will have them  for a longer time this time around!).

STILL the BEST and most complete source for each & every prehistoric playset (boxed, bagged, or carded) produced by Marx and MPC! Plus lots of reissue & knock off sets & figures, such as Superior, Toy Street, Winneco, Spaulding, etc.

Copies are currently available on eBay (the Amazon listings are currently in flux for some reason, but we are working on those), or you can order directly from the author via PayPal by sending $45.99 + $4.10 shipping & handling to the following email addy:

japfeif(*at*)aol.com

(be sure to include your mailing address in the notes if purchasing directly thru PayPal)

Thanks guys & be safe everyone!!!
Jeff


Hepcat

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 17963
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #492 on: January 12, 2021, 11:12:06 AM »
Hey guys, cheap plug here....

Welcome back! Pull up a chair and stay awhile.

 :)
Collecting! It's what I do!

horrorhunter

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 9445
  • Haunted Hulk...The Horror Of The Seven Seas
Re: Dinosaur Playsets
« Reply #493 on: January 13, 2021, 08:34:39 AM »
Welcome back! Pull up a chair and stay awhile.

 :)
... and pitch another commercial?

 :laugh:
ALWAYS MONSTERING...

 

en iyi bahis siteleri

https://diziizle.wtf/

totobo