The World's Fair

Science reported this a few weeks ago: "Did Horny Young Dinosaurs Cause Illusion of Separate Species?" (23 November 2007; Vol. 318. no. 5854, p. 1236)

I assumed this would be a study of the libido of such astounding creatures.

I was, umm, incorrect.

It is, rather, about this: "What were thought to be two unique species, [Jack Horner of Montana State University (MSU) in Bozeman argues], are in fact juveniles of different ages that would have grown up to be bony-headed Pachycephalosaurus."

True, I'm only a novice paleontology enthusiast. But with a six-year-old son, I am far more aware of the dinosaur world than I have ever been. In fact, this year seems to be a banner year for all things dinosaur around our house. So you see an article about dinosaurs being horny, you start to wonder if this stuff should be lying around the home. Doesn't seem appropriate.

And the guy's name is Jack "Horner"?

And it's specifically the horniness of young dinosaurs? Perhaps teenage equivalents?

And, I mean, they call them "horned" dinosaurs in the actual article, so don't get all on me about this -- somebody chose to call them "horny," not horned, in the title. Somebody wanted the wayward, casual reader to notice. Why did they title it "horny dinosaurs"?

Was this a hoax article?

And anyway, what *do* we know about dinosaur libidos, besides the fact that that is a killer band name?

On an unrelated topic, nobody steal that band name. It's mine.

By which I mean, here is the article's conclusion:

"If Horner turns out to be right, the diversity of pachycephalosaurs would be 50% lower than previously thought for the latest Cretaceous. "It makes a lot more sense," he says, because other kinds of dinosaurs were also declining in diversity at the time."

So there you have it. I'm out.

[Oh come on, somebody had to make this post.]