In the fall of 2009, Royal Society Publishing released its recent discovery of what is considered to be the smallest dinosaur yet to be found. At two pounds and 30 inches long, the Fruitadens haagarorum sets the record as the smallest animal of the Ornithischians group.
What makes this finding even more intriguing is that it increases our understanding in the variation of size in dinosaurs, and what that has to do with their evolutionary history. These findings are highly significant for the study of the evolution of ornithischians because it furthers the insight in an area that is not well understood.Because of its small size, it is considered that the fruitadens haargarorum had an omnivorous diet, consisting mostly of bugs and probably some plants. Furthermore, it is the first smallest-known heterodontosaurid ornithischian (Butler, 2009, Ornithischian dinosaur) animal to be found representing the late Jurassic era, during the mid-Mesozoic period (class lecture). Even more intriguing, this fossil was found in Colorado, making it the first discovered heterodontosaurid in Northwest America.
Studies show that the Fruitadens were bipedal and designed to run. Extensive dental research indicates that the they had the ability to replace teeth while they were young. This is not common among the heterodontosaurid group (Butler, 2009, Ornithischian dinosaur).
While browsing through the science section (paleontology section) of the New York Times, I came across the article of the Fruitadens haagarorum. Henry Fountain, of The New York Times, presents the Fruitadens discovery in a very short, precise article. His information covers where the animal was discovered, what dinosaur group it belongs to, what period it had lived, and a few biological descriptions of the organism. Though his article releases a more comprehensive story of this discovery, it does not provide scientific details like the original article. Proceedings of the Royal Society released the initial article that covers many observations and research of the Fruitadens haagarorum, from the period it lived to a full dental exam.
I searched for the original scientific article using the library guide on the course catalyst. The article appeared immediately after I entered "Fruitadens haagarorum" in the search engine. After close comparison, it appears to me that while the newspaper article by Fountain provides a basic outline of this discovery, it does not emphasize the importance of this discovery in the evolutionary history of ornithischians. But Fountains research is reliable. He sites the finding of the original article and mentions one of the co-authors of it, Dr. Chiappe, several times. I was able to confirm those citations.
The scientific article had several sources it used along with many citations. Their information appeared informative rather than biased, mostly because they discussed the diagnoses of their findings and what that changes for ornithischian evolution. However, the article is from a strictly scientific publication, so it seems biased from that point of view. As for the newspaper article, it seemed more biased because information in the news is considered to be newsworthy. So I felt that this finding was significant since it was addressed in a popular news form. The headline, for instance says that "Two-Pound Dinosaur Holds North American Record": There is a sense of bias here in that the findings were in North America, making it a significant because of where it was located. Another thing to consider is the role of gatekeeper, in which publishers intend to leave out certain information. This can be applied for both the scientific article and newspaper article.
Although the scientific article is objective, there may be biases because it is directed towards the field of palaeoecology, in effort to further understand heterodontosaurids. Nevertheless, this information demonstrates the significance of fossils: though they fill in the gaps of the history of earth, it shows how much we do not know.
URL for New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27obdino.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
URL for origianl scientific article: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/content/277/1680/375.full?sid=69924c58-293c-4caf-aa01-46a79b715c33#sec-1
Shannon -
ReplyDeleteI love the picture! Excellent writing. You are very thoughtful to point out that the scientific article has a bias, because the authors assume their readers have a certain amount of background knowledge. This isn't a "bad bias", but it is a bias nonetheless in that it influences how they write. Great work.
Becca