Dave Hone

Work on dinosaurs for long enough and do enough engagement and outreach1） activities， and a few myths and misconceptions will come up again and again. For all that films like Jurassic Park and documentaries like Planet Dinosaur helped drag the general view of dinosaurs into the 21st century， a good number of people are decades behind the research. Some of the things listed below were rejected by the scientific community almost as soon as they were first hypothesised2） but have somehow rooted in the public consciousness， recycled endlessly by cheap knock-off3） books and media coverage.

若是你研究恐龍的時間足夠長，開展的宣傳和服務活動足夠多，你就會反復遇到一些傳言和錯誤的觀念。雖說有像《侏羅紀公園》這樣的電影和諸如《恐龍星球》這樣的紀錄片幫助21世紀的人們了解恐龍的概況，但很多人對恐龍的認識依然比科研成果落后好幾十年。下列一些觀點幾乎在假設之初就未能得到科學界的認可，不過卻不知怎的在公眾意識中扎了根，并被廉價的仿冒書和媒體的報道無休止地利用。

Dinosaurs Were All Big

Some dinosaurs were truly huge and many， indeed most， dinosaurs when adult were big compared with modern terrestrial4） mammals. However， there were plenty of species the size of cows， sheep， small dogs and even those more the size of a cat or chicken. Birds aside， the smallest dinosaurs we know of were only about 200 g as adults.

They Died Out for Any of Dozens of Reasons Except the Right One

There's an endless supply of ideas about what killed off the dinosaurs. From the obviously mad （aliens hunted them） to the impractical （they all died of diseases or mammals ate all their eggs） to the reasonable but no longer strongly supported （rise in greenhouse gasses）， there's plenty of ideas out there. More than one hundred have been proposed， but the only well supported and universally accepted theory is that of an asteroid5） impact and subsequent6） global devastation.

They Were Stupid

I doubt many were smart， but most people seem to regard all dinosaurs as being dumb as a bag of hammers7）. I think this is linked to the idea that dinosaurs were somehow evolutionary failures and that being dumb was part of this.

Intelligence is hard enough to quantify8） in living species， let alone extinct ones， but there's evidence for things like social behaviours and group living， parental care and the like， and at least some dinosaurs had relatively large brains for their body size. Few might have been intellectual titans9）， but not all could have really been total fools and many were probably much smarter than they are generally given credit for.

They Were Slow/

Super Fast

The old idea of super-slow， clumsy dinosaurs still hasn't quite died out. But they were not just huge lizards gasping from footstep to footstep but were instead largely active and agile10） animals.

The interesting counter11） to this are those who took Jurassic Park a bit too literally and now think Velociraptor12） could hit 60 miles an hour， or Tyrannosaurus13） 30 mph or more， when in fact modern analyses suggest these are absolute exaggerations.

恐龍都是大塊頭

一些恐龍的體型的確很龐大，許多恐龍，更確切地說是大多數(shù)恐龍在成年后都要比現(xiàn)代陸棲哺乳動物大。不過，有許多種類的恐龍卻只有牛、羊、小狗那么大，甚至還有個頭更接近貓或雞那么大的。除了鳥類，我們所知的體型最小的恐龍成年后只有大約200克的樣子。

恐龍滅絕的原因有多種，

可其中沒有一個是對的

關于是什么使恐龍滅絕的觀點不可勝數(shù)。從明顯異想天開的觀點（外星人獵殺恐龍）到不切實際的觀點（恐龍都死于疾病或哺乳動物吃光了恐龍蛋），再到說得通卻不再有有力證據(jù)支撐的觀點（溫室氣體增加），五花八門，無所不有。人們已經(jīng)提出了上百種觀點，但是唯一有根有據(jù)且普遍為人所接受的理論是，一次小行星撞擊地球及其隨后給全球帶來的災難導致了恐龍滅絕。

恐龍都很笨

我并不確定很多恐龍都聰明，但是大多數(shù)人似乎認為所有恐龍都傻不愣登的。我覺得這與如下觀點有關：恐龍不知何故成為進化的失敗者，而其生性愚蠢正是進化失敗的部分表現(xiàn)。

現(xiàn)存物種的智商量化起來都很難，更別提絕跡的物種了。但是有證據(jù)表明，恐龍有社會性行為、群居、親代撫育等諸如此類的現(xiàn)象，而且至少有一些恐龍的大腦相對其身體尺寸而言算得上很大。少數(shù)恐龍很可能還智力超群，但并非所有恐龍就真的全都是十足的傻瓜，很多可能比人們一般認為的更聰明。

恐龍行動遲緩或者非?？?/p>

關于恐龍行動超級遲緩和笨拙的舊觀念仍然沒有完全消失。但是恐龍遠不只是每走一步都氣喘吁吁的大蜥蜴，相反，大多都是非常好動、身手敏捷的動物。

與此相對的一個有趣的看法是，那些曾對《侏羅紀公園》有點兒太當真的人如今認為迅猛龍時速可達60英里，或認為霸王龍時速能達30英里或以上。而事實上，現(xiàn)代分析表明這些絕對是夸大其詞。

恐龍的尾巴拖在地上

顯然，從恐龍被認為特別像爬行動物、就跟蜥蜴一樣的那一刻起，時至今日仍然有尾巴拖地的恐龍出現(xiàn)。單是恐龍的尾骨和肌肉的結(jié)構(gòu)就能表明這種觀點是錯誤的，但最有說服力的應該是，人們目前收集到的恐龍的腳印幾乎不可勝數(shù)，但卻都沒有恐龍尾巴拖地留下的印記與之相伴。

蜥腳類恐龍生活在沼澤或水中

這是又一個在科學界只短暫出現(xiàn)過，但是如今依然會在相關書籍和媒體文章中出現(xiàn)的觀點。巨大的長頸蜥腳類恐龍曾被認為體型過于碩大，無法在陸地上生存，因此在走動的時候一定要有一部分身體浸在水中——盡管這樣的觀點存在著一些相當明顯的問題，比如它們會浮起來這個事實，比如要是浸入水中那么深的話蜥腳類恐龍的肺就會被擠癟，再比如那些腳印化石表明這類恐龍在陸地上行走。

霸王龍是虔誠的食腐動物

這是杰克·霍納提出的一個非常新的觀點，但這個觀點從未得到過古生物學家們的大力支持（顯然連霍納本人都沒真正把它當回事兒），而且已經(jīng)被許多研究和評論批評得面目全非。盡管如此，該觀點在初次提出時所獲得的媒體報道量意味著它會反復出現(xiàn)在世人的面前，也意味著一些人會對此深信不疑。

5. asteroid [??st?r??d] n. 小行星（在火星和木星的軌道之間繞太陽運行的小星球之一）

6. subsequent [?s?bs?kw?nt] adj. 隨后的，接下來的

7. dumb as a bag of hammers： 愚蠢至極

8. quantify [?kw?nt?fa?] vt. 用數(shù)量來表示；使量化

9. titan [?ta?tn] n. 龐大、強壯又非常聰明的人

10. agile [??d?a?l] adj. 敏捷的；靈活的

11. counter [?ka?nt?（r）] n. （與……）相對的事物；（……的）對立面

12. velociraptor [v??l?s??r?pt?（r）] n. 迅猛龍，生長于白堊紀后期的一種恐龍

13. tyrannosaurus [t??r?n??s??r?s] n. 霸王龍，又名暴龍，是最著名的食肉恐龍。

14. reptilian [rep?t?li?n] adj. 有爬行動物特征的

15. anatomy [??n?t?mi] n. 結(jié)構(gòu)

16. killer [?k?l?（r）] n. 致命的物質(zhì)（或事物）

17. sauropod [?s??r?p?d] n. 蜥腳類恐龍，有很長的頸和尾巴，曾是陸地上最大的動物。

18. submerge [s?b?m??d?] vi. 浸沒

19. scavenger [?sk?v?nd??（r）] n. 食腐動物，指主要靠進食腐肉為生的動物。

20. float [fl??t] vt. 提出（想法等）；實行（計劃等）

21. Jack Horner： 杰克·霍納（1946～），美國古生物學家，擔任《侏羅紀公園》系列電影的技術(shù)顧問。

22. palaeontologist [?p?li?n?t?l?d??st] n. 古生物學家

Dinosaurs Dragged Their Tails on the Ground

Obviously dating from the time when dinosaurs were considered especially reptilian14） and lizard-like， dinosaurs posed with their tails dragging still turn up to this day. The anatomy15） of the tail bones and muscles alone suggest this is wrong， but the killer16） should be the near endless collections of dinosaur footprints not accompanied by marks left by dragging tails.

Sauropods17） Lived in Swamps/Water

This is another idea that lasted only briefly in scientific circles but which still appears today in books and media articles. The giant long-necked sauropods were thought too big to survive on land and so must have walked about while partially submerged18） in water—despite fairly obvious problems such as the fact that they would float， and that if submerged that far their lungs would collapse， and fossilised footprints show them walking on land.

Tyrannosaurus Was a Dedicated Scavenger19）

A much more recent idea floated20） by Jack Horner21）， this idea never gained much support from palaeontologists22） （and apparently even Horner never really thought much of it） and it has been sunk by a number of studies and reviews. Nevertheless， the coverage this got when it was first suggested means that it shows up repeatedly and is fiercely clung to by some.