First hobbits, now Godzilla
Nov. 15th, 2005 08:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urbpanWhenever paleontology is in the news, there seems to be an obligatory pop culture reference. Personally, I think that the history of life is interesting enough without needing a similarity to movie character to grab my attention. (I know that hobbits were literary characters first, but the timing of the Homo florensis story made it a LOTR movie tie-in.)
I have objections to the latest fossil story from both the natural history side and as a lover of monster movies. Dakosaurus andiniensis, compared to Godzilla in this MSNBC story, was only 13 feet long, and had flippers, meaning it was primarily if not totally a marine animal. The only resemblance to Godzilla is the large heavy skull full of sharp teeth (which looks more like an oversized gila monster skull if anything.) I'm no Toho expert, but I think the character of Godzilla was based on Tyrannosaurus rex: bipedal, towering, and so on.
Not to nitpick (too late!) or anything. Dakosaurus seems like a pretty interesting animal. A crocodile relative with a blunt snout and legs built for swimming and not for walking. Where did it lay its eggs? (For that matter, where did Ichthyosaurus lay its eggs? It was so totally marine that its body had evolved into a fishlike shape--can't imagine it clambering onto the beach like a sea turtle. Perhaps it retained its eggs in its body like some snakes do, giving live births.) What was its life like? The article suggests that it ate other reptiles. Sure, why not? It didn't have the long jaws and needle-like teeth that fish-specialist crocodilians have today.
Rather than Godzilla, it seems to me that the closest comparison for this animal would be the orca. Large marine vertebrate that eats other vertebrates. I guess they figure that Godzilla will make for a grabbier headline.
I have objections to the latest fossil story from both the natural history side and as a lover of monster movies. Dakosaurus andiniensis, compared to Godzilla in this MSNBC story, was only 13 feet long, and had flippers, meaning it was primarily if not totally a marine animal. The only resemblance to Godzilla is the large heavy skull full of sharp teeth (which looks more like an oversized gila monster skull if anything.) I'm no Toho expert, but I think the character of Godzilla was based on Tyrannosaurus rex: bipedal, towering, and so on.
Not to nitpick (too late!) or anything. Dakosaurus seems like a pretty interesting animal. A crocodile relative with a blunt snout and legs built for swimming and not for walking. Where did it lay its eggs? (For that matter, where did Ichthyosaurus lay its eggs? It was so totally marine that its body had evolved into a fishlike shape--can't imagine it clambering onto the beach like a sea turtle. Perhaps it retained its eggs in its body like some snakes do, giving live births.) What was its life like? The article suggests that it ate other reptiles. Sure, why not? It didn't have the long jaws and needle-like teeth that fish-specialist crocodilians have today.
Rather than Godzilla, it seems to me that the closest comparison for this animal would be the orca. Large marine vertebrate that eats other vertebrates. I guess they figure that Godzilla will make for a grabbier headline.
