Cultural/Scientific WI: Theropod with feathers discovered in the 19th Century:

There were some small theropods IOTL which we know now were very bird-like and which had fossils discovered in the 19th Century though they were not fully identified then. Well, suppose a paleontologist gets lucky enough to discover say, a furcula in a dinosaur sometime in the 1880s, in time to avert the emergence of the "dinosaurs are huge, lumbering, slow beasts" idea? How does paleontology in general and dinosaur paleontology in particular change if the "birds are dinosaurs" idea is established 50 years earlier and popular culture depicts dinosaurs all along as rapid, fast-moving creatures?
 
There were some small theropods IOTL which we know now were very bird-like and which had fossils discovered in the 19th Century though they were not fully identified then. Well, suppose a paleontologist gets lucky enough to discover say, a furcula in a dinosaur sometime in the 1880s, in time to avert the emergence of the "dinosaurs are huge, lumbering, slow beasts" idea? How does paleontology in general and dinosaur paleontology in particular change if the "birds are dinosaurs" idea is established 50 years earlier and popular culture depicts dinosaurs all along as rapid, fast-moving creatures?

Technically, this did happen (Archaeopteryx). But I know what you mean: an obviously land-bound theropod with feathers. I suppose the original perception of dinosaurs as bird-like would not have been replaced with that of them as lumbering beasts, as occurred in OTL. I'm guessing this would attract more people to the study of paleontology (more specifically, dinosaurs) and advance this study at a more rapid pace. Perhaps it might even lead to greater and earlier understanding and acceptance of the theory of evolution by the general populace. That would certainly have been a boon to scientific progress.
 
Technically, this did happen (Archaeopteryx). But I know what you mean: an obviously land-bound theropod with feathers. I suppose the original perception of dinosaurs as bird-like would not have been replaced with that of them as lumbering beasts, as occurred in OTL. I'm guessing this would attract more people to the study of paleontology (more specifically, dinosaurs) and advance this study at a more rapid pace. Perhaps it might even lead to greater and earlier understanding and acceptance of the theory of evolution by the general populace. That would certainly have been a boon to scientific progress.

What about in novels and pop culture, which has been one area where dinosaurs are really influential?
 
What about in novels and pop culture, which has been one area where dinosaurs are really influential?

We'd most likely see them become even more popularized in such media than in OTL. Fast, active dinosaurs are more appealing than dumb, slow ones. The recent renaissance in dinosaur popularity which began with Jurassic Park would have occurred much earlier.
 
It would have been very difficult to portray fast dinosaurs in the claymation movies, so I think people would still think of dinosaurs as slow. They'd simply think of a few of them as slow animals with feathers. But it would be interesting that most people would not think of all dinosaurs as a type of lizard, which would certainly be good for the education of the general public.
 
It would have been very difficult to portray fast dinosaurs in the claymation movies, so I think people would still think of dinosaurs as slow. They'd simply think of a few of them as slow animals with feathers. But it would be interesting that most people would not think of all dinosaurs as a type of lizard, which would certainly be good for the education of the general public.

I don't know much about claymation, but I would imagine that dinosaur speed and intelligence could be conveyed at least in illustration form at first (e.g., book covers, comic books), until film technology catches up.
 
I think everyone is way over-hyping this. Any dinosaur remains found in the 1880s with fossilized feathers is going to be called a hoax, at best.
 
I think everyone is way over-hyping this. Any dinosaur remains found in the 1880s with fossilized feathers is going to be called a hoax, at best.

The piltdown man was not called a hoax, which it of course was, its all about what you want to believe.
And think the picture of dinosaurs at that time wasn't fixated enough to call feathered dinos a hoax, so i think they would accept it.
 
I think everyone is way over-hyping this. Any dinosaur remains found in the 1880s with fossilized feathers is going to be called a hoax, at best.

Eh, people didn't understand dinosaurs that well and it was the original view of bird origins. This would just short-circuit the little detour science took for a while.
 
Top