A discussion, not a war: two opposing experts talk dinosaur family trees

Scientific disagreements are rife but rarely vicious - even over something as radical as a shakeup of dinosaur relationships

In 2017 a startling paper suggested that the conventional view of the fundamental relationships between different groups of dinosaurs was incorrect. A huge new analysis including many early dinosaurs and their nearest relatives suggested that a rearrangement of the dinosaurs was in order - two groups previously separated (the theropods and ornithischians) were brought together in a group now called Ornithoscleida. This naturally came as something of a shock in palaeontological circles and beyond as the established order had been in place for a century and was well supported by a lot of data. Various comments immediately sprang from various researchers and a formal response (and counter) has appeared in the literature.

Form the outside this may have seemed like - and has been reported as - a bitter war. This discussion is "tearing palaeontology in two" according to one site, but this is really a gross overstatement. First of all, let's be honest, outside of the dinosaur researchers, few palaeontologists will have that much of an interest in the field and will hardly be taking sides. Secondly, scientific discourse, in the public forum of papers or online discussions is generally pretty polite and respectful, and that's often the case too in private. Finally, in a small field like dinosaur palaeontology, all of the protagonists know each other and each other's work and that means there can be a lot of additional dialogue behind the scenes which is friendly in nature.