[譯] 你說「迅猛龍」，我說「恐爪龍」

你說是「迅猛龍」，我說是「恐爪龍」

原文來源：www.smithsonianmag.com
作者：Brian Switek
繙譯：煢煢白兔

　　十五年前，轟動一時的電影《侏羅紀公園》，把一種全新的嗜殺恐龍介紹給觀衆【電影編劇暨原著小說作者麥可·克萊頓（Michael Crichton），已於本週三溘逝】。異特龍、暴龍等大型肉食恐龍，大家都已十分熟悉，但電影主角口中的「猛禽」，這種腳步輕盈的恐怖生物，卻鮮有人知。《侏羅紀公園》中的那羣迅猛龍，每隻腳上都長着致命的利爪，而且還具有驚人的智慧，每一處都如同暴龍一樣，令人戰慄。

　　在古生物學中，與其他生物科學一樣，學名常常會有所異動。有時候同一個恐龍「種」(species)，會因為不同科學家命名，而有好幾個名稱，這時通常會以第一個出現的名稱為優先。也有些時候，恐龍「種」可能先以其他動物名稱命名，因而需要再有個新名稱，以示區別。這些名稱變換，許多都只有專家才知道，但少數恐龍卻早已成為媒體寵兒，以致於大衆所認得的名稱，與古生物學家所認知的名稱有異。

　　電影中的迅猛龍羣類有個重大錯誤，古生物學家很快就發現這一點。迅猛龍（Velociraptor）首次發現於一九二〇年代的蒙古，是一種小型的掠食生物，站起來高度不超過一個成年人的腰。其實，在一九九三年《侏羅紀公園》改編電影上映時，只有一種猛禽與公園控制中心裏尾隨人類的那些恐龍一樣大，那就是恐爪龍（Deinonychus）。

　　他們確實在一些重要方面有所不同，基本上我們可以把恐爪龍看作是迅猛龍的放大版，恐爪龍的長度與高度，幾乎是他那蒙古近親的二倍。恐爪龍是在一九六〇年代時，由耶魯的古生物學家約翰·奧斯特倫（John Ostrom）所發現而記述下來。恐爪龍的每隻腳上都有個大鎌刀爪，長臂上有抓物狀的手，背後還有一條堅挺的尾巴，有助於追捕獵物時能保持平衡。這種恐龍改變了大家對恐龍的看法，讓大家知道，恐龍比以前所想的要更為活躍好動。

　　這種新的恐龍觀點，在一定程度上給古生物藝術家格列高里·Ｓ·保羅（Gregory S. Paul）帶來啟發，進而於一九八八年寫下《世界掠食恐龍》一書。書中不僅充滿帶有羽毛的恐龍插圖，也試着修正一些恐龍的分類。保羅寫出了蒙古迅猛龍與北美恐爪龍兩者骨骼間的相似性。他們極為相似，按生物命名規則，是以先出現的名稱為優先，保羅因而決定把恐爪龍化石分類在迅猛龍底下。

　　其他古生物學家並不贊同這項改變——迅猛龍確與恐爪龍不同——然而保羅的書卻受到普羅大衆喜愛，其中一位讀者便是作家麥可·克萊頓。我們會知道這一點，是因為克萊頓在小說《侏羅紀公園》的致謝部分中提到，他書中恐龍形象的來源之一，便是保羅，而他也使用了「迅猛龍」一名，來描述故事裏這種有着鎌刀爪、把人開腸剖肚的大型掠食動物。同樣的分類法也帶進了電影，使得這個原本艱澀的科學術語，一躍成為家喻戶曉的名字。

　　會不會是克萊頓以藝術創作的方式，把真實的迅猛龍，這種來自白堊紀蒙古的小型掠食動物，加以強化放大了？是有這個可能，但我並不這麼認為，特別是在聽了這部電影一位科學顧問的敘述之後尤然。DVD 裏附有特別收錄片段，包括幕後花絮，在《侏羅紀公園III》特輯一部紀錄片中，古生物學家傑克·霍納（Jack Horner）提到，直至最近才有完好的迅猛龍頭骨面世。

　　這話說得不對，因為首具以迅猛龍命名的化石中，就已有一具漂亮的頭骨。因新近發現而使得頭骨復原有所改變的，其實是恐爪龍。也許他沿用這個較為流行的名字，是為了不讓觀衆混淆吧。

　　基於古生物學上的細究，我必須去思考，要是保羅沒有把恐爪龍化石劃歸在迅猛龍底下，又或者說克萊頓根本沒讀過那本《世界掠食恐龍》，結果會怎麼樣？「恐爪龍」一名會不會也達到同樣的地位？我不知道答案，這也不是個值得花太多時間去探討的點。如果要說《侏羅紀公園》系列裏的猛禽有甚麼錯誤之處的話，那就是他們應該要覆有羽毛，不過，那也只是古生物學家對這系列電影的諸多爭論點之一而已。

You say “Velociraptor,” I say “Deinonychus” Scientists evaluate the accuracy of raptors depicted in Jurassic Park By Brian Switek SMITHSONIAN.COM NOVEMBER 7, 2008 Fifteen years ago, the blockbuster film Jurassic Park introduced audiences to a brand new kind of killer dinosaur. (Michael Crichton, the author of the source novel and screenwriter of the film, passed away on Wednesday) Giant meat-eaters like Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were familiar to everyone, but few people knew about the fleet-footed terrors called “raptors” by the film’s protagonists. Armed with a lethal killing claw on each foot, large grasping hands, and a startling degree of intelligence, the pack of Velociraptor in Jurassic Park were every bit as terrifying as the gargantuan Tyrannosaurus. In paleontology, just like any other biological science, scientific names are often in a state of flux. Sometimes the same dinosaur species receives several different names from different scientists, at which point the first name to appear gets priority. Other times dinosaur species may get names that have already been used for other animals and they need to receive a new name as to avoid confusion. Many of these changes are known only to specialists, but there are a few dinosaurs that have become media darlings, and the public knows them by a different name than paleontologists do. There was something very wrong about the group of Velociraptor in the movie, and paleontologists quickly picked up on it. First discovered in Mongolia in the 1920’s, Velociraptor was a small predator that would not have been more than waist-high standing next to a full-grown human. Indeed, when the big-screen adaptation of Jurassic Park was released in 1993, there was only one type of “raptor” big enough to be the dinosaurs that stalked the humans inside the park’s command center. That dinosaur was Deinonychus. While it did differ in important ways, Deinonychus can basically be thought of as a scaled-up version of Velociraptor, being almost twice as long and twice as tall as its Mongolian cousin. Discovered and described by Yale paleontologist John Ostrom in the 1960s, Deinonychus had a large sickle-claw on each foot, long arms with grasping hands, and a stiffened tail that would have helped the animal keep its balance as it ran after prey. The genus changed how people thought about dinosaurs, suggesting that they were much more active and dynamic than had been supposed previously. This new view of dinosaurs, in part, inspired the 1988 book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World by paleo-artist Gregory S. Paul. Not only was the volume chock-full of illustrations of feathered dinosaurs, but it also attempted to revise some dinosaur taxonomy. Paul noted the similarities between the skeletons of the Velociraptor from Mongolia and the Deinonychus skeletons from North America. They were so similar, in fact, that he decided to group the Deinonychus fossils under the name Velociraptor, as the older name took precedence according to the rules by which organisms are named. Paleontologists did not agree with this change—Velociraptor was kept distinct from Deinonychus—but Paul’s book was a hit with the general public. And one of the people who read the book was author Michael Crichton. We know this because in the acknowledgements for his novel Jurassic Park, Crichton listed Paul as one of the people who inspired his vision for dinosaurs portrayed in the book, and he used the name Velociraptor to describe the large, sickle-clawed predators that disembowel so many humans in the fictional yarn. The same taxonomy was carried over into the film series, which ultimately made what would otherwise seem to be an abstruse scientific term a household name. Could it be that Crichton used some artistic license to beef up the true Velociraptors, little predators from the Cretaceous of Mongolia? It is possible, but I doubt it, particularly given the statements of one of the film’s scientific advisors. DVDs are packed full of special features, including “making of” films, and in one of these documentaries accompanying the Jurassic Park III feature, paleontologist Jack Horner states that it has only been recently that any good skulls of Velociraptor have come to light. This is incorrect, as one of the fossils to which the name Velociraptor was first assigned was a beautiful skull. In fact, it is reconstructions of the skull of Deinonychus that have changed because of recently discovered material. Perhaps the more popular name was kept so not to confuse viewers. Given this exercise in paleontological pedantry, I have to wonder what would have happened if Paul did not lump the Deinonychus fossils under Velociraptor, or even if Crichton hadn’t read Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Would the name Deinonychus have reached the same status? I do not know, nor is it a point worth laboring over for too long. If there is anything “wrong” about the raptors of the Jurassic Park series, it is that they lack a generous covering of feathers, but that is only one of the many points in the franchise paleontologists could take issue with.