As kids, we were all obsessed with dinosaurs, and rightfully so as dinosaurs are fucking cool as hell. But as adults, we know better than to blindly believe what paleontologists propose as being 100% accurate recreations of animals that lived millions of years ago.
That isn't to say the paleontologists are always wrong, just that more often than not, the depictions we see in movies and in books, showing scaled dinosaurs, aren't necessarily accurate.
Take feathers as an example. Chances are dinosaurs had feathers, a fact you wouldn't conclude by watching Jurassic Park or by playing with plastic dinosaurs which, as memes like to remind us, are made from the oil of once living and breathing dinos.
So when a tweet dunking on the reconstruction of a million-year-old bird made the rounds on Twitter this week, people began to take the piss, joking that there is no way it could be legit.
sometimes you see a dinosaur reconstruction and you just know in 10 years they are gonna be like yeah we got that one wrong https://t.co/49trTJN76i— Handsome B. Charming (@Richard57941301) April 25, 2023
While the above reconstruction is most likely as accurate a depiction as we can ask for, it reminded people of the worst-ever reconstruction of a dino, the famed, Magdeburg Unicorn.
The Magdeburg Unicorn is without a doubt the worst reconstruction of a dinosaur and was first put together by German paleontologist Otto von Geuricke in 1663. The "dinosaur" features wooly rhinoceros bones and is currently on display at the Museum für Naturkunde in Magdeburg, Germany.
Every time I see these things I get so mad that somehow these Paleontologists and artists have never seen a pelican (skeleton below). Like this thing was just a big pelican. Couldn’t have flown like the art always shows, they totally flew like pelicans with their necks tucked. pic.twitter.com/fXw7BhwQA8— Max Steger (@steger_max) April 26, 2023
The trouble with reconstructing dinosaurs is that bones alone don't tell us much about their shape, size, and appearance. That is left up to the interpretation of researchers, which isn't an exact science, to say the least.