There's also some mild dinosaur porn in the old version:
Sure, the scientific illustrations weren't as graphic and deeply unsettling in the old article, but finding an illustrator who was the right combination of scientist and pervert isn't reason enough to rewrite the exact same story and pretend it's new news.
Hey, speaking of "new" and "news," there was something else that bothered me about these articles. Specifically, their newness and newsiness ...
The New News Isn't New and Even the Old News Wasn't New News When It Was New
(Jesus. Who am I to criticize people's titling decisions?)
If you're anything like me, then you know that New Jersey State Museum research associate Brian Switek is the closest thing the Internet has to an expert on dinosaur sex. (Spoiler: You are nothing like me, and you never will be.) Switek has a history of writing very thoughtful and informative essays about dinosaur sex, so I naturally assumed that if some clown at the Daily Mail was going to start stepping onto Switek's turf, he'd have something to say about it. I was right. In his essay on Wired, Switek also acknowledges that the July version of this story ripped off the February version, and he goes on to say that, even back in February, there was no reason to write the story in the first place. Even though both Daily Mail articles treat the sex reveal like some big, breaking story, Switek assures us that there hasn't been a new study on the topic in a long time. No new information on dinosaur sex in February or July, but that didn't stop the Daily Mail from getting you to stop what you were doing to pay attention to these dinosaur dicks right this second.