The BBC's latest science series has been a runaway success, but is it realistic and revealing, or does it stomp roughshod over the facts DR IAN HARDING of the School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, reveals the make-believe.

When the 19th century fossil expert Sir Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" in 1842, he could little have imagined that his "terrible lizards" would become such enduring creatures of wonder in the public imagination - let alone take centre stage in a £6 million state-of-the-art computer animated documentary series.

Opening with estimated audiences of over 13 million - which have soared to 19 million - the prime-time Walking with Dinosaurs is now officially the most popular science programme ever aired on television.

But even as the plaudits come in, the accompanying stream of criticism is leaving the BBC as seriously savaged as the remains of Tyrannosaurus rex's last meal.

Whereas the technical skills in bringing to life these extinct creatures of the past are undeniable, the science community is rightly taking issue with the normally authoritative BBC in what many see as a betrayal of trust.

In the well-rehearsed wildlife docu-soap format, this supposed science programme uneasily blurs known palaeontological fact with unsubstantiated speculation in each fateful episode.

Although the fossil record can furnish us with some remarkable facts about these magnificent creatures, it cannot, regrettably, provide us with much evidence of many of the behavioural characteristics shown in the films. Why suggest that cynodonts either suckled their young or were cannibalistic without substantiating evidence Given that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs can't urinate, why show the Triassic Postosuchus so doing

Why produce animations of the pterosaur Ramphorhynchus probing for bark beetles and then explain that its beak was not adapted to such a purpose

Of course we can hypothesise that Diplodocus may have had an ovipositor, or that Liopleurodon could hold its breath under water for over an hour, but these points are nothing more than speculative interpretations drawn from analogies with very distantly-related living species.

While one cannot object to a certain degree of artistic licence, surely Kenneth Branagh's narration should allow the general public to be able to discern the fact from the fiction

One of the most refreshing aspects of the programmes is the attention to detail given to the landscapes in which the resurrected dinosaurs are placed - authentic contemporary plants with not a blade of grass in sight! But surely an important opportunity has been missed for emphasising the important new discoveries which have resulted from raising these creatures from the dead on the computer screen.

There can, however, be no doubt that this blockbusting series will do much to dispel commonly held misconceptions of dinosaurs as stupid, slow and ungainly beasts - the recruitment of a new generation of would-be palaeontologists is probably proceeding apace.

To borrow a phrase from the popular science writer Stephen Jay Gould, fossils are "the old ones, and they are trying to tell us something" - but there is the worry that the BBC is misleading by interpreting the messages written in the bones of the dinosaurs.

This article first appeared in New Reporter, the University of Southampton newsletter.

Converted for the new archive on 25 January 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.