If there was an Onion magazine for scientific articles, then this could be a headline in it: "The dinosaurs were once considered reptilian, but the new results suggest we may need to rethink their evolution".
The reporter presents the fact that dinosaurs were warm-blooded as a new discovery, but that's been known for several decades now, so we may not have to rethink their evolution afterall. It may have been new information to the people at Scientific American, but when writing about a subject that they know nothing about, I'd at least expect some basic research like reading the first sentence on the Wikipedia entry for dinosaurs.
Checking a few other articles from the Scientific American, they were equally poor or without substance. It's tabloid level journalism about science. They used to have a good reputation when I grew up, so it's sad to see how far it has fallen.
Edit: the New Scientist has a proper article about the same study:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2589534-t-rex-teeth-show-the-enormous-predatory-dinosaur-was-warm-blooded/
Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260917184844/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2589534-t-rex-teeth-show-the-enormous-predatory-dinosaur-was-warm-blooded/
all 8 comments