Two Centuries of Wrong

It seems that some of palaeontology's preconceived notions theories might not be so solid as they presume.

The find also suggests that scientists may have underestimated the size of many dinosaur species.

The CT scans of the vertebrae suggest that an extra yard or so needs to be added to the length of most dinosaurs.

Dr Phil Manning says: "We've had 150, nearly 200 years of people looking at this particular animal saying that's what it looks like.

"If we're wrong with Hadrosaurs, we could be wrong with many other groups.

"We could have a T. Rex with a double chin for all we know."

Of course, expect many of them to cling tightly to the theory du jour rather than accept new evidence which contradicts it. It seems that some in the scientific community these days invest so much in their tightly held beliefs that they hate to see evidence get in the way.

Feathered Raptor

I had intended to blog on this yesterday when the news came out but I decided instead to lie down and moan softly in pain. Anyway, here's some more dinosaur news, which I'm sure you've read already, concerning the ferocious velociraptor. Turns out someone has discovered quill knobs on the forearms bones of a specimen and now the press is doing its usual "dinosaur revisionism" dance. A few feathers and apparently velociraptors weren't predatory carnivores but big fluffy turkeys; as if feathers make them less dangerous. Have these people even heard of terror birds? Only The Times seems to avoid knocking down another dinosaur icon-

The discovery means that as well as being more decorative than the creatures that appeared in the film they could have been an even more terrifying predator because the feathers would probably have been improved their manoeuvrability.

The researchers said that one of the most likely functions of the feathers was to display to other velociraptors, perhaps in courtship rituals or as a show of strength against aggressors. Other functions could have included use as a shield to protect eggs, a temperature control to prevent the dinosaurs from getting too hot or cold, or to help them to manoeuvre while running.

And some reports also mention the fact that the raptors portrayed in Jurassic Park (apparently the main reference for the press and many scientists alike these days) were smaller than real life- "oh, they're so tiny and they have feathers". It seems that few in the media are at all scared of a six foot long, three foot tall predator which hunts in packs, has inch long teeth and a sickle shaped foot claw 3.5 inches long. That would appear to indicate a serious lack of imagination to me. Although heavier, for example, a Doberman Pinscher is only a little over two feet tall. Would a pack of wild and hungry Dobermans scare a member of the press? Given the alarmist cover of dog attack stories I can only assume the answer is a resounding "yes". Is it really that hard then to picture in their minds the dangers that a velociraptor could pose, feathered or not?

Oh yeah, and these same reports fail to mention thee larger raptor species that was discovered around the same time as the Jurassic Park movie and billed as Utahraptor- like Spielberg's raptors these were about 6 feet high and 22 feet long, weighing in at a huge 1500lbs. I wonder if these dinosaurs magically become less dangerous when covered in feathers too?

More Dino Speeds

Here we go- another study of dinosaur running speeds. When will these guys realise that the only way to definitively prove how fast a T. Rex could run is to develop a time machine and then send me back in time to the Cretaceous? I mean, really, computer models?

Scientists using computer models calculated the top speeds for five meat-eating dinosaurs in a study they say can also illustrate how animals cope with climate change and extinction.
Okay, so how do they measure up?

The velociraptor, whose speed and ferocity was highlighted in the film "Jurassic Park", reached 24 miles per hour while the T-rex could muster speeds of up to 18 miles per hour, the study published in the Royal Society's Biological Sciences showed.

"Our research, which used the minimum leg-muscle mass T-rex required for movement, suggests that while not incredibly fast, this carnivore was certainly capable of running and would have little difficulty in chasing down footballer David Beckham, for instance," said Phil Manning, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester, who worked on the study.

Not incredibly fast? Okay, it's no Ferrari but please- we're talking about a six ton predator that was some forty feet long and had teeth like steak knives. 18mph is plenty fast for that. I really can't wait for the time that palaeontology stops being compared to Jurassic Park.

The smallest dinosaur -- the Compsognathus -- could run nearly 40 miles per hour, about 5 miles per hour faster than the computer's estimate for the fastest living animal on two legs, the ostrich.

A top human sprinter can reach a speed of about 25 miles per hour.

For a handful of seconds- how long could T. Rex maintain its speed for?

I'm actually pretty shocked by the suggested speed of the Compy- that thing was about three feet long with a good deal of that being tail- and it's thigh is only about four inches long. I'm stunned that they estimate its running speed so high. An ostrich, by way of comparison, is some six feet tall with considerably stronger and sturdier legs- interesting to note that their computer model put it at 35mph but in reality it's top speed can be higher than 40mph. And according to this Times article on the study they also estimated the emus speed to be 29.8mph, slightly lower than the actual figure of 31mph. I wonder how long the Compsognathus could run that fast for? I'm guessing not long- little lizards can move pretty fast today so it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the tiny Compy zooming around. Seems I'm not the only one that's got a raised eyebrow about that result (and there's a little more detail on the way the study was conducted at that link)-

Not everyone is convinced by the approach, however. "Their method seems to work poorly for a small, chicken-sized dinosaur," says John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, who led the 2002 study of T. rex. The estimate for Compsognathus is "ridiculous," he says.

Dilophosaurus and Allosaurus were also tested in the study but their results don't seem to be of sufficient interest to report, not by CNN or The Times or even New Scientist that is- thankfully though Fox News comes to the rescue. Dilophosaurus was estimated to move at a speedy 23.5mph and the Allosaurus at 21mph.

T. Rex Update

A brief update on this story. National Geographic reports the study's findings-

The team found the animal, hampered by a long tail and that heavy body, would have taken one to two seconds to make a quarter turn—far slower than a human.

"We now know that a T. rex would have been front-heavy, turned slowly, and could manage no more than a leisurely jog," Hutchinson, the lead study author, said.

Pretty much the same angle as the Fox News report and, I'm sure, all the rest of the media outlets that covered the story. And they even manage to mention that T. Rex probably wasn't as fast as depicted in Jurassic Park, that well-known reference film for palaeontologists.

"The method that we applied, creating a kind of computer sculpture of the body of a T. rex, takes into account the whole anatomy," he said.

Well, that's actually debatable- as I mentioned before the T. Rex is thought to have had the long, heavy tail to counter-balance the weight at the front of its body- and the tail was stiff to also aid it in turning. As it began to turn right, for example, the tail would have been whipped left to help it manoeuvre more quickly, the weight of the tail swinging it around- this study may have taken it's anatomy into account but not its bio-mechanics. And again they make comparisons to elephants- four pillar like legs to distribute weight- but do not even mention the T. Rex's slender legs and highly articulated feet. If pillar-leg elephant can move at 25mph why assume that more graceful T. Rex could only equal that speed when it's body structure seems to suggest a faster and more agile creature?

T. Rex Speed

Here we go again- another piece of research that aims to prove that all of our notions about the T. Rex are wrong, wrong, wrong.

T. Rex was no slacker. But the popular image of a nimble predator turning on a dime and chasing down prey with lightning speed is fiction, new computer models show.

The terrifying tyrannosaur was actually a slowpoke.

Which, of course, raises the question- what was the computer model based on?

To get a better estimate of the giant's movement, the new study modeled a typical complete T. rex skeleton, which probably weighed between about 13,000 and 17,000 pounds, and estimated its center of mass and the inertia, or resistance to movement, that it would have had when the animal turned or pivoted.

For example, an elephant's four tree trunk-like legs keep its center of mass over its feet, while T. rex would have had to balance its mass differently over its two small legs, bending them to keep from toppling over.

No mention of the Rex's big, heavy tail which palaeontologists think was a counter-balance for its body but okay so far. And an elephant can move at about 25mph too- but there's no mention here of the structure of the T. Rex's slender leg or articulated foot. I hope that their computer model took that into consideration.

The model results, detailed in the June 21 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, also showed that T. rex would have had considerable inertia preventing it from turning quickly; a 45-degree turn would have taken one or two seconds — far longer than for a human.

Much like modern predators and their nimble prey which try to out-manoeuvre them by twisting and turning. Good thing that all those Cretaceous humans were able to turn quickly, huh?

These calculations lend further support to previous research indicating that the large tyrannosaurs could run no faster than 25 mph (and certainly not the 45 mph seen in some movies), because its leg muscles weren't big enough for fast running.

Never mind that we can't actually say exactly how big their muscles were. There's big debate about T. Rex speed but the arguments are a little broader than this article implies. We'll get to that in a moment.

"We now know that a T. rex would have been front heavy, turned slowly and could manage no more than a leisurely jog," said team leader John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College.

Now, this research may actually be close to the truth- of course unless we develop time travel or make our own Jurassic Park we'll never know 100% just how fast the King of Dinosaurs was- but this article is so sloppily presented that it boggles the mind. They're postulating 25mph for a predator that was 40 feet long and weighed in the region of 7 tons. The T. Rex could deliver greater bite force than any other dinosaur. It's very short fore-limbs were not vestigial in any way but show areas for large muscle attachment- it's theorised that they were small in proportion to the body to reduce the weight at the front of the body and strong enough to grasp prey while the Rex delivered a killing bite. And no mention of the stiffened tail which was a counterbalance for its weight and could also have been used to help it turn rapidly- Tyrannosaurus was part of the group of dinosaurs called tetanurans, stiff-tails.

Previous research which has focused on the T. Rex's speed and which has concluded that it was slow, put its pace in the region of 11mph. Those who claimed the T. Rex was fast put it's speed between 25mph and 45mph. So this research doesn't paint the T. Rex as a "slow poke" but as a fast predator if we compare it to earlier work. To compare with a modern predator a grizzly bear can move at up to 30mph- I've seen these bursts of speed on nature documentaries and that hellishly fast. Now imagine a beast the size of a T. Rex going 25mph. Not fast if you're driving a car perhaps but moving on foot? The best Olympic sprinters can move at that pace- and only for short periods of time. The average human running speed is around 12mph- and I'd say that the vast majority of humans couldn't hold that pace for long. What really needs to be said here is that this claimed T. Rex speed would actually make it faster than the majority of other dinosaurs on which it would prey. In short, this research doesn't prove that the T. Rex was slow unless your basis for scientific knowledge comes entirely from Steven Spielberg- if we compare it to other work carried out by palaeontologists, this actually finds that the T. Rex was pretty speedy. Not so much as some have claimed but as the pace they're suggesting lies between the two extremes that are sometimes put forward I'd hazard a guess and say that they might actually be onto something.

I'd like to see team leader John Hutchinson moving at a leisurely 25mph jog. With a T. Rex behind him.

Don't Go Into The Water

Another dinosaur story and one that isn't quite breaking news- rather it's evidence that seems to support a long held theory. Tracks have been discovered which appear to show that theropods, which includes dinosaurs like T. Rex and their equally famous cousins the velociraptors, could swim. If you've read the Michael Crichton Jurassic Park novels, you'll be familiar with the concept; and what I wouldn't have given to see T. Rex swim on the big screen!

The tracks, which are 50 feet long (15 meters long) and contain 12 prints, suggest that a large animal was scrabbling at the bottom of a 10-foot-deep (3-meter-deep) lake with a swimming, not wading, motion.

The marks were likely left more than one hundred million years ago at the well-preserved La Virgen del Campo site, where scientists have also unearthed more than 10,000 other fossil footprints.

Ripples in the stone show that the dinosaur—possibly a T. rex—was fighting a current, trying not to drift sideways.

Other swimming tracks have been discovered in Utah and they may help to lend weight to the theory.

No Feathers?

The feathered dinosaur notion, which has gained so much traction amongst palaeontologists recently takes a body blow.

In a new study, researchers examined the fossil of a 140-million-year-old turkey-size dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx.

Other experts had previously concluded that distinctive patterns found on the skin of a Sinosauropteryx fossil were remnants of downy protofeathers, making the species the most primitive feathered dinosaur.

But the new team says that their analysis shows that the creature was actually bald.

The patterns are the remains of "structural fibers, probably collagen—the most abundant fiber in vertebrates—of the skin and the dorsal frill," said lead study author Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

As seems to be the way with science these days the popular theory is opposed by a small cadre of those following evidence rather than the latest trends. I once read an article in which a palaeontologist spoke of a particular species of dinosaur possessing proto-feathers; this despite the fact that there were actual fossilised remains of said dinosaur's skin proving that it had no such features.

"The existence of protofeathers in these dinosaurs was considered critical evidence that birds were derived from dinosaurs," said study co-author Alan Feduccia, a bird evolution expert at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"What we have shown is that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that protofeathers existed in dinosaurs, period."

But the majority of scientists in the field are unconvinced.

Of course they are! Heaven forbid that some evidence actually get in the way of a preconceived notion. When did science become a field in which alluring theories were held more dearly than data? Wouldn't it be nice if scientists were, oh I don't know, open-minded?

Grandfather Triceratops

Here's a little dinosaur news for you. The remains have been found of a missing link in the triceratops family tree. The newly discovered Albertaceratops nesmoi lived about 78 million years ago and it possesses features shared by both triceratops and close relative the centrosaurs (both members of the ceratopsidae family)-

Its forehead sprouted horns as large as human arms, and its skull was frilled with spikes the size of sharks' teeth.

This odd combination of features suggests that Albertaceratops is the most primitive of the centrosaurs, Ryan explained, dating back to before centrosaurs split with the family that includes Triceratops.

In short it seems to be a kind of grandfather to the horned dinosaurs which followed after it.

Burrowing Dinosaur

It seems like an absolute age since there was any dinosaur news.

The discovery of a dinosaur family fossilized in its burrow could make us rethink where the animals lived, how they behaved, and even what wiped them out, say researchers.

The creature has been dubbed Oryctodromeus cubicularis which translates as "digging runner of the lair". Catchy. It lived some 95 million years ago-

The dinosaur had a broad snout and powerful shoulders well adapted for digging, and sturdy hips that would help it to brace itself as it dug. It could also run on its back legs.

What's interesting is that the ability of the dinosaur to burrow- many of the creatures that did survive the mass extinction 65 million years ago, which ended the rule of the dinosaurs, could burrow. If they were able to survive, why couldn't the burrowing dinosaurs?

Flight of Fantasy

Budd Root's Cavewoman has some serious raptor problems.

Jurassic Park?

First it was the discovery of soft tissue in fossils- now we have a 25million year old frog found preserved in amber. And you just know what the boffins want to do.

The block of amber, or fossilized tree resin, encasing the 0.4-inch (1-centimeter) frog was unearthed in 2005 and sold to a private collector, according to the Associated Press (AP). The collector then lent the piece to scientists.

The frog's age has yet to be authenticated. But it was recovered from earthen deposits dating back 25 million years to the Oligocene epoch, Carbot told the AP.

Now Carbot hopes to make the plot of Jurassic Park a reality by drilling a small hole into the amber and attempting to extract DNA from the encased animal.

But "I don't think [the stone's owner] will allow it," Carbot told the AP, "because it's a very rare, unique piece."

If he has any sense he'll let them try. For goodness sake, start searching for mosquitoes in amber quick!

Huzzah!

Jurassic Park, here we come!

When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.

The scientists have discovered a remarkable similarity to modern day ostriches, adding further evidence to the dinosaur-bird link. The next step is a search for proteins which may give a definitive answer to the warm blooded-cold blooded debate.

Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

Precisely.

Giant Dinosaur Predator Discovered

Scientists have discovered the remains of a meat-eating dinosaur which would have towered over T. Rex. The find, probably bigger even than Giganotosaurus, was of a group of such dinosaurs, now named Mapusaurus roseae-

At forty feet long they were huge, but their bodies were more leanly built than the famous T. Rex, making them more agile, with their long knife-like teeth intended to slice through flesh rather than to crush bone. What's more, the find of a group of remains together suggests that they hunted as a pack.

Which must have been something to see!

God of Might

Paleontologists have discovered a new species of sauropod which they have named Erketu ellisoni (Erketu being a "god of might"). The unusual thing about this titanosaur, found in Mongolia, is that its neck is incredibly long in proportion to its body- some 24 feet long.

To adjust for this increased length the vertebrae (one of which measured nearly two feet in length) were honeycombed with air-sacs, enabling it to hold its neck parallel to the ground.

Erketu lived around 100 million years ago.

Giant Penguins

The fossil remains of what is believed to be the biggest penguin ever to exist have been discovered in New Zealand. Living 40 million years ago, the creature was about 5 feet tall and weighed 120 pounds.

Jurassic Park Prequel

Okay, not quite Jurassic Park, but it's a step in the right direction. Scientists in Australia are attempting to bring the extinct Tasmanian Tiger back to life through cloning.

The project to do this was originally abandoned in February of this year due to poor DNA samples but another team is to press on- with the help of good old American gene sequencing know-how.

Personally I don't see this type of project as "playing God"- sure it sounds like science fiction but to be able to bring a recently extinct species back is absolutely incredible.

Next step- the mammoth. A group of Japanese scientists were attempting this using DNA recovered from a creature found frozen in the Siberian tundra. I wonder how they're getting on?

T. Rex Take Down

David at War on Guns has some great food for thought- what would you use to hunt a T. Rex with? Fairly good timing on the topic considering the Ray Bradbury based movie Sound of Thunder is due out soon. David includes some links to articles discussing the issue. I've already left a comment- a double rifle in .600 Nitro Express (or .585 Nyati) with A-Square Monolithic solids.

That's assuming I can handle the recoil on such a beast- there's no point in hunting with a gun that you can't shoot. Outside of the big bore "African" rifles I'd say that I'd most like to be packing a Marlin 45-70 loaded up with Garrett cartridges. With a squad of Marines packing FN Mags at my back.

Please do head on over there and leave your own ideas.

I'm back!

Looks like it's time to get back to blogging again- my back's feeling slightly better and after a lot of hassle (with my crappy old computer) I've now got broadband installed. It's made a big difference in getting caught up- now all I need is something that enables me to read 40 times faster...

Anyway, here's a quick round up of today's stories-

An example of a great teacher- in bear country, and packing pepper spray instead of a .500 Smith and Wesson Magnum, a teacher explains her grizzly bear drill: the kids walk in formation from the playground into the school, while the teacher puts herself between the kids and the bear. An awful lot of teachers should be taking a leaf from this woman's book.

A judge in the UK issued an arrest warrant for a former member of the Israeli military for "war crimes" and preparations were made to arrest him at Heathrow airport. How long before some kook decides to begin arresting and prosecuting Allied citzens for serving in the War on Terror?

The world's smallest fossil footprint has been found in Scotland, showing the track of a very young dinosaur with an adult.

Speaking of the world's smallest, how about the world's smallest robot? It's so tiny that 200 of them could line up on an M&M. It's the same size as the width of a human hair.

This microrobot and similar versions that could be developed might eventually ensure information security, inspect and make repairs to integrated circuits, explore hazardous environments, or even manipulate human cells or tissues.

The days of working medical nanotech move closer and closer. When that happens it will transform the world.

Dinosaur Appearance

Maybe I'm being too harsh because I don't want the image of dinosaurs to be slighted in such a manner, but it seems to me that overturning the accepted notion of dinosaur appearance based on a few fossil finds in China is unwarranted.

A paleontologist from Dublin, Gareth Dyke, holds that the description of all dinosaurs is false based on the evidence from China of a few fossils which display evidence of being feathered.

Of course, this ignores completely the evidence which we already have of actual fossilised skin. Which incidentally includes some of the T. Rex which Dyke would have us believe is feathered.

Odd for a scientist to ignore previously discovered evidence in preference of his own discoveries? It seems to me that the current fad for the dinosaur/bird link is over-riding his objectivity.

Stegosaurs All For Show?

New research is to be published which claims that the plates and spikes of the Stegosaurs, the horns of triceratops, the helmet-like domes of the pachycephalosaurs, and the crests of the duck-billed hadrosaurs were just for show.

Previously in the case of the Stegosaurs, it's been claimed that the plates and spikes were defensive, or that they were for sexual display at mating time, or even that they were a cooling mechanism for the creatures. In the latter case, the evidence put forward to support it was that the plates contained large blood vessels- in fact, it turns out that these vessels are dead ends- there was no way the blood could cool as it passed through the plate and then return to the body. It was also noted that modern species with antlers possess similarly large blood vessels- these are required for the growth of the antler. As regards their use for sexual display, researchers found that there was no sexual dimorphism- that is, the shape of the plates does not change between the sexes, probably ruling out their use in this manner.

The idea now is that stegosaur plates were merely for species identification. The comparison is with the many modern species of antelope in Africa which have different shaped horns- they serve the purpose of differentiating one species from another. It seems like a very mundane explanation but it's also quite plausible- though it must be noted that when it comes to dinosaurs, theories are not always long lasted or by any means certain- in fact, this battle of ideas is one of the most intriguing things about this area of study. Species identification they may be for, but it seems odd to me that pachycephalosaurs, triceratops and hadrosaurs are included in the lead-in- especially since none of these are mentioned in the article.

The dome-heads of pachycephs are very thick- a two foot long head topped with eight inches of solid bone- with neck muscles designed to lock the head at right angles to the body. This is surely not "species identification", as these features were most likely used for "butting" in mating contests (think deer locking antlers) and for defence against predators.

Triceratops had a very sturdy skull- seven feet long, four feet wide and solidly constructed. Their horns could grow up to four feet in length and their frill was essentially armour covered with tough, horny skin and tipped with small horn-covered spikes. This obviously lends itself to defence and offence and appears to be a case of overkill for mere species identification. As for the duck-billed hadrosaurs, their elaborate crests contained hollowed structures which seem perfectly suited for use as resonating chambers- no doubt these could be used to make a variety of calls with which to attract a mate. Again, more than simple species identification.