Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Giant Dinosaur Bird Discovered

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 15, 2007 08:35 PM
from the einstein-looks-scared-of-the-big-birdy dept.
Science
Cyclist110 writes "The BBC has the story of the discovery, in Inner Mongolia, of a Dinosaur bird twice the size of a man and weighing in at over 3000 lbs. From the article: 'Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant in the Erlian basin in Inner Mongolia. The researchers had originally thought they had found the bones of a tyrannosaur — the group of dinosaurs to which T. rex belongs — due to their large size.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released 108 comments
A new species of dinosaur discovered in Utah's Grand Staircase was only recently released to the public. Dubbed Gryposaurus Monumentensis (derived from a combination of "hook-beaked lizard" and a tip of the hat to the discovery location) scientists estimate this duck-billed dino could have had as many as 800 teeth in his massive mouth. "While the diet is unknown, given the considerable size of the creature, the massive teeth and jaws are thought to have been used to slice up large amounts of tough, fibrous plant material. The teeth may hold important clues the dinosaur's eating habits. The Utah museum plans to study the composition of the dinosaur teeth, which when compared to other plant-eating dinosaurs from the Kaiparowits Formation, will help researchers decipher differences in diet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Giant Dinosaur Bird Discovered 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Discredited (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phantomcircuit (938963) on Friday June 15 2007, @08:37PM (#19527835) Homepage
    So this will be discredited when?

    • Re:Discredited (Score:5, Informative)

      by mark0 (750639) on Friday June 15 2007, @09:37PM (#19528177)
      Why is the parent modded down? There is a long history of fake fossils [paleodirect.com] coming out of China. The posting is, perhaps, a bit terse, but hardly a troll.

      • Did you bother to read the white text in the website you referred before you jump to the yellow text? While at least, all Chinese fossil out side of China are illegal, because exporting fossil is forbidden by Chinese law. We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance.

        As fossil discovered in China by scientist, your source said "China has an immense scientific wealth of genuine fossil deposits."

        • Did you bother to read the white text in the website you referred before you jump to the yellow text?

          Yes, of course I did.

          While at least, all Chinese fossil out side of China are illegal, because exporting fossil is forbidden by Chinese law. We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance.

          We aren't at odds here. There are plenty of legitimate fossils in China. At the same time, there are plenty of fakes that hit the news are are show to be bunk. I believe that shows that you are right, I am right, and the parent posting in this thread simply refers to that history of bunk that overshadows the legitimate.

        • We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance.

          I have bought fossils from China. They sell everything over there no matter what they say. I had a Chinese trilobite embedded in a slab of sedimentary rock. Then my house burned down. When I went back to salvage it later I made my huge scientific discovery: trilobites were made of plastic!

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by HeroreV (869368)
            The article says it was flightless. You know what else says it was flightless? The summary. Can't you at least read the summary?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by paleo2002 (1079697)

        China has been a major source of new theropod fossils over the past 15 or so years. I have friends at the AMNH who are working on dinosaur and bird fossils from the Gobi. The AMNH cosponsors digs with Chinese researchers all the time. Sometimes their government is not very enthusiastic about sharing material, but we often work something out.

        Check out http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/gigantorapt or-erlianensis-from-china.html [blogspot.com] for more information. It turns out a Japanese film crew was there whe

  • Wark! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Arakageeta (671142) on Friday June 15 2007, @08:41PM (#19527859)
    Waaaaaark!

  • Joust Anyone? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2007, @08:50PM (#19527913)
    I have already spent years mastering the control of these beasts!
    • This thing cannot fly; it can only run. It is the Chocobo.
      • In Joust, you were riding an ostrich as player one or an emu as player two and neither of those fly, so I think he's alright.
      • I have to admit that one of the first things I thought was "Pass the barbeque sauce!"

        I figure a ton and a half of barbequed dino-chicken should be food enough for a nice party (considering some of the ones we've had where we roasted half a cow). Besides, eating something that would probably want to eat you first is a case of turnabout being fair play in my book.

  • Imagine the potential! (Score:4, Funny)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Friday June 15 2007, @08:53PM (#19527933)
    If birdlike dinosaurs got that big then giant chickens must be possible. Just imagine the MacNuggets!
    • If birdlike dinosaurs got that big then giant chickens must be possible. Just imagine the [size of the] MacNuggets!

      Or the people who eat them
           
  • (score -1: really, really f'ing lame)

  • Terror Birds!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hal_Porter (817932) on Friday June 15 2007, @09:04PM (#19527993)
    Phorusrhacids (marketed as Terror Birds!!! by the ever highbrow Scientific American) are cooler giant extinct birds. I like the way in the SciAm pictures they have a thoughtful, confident expression too, like they're thinking "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"

    E.g. see the picture here -

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/08 01_050801_terrorbirds.html [nationalgeographic.com]
    • "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"

      My parrot, who weighs about 5 pounds soaking wet, has that same expression. It's just a birdism.

  • Xing Xu (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BamZyth (940235) on Friday June 15 2007, @09:17PM (#19528069)
    I am too lazy to find hard references, but Xing Xu, the researcher who found
    this fossil was once involed in the discovery of another "dinosaur bird" which
    was shown as a fraud. To his credit, he was also involved in the team that discovered
    the fraud (isn't it strange?)

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/19 50967.htm [abc.net.au]

    FTFA : In 2001 he was embroiled in controversy over the discovery of a fossil believed to be the 'missing link between dinosaurs and birds, which tests revealed to be a clever fraud.
    • once involed in the discovery of another "dinosaur bird" which
      was shown as a fraud.

      It was the "Made in China" label that gave it away :-)
             
  • Drie duisend pond is 'n blerrie groot voe"l...
  • That, gentlemen, is a great big cock.

    What?

    It's basically a big rooster, right?

    What's that look for?

  • By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. But like anyone after much work, He was hungry; so at that moment He said: "Wait, one more thing...Let there be a KFC!" And with those words a giant dinosaur bird appeared, battered in the Colonel's secret recipe and deep fried. He took one bite of it and said: "Mmmm, tastes just like chicken."
  • This story has been posted for long enough. Where's the "I bow before our new feathered overlords?" Or how about "I'm allergic to down, you insensitive clod!"

    Man /. really *is* getting less worth my time!

  • It's twice the size of a man but weighs 3000 pounds (about twenty times what a man weighs)...
    and it flew??

    • "...and it flew??"

      At least read the summary, I know it's bad form on /. to RTFA, but not even the summary???

      Or is it the fact 'flightless'(from the summary) has too many syllables for you to grasp?

      I would ask if you were new here, but I see your UID says otherwise...you should know better by now if you aren't brain dead.

      If you feel your 5 digit UID elevates you past such concerns, then do the rest of us a favor and just lurk.

    • It's twice the size of a man but weighs 3000 pounds (about twenty times what a man weighs)... and it flew??

      But with a high wing loading (and stall speed). Maybe it was a giant hummingbird.

  • I for one mourn the loss of our Gigantoraptor overlords. May we always be rulled by beings as humble and powerful as the Gigantoraptor.
  • over 3000 lbs. From the article: 'Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant

    That's a relief.
  • I, for one, welcome our giant bird dinosaur overlo--- oh, wait, just the fossils? Nevermind then.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NotQuiteReal (608241)
      3000 lbs is not much more than twice as much as this 1200 lb guy [go.com]

      But, in general, I agree with your shock and horror of picturing a 1500 pound man...

    • Remember the square-cube law. If it's twice as tall, it's got eight times as much volume. Double the height of 200 pound man and you get a 1,600 pound man. That puts us within a factor of two.

      The thing must be somewhat rounder than we are. Remember that a horse the size of a man at the shoulder weighs over a ton. If it were shaped like a horse, at "twice the size" of a man it would weigh 16,000 pounds.

      Clearly it's shaped somewhere between a human and a horse, and much closer to the human side of thin
    • Well, it's pretty simple, actually. I believe in some way, shape or form, God created the thing. Maybe He made it evolve, maybe He made it appear out of thin air...essentially I don't know, and don't need to. Creationism and science aren't necessarily exclusive. I simply believe that the scientific reasons behind what happens exist at the behest of a supreme being.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by catbutt (469582)

        I simply believe that ...
        Based on....?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by onedotzero (926558)
            I think active athiests see how much damage is done by religion. I would like to suggest you watch The Root of All Evil [imdb.com] by Richard Dawkins.

            Although somewhat terse and often rude[1] the documentary highlights some serious problems with accepting religion and giving it the respect that it sees as being an inherent right.

            [1] Not necessarily a bad thing - this is Richard Dawkins through and through :)

        • Re:Creationists (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jeiler (1106393) <go.bugger.offNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday June 15 2007, @08:59PM (#19527971) Journal

          "With that reasoning, wouldn't all plant life have died as a result of this "great flood"?

          Yes, it would kill the plant life ... but that doesn't matter, because they'll think of some "reason" why it wouldn't, even if they have to fall back on "Goddidit." Creationism (like any other a priori position) does not rely on logic, reason, or evidence.

          That's not to say that I feel that religion or faith or a priori knowledge is worthless--heck, I'm a theist myself. But (IMHO) when a person's gotten to the point that they'll explain away fundamental facts--as Creationists attempt to do--then argument is a waste of time.

          For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.

          • How about seeds? They can survive being submerged for quite a while. And no, plants don't automatically die under water. I have a bottom field that floods out every spring for several weeks at a time and I have never had to plant grass or shrubs on it. It is protected from a fast moving current since the stream that floods it is small and the flood runs over a dike so you don't have all the plant life eroding or washing away.

            I guess dieing out might be a possible and probably is a fact. However I'm not sure

              • I'm used to discussing these issues with YEC "Biblical Literalists," so remember you're talking about a whole year under water--and you're not just dealing with the water itself, you're also dealing with the pressure of all that water weighing down on the plants, the lack of sunlight, the absence of the normal reproductive cycle, the lack of pollinating insects. Even if your trees survived, your annuals are gone ... and with only two of each pollinating insects (for those plants that need insects to pollinate), and the necessary wait of perhaps several year for the recovery of the pollinating animals.

                According to the Bible the flood did not last a year, 40 days and 40 nights. Or about 1.3 months. Also...couldn't there have been a stash of seed on the arc as well? The ones that can't survive underwater simply could have been replanted.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by localman (111171)
            I agree almost completely... but I was raised fundamentalist Christian and argued the creationist side of things many times in my teens. Then around 17 or so all the good points by others started adding up and I had doubts. And then I went through an agnostic phase, and finally settled as a happy well adjusted atheist :) My sister followed a similar path on a different timeline. So I'm just saying that discussion with religious types isn't always 100% useless. They'll probably never admit it during the

      • After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc).

        First of all, "wondering around in Theology making stuff up" is a very interesting statement considering the rest of your post. How do you suppose the people who think the 6 days of creation mentioned in the Bible did happen however they took place over millions of years arrived at that conclusion? Another problem I have with your opening sentence is that you claim the Christians who have thrown away the authority of the Bible are the ones who believe it...this doesn't even make sense from a non-religiou

        • Where in the above post does it say that we don't believe our own holy book? The point is that there are different ways to read the book. Some of those ways are more rational than others.

          As for us being lemmings, do you follow a unique version of your faith? Did someone teach it to you? Is your family Bahai, your community? Why aren't you a lemming, too?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Lachlan Hunt (1021263)
      It said 8m long, not 8m tall.

    • Re:Twice as tall as a man? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jfengel (409917) on Friday June 15 2007, @09:14PM (#19528047) Homepage Journal
      The height of a horse is measured to the withers, basically its shoulders. I suspect that applies to quadrupeds in general. It's because it's a fairly stable place to measure to, but it's hard to keep a horse steady.

      This bird isn't a quadruped, but if it has a long and neck it's more meaningful to measure to the shoulder than the top of its head.

      The 8 meters is length, rather than height: tip of its head to the top of its tail, and the height is measured foot to shoulder. (I'm inferring that the thing has a tail. I'd much rather get my science news from Science News than from the BBC.)
    • I, for one, welcome our 3000 lb, twice-as-tall-as-a-man, giant dinosaur bird overlords.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ChronoFish (948067)
      You rationalize like a creationist.

      For starters humans are larger than most other primates and our fossil record shows a progression in height.

      Aside from that, evolution makes no prediction about size. Evolution is not (does not have to be) linear. What is predictable, is that if size matters (either smaller or larger) a population will tend to the beneficial size over time.

      -CF

    • I don't see what advantage beaks have over teethed jaws.

      Well, it is less complex. Probably less mass. Better overall for a lightweight animal.

      Another little mystery is why snails survive

      Perhaps by being barely alive in the first place. Less energy needed to stay alive.

      Thats enough mysteries solved for today.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.