Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Scientists Examine Dinosaur Skin

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Jan 10, 2008 01:27 AM
from the beyond-wrinkled dept.
Science
jd writes "Fossilized skin from a dinosaur in China is allowing paleontologists a better understanding of what dinosaur skin was like. A tear, caused by a predator, shows that below the scales of the Psittacosaurus was a thick hide comprised of 25 layers of collagen. Other than the multitude of layers, this is very similar in nature to modern shark skin. The gash caused by a predator allowed the skin and the soft interior to be fossilized along with the bones. This is not the same dinosaur that had been reported previously on Slashdot, which was found in South Dakota, although the process and extent of fossilization is very similar."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Dinosaur Fossil Found With Preserved Soft Tissue 248 comments
damn_registrars writes "A fossilized hadrosaur has been uncovered in South Dakota that has preserved soft tissue. This is described as a "mummified" dinosaur, and allows for a look at the skin and musculature of some parts of this animal. The find was reported by a 24 year old Yale graduate student of paleontology."
Submission: It's only a flesh wound! by jd (1658)
This discussion has been archived.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.

Scientists Examine Dinosaur Skin 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Food Nerd Alert (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Misanthrope (49269) on Thursday January 10 2008, @01:35AM (#21980662)
    Imagine the amount of gelatin dinosaur stock would contain, it'd put veal shanks to shame.

  • When I read the summary my first thought was "it could be a fake" [paleodirect.com].

    -:sigma.SB

    • Then clearly this is proof of Intelligent Deception.
       
    • Exactly my thought.

      A remarkable fossil fetches the finder many times the average annual income of that region, while a 'common' fossil isn't worth all that much. The temptation is just too great for an artist to resist 'improving' a common fossil.

      It's an ancient tradition too, in the colonial age, traders sometimes brought back stuffed unicorns and mermaids bought in China. For this reason, when the first stuffed Platypus was sent back to Europe, the sample was first assumed to be a Chinese fake.
  • How was the flesh preserved, and not eaten by microbes?
    Suddenly covered by sediment seems like odd explanation.

    Like there was all of a sudden a large amount of water full of particulates put on top of this land dwelling animal. Then allowed to settle.
    Weird
    • How was the flesh preserved, and not eaten by microbes? Suddenly covered by sediment seems like odd explanation.

      If this was Trek, I would propose interference from tachyon particles as the culprit.
           

    • How was the flesh preserved, and not eaten by microbes? Suddenly covered by sediment seems like odd explanation.
      The dinosaur was probably buried by his kin after his death. I'm sure the culprit was arrested afterwards and brought to justice...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amRadioHed (463061)
      It may seem like an odd explanation, but keep in mind that fossils are ridiculously rare. If it weren't for freak accidents we wouldn't have any fossils at all.
    • Fossil finds do seem a little suspicious lately. Someone points out that the display at a museum is actually the bones from several species, then *poof*, someone digs up an intact skeleton. Someone starts a debate about dinosaurs having feathers, and then *poof*, someone finds fossil feathers. Someone makes a movie about dinosaur DNA, and then a year or two later, *poof*, soft tissue remains. And what's up with dinosaur footprints? Mountain ranges came and eroded away, oceans have wandered around, yet

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by micromuncher (171881)
      There are lots of environmental conditions that can discourage decomposition. Cold, pressure, alkalinity, acidity, salinity, [lack of] humidity, etc. Think of bogs and bitumen (tar pits).

  • Duplisaurus Paranoidus (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday January 10 2008, @01:58AM (#21980760) Homepage Journal
    This is not the same dinosaur that had been reported previously on Slashdot

    Somebody's a bit sensitive about dupes ;-)
           

  • Oh, the fools! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mad-seumas (59267) on Thursday January 10 2008, @02:17AM (#21980882)
    If only they'd built them with 26 layers!

  • same as shark skin? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DreamerFi (78710) <john&sinteur,com> on Thursday January 10 2008, @02:23AM (#21980916) Homepage
    You mean we can mount a frikking laser on them?

  • And to think... (Score:3, Funny)

    by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday January 10 2008, @04:21AM (#21981386)

    How wonderful to consider that this animal's descendants walk among us to this very day. Chubby, piggish little creatures. Omnivorous. Voracious. Almost invulnerable due to their incredibly tough skin. Scavenging when they must, picking off a vulnerable or unwary victim when they can.

    We call them "lawyers".

  • Yummy (Score:3, Funny)

    by El Yanqui (1111145) on Thursday January 10 2008, @05:18AM (#21981658) Homepage
    Mmm.. spicy Psittacosaurus rinds.

  • Dakota (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cemu (968469) on Thursday January 10 2008, @09:01AM (#21982870)

    ...which was found in South Dakota.
    North Dakota. The article previously covered was found in North Dakota. For those of you who have never been there before, there is a difference - not just geographically either.
  • Just a correction: The dinosaur mummy that was previously reported on Slashdot a couple weeks ago was found in North Dakota. I repeat my assurances that these two states are separate and that every article and TV program about that dinosaur that I was aware of got it right, except Slashdot.
  • "Great jerky professor!"

    "Damnit Fry I was going to eat that!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by clsours (1089711)
      Well, evolution isn't really all that good at creating new things, but is very good at retaining good designs.

      • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tatisimo (1061320) on Thursday January 10 2008, @02:10AM (#21980852)
        Reading the 'Origin of Species' gives great insight into those ideas. It's gives pretty interesting explanations (though a bit outdated) on why some species seem to revert to old forms (such as why whales look like fish), and why some useful features stay the same through the ages seemingly unchanged. Go on, get it and take it one idea at a time. It's available to everyone as a free audiobook [librivox.org] or free text [gutenberg.org]

        • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

          by WiFiBro (784621) on Thursday January 10 2008, @05:36AM (#21981718)
          Additionaly "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins gives a great overview of the various eye in the animal kingdom. Interesting bits are how the eye apparently developed along several lines, and how a choice made early in evolution can hardly be undone, such as the blood vessels being in front of the retina in the eyes of vertrebrates. (Or wait, God did that to protect the retina.)
          • Alternately, both premises are true concurrently.

            Just thought I'd mention it, because I know how Dawkins loves his false dichotomy fallacies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gnick (1211984)
        Well put - This is certainly interesting, but it would have been more surprising to learn that they had some completely different and unique skin structure. Sharks and many reptiles have been around a helluva long time because they're very well adapted to their niches.
        ---
        On a side note, I find it pleasantly surprising that Firefox's spell-check happily accepted 'helluva'.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by skeftomai (1057866)
        Creationist nonsense...marked interesting???

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

      by theMerovingian (722983) on Thursday January 10 2008, @02:28AM (#21980938) Journal

      A tear, caused by a predator, shows that below the scales of the Psittacosaurus was a thick hide comprised of 25 layers of collagen.

      It's like I always say, 25 layers of collagen just isn't enough if you can't outrun your predators.

    • Other than the multitude of layers, this is very similar in nature to modern shark skin.
      A bit like the skin of a Vista versus an Expi, or a Leopard and Tiger, or a Gibbon and a Faun.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

      by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Thursday January 10 2008, @03:29AM (#21981170)
      First, life has gone through BILLIONS of years, not just million. Secondly, mammals and reptiles are very closely related. And finaly, (almost ?) all multicellular species that existed in the last 2 billion years use collagen to make their cells stick together.
      • Yes but life is Millions of years old, as well as Billions. Get enough Millions and you start getting billions.

        • Yes but life is Millions of years old, as well as Billions. Get enough Millions and you start getting billions.
          But isnt that like saying you are only a year old. Get enough years and you start getting to your real age?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pnewhook (788591)

        First, life has gone through BILLIONS of years, not just million. Secondly, mammals and reptiles are very closely related. And finaly, (almost ?) all multicellular species that existed in the last 2 billion years use collagen to make their cells stick together.

        That's a little misleading. Yes life has been around for billions of years but only primitive celled organisms and bacteria. Thefirst complex life including the first fishes, corals, trilobites and shellfish only appeared in the Cabrian period which

        • Yes, but the OP seemed to generalize from the common points between dinausors that existed roughly 100 million years ago and modern mammals to some kind of universality. Repiles and mammals share a lot of things (in particular general anatomy) because they have a not so distant common ancestor (and the differences beside milk production are not that absolute: the platypus lays eggs while some reptiles are warm-blooded or take care of their offspring.

          • Yes and some fish lay eggs while others have live birth. And these fish aren't completely different either - they are similar size and live in similar conditions.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MightyMartian (840721)
          This is incorrect. The first complex multicellular life (excluding various colonial bacteria and the like, which have been around a lot longer) appear in the Ediacaran period about 600-610 million years ago. It's an all-too-common myth that the Cambrian Explosion represents the origins of such life.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

      by Yetihehe (971185) on Thursday January 10 2008, @03:57AM (#21981292)
      More interesting is a question how much earlier than europeans chinese began fossilizing their dinosaurs
      • Not surprising if you've ever been to a market in chinatown. They are very much into preserving animals of all kinds in as many ways as possible.
        • Not surprising if you've ever been to a market in chinatown. They are very much into preserving animals of all kinds in as many ways as possible.

          Shouldn't that be "serving" and not "preserving"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Morty (32057)

      It's interesting to me that over the millions of years of evolution life has gone through, we're still using the same basic outlines for anatomy.

      100 million years is the recent past, in evolutionary terms. See the Timeline of evolution [wikipedia.org].
      Single-celled life evolved about 4 billion years ago. The even bigger leap to multi-celled life was 1 billion years ago. By 100 million years ago, we already had all the big developments except human brains: plants, fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and

    • It's interesting to me that over the millions of years of evolution life has gone through, we're still using the same basic outlines for anatomy.

      The reason we think this is because of our perspective. Stand back and look and then it's different. Live has existed on earth for maybe 4 billion years. Dinosaurs lived 160 million years ago. 160 million yeas is only four percent of the total time life has existed on Earth.

      • Re:I was about to make that joke (Score:5, Funny)

        by 4D6963 (933028) on Thursday January 10 2008, @02:17AM (#21980880)

        Great, thanks! Cause every time someone jokes about creationism, God goes back to the Jurassic and kills a dinosaur!

        • "Great, thanks! Cause every time someone jokes about creationism, God goes back to the Jurassic and kills a dinosaur!"

          Creationism being the joke that it is, I think you have now truly found out the reason why dinosaurs died out!

          As for this being a fake, well, as far as I know faked fossils are not that common, even from China. With this I mean fossils (or items considered to be such) that are the subject of serious research - "normal" fake fossils are sold to gullible tourists everywhere. (For a great

          • Re:I was about to make that joke (Score:5, Funny)

            by RuBLed (995686) on Thursday January 10 2008, @03:13AM (#21981114)
            What do you think God was doing when dinosaurs are joking about creationism?

            Right... and we're clever indeed...
            • Probably contentedly realizing that it's psychologically impossible for humans to indefinitely continue to define "creationism" as "the straw-man combination of whatever the worst theistic argument I can find is, along with the idea God exists, by which I non-sequitur the supposed refutation of the second part, by the supposed refutation of the non-determinative first part". Sure, it's all packaged in one convenient word, but the irrationality of irrational usage of the term becomes clear as soon as its us

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.