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."
Also: recent photographs [smh.com.au] indicate its continued presence in the world as well as its insatiable hunger for senior citizens.
More seriously, this is pretty darn interesting, especially since the "most similar looking" modern equivalent (Ornithorhynchus anatinus [wikipedia.org]) has no teeth whatsoever. Of course, real descendents don't literally have to look like their forebearers....
I guess the prehistoric Tooth Fairy worked overtime.
Practically whenever I see dinosaurs depicted in movies, TV or other mass media, they're shown living in deserts, among volcanoes, as if their environment were the same then as it is now, when we find their fossils in those harsh conditions. Since species go extinct when they're not fit to survive a changed environment, I expect they didn't actually live in places that looked like that. This "new" dinosaur was found in a desert, near the Grand Staircase. Does the Staircase predate the death of these dinosaur
I wonder how those sorts of people would handle all of the marine fossils here in SW Kansas. Draw/film them lying around on the grass? Big-assed sea monsters in farm ponds? Heh.
Does the Staircase predate the death of these dinosaurs?
I can't tell if you're illustrating a point or seriously asking a question, but in case it's a question, the answer appears to be:
Does it predate the dinosaurs? Parts of it do. During the Cretaceous, however, it was part of the seabed and coastal plain (depending on the water level, which varied throughout the era): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Staircase [wikipedia.org]
This wasn't desert back then, though. The Cretaceous coastal plain was scrubland with scattered forest. Flowering plants and grasses were replacing older conifers and other more primitive fauna. Hadrosaurs are known to have eaten pine branches from stomach remains. They did
Practically whenever I see dinosaurs depicted in movies, TV or other mass media, they're shown living in deserts, among volcanoes
There is actually some logic to this: grass had not evolved while the Dinosaurs were around. There are now not many places on the planet where there is no grass except where nothing grows so volcanoes and deserts are logical locations. This was mentioned in the "Making of Walking With Dinosaurs" as one of the biggest problems with finding good filming locations.
The article says these dinosaurs were Cretaceous. Piperno and Sues say grass fed Cretaceous dinosaurs [wikipedia.org]. I don't think the Earth was as barren as you think.
There is actually some logic to this: grass had not evolved while the Dinosaurs were around. There are now not many places on the planet where there is no grass except where nothing grows so volcanoes and deserts are logical locations. This was mentioned in the "Making of Walking With Dinosaurs" as one of the biggest problems with finding good filming locations.
Actually, there is some evidence for grasses in the Cretaceous. However, they were nowhere near as common as they are today, so there almost certai
>>as if their environment were the same then as it is now, when we find their fossils in those harsh conditions.
I live in Missouri, which was under water much of that time. We have sea shells all over the place. Of course, that was likely due to the global flood around 4000 years ago.
I've always wondered if bones millions of years old are perfectly preserved, or if they all go through some sort of change such as shrinking or enlarging that just takes millions of years to occur.
Which global flood 4Kya? And why would you think fossil bones shrink or grow? Does this have something to do with the schools in Missouri, or some Mark Twain society?
Second-century sources suggest that he'd be more concerned about the impact on bystanders in your hypothetical...
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!" --Gospel of Thomas
...or the allusive...
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
It had "only" 300 teeth in its mouth. The rest of them were replacement teeth in its jaw, waiting to replace worn out teeth in the mouth, sort of like sharks - in the loosest sense. Hadrosaur teeth melded together to create a single huge chewing surface. Imagine if your molars were pushed together without spaces between them.
Now, this giant tooth masses would unroll from the jaws sort of like a massive roll of ultra-thick paper towels. Teeth would wear out at the chewing face and be continually replaced by teeth in the "roll" behind them.
And, when you use genus-species binomial nomenclature, the genus is capitalized but the species is not: it's spelled Gryposaurus monumentensis, which TFA got right.
Too bad they didn't choose to name this species after a particularly vocal anti-science crusader. I don't have any in particular in mind, but, seems like nothing would be quite so annoying as that.
I scanned the article, but the usual estimate height/weight of the dinosaur is missing. Would some one please dig up the info and post it. (Height in number of school buses or stories high, and weight in number of baby elephants or the good old standby libraries of congress).
The 30-foot-long dinosaur, which stood about 10-12 feet tall at the hips and weighed several tons[natch], is believed to be the largest specimen recovered from the site's 75-million-year-old Kaiparowits Formation. A description of the dino appears in this month's Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.
I don't see why this is such a discovery. Dinosaur in Utah...pft... I mean we already have a live one in captivity here. [wikipedia.org] I mean who cares about stupid bones...we even know what awful noises [hatchmusic.com] it is capable of making.
This contradicts The Book of Moron, therefore it must be false.
If you're making a reference to the Book of Mormon, I feel that I must contradict you. There is nothing in the book of Mormon that indicates, one way or the other, the existence of dinosaurs. In addition, the book of mormon starts (chronologically speaking) around 600 BC, which is well after the time of dinosaurs. Check your facts before you post, anonymous coward!
If you're making a reference to the Book of Mormon, I feel that I must contradict you. There is nothing in the book of Mormon that indicates, one way or the other, the existence of dinosaurs. In addition, the book of mormon starts (chronologically speaking) around 600 BC, which is well after the time of dinosaurs. Check your facts before you post, anonymous coward!
Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons [lds.org], satyrs [lds.org], cockatrice [lds.org], and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms [lds.org]. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters [lds.org] and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.
I'm sorry, I don't know if you are making a joke or not. I don't feel well today, so I am humor-impaired. You do realize that you are really quoting things out of context? The satyr and cockatrice references are quotes from the book of Isaiah, (unless you are stating that all Jews and Christians also believe in those too). Mormons don't believe in dragons. The quote is talking about a group of men who "like dragons did they fight". The "generic monster" that you talk about is in context, "O how great t
Sorry if my comment came accross as rude humor. Your point is well taken. However, I was trying to indicate an irony: the Book of Mormon and indeed other holy books (which claim to have a fair amount of information in them about how the universe functions) have plenty of references to non-existent creatures. Yet, they somehow fail to mention the dinosaurs (real "mythological" creatures we know existed). In or out of context, in the form of quotes or bad humor, it is a perfectly legitimate thing to point
Give it a rest already. I know everyone on slashdot hates religion, but this story's only connection to Mormonism is Utah.
Seems like everyone on slashdot is quick to preach tolerance and respect for anyone...except the religious. Seems sort of hypocritical. Slashdot is getting more and more like Digg every time I visit.
Nah, I don't think ID / Creationism jokes are going to get old any time soon. It's always funny, in a scary sort of way, when a large group of people deliberately and systematically delude themselves.
800 teeth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:800 teeth (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, this is pretty darn interesting, especially since the "most similar looking" modern equivalent (Ornithorhynchus anatinus [wikipedia.org]) has no teeth whatsoever. Of course, real descendents don't literally have to look like their forebearers....
I guess the prehistoric Tooth Fairy worked overtime.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But mostly.
released! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:released! (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately, there are plenty of hills (and mountains) in Utah to run for. Our wives will be safe.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Monument to Its Environment (Score:2)
This "new" dinosaur was found in a desert, near the Grand Staircase. Does the Staircase predate the death of these dinosaur
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you're illustrating a point or seriously asking a question, but in case it's a question, the answer appears to be:
Yeah, most of the stone was there, but it was nothing like it is today [wikipedia.org]
See especially the map on that page.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This wasn't desert back then, though. The Cretaceous coastal plain was scrubland with scattered forest. Flowering plants and grasses were replacing older conifers and other more primitive fauna. Hadrosaurs are known to have eaten pine branches from stomach remains. They did
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Grass! (Score:3, Informative)
There is actually some logic to this: grass had not evolved while the Dinosaurs were around. There are now not many places on the planet where there is no grass except where nothing grows so volcanoes and deserts are logical locations. This was mentioned in the "Making of Walking With Dinosaurs" as one of the biggest problems with finding good filming locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The scale of Anonymous Cowards' ability to just create shit from shinola is epochal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there is some evidence for grasses in the Cretaceous. However, they were nowhere near as common as they are today, so there almost certai
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Missouri, which was under water much of that time. We have sea shells all over the place. Of course, that was likely due to the global flood around 4000 years ago.
I've always wondered if bones millions of years old are perfectly preserved, or if they all go through some sort of change such as shrinking or enlarging that just takes millions of years to occur.
Re: (Score:2)
More study needed (Score:5, Funny)
For example: how did Jesus strap His saddle on a Gryposaurus?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!" --Gospel of Thomas
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
But probably
Yes, I am a pedant. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, this giant tooth masses would unroll from the jaws sort of like a massive roll of ultra-thick paper towels. Teeth would wear out at the chewing face and be continually replaced by teeth in the "roll" behind them.
And, when you use genus-species binomial nomenclature, the genus is capitalized but the species is not: it's spelled Gryposaurus monumentensis, which TFA got right.
obTBL (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If only my cock worked like that.
so these things, like, ... (Score:2)
"Run Doctor Grant, run for your life!" QUAAAACK!
Sounds like a naming opportunity was missed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Name (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Being Utah, maybe the Scosaur? I won't accept when it has been beaten and made itself irrelevant.
huh? (Score:5, Funny)
How big? Not how many! (Score:3, Informative)
...Is that you? (Score:2, Funny)
High time science stops digging up these fossils (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:High time science stops digging up these fossil (Score:2, Insightful)
Gryposaurus? Undiscovered? UNTRUE! (Score:2)
Could not find any mention of height/weight (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the full journal article: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ful [blackwell-synergy.com]
Living sample (Score:2)
Don't think so (Score:2, Funny)
given the considerable size of the creature, the massive teeth and jaws are thought to have been used to slice up large amounts of...
Mammals: It's what's for dinner.
Eh? (Score:2)
I read somewhere that we discover a new dinosaur species about once a month.
It's Ta Ta Toothy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're making a reference to the Book of Mormon, I feel that I must contradict you. There is nothing in the book of Mormon that indicates, one way or the other, the existence of dinosaurs. In addition, the book of mormon starts (chronologically speaking) around 600 BC, which is well after the time of dinosaurs. Check your facts before you post, anonymous coward!
Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons [lds.org], satyrs [lds.org], cockatrice [lds.org], and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms [lds.org]. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters [lds.org] and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"O how great t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean the Book of Moroni. It's the Latin plural for moron, and incidentally, exists. [wikipedia.org]
(Sorry, I couldn't resist; and yes, I know that "moron" is Greek.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like everyone on slashdot is quick to preach tolerance and respect for anyone...except the religious. Seems sort of hypocritical. Slashdot is getting more and more like Digg every time I visit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)