Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Dinosaur Fossil Found With Preserved Soft Tissue 248

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the begun-the-clone-wars-have dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dinosaur Fossil Found With Preserved Soft Tissue

Comments Filter:
  • Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Major Blud (789630) * on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:24PM (#21560731) Homepage
    According to the FTA, the find was originally located in 1999, and partially excavated in 2004 with a full investigation commencing in 2006. Having never studied archeology or paleontology, is it common for sites like this to be passed by even though there is something located there?
    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:49PM (#21560991)
      Dinosaurs can be big. Really big. I mean, you may think ...

      Oh, wait, wrong analogy. Seriously though, the phrase that is most relevant to answering your question is in the article: "10-ton block", plus another 4 tons, which they whittled down to "only" 5 tons in total. This is not your usual fossil extraction task. It can take significant money and time to set up what is needed to excavate a find that big, you have to transport it, and you have to find a spot for it back in the lab after you do extract it. This is back-breaking, painstaking work, and getting together a big enough chain gang^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I mean group of volunteers to do the job isn't always easy, especially when there may be a dozen other sites in the region where excavations are already under way, and to which the resources you have are already allocated. So, sometimes a site gets marked with its GPS coordinates and hidden until the resources are available. Also, sometimes you have to start the excavation before you really realize the importance of what you have found. That seems to be the case for this specimen, based on the comments in the article. They didn't originally realize how special it was.

      So, yeah, what you describe is common, especially in areas that are both remote and prolific, and especially for large dinosaur specimens. It can take years.
    • FTA? (Score:5, Funny)

      by CarpetShark (865376) on Monday December 03, 2007 @01:06PM (#21561175)

      According to the FTA...


      the Fucking Terranosaur Article?
    • Question does this mean that McRib is back?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by osu-neko (2604)

      According to the FTA, the find was originally located in 1999, and partially excavated in 2004 with a full investigation commencing in 2006. Having never studied archeology or paleontology, is it common for sites like this to be passed by even though there is something located there?

      I don't think it's a matter of being "passed by" as much as this is how long it takes with all available resources being devoted to it. This is the United States we're talking about -- basic science doesn't get funded unless t

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cedric Tsui (890887) on Monday December 03, 2007 @04:25PM (#21563773)
      According to an archeology professor of mine at Queen's University, this is very common. Excavation is a slow process, and one which is dependent on the weather. Furthermore, it is a funding intensive project.

      You find a site, then you apply for funding. When you get your funding, you start the dig. Generally you only get the summer as rain, snow or ice can damage artifact and generally make digging harder. At the end of the digging season, you place some sort of modern marker at the edges and bottom of the trench (my professor used soda cans) and fill them in until the next time you can come back.

      If your site proves to be interesting, you can get the funding renewed for another summer, and as a rule of thumb they give you funding every 2 years. This allows the funding to be spread out over a wider range of projects, and ensures the scientists have the time to publish what they found during the excavation.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nhojovadle.> on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:25PM (#21560747) Journal
    First line of the summary:

    A fossilized hadrosaur has been uncovered in South Dakota that has preserved soft tissue.
    First line of the article:

    A high school student hunting fossils in the badlands of his native North Dakota discovered an extremely rare mummified dinosaur that includes not just bones but also seldom seen fossilized soft tissue such as skin and muscles, scientists will announce today.
    For those of you who have not visited both North & South Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place. The submitter was probably confused as the belief that nothing comes from North Dakota is a well known fact. However, this news and fossil flies right in the face of that so I have to rework my post graduate thesis on black holes--it seems information can escape.

    Also, since I just watched Bender's Big Score repeatedly, "It's DOLOMITE, baby!"

    You see, beneath the fossil's crunchy, mineral shell, there's still a creamy core of hadrosaur nougat!
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:34PM (#21560843)
      Oh sure. Next I suppose you're going to try to convince us that there's a NEW Mexico. I'm not falling for that one again...
      • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Monday December 03, 2007 @01:11PM (#21561269)
        There was, in the early nineties. It didn't work out and they had to re-release Classic Mexico. It was the biggest failure of the North American nation industry until the Crystal Canada fiasco.
        • Oh, what a farce that was. To think that they could just push their so-called "Classic Mexico" on an unsuspecting populace without comment.
          The real truth is that the formula for "Classic Mexico" was stolen after the 1988 infiltration by the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, leading to the mad scramble to come up with "New Mexico".
          Puh-leez.
        • by pavon (30274)

          It was the biggest failure of the North American nation industry until the Crystal Canada fiasco.
          Hey, I liked Crystal Canada!
        • It didn't work out and they had to re-release Classic Mexico
          Which is why we'll market it as New Mexico. Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Mexico Classic and make billions! (source [imsdb.com])

    • They are, in fact, not the same place.

      Yeah, but its hard to tell when its covered in snow, it all looks the same.
      (I jest, my family lives in SD, my brother goes to school in ND ... I'm relatively familiar with both).
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dannannan (470647)
      This is not the first time they've found soft dinosaur tissue in the Dakotas. Maybe the submitter was confusing this with an earlier soft tissue find in South Dakota [newscientist.com].
    • It's DOLOMITE, baby!
      Personally, I was hoping for an edible hadrosaur a la Emperor Nimbala, former ruler of Zuben 5!
    • by Like2Byte (542992)
      My father once quipped, "If Indiana didn't suck so bad it'd be hurled into space!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ari_j (90255)
      As a North Dakotan, I read about this find earlier today and was looking for a comment like yours to see if I had to write my own. I wish that our foreign enemies whose primary complaint is that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world could understand that it's just a vocal minority (majority? ... I'm not ready to be that cynical, just yet) of Americans who are ignorant of the entire world, including the most basic facts about their own nation.

      For what it's worth, North Dakotans are as unaware t
  • Well, damn (Score:4, Informative)

    by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:26PM (#21560757) Homepage Journal
    From the summary, I was hoping it would be actual dinosaur jerky. But it's actually fossilized tissue -- neat, and a rare find, but not enough for any actual biochemistry.
  • No clone wars (Score:5, Informative)

    by oboreruhito (925965) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:29PM (#21560781)
    RTFA. There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

    Although it is described as "mummified," the 65 million-year-old duckbilled dinosaur that scientists have named Dakota bears no similarity to the leather-skinned human mummies retrieved from ancient tombs in Egypt. Time long ago transformed Dakota's soft tissue into mineralized rock, preserving it for the ages.

    "It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mpe (36238)
      There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

      It is a very useful find however. Since it enables techniques such as working out muscles from their attachment points to the bones to be refined. As well as examination of such tissues can show how these extinct animals are related to ones which exist now.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Soothh (473349)
      You know whats funny, the space scientists (from a show I saw yesterday on discovery) say the whole universe is only 12 billion years old.

      So is science so jacked up that they have THAT much of a difference?

      Yet noone can believe this book we have that lays it all out for us.

      "Scientists that go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the
      story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not
      have one iota of fact."
      Dr. Newton Tomasian, scientist fo
      • by abigor (540274)
        Strange, I only get two hits "Newton Tomasian", and they are both Biblical sites. So I'd say this is not a real person.

        Anyway, why would a "scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission" know anything about biological evolution, or biological processes in general? Your whole post is idiotic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ultranova (717540)

      RTFA. There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

      Yes, but all you have to do is cast Stone to Flesh on the fossil to bring it back to life. Quickly, before they release the Fourth Edition of D&D, for you never know if this particular spell will be removed !

  • Not real soft tissue (Score:4, Informative)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:31PM (#21560797)
    This isn't like that other discovery where what appeared to be red tissue was found inside a bone. This is just fossilized soft tissue. No soft tissue is present, just the mineral representation of what the tissue would have looked like, its structure, etc.
  • by martianred (1065052) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:32PM (#21560821)

    a hadrosaur's backside was about 25 percent larger than previously thought.
    That's... great. ... So when can we clone it already?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jesus_666 (702802)
      The larger-backsize finding was actually met with exuberance by the international archaeological community, with butt expert and OBE Sir Mixalot exclaiming "I like big butts and I cannot lie".

      "You get sprung", added Mixalot.

      However, not all scientists applaud the finding, with polymath and host of the popular science show Infinite Solutions Mark Erickson criticizing that this finding will further reduce the scientific community's interest in tiny dinosaurs, which he describes as sadly overlooked.
      • by init100 (915886)

        The larger-backsize finding was actually met with exuberance by the international archaeological community

        Archaeologists do not excavate dinosaur remains, paleontologists do. Archaeologists only deal with ancient human remains.

    • It just looks that way in those jeans
    • It's still useless to me and must be destroyed. It only has one ass. We'll have to burn the room!
  • Dino DNA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Raul654 (453029) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:32PM (#21560825) Homepage
    This isn't the first time they've gotten soft tissue from a dinosaur. A few years ago, they were trying to haul some dinosaur bones from a dig site by helocopter, but the bones wouldn't fit. After trying to solve the problem several ways, they made the agonized decision to break some of the largest bones. When they broke them open, they found soft tissue in one of them (I think it was a femur). A friend of mine (getting his phd in bioinfomatics) mentioned that they had managed to extract dinosaur proteins from this, and that because proteins are much more unstable then nucleic acids, it was entirely likely that they could extract dinosaur DNA from the specimen.
    • Also: Mammoth DNA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Raul654 (453029) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:35PM (#21560871) Homepage
      Also, in case anyone missed it, a few months back, some researchers extracted [nationalgeographic.com] enough woolly mammoth DNA from mammoth hairs to sequence it
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tomatensaft (661701)
        Hey, I've got a business idea. What would you think if we would breed those mammoths as livestock and sell their meat (Delicious Mammoth Jerky?) and, of course, ivory! And sure enough, many zoos around the globe would want to buy one for their exhibits. That would probably save the elephants from extinction...
        • So, if you clone an animal that doesn't exist... when it is born does the species automatically get added to the Endangered Species List? If so, your idea might be a quick path to jail.

          1. Clone Mammoth
          2. ...
          3. Profit

          Unfortunately step 2 might be jail.
    • A friend of mine (getting his phd in bioinfomatics) mentioned that they had managed to extract dinosaur proteins from this, and that because proteins are much more unstable then nucleic acids, it was entirely likely that they could extract dinosaur DNA from the specimen.
      Please remind him to keep it away from the amphibian DNA.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by langelgjm (860756)

      It's been several years since I've looked at any of the literature on the topic of ancient DNA, and my particular area of interest was the sequencing of human and Neandertal DNA in the arena of phylogenetics, but as I remember, the general consensus was that it would be extremely unlikely to be able to extract, amplify, and sequence enough DNA from specimens beyond, say, about 100,000 years old. The difficulties posed in specimens of geologic age would be even greater.

      Apart from deterioration, contaminatio

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by langelgjm (860756)

        Apologies for replying to my own post, but I managed to find the article I mentioned. There were two, actually: "Golenberg EM. 1991. Amplification and analysis of Miocene plant fossil DNA. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 333:419-427." and "Golenberg EM, Giannasi E, Clegg M, Smiley CJ, Durban M, Henderson D and Zurawski G. 1990. Chloroplast sequence from a Miocene magnolia species. Nature 344:656-658." Golenberg believed he had sequenced a 770 base pair nucleotide chain fr

    • by EllisDees (268037)
      There was no soft tissue found with this dinosaur, only very well preserved imprints of the soft tissue.
    • by kestasjk (933987)
      These are the three problems with dinosaur cloning:
      • Find a dinosaur DNA, enough of it to complete the dinosaur's genome
      • Make sure the dinosaur DNA isn't fragmented, which it almost certainly will be after so long. Or piece it all back together somehow.
      • You can't take a cell from a modern animal, stick dinosaur DNA inside it and turn it into a dino-cell. Even with a full dinosaur genome you can't clone a dinosaur without a dinosaur cell. It's the chicken and egg problem on a microscopic scale.

      Even if we

      • > Even with a full dinosaur genome you can't clone a dinosaur without a dinosaur cell. It's
        > the chicken and egg problem on a microscopic scale.

        Birds.

        > The hard-line Christians question the ethics of cloning and the existence of dinosaurs,
        > so how well would dinosaur cloning research go down?

        They object to the cloning of humans (they are far from alone in that).

        > Not letting them escape. Here in Australia we're having enough problems dealing with
        > cane toads, can you imagine having to deal
      • by bhima (46039)
        The problem with cane toads is that they aren't tasty.

        If velociraptor makes for a good stake they'll be extinct before they ever get started.
    • Don't know about the DNA, but the collagen from a T. Rex was similar to chicken. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html [nationalgeographic.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:34PM (#21560839)
    A team of creationist paleontologists from the Discovery Institute's main field research arm announced today that they had discovered the remains of a large manmade object confirmed to be an ancient dinosaur saddle. The Discovery Institute's discovery was discovered in the remote Dusty Rivers area of southwestern Arizona. A spokesman for the paleontological team said that the dinosaur saddle provides irrefutable proof that man and dinosaurs lived simultaneously, as predicted by most creationist or "intelligent design" doctrines.

    http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126 [avantnews.com]
    • I clicked the link and half expected to be redirected to goatse or one of those, but was rather surprised to find a real site on the other end. Next question is, is that a crack pot news site run by ID proponents, a joke site like the onion, or a real news site that's just running a crackpot story?
      • RTFL (Score:3, Informative)

        by mangu (126918)

        is that a crack pot news site run by ID proponents, a joke site like the onion, or a real news site that's just running a crackpot story?

        Let me guess, that link mentions "the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Seattle with affiliates operating at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C." and "we know Velociraptor was a vegetarian, as can be clearly deduced from its long rows of razor-sharp teeth, perfectly designed for tearing leaves from trees or rooting for truffles and other buried

        • Well, if it claims to be located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then it's clearly a joke. That's the address of the White House!
        • by Alsee (515537)
          Yep, definitely a satire site.

          More stories from the site's home page:
          * Al-Qaeda Hires Blackwater
          * AutoChat Fills the Solo Driver's Cell Phone Void
          * China First With Citizen RFID Implants
          * Treasury Sec. Paulson Calls Chain Letter, Lotto Buyback Cures to Deficit Woes
          * White House to Name Czar Czar
          * Ron Paul for President Campaign Hires Top Internet Spammer
          * Alabama Governor Riley Asks Citizens to Curse Drought
          * Rod and Reel Method May Save International Space Station
          * World's Oldest Person Not Yet Dead
          * Presi
      • by Brummund (447393)
        From the article: "Dr. Booble, who received his doctorate in paleontology from the respected Holy Patriot! Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma"

        It is indeed quite real. I fondly remember Dr. Booble's lectures, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him, his 3 wives and 27 children all the best. I hope you guys continue to dominate Claptrappe's basket, soccer and football teams!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by FiloEleven (602040)
        It was found in "Mud Flaps, AZ" by one "Dr. Booble." Looks legitimate to me...
        • Hell, I've never been to Arizona, as far as I know it could have a town called Mud Flaps. Wouldn't be any weirder than the names I've seen in some other states. Missed the Dr. Booble thing which in and of itself doesn't give it away, but what does is the mention of "oly Patriot!(TM) Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma" as someone else pointed out. So, looks like it's a joke story. After reading the about page for that site it looks like it's trying to be another the onion typ
      • by init100 (915886)

        Well, what do you think this part suggests?

        Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy Ribonucleic
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by orclevegam (940336)

          Well, what do you think this part suggests?

          Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy Ribonucleic

          He was born for this type of work? Clearly intelligent design at work.

    • by LingNoi (1066278)
      I'm not taking anything seriously from a guy called Booble. I seriously doubt he even earned his title of Dr. from a real University.
  • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:34PM (#21560851)
    FYI, this has happened a few times before. PBS Nova Science Now recently did a piece on something similar.

    Watch Online:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html [pbs.org]
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:34PM (#21560853) Homepage Journal
    smashing a house when it died?
  • by sexybomber (740588) <boccilino@gmaiPERIODl.com minus punct> on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:39PM (#21560897)
    1. God creates dinosaurs
    2. God destroys dinosaurs
    3. God creates man
    4. Man destroys God
    5. Man creates dinosaurs
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Of course you'd forget the best part:

      6. Dinosaurs eat man... women inherit the Earth.
    • by bitt3n (941736)
      hm.. so continuing based on your pattern, I get

      6. Man destroys dinosaurs
      7. Man creates God
      8. God destroys Man

      I guess Judgment Day is imminent after all..
  • I know it's just a movie but they completely sold me on the idea of getting dinosaur DNA from blood in mosquitos trapped in dried tree sap deposits. Was that all a bunch of crapola? I had assumed they had all kinds of dino DNA just sitting in a fridge somewhere waiting for cloning to really take off. Do we really not have any dino DNA on record?
    • Re:Jurassic Park? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PieSquared (867490) <isosceles2006&gmail,com> on Monday December 03, 2007 @01:15PM (#21561311)
      Some facts for you:

      1.) When cloning a sheep to give birth to itself, by putting a complete strand of its own DNA in its own egg cells in its own womb, we would have a one in several hundred chance of success. We don't know why, but the rest would be miscarriages, still births, or otherwise non-viable. The cloned animal would die early of old age, nobody knows why.

      2.) The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars. That's comparable to the Apollo project, to sequence *ONE* example of a complex being's DNA.

      3.) DNA is relatively unstable. I doesn't survive completely intact for 65 million years no matter how you preserve it.

      Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time. Not in the "something ate it" sense of the word, but in the "radioactive particles" sense of the word. So the DNA would be there, but fragmented. Analyzing one strand of complete, non-fragmented strand of DNA was an Epic undertaking. Doing it with hundreds of strands that were chopped into pieces is probably beyond our capabilities. We could also get this DNA from red blood cells found in a T-rex fossil recently, or just from grinding up the core of bones for *really* tiny bits.

      Next, you can't just patch DNA in a dinosaur with DNA from a reptile. It just doesn't work that way, and birds are closer relatives anyway if it *did* work that way.

      And then you'd have to somehow put together a DNA molecule. We can't do that yet. I'm totally serious, we can't. We can manipulate pieces maybe 10 or so genes long in existing DNA, but I don't think we could piece billions of genes long strands together from a blueprint even given all the time in the world.

      Finally, you'd need a viable dinosaur egg. You can't just pick someone else's egg and stick dino DNA in it, eggs are highly specialized. You might get away with something as similar as elephant-mammoth but there just isn't anything *like* a dinosaur, nothing *near* close enough for a viable egg.

      If by some miracle you managed to find full dino DNA, sequence the DNA, assemble the DNA, and put them in an artificial egg that worked... you'd have to do a thousand trials before you could say with any certainty you'd messed something up to make it fail instead of just having bad luck. So don't worry about Jurassic Park happening anytime soon.
      • by skiingyac (262641)

        Finally, you'd need a viable dinosaur egg. You can't just pick someone else's egg and stick dino DNA in it, eggs are highly specialized. You might get away with something as similar as elephant-mammoth but there just isn't anything *like* a dinosaur, nothing *near* close enough for a viable egg.

        You gave me images of a mammoth hatching out of a very large elephant egg, followed by an elephant birthing a velociraptor. I'll grant you that eggs are specialized, but I think you should be more careful with your

      • Did you hear about the newer DNA reassembly technique? Basically you use standard replication techniques to make a really large number of copies of all the DNA fragments you have. Samples of the mix are distributed to a large number of processors, essentially a DNA analysis supercomputer. The rest involves matching sections of DNA like a big jigsaw puzzle. If many strands of DNA were originally available but have decomposed, at least the strands would not have all broken at the same locations. Matching the
      • While the project still probably isn't feasible, your knowlwdge is a little dated.
      • by jdavidb (449077) *

        Another nostalgic part of childhood goes phtbbbbth!

      • by Fred_A (10934)

        Some facts for you:

        Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time. Not in the "something ate it" sense of the word, but in the "radioactive particles" sense of the word.
        So you're saying we should really be looking for mosquitoes trapped in lead ?

      • 2.) The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars. That's comparable to the Apollo project, to sequence *ONE* example of a complex being's DNA.

        That was the publicly funded project. And they would've taken even longer if the privately funded Celera hadn't gotten involved by threatening to finish a lot faster and less expensively.

        I imagine that if it were possible, the reintroduction effort wouldn't be a one-shot all-or-nothing thing

    • by DrYak (748999)
      That would be theoretically hard.

      With the mosquitoes technique you'll find in the end several fragment of DNA per mosquitoe, with no way to know if they come from the same dino or if its contaminent from the mosquitoe.
      In the end you may have a very large library containing lots of sequence fragment. The building of this library would require a lot of money and time and won't have any direct benefit (= few would like to fund it).
      Then you would unleash bio informaticians to start mining the database, trying t
  • Done before (Score:3, Funny)

    by cthulu_mt (1124113) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:44PM (#21560943)
    I think they stole this story from the episode of "Denver the Last Dinosaur" wherein Denver disguises himself as a mummy to avoid capture.

    Another example of my childhood being recycled. Maybe them can get Michael Bay to crap all over the live-action version.
  • I thought it said "fossilized hairdresser" when I first looked at the headline. THEN I thought "Wilma Flintstone".

    Welcome to Surreal Monday.
  • The title is a bit hard to understand for non-native English speakers. Does it really say that they found some shit with a piece of ass in it? :)
  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday December 03, 2007 @01:23PM (#21561443) Journal
    "a hadrosaur's backside was about 25 percent larger than previously thought."

    So, its a J-Lo-asaur ?

    Or perhaps a Bodonkadonkasaur?
  • But how COOL are these things? I want one as a pet

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambiraptor [wikipedia.org]
  • I for one welcome the ensuing overload jokes.
  • If it was white or red meat?
  • can I order my own pet minature hadrosaur? I can't be the only one thinking that, can I?
  • by jgoemat (565882)
    <sarcasm>
    It's just a salamander from the garden of eden. Back then everything lived a lot longer and grew a lot bigger, man was over 20 feet tall. I demand they put my theory in their scientific papers!
    </sarcasm>
  • MMMmmm! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Shuh (13578) on Monday December 03, 2007 @02:43PM (#21562501) Journal
    Tastes like chicken!

  • by maciarc (1094767)
    In a related story, Harland Sanders, a spokesman for an unnamed company, said he would be presenting the University of Manchester Dept. of Paleontology with a one billion dollar donation for the study of the recently unearthed soft tissue fossil. "This is a very important find that must be studied without concern for cost." stated the honorary Colonel from Kentucky. "I mean, look at the size of those drumsticks!"

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...