Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


The Earliest Known Dino? 69

Posted by Soulskill
from the movies-rights-for-triassic-park-already-sold dept.
sciencehabit writes "A team of paleontologists thinks it may have identified the earliest known dinosaur — a creature no bigger than a Labrador retriever that lived about 243 million years ago. That's at least 10 million years earlier than the oldest known dinos and could change researchers' views of how they evolved. But some scientists, including the study's authors, caution that the fossils could instead represent a close dino relative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Earliest Known Dino?

Comments Filter:
  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @07:38AM (#42190115) Journal

    "Reptiles" is a paraphyletic group, and is no longer used.

    Well, that's a little harsh. It's widely understood what it means, and is easier to say than non mamallian, non avian amniotes. :)

    It's no worse than fish, which would include all vertibrates, and possibly hagfish too, depending on how you feel about it. (Though to my mind, "is a hagfish a fish" is up there with "is pluto a planet".)

    Perhaps they're not used all that much when one is working in the taxonomy/classification literature, bit I've definitely heard cell biologists claim they work with fish instead of mice.

To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.