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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Ankylosaurs Had Composite Armor 34

Posted by timothy from the carbon-fiber-steering-wheels-too dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ankylosaurs were the most heavily armored dinosaurs. Researchers thought their protective plates were a lot like modern crocodiles. But a new study by a University of Bonn grad student Torsten Scheyer found that fibers in the plates were woven for strength and lightness much like Kevlar or fiberglass. Good thing, as ankylosaurs had to contend with T. rex."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ankylosaurs Had Composite Armor More

Ankylosaurs Had Composite Armor

Comments Filter:

  • how do they know what it was made of? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jstave ( 734089 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:11AM (#10841575)
    I understand how they can talk about the structure of the armor, but, given that these are fossils, and therefore have had their organic substance replaced by minerals, how do they know what the structure was composed of?
    • I'm not a scientist but I would imagine that certain minerals would naturally replace certain types of organic matter. If that holds true then I imagine that the forms and layout of the minerals would be a fair representation of the original organic layout.

      On the other hand it could just involve a lot of guessing and bullshit.

    • Re:how do they know what it was made of? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:25AM (#10841688)
      Imagine a fish who dies and is fossilized. The scales show up as patterns in the fossil, right? In fact, depending on how it's preserved, sometimes you can cut through them and see a fairly accurate cross-section of the scales.

      Now imagine a woven rush basket that somehow becomes fossilized (not likely, but just go with it). Now looking at the fossil, you're going to see the rises and falls of the individual reeds as they transverse all the perpendicular reeds in the design, and you'll be able to see the remnants of the grain running across and down the design as well. That's the sort of thing the student was studying - the anklyosaurus had a similar structure, only on a much smaller scale.

      Fossilization doesn't turn something into a piece of amorphous rock - it preserves the topography (at least) of what was fossilized. So it's possible to examine not only the major features (skeletal structure, etc.) but also minor ones which were preserved. Some fossils, if preserved before flesh decay occurred (frozen instantly, caught in a tar pit, etc.) can even have the features of skin imprinted on the rock. That's how we know archeopteryx had feathers, for instance.

      Hope that helps!

  • Nitpick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:24AM (#10841681) Homepage Journal
    had to contend with T Rex

    Not so. The Tyrannosaurus Rex was, according to consensus of scientific opinion, a opportunistic scavenger rather than an out and out predator, despite what films such as Jurassic Park portray. Heavy plate armour is so successful a defense mechanism, you might wonder why many more species don't utilise it.

    This just goes to show that Nature, with a decent head start, can produce some pretty spectacular materials, an example that springs to mind is Morpho menelaus a butterfly with striking laser-blue irridescent wings, which uses an optical trick to make them shine so brightly. [webexhibits.org] I was always fascinated by a little tray my father had when I was a kid, which was just the top side of the wings of these butterflies pressed under glass. I had a hard time believing it was from an organic being. Anyway, you can't get things like that anymore (I've looked) which is probably due to them having to be a protected species. Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction, like the dinosaurs.

    • Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Funny)

      by centauri ( 217890 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:46AM (#10841828) Homepage
      Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction, like the dinosaurs.

      Hey, man, it was them or us. After you lose half your family to an iguanadon or an iridescent butterfly, you'll quickly ditch your sentimental way of thinking.
    • I don't get it. It just takes me to the basic Google websearch. Was there a time when "google.com" didn't return Google as the "Lucky" hit?

      GTRacer
      - Is that like the oo-ray?

      • Heh, char limit prevented me from making it like this: Recursion [google.com]. I was just mucking about. It would be a ironic Googlebomb though, to put another search website in there. (nice site about them here [outer-court.com])

    • Consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:11AM (#10842056) Journal
      All depends who you pick for your consensus.

      I will ask you to label two modern creatures to show why talking about t-rex eating behaviour is so futile.

      Would you label the Hyena as a predator or a scavenger? And the lion?

      Modern studies show that the scavenger Hyena kills a higher percentage of its food then the lion. Yet many still label the killer hyena as the scavenger and the lion known to eat hyena left overs as the predator.

      Some people claim that t-rex build was unsuitable to hunt (head to big unable to run for long). Some claim that it build was exactly right to an ambush style hunt where it would deliver one large trauma wound and then use its nose to track the animal as it slowly died.

      The same nose could also be used to find already dead prey.

      Most like t-rex filled both roles shifting from one to the other as circumstances dictated. There are pure predators who refure to eat already dead animals but they are rare. Most predators are also scavengers and even some well known herbivores eat meat if they come upon it.

      Talking about the movie. If you want to nitpick then nitpick that movie itself describes that the T-rex has a good nose but is somehow unable to small a scared human right infront of it. Even my cat spots a meal if you rub its nose in it. And this animal mews when I open a paint can.

      • the cat mewing when you open a paint can is most likely a reflex caused by training. Much like that guy (um, I can't think of his name) who trained his dogs with the sound of a bell upon feeding, when he rang the bell, they would drool, your kitty hears the sound of the can and thinks it's food. forget about what it smells like, he/she/it's been trained on the sound of a can.

        Hell, my mom's cats come running if you open a mountain dew or a can of Java Espresso Soda. Even if you put a can of soup on the coun

      • Re:Consensus? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by SimianOverlord ( 727643 )
        OK, good points. The two modern creatures I would compare them to are the hyena and the rhinoceros. Rhinoceroses are largely ignored by hyenas, as Ankylosaurus was (probably) largely ignored by T Rex.

        OK, the comparison isn't perfect, but its the best I could think of. Hyena's aren't the greatest comparator either; they tend to hunt in packs whereas T Rex was thought to be a solitary hunter, so would certainly kill more prey than scavenge from other killers.

        Man, that movie's science sucked. The whole mov

        • Re:Consensus? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by avgjoe62 ( 558860 )
          Actually, T-Rex is most likely a pack hunter [bbc.co.uk]

          And hunting together in packs implies more predation than scavenging. It is thought that younger members of a T-Rex family group would drive prey torwards the massive jaws of the slower moving adults.

          Think more of a wolf pack.

      • Another issue: if tyrannosaurs didn't attack ankylosaurs, why on earth did they have those bony plates all over their backs?
        • Another issue: if tyrannosaurs didn't attack ankylosaurs, why on earth did they have those bony plates all over their backs?

          That's... not an issue. As such...

          It had those plates on its back because its ancestors had other critters attacking it and the ones with the larger bony platy thingies survived more attacks than the others.

          And I'm sure T-rexs attacked them occasionally. The young and inexperienced, or the hungry and desperate (or a mix of the two) will attack things they rightly shouldn't bother
      • that movie itself describes that the T-rex has a good nose but is somehow unable to small(sic) a scared human right in front of it

        A human wearing perfumes. Ol' Rex there would probably confuse it with a plant. Its not like it has extensive experience in humans yet.
    • A creature doesn't get to be a 10 ton monster by being an "opportunistic scavenger".

    • Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction, like the dinosaurs.

      Hmm... Well, if humanity hunted the dinosaurs to near extinction, as your post implies, I suppose this means we didn't hunt them to complete extinction, which implies that there are still dinosaurs around today -- and that there were a lot more dinosaurs back in Cro-Magnon times.

      Um... [berkeley.edu]

      Seriously, if you're going to engage in Green humanity-bashing, at least check that you're using the right stick.
      • humanity hunted the dinosaurs to near extinction, as your post implies, I suppose this means we didn't hunt them to complete extinction, which implies that there are still dinosaurs around today

        And they are delicious!

    • I was always fascinated by a little tray my father had when I was a kid, which was just the top side of the wings of these butterflies pressed under glass. I had a hard time believing it was from an organic being. Anyway, you can't get things like that anymore (I've looked) which is probably due to them having to be a protected species. Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction

      First of all: Its called a "museum of natural history" or something similar. Find one.

      secondly, y

    • Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)

      by museumpeace ( 735109 )
      ...Heavy plate armour is so successful a defense mechanism, you might wonder why many more species don't utilise it.
      Glyptodon [ucsb.edu] is an extinct mammal from south america that died out in the pliestocene...I saw one at the Peabody museum at Harvard and good lord was it ever armored. if it simply squatted so its shell rested on the ground, you couldn't hurt it with guns or cars, it bore so massive a shell. And so I had to ask the same question you pose: This looks invincible, a veritable Hummer of a beast, s

  • From the article:
    This huge, extremely heavy reptile was an herbivore (it ate only plants).
    It had to eat a huge amount of low-lying plant material to sustain itself so
    its gut must have been very large. It probably had a fermentation compartment
    to aid in the digestion of the tough plant material, producing prodigious
    amounts of gas!

    Better call it Puteo [nd.edu]saurus then.

  • Modern materials (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mdielmann ( 514750 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @12:09PM (#10843331) Homepage Journal
    It's worth noting that your teeth [chemlin.de] get their strength from the same technique. Short story, your teeth are made from the same material as bone, but it's woven, leaving them stronger than bones.

  • kevlar and fiberglass? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wibs ( 696528 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @04:52PM (#10846680)
    Kevlar is pretty much useless against a knife attack - it's designed to collapse in front of an object with at least a little bit of distributed pressure (like a bullet), whereas a blade can slice right through it. By that logic, Kevlar-like armor to protect against a dinosaur's teeth would be just about as effective as a firm pillow. Meanwhile, fiberglass is damn near impossible to stab a knife through, while its effectiveness against bullets varies greatly depending on how it's made. In other words, pretty much exactly the opposite of Kevlar.

    So I guess I must be missing something here... how is this dinosaur's armor similar to both Kevlar and fiberglass? Or is it really nothing at all like either of them except that it's strong and light?

    • Re:kevlar and fiberglass? (Score:3, Informative)

      by SEE ( 7681 )
      You're comparing bonded fiberglass to non-bonded Kevlar vests. Bonded Kevlar is rigid and quite effective against impaling attacks, while non-bonded fiberglass is quite useless as protection against anything.

      Anklyosaur armor is, from the description of fibers through the bone, analogous to bonded Kevlar or fiberglass.

      The article is somewhat misleading, since unbonded Kevlar is the material protective vests are usually made from, not bonded. (Though there are bonded Kevlar armors, they're rather more a s
  • Is determining how such information will aid the United States Government and RATT in successfully fighting the Dinobots

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware the new TTY code!

Close