Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Oldest T. Rex Relative Unveiled 80

Posted by Zonk from the bet-you'll-never-look-at-chickens-the-same-way-again dept.
Dr Occult writes "A group of researchers have found the forefather of T. Rex in Xinjiang province in northwestern China. It lived around 160 million years ago. This makes it more than twice as old as T. Rex, and the most primitive known member of the family. The researchers were surprised to learn the 3m long dinosaur sported a spectacular feathered crest on its head which may have been brightly coloured."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oldest T. Rex Relative Unveiled More

Oldest T. Rex Relative Unveiled

Comments Filter:

  • Brightly coloured? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by robthebob ( 742982 ) <rn114@y[ ].ac.uk ['ork' in gap]> on Saturday February 11, 2006 @05:58AM (#14693512) Journal
    Just a thought, but how can you tell from a fossil that this animal had a "brightly coloured" and "feathered" nasal crest?!
    • Considering it's a fossil, I'd say they look at the bones...
      • Yes, I am serious!

        The Nature news report is based on another Nature article by Xu (subscription required) [nature.com] which does not mention feathers because there are none!

        John Roach did this with a National Geographic article [nationalgeographic.com] on the discovery of dilong paradoxus, also reported in Nature. Five fossils were found, the most decripit of which had "a partial coat of hairlike feathers", which in other articles are described as "evidence of hairlike structures" on its head and as "'protofeathers'". Need I point out that the
        • Well, the idea that dinosaurs had hair is silly. Hair isn't going to evolve twice. Nor are feathers. But we know that birds descended from certain groups of dinosaurs and that feathers had to get started sometime. It's not unlikely that this is where birds got them from.
          • How do we know that birds descended from certain types of dinosaurs? You're making the same mistake the scientists did(or at least whoever made the sketches) and that the above poster was trying to point out. You are saying that we believe this to be the truth, so no matter what the evidence shows, we need to interpret it so that it proves our point. Instead they should be looking at the data they have and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for it. Maybe hair on a dinosaur is a silly idea, but
            • "How do we know that birds descended from certain types of dinosaurs?"

              Bones.

              • AFAIK, nobody has ever done anything like videotape a therapod in motion, or even snap a still shot of one.

                Before you write that concept off as too bizarre to deal with, consider the many species which have been written off as extinct (for 65 million years, in the case of ceolacanth) only to turn up later (in an Indonesian fish market, for this one) in real life.

                While there is still scope for an herbivorous dinosaur to be kicking about [mokelembembe.com] on our fine planet, a colony of something more than twice as long as a v
                • "We're basically guessing when we decide how they stood and moved. Intelligent guesses, yes, but no way to prove anything."

                  I'm guessing you don't know what is typically looked at when bones are studied. I won't claim that I do, but I would argue that what is inferred is anything but an "educated guess". It's not guesswork. And to claim that it is, is to undermine over a century of real study done by individuals who, amonst other things, have dedicated their entire lives to the subject.

                  Evidence is eviden

                  • ...if it seems necessary.

                    The people studying bones look at a myriad factors. They study density and structure in the bones themselves, wear patterns and tooth-marks (or whatever), state of articulation, any adjacent indications of soft tissue or the like, chemical residues in the bones (including, in several cases, complete blood cells and still-flexible cartilage: a flares-fireworks-and-sirens tip-off that we really are barking up the wrong tree in several fields of scientific endeavour, but one which has
                    • You are acting like there is some sort of binary: either they know for certain, or its just a guess. This is nonsense. Some things are known to a very high degree of certainty, because multiple lines of evidence all converge. Sometimes things are less well supported... and people generally say so.

          • Well, the idea that dinosaurs had hair is silly. Hair isn't going to evolve twice.

            Lots of things have evolved more than once (wings is probably the most typical example). This certainly isn't an argument against hairy dinosaurs.

            On the other hand, the fact that no trace of a hairy dinosaur skin has yet been found is coherent with the current model of dinosaurs without hairs. Some of which may have sported feathers (this being a recent evolution of the model).

            Dinosaurs weren't the only things to evolve, our

            • "Lots of things have evolved more than once (wings is probably the most typical example)."

              Well, that's not quite true. Things with similar general functions have evolved twice (convergent evolution) but they are always morphologically different, since evolving the thing the same way twice just isn't even remotely likely.
              • With hair though, they have likely evolved independently in, for example, insects and mammals.

                Granted, something as complex as a wing can be made in so many different ways that having it evolve twice in the exact same configuration would be fairly unlikely. I guess it wasn't a very good example :)
        • Uh, but there are feathered dinosaurs. The question here is whether there are feathers on THIS particular class of dinosaur, which there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence of yet, and the original submitter of the story added.

          But there are, in fact, several dinosaurs that have feathers.

          "D paradoxus' "hairlike structures" got turned into a rich, thick coat of fully-developed feathers by the concept artist. Excellent way to do science, no? "

          No, but then popular artists aren't scientists, they are journal

    • Re:Brightly coloured? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      From the article:

      The presence of a nasal crest is particularly interesting, says Norell, because it is so similar to the head ornaments carried by many of today's birds. Both birds and carnivorous dinosaurs such as tyrannosaurs belong to the evolutionary family known as the theropods.

      The crest of G. wucaii probably functioned as a signal, either to attract potential mates or for species recognition.

      So I presume that the idea that the crest had color comes from its links with todays birds.

      • "The $FEATURE of $SPECIES probably functioned as a signal, either to attract potential mates or for species recognition." translates in lay terms as "We have absolutely no idea what $FEATURE really was or how $SPECIES used it, but don't want to seem ignorant".

    • Re:Brightly coloured? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well they know about the structure of the crest from the fossil imprint. They don't know if it was multi-coloured, or what colour it was at all; however, because it shares similar features to that of the nasal crests of modern birds, which use brightly coloured crests as mating displays, they guess that this may have had a similar function.

    • Re:Brightly coloured? (Score:3, Informative)

      by archgoon ( 894518 )
      From the article: The presence of a nasal crest is particularly interesting, says Norell, because it is so similar to the head ornaments carried by many of today's birds. So, by the sound of it, we've seen other animals that have this bone structure, and they have feathers there (and sounds like it doesn't do anything except have feathers there). As for brightly colored, I don't know where that came from. It's not mentioned in the article, perhaps the submitter read about this somewhere else.

    • We already suspect that Tyranosurids had feathers, and, hey, it caught yor attention. In other words: There is nothing in TFA about feathers on the crest.

      There's a picture of the animal with a feathered tail! (Remember artists never lie and never invent missing pieces)

    • Re:Brightly coloured? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Can't you tell? Those paleontologists invoked Intelligent Design.

      It's obvious that a half dinosaur half bird must be designed. And since it was designed, we can conclude from the brightly coloured feathers and crest that the designer might have been homosexual, but definitely camp. And because the designer is probably gay, the feathers and crest must have been brightly coloured.

      Do not think that just because you evilutionists have found another transitional fossil, the intelligent designer did not design th

    • Not in TFA (Score:2, Informative)

      by KwKSilver ( 857599 )
      Just went back & reread TFA. It says nothing about feathers for this beastie. The "colored" part comes from the fact that the rock stratum/strata it was found in was brightly colored. In short, the submitter seems to have mis-summarized or misread TFA or intended to post another one, perhaps about Bette Middler or Cher.
    • The only way to tell if a creature had feathers or not is if you find it in a Lagerstatte, or an area with fossils preserving soft parts. Lagerstatten are relatively rare, the most famous being the Burgess Shale; our half dozen Archaeopteryx specimens are all Lagerstatten fossils, though, so they're not all confined to the Cambrian explosion. (In fact, there exists a pre-Cambrian Lagerstatte, if memory serves.)

      Anyway, considering the rarity of Lagerstatten, there would be more excitement over this find if i
    • Because that's how God would have designed it! Also, we have Adam's description of it. It's a science story, man -- read your Bible! Sheesh!

      Bemopolis
  • ...was a giant black stone monolith that let out a loud buzzing noise when researchers uncovered it, possibly explaining how it evolved to T.Rex as we know it.

  • Ha ha ha America (Score:5, Funny)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Saturday February 11, 2006 @06:28AM (#14693566)
    Ha ha ha America [sundance.org]
    China have
    T Rex father
    160 million year old dinosaur
    in Xinjiang province
    American hillbilly have
    intelligent design
    So commence cry
    as you not keep up
    What no dinosaur?
    Too bad so sad
    Already you behind
    We sell you dinosaur
    make you good deal hillbilly!

    • Re:Ha ha ha America (Score:4, Funny)

      by Afecks ( 899057 ) on Saturday February 11, 2006 @07:11AM (#14693622)
      America have
      bill of rights
      democratic elections
      ethnic diversity
      root name servers
      Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Apple....
      • America also has:
        George Bush
        laws overriding your precious bill of rights

        Oh wait, you were modded funny instead of insightful.
        Carry on, citizen.
      • America have
        bill of rights --> but inofficially it isn't worth a cent
        democratic elections --> sure... as democratic as east germany in the '70s
        ethnic diversity --> other words for "no culture" *g*
        root name servers --> actually in the eyes of nearly the whole word, this is a bad thing for america
        Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Apple.... --> so you count companies as something good. guess what. other cultures exist where industry feudalism actually is seen as something bad.

        just to remember you what "
      • ...a rapidly dwindling pool of friends to help bail them out of the diplomatic cacky every time they arrogantly stomp all over some "lesser" country's rights, something Dubya is sadly reknowned for but hardly the pioneer of.

        China has Intelligent Design too, and Creationists, but they are unofficially forbidden by the government there. In America, freedom of thought is more of a detente, with the Christian Right and Liberal Atheists having fought each other more or less to a standstill across the board, leav
    • http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/ [answersingenesis.org] (though it pains me to link to it)

  • Dinosaur? Great Wall? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ben_1432 ( 871549 ) on Saturday February 11, 2006 @07:01AM (#14693614)
    This sounds very familiar. Was there a giant gorilla too?
  • The researchers were surprised to learn the 3m long...

    3 metres is rather small isn't it? How big was T. rex ?

    • Re:Small (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Saturday February 11, 2006 @07:43AM (#14693668)
      This is not T. Rex, though. Merely the earliest known ancestor which can be considered 'Tyrannosauridae'.

      T. Rex itself, a favorite of schoolchildren everywhere, is notable for being:

      1) Found in the USA
      2) REALLY big, although it seems there may have been larger meat-eaters after all (see Giganotosaurus).
      3) Rather short of reach. This early ancestor had much more 'normal' length arms.
      4) Recent. T. Rex was around at the end of the age of the dinosaurs. This guy was around nearly a hundred million years earlier.

      I am not a paleontologist, but I have a five year old. :-)
    • Roughly 15 ft. tall and 40 ft. long. This speciman is the earlist example that is believed to be part of the tyranasourous family (distant relative to T. Rex). LOTS of evolution (sorry designing) happened between those two examples.

    • From TFA : At just 3 metres long, the creature is a small relative of T. rex, which could reach a mighty 13 metres.

      I thought they could get bigger than that though. T. Rex is not the largest carnvorous dinosaur though - Giganotosaurus was bigger, and Spinosaurus was about the same size too.

  • Head crest? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "The researchers were surprised to learn the 3m long dinosaur sported a spectacular feathered crest on its head which may have been brightly coloured."

    Hell I was surprised too! Being that old I would have guessed a beard!
  • t.rex come from engerland? [wikipedia.org]

    Suchetha

  • What Real Scientists Think (Score:4, Informative)

    by ChaoticCoyote ( 195677 ) on Saturday February 11, 2006 @10:08AM (#14694033) Homepage

    Science is a process of debate and analysis, and there have been a couple of interesting threads among paleontologists regarding interpretation of the Guanlong fossil:

    Thread 1 [cmnh.org]
    Thread 2 [cmnh.org]

    Much as I like the artist's depiction of Guanlong, he did take some creative liberties that obscure the underlying science. Ignoring the art and focusing on the article itself, the major item of interest in the crest. Many Jurassic carnosaurs had crests; why this feature evolved, and why it "went away" later is being debated.

  • >The researchers were surprised to learn the 3m long dinosaur sported a spectacular feathered crest on its head which may have been brightly coloured."

    Other historians believe it was a mop of black hair [google.com]
  • Proving once and for all that the C.P. is a real dinosaur in China

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close