Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released 108

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the massive-masticator dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released More

New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released

Comments Filter:

  • pfff. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This contradicts The Book of Moron, therefore it must be false.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by apdyck ( 1010443 )

      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!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by xPsi ( 851544 ) *

        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)

          by portforward ( 313061 )
          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

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by xPsi ( 851544 ) *
            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

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by apdyck ( 1010443 )
              I should make it clear that, by no means, do I believe that any scripture has the answers to the universe. I was raised in a very religous (Baptist) home, however I was always taught that we should question everything. This includes the conflicts between scriptures and known facts (i.e. Science). I have done some research into the origins of the scriptures that are used today, and they can all be traced back to myths that predate any form of religion currently practiced. As such, we need to factor in the ch

    • 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.)

    • Friends bow your heads, and solemnly repeat your prophets words;

      yaaaa Baaaa Daaa Baaa Dooo

      ahem, and remember keep faith the the Fred least the Barneychrist get you.

      Modern Scholars are still debating if the scriptures refer the Bestest Friend Barney the Neighbor to the terrible purple one. No records of the schism exist other then references the book of Latter Day [Fruity] Pebbles which describes the war in Bedrock over the wonderful cereal (part of a balanced breakfast).

      Has seen here. [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by liquidf ( 1146307 )
      no, it's raptor jesus. he went extinct for your sins.

  • 800 teeth (Score:5, Funny)

    by Iphtashu Fitz ( 263795 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:42PM (#20841233)
    and the diet is unknown? I think it's safe to say that this thing ate whatever the hell it damn well wanted to eat.

  • released! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rucs_hack ( 784150 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:43PM (#20841249)
    OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills!

    • Re:released! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:46PM (#20841295)

      OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills!

      Fortunately, there are plenty of hills (and mountains) in Utah to run for. Our wives will be safe.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by thegnu ( 557446 )

        Fortunately, there are plenty of hills (and mountains) in Utah to run for. Our wives will be safe.

        From what I gather from my friend who grew up Mormon, the main Mormon LDS church doesn't condone polygamy. If you keep more than one wife, you get excommunicated. Though he says that people sometimes get around it.

        I think the bulk of the polygamists are in Colorado. But I could be wrong on this.

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by moderatorrater ( 1095745 )
          I've never heard of someone being able to be a member of the LDS Church and a polygamist, they've all been excommunicated as soon as it's known. There are still some polygamists in Utah, but it's uncommon, and most live on the borders of either Colorado or Arizona so that they can cross the state lines if someone comes to arrest them.

    • OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills!
      What, was Newt Gingrich allowed out of his cage? 800 teeth, eh? And here mom and dad were saying that digging in the dirt would never amount to anything.
  • One conclusion we can make about this dinosaur is that it was clearly a polygamist.
  • 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
    • One thing to consider is that most dinosaurs did not die during extinctions. Most dinosaurs died before then (during the millions of years that they were not yet extinct).

      However, I do agree with you. What we know of dinosaurs is that there are many different types of them, and many have adapted to different types of living.
    • 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:

      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)

      by Webs 101 ( 798265 )
      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

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by jbeaupre ( 752124 )
      Most absurd of all are movies showing giant dinosaurs roaming cities resembling Tokyo.

    • Grass! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 )
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by flyingsquid ( 813711 )
        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?
        • There is some sarcasm in that post. I find it odd someone would not know about the global flood. A sign of the times, perhaps?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah [wikipedia.org]
          • I know about the global stories of "an" ancient flood. I didn't know there was any scientific consensus that it was even a single flood, let alone that it was 4Kya.

            Or are you just saying some Creationist timeline at me? If so, where do you get off talking about "sarcasm" about growing/shrinking bones confusion?

  • More study needed (Score:5, Funny)

    by GogglesPisano ( 199483 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:55PM (#20841447)
    While certainly a fascinating find, bones alone can tell us only so much about these fascinating creatures.

    For example: how did Jesus strap His saddle on a Gryposaurus?

    • He may have seen a leviathan" [wikipedia.org] or a behemoth [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Empiric ( 675968 )
      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."

      But probably

  • Yes, I am a pedant. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Webs 101 ( 798265 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:58PM (#20841505) Homepage
    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.

  • So these things, like, evolved into ducks or something?

    "Run Doctor Grant, run for your life!" QUAAAACK!

  • Sounds like a naming opportunity was missed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) * on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:01PM (#20841557) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Name (Score:3, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:02PM (#20841575)
    Might I suggest naming it after another soon-to-be-extinct species, hence the "Zuneosaur".
    • Might I suggest naming it after another soon-to-be-extinct species, hence the "Zuneosaur".

      Being Utah, maybe the Scosaur? I won't accept when it has been beaten and made itself irrelevant.
    • I would have thought SCOsaurus litigousbastardus would be more apt.

  • huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatskinnyguy ( 1129515 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:11PM (#20841695)
    Did anyone else parse that as "Gripeosaurus"? I thought they were talking about my ex there for a second.

  • How big? Not how many! (Score:3, Informative)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:12PM (#20841711) Journal
    Even the simple garden snail has hundreds of "teeth". Reference. [si.edu]
  • ...Utahraptor?

  • High time science stops digging up these fossils (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:16PM (#20841765) Journal
    Every time the scientists dig up a fossil, they add two more "missing links" to the Creationists databases.
    • Actually the number of missing links only go up by one :) There was a missing link before, we break it and add 2 more, so +2-1=+1

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Yoozer ( 1055188 )
        This assumes that each new discovery creates 2 adjacent "missing transitional fossils". If between A and B, a "missing link" C is discovered, then the links D (between A and C) and E (between C and B) pop up. So yeah, it goes up by 2.

        I don't think they're satisfied until every possible specimen is discovered so you have an actual 1:1 family tree.
  • I married one of those! They only seem to come in the female form... and they gripe all the time!

  • Could not find any mention of height/weight (Score:4, Funny)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:27PM (#20841929) Journal
    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).
  • 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.
  • Is this the only specimen found for this species? If it's the only one, I wonder if science can tell whether it is a new species with a deformity, or whether the species actually look like that. Imagine some alien species in the distant future digging up bones of the elephant man or someone with a weird deformity and thought we all looked like that, or that we were a sub-species or something!
  • Talking about extint dinosaurs, how about that old SCOsaurius DarlMcBridesus that met extinction past week.

    They said they where discovered under a pile of fosil excrement dubbed by archeologists as FUDiite.

    In the case of the scosaurios, archeologists say, the fudiite has been found to be produced by the same dinosaur, suggesting that they practically drowned in their own crap.
  • New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released:

    Is it called the SCOXosaur?

  • 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.

  • Why is this news?

    I read somewhere that we discover a new dinosaur species about once a month.
  • I thought it said "Gyrosaurus" there for a second. Mmm...Gyrosaurus...
  • Dinosaurs went extinct cuz Utah is so fuckin boring. They died of boredom.
  • No problem!

    Genesis talks about a 'land of giants' and other things. Young-Earthers might moan (yet again) because they're laboring under a misconception; the 6,000 year idea came from a well-meaning priest trying to make use of Numbers to learn the time between Adam and Christ, but all five of his assumptions, which he listed like a good scholar, were wrong. It's true; get over it. We have 200+ ways to date things, and they will all nearly-agree.

    But while there's no monolog ab
  • Massive teeth and jaws you say? They should have named it the Bababooeyasaurus.
  • {OffTopic}

    i thought dinos were extinct. How could there be any that are new?
  • Because rock wouldn't give you the composition of such things as the percentage of nitrogen in the diet. This is more of a mummy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close