PDA

View Full Version : Oldest Tyrannosaur ancestor discovered


Raph's Girl
02-09-2006, 02:27 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11236682/from/RSS/

Paleontologists have unearthed two fossilized dinosaurs believed to be the oldest ancestors of the tyrannosaur family, researchers announced Wednesday.

The new species had cranial crests and were likely covered in feathers, but were only a third the size of their famous cousin, Tyrannosaurus rex.

Still, the discovery sets back the clock on the tyrannosaur family by at least 30 million years.

This study is detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

A ‘crowned dragon'
Two of the new tyrannosaurs, named Guanlong wucaii, a derivation of the Mandarin word for "crowned dragon," were discovered in the Junggar Basin in northwestern China.

The adult specimen, which was 12 years old when it died, was about 9 feet (3 meters) long and 6 or 7 feet (2 meters) tall. A smaller 6-year-old juvenile was found nearby.

Both lived around 160 million years ago during the early Cretaceous period. The previous record-holder for oldest tyrannosaur was the 130-million-year-old Dilong paradoxous, recently discovered in China by the same researchers.

By comparison, T. rex, which measured about 40 feet (12 meters) long and 15 feet (4.5 meters) tall, stomped around the Earth during the last stage of the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago.

G. wucaii sported a 2.5-inch-tall (6-centimeter-tall) head crest just a few millimeters thick and filled with air sacs. Scientists say it was comparable to the ornamental features on some living birds, such as cassowaries and hornbills. However, like the crest on duck-billed lambeosaurs, scientists can't say for sure what its purpose was.

"I don't think it would have helped in a fight very much," said co-author Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. "It's very thin and fragile."

Instead, it was more likely used to attract mates or for species identification.

First of its kind
Using mathematical analysis, researchers compared the front teeth, skull and pelvic features of G. wucaii to other dinosaurs of the time. Although the creature was closely related to coelurosaurs, the researchers determined it was the most primitive tyrannosaur known, making it the lowest known branch on the family tree.

coelurosaurian ancestors of tyrannosaurs took the first step that led to the giant T. rex almost 100 million years later," said study co-author James Clark of George Washington University.

Although G. wucaii's skeletal features are very similar to later tyrannosaurs, it had three fingers, instead of the two found on most advanced tyrannosaurs. Also, it was likely as feathered as a chicken.

"We previously discovered another closely related primitive tyrannosaur, called Dilong paradoxus, that is famous for its feathers," Norell said. "Because they're so closely related, there's no reason at all to think it didn't have feathers."

Raph's Girl note: But...why didn't T.Rex have feathers? The paleontologist in me is rather intrigued by this. Especially since this Tyranosaur had feathers and a crest.

Here's a pic of what it looked like:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060208/060208_dinosaur_hmed.widec.jpg

Machias Banshee
02-09-2006, 02:32 AM
Woohoo, right up my Alley! :D

I LOVE this stuff... been reading up on it since elementary school.

As for the whole feathers thing...

I imagine its harder for a smaller body to retain heat. Plus there's the whole warm-blooded issue. Then the issue of metabolic differences. I think the larger dinosaurs (i.e. T-rex, Spinosaurus, Carnotaurus, Giganotosaurus), had bodies like furnaces, making heat all the time. The smaller coelosaurs and raptors had to create an insulating layer to protect them from the cold...

*hides before geeking up the thread*

Raph's Girl
02-09-2006, 02:47 AM
I imagine its harder for a smaller body to retain heat. Plus there's the whole warm-blooded issue. Then the issue of metabolic differences. I think the larger dinosaurs (i.e. T-rex, Spinosaurus, Carnotaurus, Giganotosaurus), had bodies like furnaces, making heat all the time. The smaller coelosaurs and raptors had to create an insulating layer to protect them from the cold...


That's a good point since the Archaeopteryx was rather small (the size of a Magpie). As was the Deinonychus. I find it rather interesting that nearly all the feathered dinosaurs have been found in Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

Machias Banshee
02-09-2006, 02:55 AM
Well, if you look at the old maps and such, Asia was VERY close to the Northern pole. No doubt the climate was still considerably colder than most regions near the equator. Even antarctica back then wasn't as 'polarized' as Asia was.

http://www.dinosauria.com/pics/maps/220.gif

Jo Dawn
02-09-2006, 08:32 AM
Mmm, I love this stuff.

I agree with Machi. My first reaction to the feathers bit was that they were used to keep them warm, until the bigger versions evolved, with better ability to keep warm.

And now, for the curious part of me...

I have a real hard time believing they were around 160 MILLION years ago. I think their dating tests they do work, but have they ever thought Dino bones age differently, maybe more quickly?

I mean, we have no real basis on what something from 30 million, 60 million and so on, years ago really LOOKS like, nor how they were made, and even how they AGE. So this Millions of years ago is just a guess, yes?

Anarky
02-09-2006, 08:44 AM
The surrounding rocks and stuff can be a great help when trying to date bones and stuff. And I think they rely on those rock-tests a lot and that they wouldn't make such "amateur-mistakes" (I know I would, but that is probably the reason why I'm not a paleonthologist). So, it is safe to say that the millions of years are correct. I wonder how they found out the 12 years old-bit.

Besides, there's also the possibility of analyzing the bones themselves to find out what they're made of and judging from that, they can find out how old they are and how long it would take them to rot away.

Jo Dawn
02-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Yeah, I get the rocks and all that...

I dunno. I mean I love science, trust me. I've studied it alot... but I just have the hardest time with this Millions of years ago stuff... I dunno. I guess it's just my always questioning nature.

Katie
02-09-2006, 09:00 AM
I wonder how they found out the 12 years old-bit.





I can't remember exactly where I saw this (and I am on a healthy dose of pain meds right now....and did not sleep last night...damn excuses) But somewhere i seem to remember reading that as an animal grows and its bones grow, there are something like the rings in tree trunks that form. i guess if you knew the approx. rate of growth of similar dinosaurs...all you'd have to do is count the "rings" (or growth marks...or whatever they are called)

Anyway, this is interesting. It amazes me the amount of stuff we don't know and how much there is to learn out there.

Jo Dawn
02-09-2006, 09:05 AM
I've read that before, also, Katie... about the 'tree rings' idea of counting age in bones.

And I really hope you feel better soon. :)

damnhooligan
02-09-2006, 09:14 AM
I'd put my money on the scientists using potassium/argon to date the surrounding rocks and minerals present in the soil under and around the remains. Potassium decays into argon at a known exponential rate, and a fairly slow one at that. There are a handful of other isotopes that can be studied to determine age. Hell, Uranium 235 has a half-life of over 700 million years!

Lots of folks are probably more familiar with Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14, with a half-life of 5700 years, plus/minus 30. Which means, at 5700 years, half of the Carbon will have decayed into Nitrogen. But it's only reliable up to 60,000 years or so because after that point, it becomes nearly impossible to detect.

SCIENCE!

EDIT: And Katie's right on the money about relating bones to rings on a tree. Each year of growth leaves a mark in the bone. They're kind of tricky to read though.

iris
02-09-2006, 10:19 AM
Yeah, I get the rocks and all that...

I dunno. I mean I love science, trust me. I've studied it alot... but I just have the hardest time with this Millions of years ago stuff... I dunno. I guess it's just my always questioning nature.

Yep, radiometric dating. Uses the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. If you measure how much of the isotope is there compared to how much decay product is there, you can probably determine, with reasonable accuracy, about how long it took to get that ratio. Some isotopes have really long half-lives, like millions and billions of years, but I got no clue how they determine that.

That technique uses mass spec, which is notorious, so they have to be careful to get good samples and avoid contamination. But letters published in Nature-- it's like the insanely expensive Time Magazine of peer-reviewed journals-- are usually decent.

VaughnMichael
02-09-2006, 06:16 PM
that looks awsome! I'm not to knowledgeable on this stuff so thats about all I can say seems like we are finding all kinds of new animals and stuff lately thats awsome!
-Putrescent

Machias Banshee
02-09-2006, 06:23 PM
*nods* Its hard to comprehend that OVER 90% of ALL animals that have ever lived on the planet have gone extinct. Who knows what else could have been (or still IS) out there.. :D

I find it interesting that their so confused about the crest. Isn't this specimen roughly from the same era as Dilophosaurus? Maybe there was something about that time on Earth that the crests were needed?