"mummified" dinosaur shines more light onto Dinosaur Anatomy

[Canmoore]

When I read this article I was floored! This is such a breathtaking discovery. This was the first time I had heard of "Dakota", even though it was found in 1999.

I have always been a dinosaur nut, even in grade 1 on library days, I remember taking out the giant Dino books when everyone else got the usual kiddy books!

"Dakota" a Hadrosaur, also known as a "duck-billed dinosaur" shows a scaling patter similar to modern reptiles, that can show us what kind of colour patterns the animals may have had.

"there is a pattern of banding to the larger and smaller scales on the skin. Because it has been fossilized, researchers do not know the skin colour, but looking at it in monochrome shows a striped pattern.

in modern reptiles, such a pattern is often associated with colour change."

Also, "Dakota" shows us that there were larger spaces between the vertebrate than previously thought. These spaces would have been where disks may have been present. Current dinosaur exhibits show the vertebrate packed close together.
This may mean that dinosaurs would have been longer, and more flexible than previously thought.

'Mummified' dinosaur shows breathtaking detail

[RustyBattleship]

I had heard of Dakota, though only briefly, when it was first discovered a few years ago. However, this is the most detailed description of what was found so far.

Yes, it is breath taking. But it is not the first dinosaur found with fossilized skin. At least one other was found a few decades ago but with only a few page size pieces of skin.

Several have been found where the skin left impressions (and in some cases a little color) in the fast drying "rock" they were found in.

Which leads to my disgust with the way we were told how dinosaurs died, were slowly covered by dirt, but still leaving fairly intact bones, skin impressions and even foot prints.

If you walk across a muddy ground, you will leave foot prints. But, will they be there the next day? Most likely not and definitely not if it rains.

But if you walk across wet cement, the cement will dry fast enough to leave those foot prints forever.

Therefore, the old school lessons that the dinosaurs died and were slowly covered up with dirt and dust can't be correct. Carrion would have destroyed all but the largest bones (ancient porcupines ate the bones also).

The dinosaurs had to be swept away into mud flows of prehistoric CEMENT that dried fairly quickly and only tectonic movements over the millenium broke it up enough to scatter the bones somewhat. Dinosaur footprints are a perfect example that the "mud" they walked in was actually a natural mix of cement.

How that cement could mix right then and there is perhaps more of a mystery than what color dinosaurs were. But it had to be some sort of rapid setting material that wouldn't wash away so it could still leave foot prints.

Therefore, where Dakota was found begs to be geologically studied very thoroughly. Perhaps there are more of its kin in those rocks and perhaps we will get a better idea of how that mix of lime, sand and water suddenly occurred allowing us humans to study the animal remains millions upon millions of years later.

[Canmoore]

Hadrasaurs would have lived much like moose of today. Wading in shallow water eating aquatic vegetation. The area that is now Montana, and Alberta would have made up the coast of a Cretaceous sea. The land would have been very swampy and soft..

Just like bogs today, an animal could sink into the soft sand and decomposition would be drastically slowed. Of course the land would dry up preserving the animals remains.

There have been skin imprints before, however this is different in that ligaments were found also. This gives us a much better idea of how the animals muscles would have looked like.

It is remarkable how fossils are created, and the fact that we can find them today is a bit of a miracle. There are so many things that could happen from time of death millions of years ago, to today. But the fact is that fossilization does happen, we even have trace fossils from billions of years ago of the first life on earth, bacteria.

Fossils offer us a very very small window into the past, I find it amazing that we even find fossils at all! with all the tectonic movement, and erosion that takes place.

[Canmoore]

As for footprints. I am not sure on how they are formed, it surely is a miracle that footprints can be preserved for millions of years.

But if you look at the millions of monkeys on typewriters theory, it really isn't that hard to imagine that we would find imprints.

Dinosaurs from the Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous lived on earth for 160million years. In that immense amount of time, I am sure that the incredibly rare and near impossible requirements for imprints to be preserved for millions of years would have happened more than once.

What those requirements are, I am not entirely sure. But like I already said, fossilized footprints, along with fossilized paleo organisms are such an amazing phenomenon, that it is borderline miraculous.

[dalem]

Therefore, the old school lessons that the dinosaurs died and were slowly covered up with dirt and dust can't be correct. Carrion would have destroyed all but the largest bones (ancient porcupines ate the bones also).

The dinosaurs had to be swept away into mud flows of prehistoric CEMENT that dried fairly quickly and only tectonic movements over the millenium broke it up enough to scatter the bones somewhat. Dinosaur footprints are a perfect example that the "mud" they walked in was actually a natural mix of cement.

How that cement could mix right then and there is perhaps more of a mystery than what color dinosaurs were. But it had to be some sort of rapid setting material that wouldn't wash away so it could still leave foot prints.

Therefore, where Dakota was found begs to be geologically studied very thoroughly. Perhaps there are more of its kin in those rocks and perhaps we will get a better idea of how that mix of lime, sand and water suddenly occurred allowing us humans to study the animal remains millions upon millions of years later.

There are different methods of burial, deposition, and fossilization. MOST fossil finds are simple jumbles of bones. Rarely intact and rarely complete. That's why people write articles about unique finds like Dakota. :)

Special finds like this one, or the more famous Burgess Shale, etc., are special exactly because they are the result of the sudden inundation scenario (mudslides, etc.) that you postulate above. But MOST fossils are jumbles of junk that are not sexy. Check the back rooms of any natural history museum and you'll see what I mean. ;)

-dale

[Canmoore]

There are different methods of burial, deposition, and fossilization. MOST fossil finds are simple jumbles of bones. Rarely intact and rarely complete. That's why people write articles about unique finds like Dakota. :)

Special finds like this one, or the more famous Burgess Shale, etc., are special exactly because they are the result of the sudden inundation scenario (mudslides, etc.) that you postulate above. But MOST fossils are jumbles of junk that are not sexy. Check the back rooms of any natural history museum and you'll see what I mean. ;)

-dale

Excellent post Dalem!

fossils are but tiny remnants of a long lost world. The world has changed since the cretaceous, geologic forces have forced up mountains, while others eroded away, seas have dried up, and new oceans created. Land has been subducted, and new land has been created.

We will never ever find an exact replica of a paleo ecosystem. Instead we find bits and pieces spread throughout the millions of years that a certain era or period extended. Its like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, except that the pieces are not from the same puzzle.

In extremely rare cases, such as "Dakota", a small area of Cretaceous land was preserved.. This is such a rare and near impossible that it blows palaeontologists minds away.

Think of it as taking your university graduation picture, tear it up into thousands of pieces, then scatter them in the wind..than 60 years later stumbling upon a little torn section of that picture, with your face on it.

[RustyBattleship]

I am certainly aware of the fact that most fossile finds are just a jumble of bones. Often extremely fragile bones such as the fish fossils we found one time north of Yuma, Arizona.

But sometimes nearly whole creatures are found. Once while on a geological field trip to the Los Angeles County Museum, we were privileged to tour the basement where they were putting together the skeleton of one of the world's largest T-Rex's ever found. They also had a copy of the one from the Smithsonian to use as a guide.

The skull of that dude was taking up a whole table. I looked it over, peered at it, studied it and bent around at all angles for a particular reason. The curator asked, "You're a hunter aren't you?" I answered, "Sometimes. I was just wondering what it would take for a brain shot on this thing as opposed to a grade B movie I saw of Guy Madison using a Colt .45 on one."

He laughed and said, "Even Sgt. York probably could not get through enough bone to hit the walnut size brain."

AMAZING animals. Sometimes I think I missed my calling. But then again I guess you can call the Battleships I modified in the 80's dinosaurs now.

[Canmoore]

He laughed and said, "Even Sgt. York probably could not get through enough bone to hit the walnut size brain."

The curator said that about the T-Rex? Must have been new or something. T-Rex had a brain larger than a humans... although compared to its body, it was very small.

[RustyBattleship]

The curator said that about the T-Rex? Must have been new or something. T-Rex had a brain larger than a humans... although compared to its body, it was very small.

Well, I personally looked very closely at that skull. Where the brain case would be wasn't much bigger than an elongated slow-pitch soft ball. And the curator said the bone was about 2 inches thick.

Now, very large dinosaurs (such as Brontasaurus) had an extra brain at the base of their tail. Supposedly a secondary system to pull the tail out of the way if an Allosaur bit into it.

So maybe T-Rex had a larger brain near its - umm - annum. Which would make it an ancestor of the denizens in Washington.

[dalem]

Anyone with the Dinosaur or Paleontology bug NEEDS to get this DVD set:

Amazon Linky.

I'm VERY hard to please with things like these "Walking with Dinosaurs" Discovery Channel shows, but the ones presented in this package are top-rate. I bought it recently based on one show in the set and I have since bought two more copies for Xmas presents for friends.

There are standard Dale warnings useful for these - 95% of the "behavior" stuff is pure conjecture, of course, but the production values are VERY high, and a lot of it deals with the time period BEFORE the Mesozoic (i.e. dinos) which is usually ignored.

Giant armored fish, giant bugs, giant lizards.

What's not to like?

So buy the damned thing and come back and thank me after Xmas. :)

-dale

[dalem]

Well, I personally looked very closely at that skull. Where the brain case would be wasn't much bigger than an elongated slow-pitch soft ball. And the curator said the bone was about 2 inches thick.

Now, very large dinosaurs (such as Brontasaurus) had an extra brain at the base of their tail. Supposedly a secondary system to pull the tail out of the way if an Allosaur bit into it.

So maybe T-Rex had a larger brain near its - umm - annum. Which would make it an ancestor of the denizens in Washington.

So far Stegosaurus is the only one believed to have has a secondary cluster of neurons - at the base of its tail. I think.

-dale

[Canmoore]

Well, I personally looked very closely at that skull. Where the brain case would be wasn't much bigger than an elongated slow-pitch soft ball. And the curator said the bone was about 2 inches thick.

A large chunk of the a T-Rex's brain was devoted to the olfactory bulbs, and nerves. Indicating it had an amazing sense of smell. The rest of the brain was very small though. But in all it was about the size of a Gorillas, and as you pointed out it had an elongated oval shape.

Now, very large dinosaurs (such as Brontasaurus) had an extra brain at the base of their tail. Supposedly a secondary system to pull the tail out of the way if an Allosaur bit into it.

You mean Apatasaurus right? Brontosaurus is no longer a valid name for this species.

As for the "second brain", you do mean Stegosaurus right? The most popular theory is that it was actually a glycogen body, which is a structure found in living birds whose function is not definitely known. However it is postulated to facilitate in the supply of glycogen to the animal's nervous system.

Dalem, I also highly recommend the walking with dinosaurs/walking with monsters series.

[RustyBattleship]

While we're at Stegosaurus:
I used a model of one alongside a model of a Sherman tank as a lead-in picture for an 8mm film I did of Camp Roberts.

But I always thought the arrangement of the critters boney plates were not quite right. Yes, they would protect a bite from straight above, but not along the side.

Then on one of the science channels, a paleontologist suggested that those plates could move and flatten out giving it more protection. Okay, makes a little more sense.

But the spikes on the tail only look like billy clubs and not stabbing instruments.

Then I almost ran over a porcupine.

AHAH! The Stegosaurus plates AND tail spikes supported spines like a porky. When the back plates are up, it looks like a Sailfish. When the back plates are flattened down, it's a giant punji cactus. And the spines on the tail-OUCH because they would have had a good swining motion to bury them in.

So, I'm looking for another cheap model I used to have of old stego and modify it to what I think it could have looked like.

Don't argue that my idea would tke it out of the reptilian species and make it mammalian. Lately dinosaur hunters HAVE found fossil impressions that represent hair or feathers. Even the drammatic looking Triceratops boney collar plate has been found to have anchor pits for muscles and the plate may have been covered in skin and muscle (or spines?).

Well? Catfish have spines. Blowfish have spines. Swordfish have swords. Sawfish have saws. Platapus is a "mammal" but has a duck's beak and webbed feet. If those animals were extinct and we just found their fossils, dollars to doughnuts says the paleontologists would put them together wrong.

It is a painstaking and highly detailed science, but not perfect yet.

[Canmoore]

LOL so true RB

Personally I think that the plates and spikes on the Stegosauri would have been for mating purposes. Just like some birds have huge impractical beaks, crests and feathers that serve no function other than for mating.

Imagine if paleontologists found the beaks of a toucan! Imagine if they did not find any other part of the bird except for the bills! I am sure they would mistake it for some monstrous bird.

But who knows really.

[dalem]

Exactly.

My old prof, Dr. Fastovsky, was always careful to reinforce the difference between science and what he called "storytelling". Plates and horns may have been for protection. They may have been for display. They may have been both, or sometimes, or just raw chance.

Fastovsky is a world-class dickweed, but he was (and I assume still is) a great scientist, and someone to pay attention to in his field.

It's fun to speculate but we will most probably never know.

Me, I think that the Stego's plates were decorative and the spikes defensive.

-dale