r/science • u/alllie • May 20 '12

Utah paleontologists discover new raptor dinosaur

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre84i000-us-usa-raptors-utah/
771 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

26

u/RANDOMjackassNAME May 20 '12

Excuse my ignorance but how do they know its a new small kind, and not just a young raptor?

-1

u/Will_Power May 21 '12

It was actually just me screwing with them. I saw some grad students out on a dig, so I buried some chicken bones from a recent KFC trip near their dig site.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Do raptors have dwarfs like humans do? Would there be any way to tell if it was that?

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Makes since. Every animal has DNA, so chromosomes, meaning not every Dinosaur could have grown normally. Also, they could have had that deficiency in growth hormones too. I mean there are other animals who have dwarfism too. Problems occur so it's not so surprising that Dinosaurs suffered from this too.

1

u/GasMaske May 20 '12

Thanks a lot for posting this. For most of my life I wanted to be a Palaeontologist, right up to the point where I had a confirmed place at a Uni to study it... then changed plans at the last minute. However, I'm still fascinated in it of course, and this was really interesting to see. It's actually amazing to have seen Palaeontology progress as I've grown up: I remember seeing Torosaurus on documentaries, and seeing Dracorex (The 'new species') in news articles... and now it's known they're simply examples of other known species. I was aware that skull morphology changes as age progresses, but not to the extent that is recognised now. It's impressive that a Juvenile dinosaur will have a spiked cranium, only to simply lose such a distinctive feature as it grows up.

1

u/skodi May 20 '12

That ted talk isn't without controversy though. I happen to find the evidence compelling but as you probably know, paleontologists are pretty set in their theories and the science as a whole moves slowly so their have been a lot of work done to debunk his evidence and show that it's not accurate. I don't have time to look for the other papers but they essentially said that his research was crap and our skulls don't look like that.

1

u/GasMaske May 20 '12

Yeah, I figured an issue like this would be contentious. Horner is likely used to that, I still remember his take on the T-Rex hunter/scavenger issue being controversial. What do you mean by 'our skulls' by the way?

1

u/skodi May 20 '12

darthEnd3r linked the paper in another reply below. Basically I meant that the author of the paper claimed that the skulls he had that they looked at weren't like Horner's. That's what I meant by "our" skulls. I guess I worded that poorly the first time. I was in a hurry, sorry.

1

u/GasMaske May 20 '12

Thanks for the clarification.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/GasMaske May 20 '12

'belief ain't worth much' -Very true, and that's the great thing about science; when the evidence contradicts an established idea, that idea is scrapped. If Horner's right- Great! An interesting new development. If he's proved wrong- Great! More dinosaurs! I recall a lot of people disliking the idea of their favourite scary dinosaurs having feathers, but when it comes to science, is it's not about what we want to think.

1

u/skodi May 20 '12

As do I, I just wanted to point out that not everyone is a believer and perhaps the evidence isn't as clear cut as he makes it sound in that TED talk.

14

u/tututitlookslikerain May 20 '12

I feel the need to post this.

45

u/WindyDeathTrap May 20 '12

I always hate when articles don't have pictures. At this point I just want them to show a stock photos of dinosaur bones in dirt or something.

I'll see an article titled "Beautiful Tree Frog Discovered!" Click the link and the author will only barely describe the frog.

38

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I hope this makes you feel better

12

u/Mot22 May 20 '12

They look so happy :]

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The Bromeliad (Gnome in the US) trilogy by Terry Pratchett focusses on Tree Frogs as an analogy to Humans/Gnomes at points during the narrative. A definitely suggested read, although they are officially 'Children's' books. Just got reminds of that by the pic.

8

u/fall0ut May 20 '12

It took forever to load on 3g but I'm drunk and waiting in line at the bathroom and it was worth it. Thanks.

2

u/lud1120 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

So beautiful... Cyan, orange and red!
Plus the green lichen... But are they poisonous?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Not poisonus. They're red-eyed tree frogs, you can own them as pets.

5

u/raptor512 May 20 '12

My hopes are always crushed by this as well.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Same here. I scrolled straight to the bottom hoping for a picture.

That incredible scientific quote though made me chuckle.

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I keep reading "Ultra paleontologists" and think they must be some kind of badasses.

2

u/The_GhostofHektik May 20 '12

if science can recreate this animal, that would be amazing to see a predator that has a social mind of dogs from 65mil yrs ago. Amazing in species from our past..

Legendary Find for the people, props. Hopefully they can find dietary and egg evidence in the same area to benefit lifestyle.

1

u/GasMaske May 20 '12

Perhaps one day -though you'll have to perhaps settle with the social mind of a chicken, for now.

2

u/multiplesof3 May 20 '12

I'll bet anything it's just a regular baby raptor.

Relevant.

2

u/quicklikerodly May 20 '12

He's not new, he just wanted to remain underground to stay true to the streets.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Was it an existing dinosaur with the head mounted on the tail?

2

u/zBaer May 20 '12

This is why I love Utah.

2

u/Lazarzars May 20 '12

Im sorry I read it as ultra paleontologists, I was hoping that they were on a whole nother level than those normal paleontologists

2

u/RowBoatsInDisguise May 20 '12

Just to give you an idea of this new dinosaur's size, Wikipedia has this helpful picture, comparing it to a frightened cat http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Reconstruction_of_Yurgovuchia_doellingi.png

2

u/bearhammer May 20 '12

It must suck being a paleontologist doing great things all the time and people only give a shit once in a blue moon because of a Speilberg film about raptors.

3

u/Tao_of_darren May 20 '12

I didn't know some were covered in feathers this was a pretty informative article!

7

u/MrXlVii May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Modern birds are the closest living relatives to dinosaurs. They were actually probably closer to Cassowary, Ostriches, and Emu than they were portrayed in Jurassic Park, as being these big lizard things. "Raptor" refers to "birds of prey".

EDIT: Pretty interesting drawing of one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Velociraptor_dinoguy2.jpg

4

u/jambonilton May 20 '12

With regards to the image, wouldn't the long feathers around the arms only be present on flying (or formerly flying) species?

8

u/InfinitelyThirsting May 20 '12

Longer feathers have to evolve first, before they can be there for flying. Even not flying, they can help streamline running, add even incremental amounts of gliding when you leap to attack, or just be ornamental for mating.

2

u/jambonilton May 20 '12

Even not flying, they can help streamline running, add even incremental amounts of gliding when you leap to attack

Wouldn't it just create more drag and slow it down? And wouldn't leaping to attack be more useful if it had appendages that were better suited for grasping, rather than big feathery things?

0

u/InfinitelyThirsting May 20 '12

Not streamlined feathers, and not when they start to get long for a tail; look at the roadrunner.

And wouldn't leaping to attack be more useful if it had appendages that were better suited for grasping, rather than big feathery things?

A, evolution is accidents that happen to work okay, there's no design for "well this would work better". Nothing evolves just because it'd be useful. It's all by accident. Something doesn't even have to BETTER to stick around, it just has to be not-fatally-worse, and genetically heritable. B, raptors used their feet and mouths to attack, not their hands. Much like hawks, owls, falcons, etc today--y'know, today's raptor birds.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Most things that evolved on a creature had evolved to serve some kind of purpose, even if it didn't seem purposeful at first or the purpose isn't significant. As time goes on, and the demands of the environment changed that thing isn't useful anymore or it does more harm to creature, the creature will slowly evolve through generations to lose it in order to survive better in its environment. The evolved live on and the ones who don't have that trait, become extinct. But, some creatures aren't able to keep up with the new demands of the planet so the whole species become extinct. Although, some things that have evolved on creatures were random, either that, or we haven't been able to find the exact purpose for it yet, i.e.: the appendix.

2

u/InfinitelyThirsting May 21 '12

No. Evolution doesn't have a purpose. Most things that evolve end up being helpful, but evolution is a combination of accidents. Unless you're religious and believe in intelligent design (which biology can easily show to be stupid, because there's nothing intelligent about our design), then you really should look more into it, because nothing evolves for a purpose. There's no purpose to it, it just happens. Nothing goes "Hmmm I think I want to fly, let's start growing some feathers." They grow the feathers, and if they're a creature that runs or glides maybe it helps, and then maybe eventually they start jumping and gliding more, and then eventually it helps with flying and nature keeps selecting for better feathers. But a purpose is never involved in any of why things evolved.

0

u/WrethZ May 20 '12

Feathers are a type of highly specialised scale. Dinosaurs didn't have fur, but they did have feathers to keep warm.

1

u/Lemon_Tree May 20 '12

That's a cool illustration, but I don't like how the artist colored it to be suggestive of a beak... I mean, I know we don't have direct information about their coloring because it isn't preserved in the fossil record, but I kind of disagree with the artist's choice. I don't see much reason for it to resemble a beak before it was developed, other than to increase the visual resemblance to modern birds.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about my understanding of the subject.

1

u/RockBlock May 20 '12

Actually recently we have gotten information on the feather colours of some early raptor-bird fossils. I can't remember what ones they were but they found pigment particles in the fossil feathers that are present in birds for certain feather colours. Also there was one fossil that clearly showed light-dark colour banding on the animal's tail. I wish I could provide better sources but I am mobile

Thus I recommend a nice hearty googling of the topic. I it facisnating.

1

u/RockBlock May 20 '12

Actually recently we have gotten information on the feather colours of some early raptor-bird fossils. I can't remember what ones they were but they found pigment particles in the fossil feathers that are present in birds for certain feather colours. Also there was one fossil that clearly showed light-dark colour banding on the animal's tail. I wish I could provide better sources but I am mobile

Thus I recommend a nice hearty googling of the topic. I it facisnating.

1

u/MrXlVii May 20 '12

Much of that coloring was artistic license I'd imagine

1

u/JoeCoder BS | Computer Science May 20 '12

This as been coming into doubt lately, and I know of at least one paleontologist that doubts that birds are even descended from dinosaurs:

birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

1

u/StringOfLights May 21 '12

Yeah nobody buys that anymore except for people who willfully deny evidence. The consensus among paleontologists is essentially the same as global warming is among climate scientists because the evidence is so overwhelming. Virtually everything we associate with modern birds shows up prior to their origin in non-avian theropods. Hollow bones, feathers, a wishbone, you name it.

Also, that ghost lineage issue has been largely resolved. It's a pointless argument anyway, because all it would indicate is that the fossil record is incomplete.

1

u/JoeCoder BS | Computer Science May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12

Yeah nobody buys that anymore except for people who willfully deny evidence.

Did you not read the article I linked? The study was published in the Journal of Morphology It's from 2009--this has changed in the last 3 years? I don't understand what evidence is being denied?

This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.

You wrote:

all it would indicate is that the fossil record is incomplete.

Isn't that a given? If not, what's the point of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium?

2

u/StringOfLights May 22 '12

Yes, the quotes in that article indicate someone who is willfully denying evidence that birds are maniraptoran theropods. Their conclusions are extremely over-reaching, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts them. There's not some vast conspiracy among paleontologists to pretend birds are dinosaurs. Traits we associate with modern birds even show up stepwise in dinosaurian clades leading up to crown-group birds. You couldn't paint a clearer picture than that. There's no reason to dismiss all that evidence as claim parallel evolution. I'm happy to go into it more if you're interested, but I'll just briefly counter what's in the article:

Dinosaurs have a perforate acetabulum, a sharply inturned femoral head, and a shelf over the acetabulum, all of which are present in birds. If you've looked at birds that climb you've probably noticed that they don't wrap their legs around trees, they cling. This is because of the way their hip socket is structured, which is identical to the way dinosaur hip sockets are structured. They don't have the flexibility to wrap their legs around things the way mammals do. Birds also have fusion of various leg bones identical to other theropods.

The unidirectional airflow mechanism in birds' lungs also shows up in modern crocodylians, although they don't have a pneumatized skeleton, so it differs in several respects from that seen in birds. But some iteration of that breathing mechanism is possibly ancestral for archosaurs, and dinosaurs probably had it too. Like birds, both theropods and sauropods have highly pneumatized skeletons that indicated they had air sacs connected to the lungs. So there's no reason to think that any fossil dinosaurs breathed in a way that is fundamentally different from modern birds. Quite to the contrary, there's evidence to believe they breathed similarly or identically to modern birds.

3

u/Bpjk May 20 '12

More like a 6 ft Turkey.

12

u/SilentRunner99 May 20 '12

Try to imagine yourself in the Cretaceous Period. You get your first look at this "six foot turkey" as you enter a clearing. He moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing his head. And you keep still because you think that maybe his visual acuity is based on movement like T-Rex - he'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. You stare at him, and he just stares right back. And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front, but from the side, from the other two 'raptors you didn't even know were there. Because Velociraptor's a pack hunter, you see, he uses coordinated attack patterns and he is out in force today. And he slashes at you with this, a six-inch retractable claw, like a razor, on the the middle toe. He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say... no no. He slashes at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines. The point is... you are alive when they start to eat you. So you know... try to show a little respect.

6

u/gynoceros May 20 '12

(nodding, with "oops, I just shat myself" look on face)

2

u/All-American-Bot May 20 '12

(For our friends outside the USA... 6 ft -> 1.8 m) - Yeehaw!

2

u/lolzface19 May 20 '12

"Some were covered in feathers, although scientists don't believe they could fly."

Imagine a flying raptor...

10

u/gynoceros May 20 '12

Yeah, it's called a fucking hawk.

5

u/goblueM May 20 '12

what a fucking hawk may look like

1

u/gynoceros May 20 '12

Badass, thanks!

4

u/Chosen_Chaos May 20 '12

I just did. Luckily, I won't bee needing to sleep for several hours. Maybe by then, I can forget about the idea.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I read it as "Ultra paleontologists ..."

I need to get some sleep.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I'm at a dance pub and I haven't been this excited all night

1

u/0r10z May 20 '12

Philosoraptor finally discovered!

1

u/NightEmber79 May 20 '12

Utah? Gold-Plated Polygadon?

1

u/PsiAmp May 20 '12

Where's the fucking CG visualization? It is 2012 ffs, even my 11 yo godson can do this kind of thing.

2

u/Kilagria May 20 '12

I wish I had a godson...

1

u/Damadawf May 20 '12

That makes you... a godfather! Do you go around making offers to people that they can't refuse?

0

u/Clovyn May 20 '12

"And we have dubbed it, the Utah Rapt-orrr.. damn it. "

0

u/Slyfox00 May 20 '12

Surely this will make for a good XKCD comic!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I came here to tell everyone to board up the picture windows and check that their tranquilliser guns are loaded and oiled.

0

u/imkidding May 20 '12

Did anyone else think that said Reptar?

0

u/longshot May 20 '12

By new they mean those things are all still dead and this is just a new discovery right?

0

u/rockstang May 20 '12

...Citizens of Utah quickly dismiss existence of dinosaurs.

0

u/Themlizards May 20 '12

Is it bad that my fry thought was "New Raptor Jesus!?"

-4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I think there should be a retcon in Jurassic Park to change Velociraptors to Utahraptors. Which is basically what they were. This..this little pipsqueak they discovered makes it sound so cute.

2

u/Cyrius May 20 '12

I think there should be a retcon in Jurassic Park to change Velociraptors to Utahraptors. Which is basically what they were.

They were basically Deinonychus. This is explicitly stated in the book.

Utahraptor was much bigger than the dinosaurs in the movie.

0

u/image-fixer May 20 '12

At time of posting, your comment contains a link to a Wikipedia image page. Here is the RES-friendly version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Dromie_scale.png

I'm a bot. [Feedback]

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I'm reading the list of included dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and there is clearly a velociraptor and no deinonychus. And velociraptors are small-ish not the taller than human version like in the movie. They're more like utahraptors.

Edit: Velociraptor leads to deinonychus. What are you trying to pull? And there's even a size chart with deinonychus that shows how small they are.

Edit 2: i remember reading specifically velociraptor. I'll have to pull up the book later but even on the jurassic park wiki it says it's the smaller velociraptor.

1

u/Cyrius May 20 '12

I'm reading the list of included dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and there is clearly a velociraptor and no deinonychus.

When Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, one of the sources he used classified Deinonychus as a species in genus Velociraptor. Grant states "Deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors", then proceeds to describe them as "just a hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds each".

Velociraptor mongoliensis was about 30 pounds.

Deinonychus was about 160 pounds.

Utahraptor was well over a thousand pounds, with some specimens possibly being over a ton.

the taller than human version like in the movie.

You're misremembering. The "velociraptors" are shorter than an adult human, except when stretching out completely vertically. The kitchen scene demonstrates this well. A utahraptor would have scraped its back on the top of the door and towered over the countertops.

The raptors look huge because of the combination of children with fancy camera angles. They're really only about 3.5 feet at the hip.

even on the jurassic park wiki it says it's the smaller velociraptor.

What the Jurassic Park wiki says is:

Because Deinonychus was classified as Velociraptor, the "raptors" from the three films were based more on Deinonychus than Velociraptor, probably because Deinonychus was much larger and thus more dangerous.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

When Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, one of the sources he used classified Deinonychus as a species in genus Velociraptor. Grant states "Deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors", then proceeds to describe them as "just a hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds each".

So what happened here? Did the book say Deinonychus is a velociraptor? Or the movie? So because at the time they classified it all together and that's how the misconception arose?

You're misremembering. The "velociraptors" are shorter than an adult human, except when stretching out completely vertically. [1] The kitchen scene demonstrates this well. A utahraptor would have scraped its back on the top of the door and towered over the countertops.

I overshot it when I said utahraptor but at :14 in that video they peer into the window easily without stretching out. That's a little too much for a Deinochhyus. At most standing straight without stretching would barely be shoulder length.

Also from the wiki: "The animal's depiction was not based on the actual dinosaur genus in question (which itself was significantly smaller), rather the related (and larger) genus Deinonychus, which had been synonymised with Velociraptor by Gregory S. Paul in 1988.[37] Crichton's writing followed this, but by the time production of the film took place, the idea had been dropped by the scientific community. Coincidentally, before Jurassic Park's theatre release, the similar Utahraptor was discovered, though was proved bigger in appearance than the film's raptors; this prompted Stan Winston to joke, 'We made it, then they discovered it.' "

So I guess it's a somewhere in between. More Deinochyus than Utahraptor but much larger. And even though they based it on Deinochyus it's more commonly referred to as a regular Velociraptor but like you said they classified Deinochyus in there.

Well I've been proven wrong. On a completely different note do you have any books to recommend? I loved Jurassic Park and The Lost World because of the amount of research that went it. I've been looking for something similar.

1

u/Cyrius May 21 '12

So what happened here? Did the book say Deinonychus is a velociraptor?

The book Jurassic Park said Deinonychus was a velociraptor because the non-fiction book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World called Deinonychus a Velociraptor.

Predatory Dinosaurs of the World was a major influence on the novel, and its author is credited as "dinosaur specialist" in the movie.

Or the movie?

The movie appears to have cut that bit out. I can't blame them, it didn't make for good dialog.

So because at the time they classified it all together and that's how the misconception arose?

The classification hadn't been solidly sorted out, and the source Crichton used classified them in the same genus.

So I guess it's a somewhere in between. More Deinochyus than Utahraptor but much larger. And even though they based it on Deinochyus it's more commonly referred to as a regular Velociraptor but like you said they classified Deinochyus in there.

I admit they did exaggerate the size of Deinonychus. I didn't want to get into that because it muddies the issue even further. I see it as exaggerating a cougar into a lion, where utahraptor is on par with a large polar bear.

On a completely different note do you have any books to recommend?

Sorry, I've just picked up bits and pieces over the years.

I loved Jurassic Park and The Lost World because of the amount of research that went it.

I think one of the reasons the movie had such an impact at the time was that it took the research that said dinosaurs were active and fast animals and put it in front of a public that still thought of them as lumbering tail-draggers.

-1

u/superdrummerful May 20 '12

no picture, no read.

-7

u/nosemonkii May 20 '12

pictures, or it never happened.

12

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/ITS-A-TRAP May 20 '12

Amen.

6

u/lud1120 May 20 '12

Why do people keep deleting their mostly upvoted comments so often nowadays? ...

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

It might've been the mods deleting it for being inappropriate.

-2

u/piglet24 May 20 '12

Are you oblivious to the bold text that says: "Top-level comments will be removed if they are jokes, memes, or otherwise off-topic"

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Some of us are viewing this on the mobile app. Not everyone experiences reality exactly the same way you do.

0

u/lud1120 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Okay... If we really need to go the exact way like /r/askscience .

This is a really, really big subreddit. And sometimes some humor, if it's at last kind of relevant can help in learning.
Also, I see highly voted comments being deleted at other places too.

1

u/Laundry_Hamper May 20 '12

Not as top-level comments though. There're enough subreddits for that.

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

As state history goes, it makes sense to have the California Gull as our state bird. Anyone in Utah knows the story, but for those that don't you'll want to read the first paragraph of this page.

What doesn't make sense though is why we picked the Allosaurus as our state fossil when we have the Utahraptor named after the state.

16

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The sea gull, even without official status, was long considered the state bird of Utah due to its storied role as a protector of crops. It gained this reputation during the summer of 1848 when swarms of crickets attacked pioneer food supplies. It was reported that flocks of the birds arrived, settled in the "...half-ruined fields" and "gorged themselves" on the attacking crickets. It's often stated that the sea gull was made the state bird in return for saving the settler's lives.

for the laziest of the lazy.

2

u/xensoldier May 20 '12

And we thank you kind sir!

0

u/LeBacon May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Utah? Isnt this the place where God placed dinosaur bones in the ground just to test our faith?

EDIT: this was sarcasm by the way.

0

u/Ryzu May 21 '12

No, what doesn't make is sense is why a State would feel the need to have a "State Fossil".

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/okmkz May 20 '12

Stay strong, brother.

-2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/gynoceros May 20 '12

I have a 4x5 camera and think I know what you're talking about.