Now on ScienceBlogs: Replacing the DSCC with the Blogosphere?

Not Exactly Rocket Science

My small attempt to celebrate science and to make it interesting and fun by giving jargon, confusion and elitism a solid beating with the stick of good writing.

Profile

Ed_Yong.jpgEd Yong is an award-winning British science writer. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to make the latest scientific discoveries interesting to everyone. He finds writing about himself in the third person strange and unsettling.

rb_badge_finalist.jpg

What others are saying...

"One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

"A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

"Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

"Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

Sign up

Twitter.jpg

Facebook.jpg

Feed.jpg

Book.jpg

Why I blog
An interview with me
The original site • Tell me about you: Part 1 Part 2

Creative Commons License
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

140-character ramblings

My wife, who makes it all possible

Alice.jpg

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll


Science blogs Other blogs

« How prehistoric sea monsters sorted males from females | Main | The viruses that have been infecting mammals for 105 million years »

Raptorex shows that T.rex body plan evolved at 100th the size

Category: DinosaursEvolutionPalaeontologyTransitional fossils
Posted on: September 17, 2009 2:00 PM, by Ed Yong

Raptorex_Trex.jpg

Meet Raptorex, the "king of thieves". It's a new species of dinosaur that looks, for all intents and purposes¸ like the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex, complete with large, powerful skull and tiny, comical forearms. But there's one very important difference - it's 100 times smaller. Unlike the ever-shrinking world of music players and phones, it seems that evolution crafted tyrannosaur technology with much smaller specifications before enlarging the design into the giant predators of the late Cretaceous.

Raptorex is a new species of meat-eating dinosaur, discovered in northwest China by Paul Sereno from the University of Chicago. The specimen is a young adult, but it wouldn't have grown to more than 3 metres in length. It stood about as tall as a human, and wouldn't have weighed much more. And yet Raptorex looked very much like a scaled-down version of its giant future relatives. All the features that made tyrannosaurs so recognisable and such efficient killers (except their enormous size) were present in this animal.

It really is a beautiful transitional fossil. As Sereno says, "Raptorex really is a pivotal moment in the history of the group where most of the biologically meaningful features of tyrannosaurs came into being, and the surprising thing is that they came into being in such a small animal." Raptorex clearly shows that natural selection initially honed the distinct body shape of these giant predators at a 1/100th scale. This design was then scaled up with remarkably few modifications.

It had a skull that had clearly been developed into the animal's primary weapon.  It was unusually big for its body size (40% of its torso length), it was structurally reinforced against the stresses of heavy bites, it had large places where powerful jaw-closing muscles attached and it was armed with sharp teeth.

Raptorex.jpgIts limbs also had classic T.rex proportions - strong hind legs that that were fit for running, but miniscule forearms. In contrast, other early tyrannosaurids, such as Guanlong, Dilong, Eotyrannus and Stokesosaurus, looked very different with arms that were long and useful, and proportionally smaller heads (just 30% of its torso length). Only a few distinctive parts of their skeleton mark them out as early tyrannosaurids.

Raptorex brain was also large for its size. For comparison, the Jurassic predator Allosaurus had a brain that was just 60% bigger, despite having a body that was 10 times heavier! Raptorex's sense of smell was particularly well-developed, just as Tyrannosaurus's was. A scan of its skull showed a large area for its olfactory bulbs - the parts of its brain devoted to smell. These bulbs take up a full 20% of the brain's total volume, a proportion that exceeds that of all meat-eating dinosaurs except the giant tyrannosaurs.

Despite what many newspapers will assuredly tell you, Raptorex isn't the ancestor of Tyrannosaurus although it probably looked very much like what this hypothetical animal would have done. It's more like an early cousin, but one that's clearly more closely related to T.rex and its giant kin than any of the other smaller species so far discovered.

Based on his new fossil, Sereno tells a three-act story of tyrannosaur evolution. Act One was set in the Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods, with a cast that included Eotyrannus and Dilong.  Their snouts had become stronger and their jaws more powerful, but they were typical of other predators of the time. It was only during Act Two, around 125 million years ago, that this dynasty of predators started to become truly specialised, enhancing the skull, lengthening the legs, and shrinking the forearms.

All of these features were present in Raptorex, setting the stage of the final act in tyrannosaur evolution - getting really big. The lineage grew in bulk by around 100 times. By the end of the Cretaceous, the meat-eating scene in the northern continents was dominated by tyrannosaurids - predators such as Albertasaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Tarvosaurus, each weighing in at 2.5 tons or more.

It would be fascinating to see if the same story could be told for other lineages of predators, if the abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids and spinosaurids all had their own mini-prototypes.

Raptorex_family_tree.jpg

Reference: Science 10.1126/science.1177428

Images: Reconstruction by Todd Marshall; other images from Science/AAAS

More on dinosaurs:

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/119881

Comments

1

Very nice work, Ed! This is the kind of thing that reminds me why I love paleontology.

Just one minor quibble. You wrote that Raptorex was "discovered in northwest China by Paul Sereno from the University of Chicago." As Sereno says in the video interview, though, the fossil was dug up by a local person and sold to a private collector. That collector then contacted Sereno, who was able to convince the owner to donate the skeleton to science. Scary as it is to think about, Raptorex could have remained in private hands for a long time had its owner not felt as generous.

Posted by: Laelaps | September 17, 2009 2:17 PM

2

I'm having trouble seeing where this "100 times smaller" figure comes from. For most comparisons, we use length. This might be comparing volume or mass, which exaggerates such differences by a power of three.

Posted by: Nathan Myers | September 17, 2009 2:29 PM

3

1 picogram hummingbird genome, 100 picogram salamander genome weight.

Posted by: ss | September 17, 2009 3:19 PM

4

To answer Nathan's question: yes, we are using mass as a comparison. Raptorex was about 60 kg, some estimates of Tyrannosaurus mass are 6000 kg. In terms of length, Raptorex is about 1/4 or 1/5 the length of T. rex. Mass is the most important comparison here, since we are talking about the evolution of various skeletal features in relation to colossal body size.

Steve Brusatte

Posted by: Steve Brusatte | September 18, 2009 11:08 AM

5

Nitpick: If mass is what's being referred to by "size", why not just change the title to say "100th the mass"? And instead of "100 times smaller", "100 times less massive"?

-- A humble pedant for clarity and precision in scientific language

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 18, 2009 5:08 PM

6

Steve: I'm sorry to say that smacks of special pleading. You could say the same of almost any comparison of the size of taxa, except where you were comparing reach. By my lights, all such comparisons should be by mass, but that's not the way it's done, which makes it misleading in this case.

Posted by: Nathan Myers | September 19, 2009 2:16 AM

7

Could you be more explicit, Nathan?

Thanks!

Posted by: Nick Gardner | September 19, 2009 8:33 AM

8

"That's not the way its done"? Hah? That IS the way its done. See this nice refereed paper in one of the biggest journals. After searching on "Size differences animals" and looking at the books in the results shows that mass is often used as the criterion.

Posted by: Markk | September 19, 2009 11:00 AM

9

Can you visualize Jesus playing with one of these killing machines?

Land shark comes to mind.

Posted by: Bob Johnson | September 19, 2009 11:53 AM

10

Bill Parker and Nick Gardner sent me the paper. Wonderful animal, and a real surprise, too. I'm surprised that there's such a large morphological gap between Raptorex and Dilong/Guanlong. I wish the paper included photos of the fossil in situ, though. This was a 3D fossil, right?

Posted by: Zach Miller | September 19, 2009 8:12 PM

11

"Raptorex"???
are you joking?

Posted by: Richard Hamilton | September 20, 2009 12:12 AM

12

I wonder which/how many dino fossils have been used to identify these shared derived (ancestral modified) characters in the 3 act story of ryrannosaur evolution.
françoise

Posted by: françoise ibarrondo | September 20, 2009 6:33 AM

13

I wonder which/how many reptile fossils have been used as a comparison to identify these shared derived (ancestral modified) characters in the 3 act story of tyrannosaurus evolution
françoise

Posted by: françoise ibarrondo | September 20, 2009 7:14 AM

14

I wonder which/how many fossil(s) have been used as an external comparison to identify these shared derived (ancestral modified) characters in the 3 act story of tyrannosaur evolution.
françoise

Posted by: françoise ibarrondo | September 20, 2009 8:36 AM

15

So... what's up with the ridiculous hairdo? (Of the Raptorex, not Serano :))

Posted by: Kilian Hekhuis | September 21, 2009 5:22 AM

16

So what does this do to the arguement that TREX was a scavenger ? Part of the arguement was the huge olfactory bulbs and also the size of trex made him able to drive on other predators. So we now have this small one that must have hunted ?

Posted by: michael | September 21, 2009 4:46 PM

17

The weight of T rex is greatly exaggerated - depends on its skull, it weighed some - tonnes.
What is more important from an evolutionary point of view is that tyrannosaurs are quite primitive theropods, they still have amphicoelous dorsals. The thing is, once opisthocoely is evolved, it never turns back to amphicoely. Something that cladistics is impossible to solve. So Torvosaurus et al were more derived theropods.
I do not understand why people bother with questions whether T rex was a scavenger or not when it is impossible to answer...

Peter Mihalda

Posted by: Peter Mihalda | November 23, 2009 10:56 AM

18

Some error appeared - I meant 1,5 - 2 tonnes.

Peter Mihalda

Posted by: Peter Mihalda | November 23, 2009 10:58 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.