Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 2, 2009 1:40 PM

Damn atheists, first they tell us that we came from monkeys, then they take away our dinosaurs.

If it weren't for sin, we'd still be riding them, you know.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: SciencePundit | November 2, 2009 1:47 PM

I saw this on ScienceDaily and PlosONE yesterday. Great stuff!

So is this 3-in-1 dinosaur suitable for saddling up and riding?

Posted by: RossM | November 2, 2009 1:55 PM

Glen, do you want to ride atheists or dinosaurs?

A nice piece of scientific work.

Posted by: Newfie | November 2, 2009 2:09 PM

A younger and smaller animal would be more prone to predation. The horns on the back of the head would provide some defense. As the animal grew, it wouldn't need the same protection. Makes complete sense to me.
Now, for our new puppy to lose her razor sharp teeth. My hands look like they've been flailed. Say hi to Lucy Fur(p).

Posted by: Bob O'H | November 2, 2009 2:14 PM

It's only sensible to suggest here that we merge with the Popular People's Front of Judea.

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | November 2, 2009 2:26 PM

Falconer @#6,

Yes, Bakker (and colleagues) did indeed name the dinosaur Dracorex hogwartsia. A pdf of the original paper is available online, as is indeed the paper referenced in this video.

Posted by: KOPD | November 2, 2009 2:37 PM

Newfie,

(OT)
What kind of dog is that? It looks just like mine did at when she was younger (with a bit less white on the chest and muzzle) and mine's a mix - Aussie mother, father unknown. Those needle-like teeth were a pain, too. Not only did she shred our hands with them, but when she'd lose one she'd try to chew on it, so we'd have to keep an eye on her and take her lost teeth away from her. The joys of puppy parenting.

Posted by: AdamK | November 2, 2009 3:07 PM

Well I'M still calling it Dracorex. Here in my room. With the door closed. Where no one can tell me not to.

Posted by: kopd | November 2, 2009 3:22 PM

@Newfie

Yeah, that sounds just like my dog. That's cool. Mine has the markings from her mother (tri-color Australian shepherd), but my best guess on the sire is a black lab (or black lab mix). She's got the big floppy ears, long tail, webbed toes of a lab, and a shorter coat than her mother (about in between a lab and an Australian shepherd). Plus some of the personality of a lab - loves to swim, etc. And a lot of the litter were nearly solid black. Unfortunately she has the Australian shepherd's high energy, and combine that with her tendency to go berserk around people and she's a handful. Um, so yeah, to the topic, uh, as an adult she still looks a lot like she did as a pup. Just some changes in proportions and ear configuration. The head has elongated somewhat. So I suppose if you were to compare skulls from, say, 8 weeks to 18 months you might think it was a different breed. No horns, though. Okay, that wasn't such a good attempt to get back on topic either. ;-)

Posted by: arensb | November 2, 2009 3:30 PM

Cue the creationists complaining that "science got it wrong yet again!" in 3... 2... 1...

Posted by: paleo | November 2, 2009 3:39 PM

Nice video, but contains a couple of errors: the fontanelle in babies is not covered by cartilage, but fibrous tissue; skull bone does not form from a cartilaginous precursor, but within the dermis (dermal bone). Also, I don't know why metaplastic bone is used here (as also by Horner in his presentation at the Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology that I happened to see) as bone that changes during ontogeny... the term is usually used for bone that forms by direct ossification of dermal fibers, tendons and the like. I'm still not entirely convinced particularly by the histological line of evidence, but cool theory anyway...

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 2, 2009 4:11 PM

Great. Just when I've finally gotten the swing of blessing every meal of horsetail in nomine Dracorex, et Stygimoloch, et Pachycephalosaurus, Amen.

Posted by: Joe | November 2, 2009 4:45 PM

What paleo said. (21)
Also: it seems improper to call the projections horns, since horn generally indicates a keratin sheath; or was there a sheath? An antler is bone, and under the microscope, growing antler is a mitotic frenzy; a pathology prof of mine used to show it to path residents, and and we'd often call it osteosarcoma.

Posted by: amphiox | November 2, 2009 5:27 PM

I wonder how frequent this sort of taxonomic error is in paleontology? Particularly in invertebrates that undergo metamorphosis. If a hypothetical paleontologist in a far-distant future found fossils of a butterfly and a caterpillar, but had no prior knowledge of butterflies or caterpillars (suppose there was a mass-extinction of insects), how likely would those fossils be classified as separate species, and how would one go about ascertaining that two such fossils really were a single species?

I've always wondered, particularly for some of the more enigmatic fossil invertebrates which have no good modern analgues, like some of the Cambrian fauna, if some of the separate species we have currently classified are actually adults/juveniles of the same species.

Posted by: Davros | November 2, 2009 6:19 PM

What is metaplastic bone? Are there any extant species that have such dramatic 'metaplastic' transformations?

The only information that I can find about metaplastic changes occurs in pathological conditions.

Posted by: mothra | November 2, 2009 7:26 PM

@27. There have been insect mass extinctions besides the difficult to document one going on presently. At the end of the Permian period all the 'cool' fossil insects died out such as the Paleodictyopterans with six (6!) wings and the Protodonata with meter wide wingspans.

You are right there are many fossil insect nymphs or larvae which have been given names. If they are ever associated with an adult form, the older name will still have priority.

Posted by: skylyre | November 2, 2009 8:30 PM

Could this mean that Raptorex might actually be baby T-rex? I know the former fossil was much older than the latter but still... I'm thinking about it now.

Posted by: Chris Booth | November 2, 2009 11:54 PM

So, the boojum WAS a snark.

Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2009 2:07 AM

Lol, that happens a lot! It's rather unfortunate having to do taxonomy with nothing more than fossilized specimens that don't change... oy. Even members of the same species who happen to be of two different sexes might be confused and labeled as being two seperate species simply because their sexual dimorphism is so extremely evident in their phenotypes (of course this has happened with living animals too - ie. Angler Fish. However it still seems to be rarer).
Fortunately scientists are capable of revision and can still maintain their reputations by being coherent with new evidence, unlike some other people out there.

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | November 3, 2009 9:01 AM

Skylyre @#33,

No, Raptorex is actually quite distinct from the Late Cretaceous Tyrannosauridae in terms of a great number of traits, and is tens of millions of years older.

However, there is a similar situation to the Pachycephalosaurus lumping going on with T. rex. A skull and a skull with skeleton (but lacking braincase) of medium-sized (~500 kg) immature tyrannosaurids have been described from the Hell Creek Formation (T. rex's stomping ground). These specimens are considered by some to represent a distinct taxon: Nanotyrannus lancensis. However, they may instead simply be juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.

My research supports the latter hypothesis, but this could be overturned by: 1) discovery of an adult Nanotyrannus which is anatomcially distinct from Tyrannosaurus rex, or 2) discovery of juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex OF THE SAME ONTOGENETIC STATUS as Nanotyrannus but anatomically distinct from it.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Sili | November 3, 2009 11:50 AM

That was a great little video. MSM should really sit up and take notice. THAT is how sciencereporting should be done.

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | November 3, 2009 1:39 PM

skylyre @#42,

No problem.

If you want to see a baby (or at least 2-year old) T. rex), go to http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/collections/highlights.htm and scroll down to the bottom of the page. The snout LACM 2841 (which specimen also includes a few other isolated bones) is the youngest published individual of T. rex, but is sadly incomplete.

Posted by: MudPuddles | November 3, 2009 6:02 PM

Wwwwooooooooowwwwww..... that is cool.