tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/paleontologist-17871/articlesPaleontologist – The Conversation2019-12-06T02:39:35Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1255622019-12-06T02:39:35Z2019-12-06T02:39:35ZCurious Kids: how do we know if a dinosaur skeleton is from a child dinosaur or an adult dinosaur?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297834/original/file-20191021-56234-13d8r5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3308%2C2164&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This T. rex is very big, but was it a grown-up?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>When you find dinosaur skeletons, how can you tell how old the dinosaur was? Like, if the skeleton is from a child dinosaur or an adult dinosaur? – Henry, aged 8.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/curious-kids-36782"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291898/original/file-20190911-190031-enlxbk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=90&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p>
<p>Hi Henry, that’s a good but tricky question.</p>
<p>There are a couple of ways we can try to tell how old a dinosaur was when it died.</p>
<p>If you cut open a fossil dinosaur bone, you can see lines, just like if you were looking at rings in a tree. Trees rings happen when a tree grows slowly in a tough season like an icy cold winter. You can count the rings to see how many winters that tree has lived through. And because there is only one winter each year, then you know how many years old the tree is. Easy! </p>
<p>Animals, like dinosaurs, formed similar lines in their bones whenever they slowed down their growing. But there’s a catch: this might not happen once each year like in a tree.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-did-the-dinosaurs-die-111912">Curious Kids: why did the dinosaurs die?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Why would a dinosaur slow down its growing? A dinosaur might not grow very fast if there is not enough food to eat. This might happen if there hasn’t been much rain and so there are not as many plants around to eat. Or there might be loads of food around, but the dinosaur is using all its energy to fight other dinosaurs, rather than using it to grow. </p>
<p>There might be lots of times each year when the dinosaur stopped growing, and each time would make a growth line in its bones. So if you find a fossil with lots of growth lines, you might not be looking at the bones of a really old dinosaur, but a very busy, stressed-out dinosaur! So this is quite a complicated way to try and guess its age.</p>
<h2>Use your head</h2>
<p>Another way to try to guess the age of a dinosaur is to look at how its skull bones connect to each other. Lots of baby animals don’t have a solid skull. Instead, their skull is made up of different bits that gradually stick together into one piece as it grows. </p>
<p>We’re not sure whether baby dinosaurs had skulls that grew like this. Some scientists have tried to find out by looking at skulls from baby emus and alligators, both of which are a bit similar to dinosaurs. They discovered that emu chicks have skull bones that stick together as they grow, but baby alligators don’t! So that doesn’t really give us a clear answer either.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=256&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299811/original/file-20191101-102199-9c8ln9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The growth of a dinosaur called Protoceratops, from newborn baby (on the left) to grown-up (on the right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Harry Nguyen/Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sometimes it’s really easy to tell how old a dinosaur was. If you find a dinosaur egg, you can use something called X-rays to look inside it and see if there is a baby dinosaur fossil inside. If there is, you know that dinosaur was 0 years old! </p>
<p>Then, if you find a bigger fossil from the same kind of dinosaur nearby, there is a chance that dinosaur was the baby dinosaur’s grown-up parent. </p>
<p>If you find a baby and a grown-up together, you can learn lots more things by looking at the differences between the two. It might tell you how the dinosaur changes size and shape as it gets older. </p>
<p>You might find a dinosaur that looks like a mixture between the two. That might be a “big kid” dinosaur that is well on its way to becoming a grown-up.</p>
<p>It’s still hard to tell exactly how old each dinosaur was. But scientists are like detectives, and they have lots of clever ideas that are helping them get better at it all the time.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-did-the-velociraptors-have-feathers-119535">Curious Kids: did the velociraptors have feathers?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125562/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caitlin Syme does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sometimes the only way to tell the difference between a baby dinosaur and a grown-up one is to find fossils of them both together.Caitlin Syme, PhD in Vertebrate Palaeontology, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/713462017-01-18T15:01:37Z2017-01-18T15:01:37ZWhen it comes to big finds, scientists need more than just luck and chance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152838/original/image-20170116-8769-cublv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The author's backpack was hiding this almost complete therapsid fossil. Was finding it all down to luck?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julien Benoit</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The history of science abounds with stories about discoveries made by chance. One of the most famous cases, involves French physicist <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/becquerel-bio.html">Antoine Henri Becquerel</a>, who accidentally discovered radioactivity by leaving a piece of granite on photographic paper in a drawer of his desk. Another, is the story of Scottish biologist <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming-bio.html">Alexander Fleming</a>, who forgot his bacterial cultures at home when he went on holiday. They rotted – and Fleming discovered penicillin.</p>
<p>These charming stories showcase science’s most human aspect: men and women who make lucky mistakes that can save lives or change the world. Even scientists are happy to believe these tales, though they don’t do much justice to our colleagues’ expertise. </p>
<p>But is this really the way science works? Can anybody, scientist or not, rely on luck to make important discoveries? My own “lucky strike” as a palaeontologist – finding a nearly complete fossil of a pre-mammalian ancestor – helped me to understand that good science isn’t rooted in chance. It’s based on people with expertise being in the right place at the right time, equipped with enough knowledge to know what they’re looking at. </p>
<h2>A fossil find</h2>
<p>My moment of “luck” occurred in South Africa’s Karoo in 2015. I’d been invited to join an international team of palaeontologists led by Professor Bruce Rubidge and Dr Michael Day from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. We came from Europe, South America and Africa to look for the fossils of <a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Therapsid">pre-mammalian therapsids</a>, which date back around 260 million years.</p>
<p>The Karoo is a semi-arid desert mostly populated by sheep and thorny bushes that covers a huge swathe of South Africa between Johannesburg and Cape Town. Hundreds of millions of years ago it was covered with lakes, rivers, dense primeval vegetation. Large reptile-like beasts roamed this landscape.</p>
<p>On the day in question we were fossil hunting between the towns of Sutherland and Fraserburg. There were rich pickings: Bruce and Michael had identified an area filled with fossil remains. So, we were in the right place. And, crucially, my shoes were totally wrong for the Karoo. Between the thorns and the heat, the plastic of my shoes had melted and their toes had been ripped open by thorns.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152839/original/image-20170116-8806-x8ur11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alexander Fleming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So I sat down on an outcrop of sandstone that formed a natural bench, putting my backpack down next to me. A brief burst of rain brought a bunch of critters out from their hiding places to drink; an astonishing spectacle. When the sun returned, I felt ready to carry on. I picked up my backpack – and saw the beautiful, nearly complete fossilised therapsid skeleton it had been covering.</p>
<p>It was 30cm long and in great condition, and it has been right next to me, under my backpack all the time ! I couldn’t contain my enthusiasm, exclaiming, “How lucky am I?”. And that’s when I started thinking about “luck” in the context of scientific discovery. Was I that lucky after all?</p>
<h2>Serendipity and science</h2>
<p>Bruce and Michael, two experts in their field, had chosen our prospecting spot carefully based on what they knew. They had sent out a complete team of palaeontologists who knew what to look for. This doesn’t look like luck to me: it was probability in action. </p>
<p>This is the very essence of what we call serendipity: the art of creating the good intellectual, scientific and experimental context for a “fortuitous” discovery to happen. Fleming may well have discovered penicillin by chance, but the conditions were right because he had all the equipment and specimens he needed.</p>
<p>Becquerel would never have realised what he’d found if he hadn’t been carefully studying natural fluorescence. His existing knowledge allowed him to recognise a major discovery.</p>
<p>Maybe I discovered this skeleton by chance – or perhaps I found it because that was what we were looking for, in the right place and with the right people.</p>
<p>My humble fossil was certainly far from the level of Fleming and Becquerel’s discoveries. But it offered a valuable reminder that pure luck can’t account for scientific breakthroughs. Hours of work, and countless people and money are invested to create the right opportunity for discoveries to happen. Serendipity happens when scientists create their own luck.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julien Benoit receives funding from PAST and its scatterlings projects; the NRF; and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences (CoE in Palaeosciences).</span></em></p>Good science isn’t rooted in chance. It’s based on people with expertise being in the right place at the right time, equipped with enough knowledge to know what they’re looking at.Julien Benoit, Postdoc in Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/640592016-09-26T19:07:15Z2016-09-26T19:07:15Z3D technology brings a lost mammalian ancestor back to life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134406/original/image-20160817-3592-11nn3qp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A 3D model of the long-lost Scalopocynodon gracilis skull.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evolutionary Studies Unit, Wits University</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the very beginning of the 1960s, a South African palaeontologist embarked on a series of ambitious works. Dr A.S. Brink wanted to better understand the anatomy and evolution of humans’ pre-mammalian ancestors, the <a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Therapsid">therapsids</a>. </p>
<p>Brink worked with therapsid skulls found in South Africa’s Karoo region. He ground the skulls at thin and regular intervals to assess their internal cranial anatomy. The technique, known as serial grinding, was commonly used at the time. </p>
<p>As he neared the end of the process on one of the skulls Brink realised that he had uncovered a unique specimen. The skull represented a <a href="http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2011/09/23/4908360.html">holotype</a>, which is the single specimen used in the definition of any new species. But by then it was too late.</p>
<p>More than 50 years later, we were among a group of scientists who followed in Brink’s footsteps. Our task was <a href="http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2016/1478-reconstructing-scalopocynodon">to recreate</a> this unique specimen. Technology has moved on enormously in the last half century, so we were able to use 3D renderings and 3D printing – and one of our mammalian ancestors was reborn.</p>
<h2>Historical techniques</h2>
<p>South Africa was a good place for Brink’s work. The country’s Karoo region is home to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-looking-250-million-years-into-the-past-could-save-modern-species-60338">a wealth</a> of therapsid fossils, making it an important place to study the ancestry of mammals. </p>
<p>Brink was not the first palaeontologist to use serial grinding. The technique emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. Before then scholars had to wait for the discovery of naturally preserved casts of internal structures, like the mold of the “fossil brain” of the <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/taung-child">Taung Child</a>, <em>Australopithecus africanus</em>. Or they had to break fossils open.</p>
<p>With its introduction, serial grinding became the only fully controlled way to access the “interior” of fossils. Because of their abundance, South African therapsids were among the first fossils to be studied using this new, revolutionary approach. Sadly, their abundance turned out to be a curse.</p>
<h2>Accidental destruction</h2>
<p>In 1961, Dr Brink started the serial grinding study of a well preserved skull. At this stage, he thought the specimen belonged to a common form of therapsid. </p>
<p>But during the process, the sections revealed anatomical structures that suggested the specimen may actually represent a new species of fossil therapsid previously unknown to science. By then it was too late to save the fossil: it had already been mostly ground down. Brink tried to compensate by making a very thorough and accurate description and drawings of the specimen. He named it <a href="http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/16091"><em>Scalopocynodon gracilis</em></a>.</p>
<p>As in zoology, the designation of type specimens is the most critical step when naming a new species in palaeontology. This type specimen, called a holotype, is meant to serve as an anatomical reference for future comparative works. A new species can’t be recorded without a holotype. So this ground specimen was particularly important: it constituted the holotype of <em>Scalopocynodon gracilis</em>. </p>
<p>Sadly this valuable and irreplaceable piece of South Africa’s heritage and evidence of the evolution of pre-mammalian therapsids was lost. The irony is that it was destroyed by the very author of the species.</p>
<p><em>Scalopocynodon</em> was considered dead and forgotten – until 2016.</p>
<h2>Recreating our ancestor in 3D</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134407/original/image-20160817-3608-1fzwxbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evolutionary Studies Institute, Wits University</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s then that a team from the Evolutionary Studies Institute at Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand retrieved some of Dr Brink’s drawings of the <em>Scalopocynodon gracilis</em> from 1961. These drawings represent each thin section ground by Brink. Their detail presented us with an unprecedented opportunity to virtually reconstruct the long lost specimen of <em>Scalopocynodon gracilis</em>.</p>
<p>The drawings were digitised. Then, using cutting edge software and innovative computer-based technology, every slice was digitally reassembled in a single stack. This allowed us to reconstruct a 3D model of the original skull. Afterwards a physical model of <em>Scalopocynodon</em> was printed in 3D so we could recreate a life-sized reconstruction of this specimen.</p>
<p>To our knowledge, this is the first time 3D technology has been used to recreate and print in 3D a serially ground fossil vertebrate (though it is quite often used in invertebrates palaeontology).</p>
<p>This is a great initiative for South African heritage conservation. These techniques can be used on other fossils lost through serial grinding. </p>
<h2>Breathing new life</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VAUfDJ4xVmc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Recreating a fossil using 3D technology is painstaking work.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 3D printed skull, serving as a holotype, could also help to breathe new life into this mysterious specimen. Taxonomists can now study it and one day might be able to say definitively that Brink was right: <em>Scalopocynodon gracilis</em> was indeed different from any other therapsid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64059/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julien Benoit receives funding from from PAST and its Scatterlings projects; the National Research Foundation of South Africa; and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences (CoE in Palaeosciences). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sandra Jasinoski received postdoctoral funding from the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences. </span></em></p>An old technique to explore the inside of fossils unfortunately ended up destroying some unique specimens. New technology has been used to reconstruct one such fossil.Julien Benoit, Postdoc in Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of the WitwatersrandSandra Jasinoski, Postdoc in Palaeontology, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/439262015-07-15T04:34:33Z2015-07-15T04:34:33ZAncient plant eating cousins from Brazil and South Africa are reunited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87382/original/image-20150704-20468-dfudj7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Artistic reconstruction of two Tiarajudens males during combat in the Permian of southern Brazil.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/">evidence</a> has been provided confirming previous <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/earth-science-how-plate-tectonics-clicked-1.13655">compelling</a> geological findings that today’s continents were once linked in one giant land mass. The evidence has come through the discovery that two fossils, one from South Africa and the other from Brazil, were cousins.</p>
<p>The discovery of a Brazilian plant-eating herbivore fossil in 2008 prompted a restudy of the South African cousin of the same size and with a remarkably similar skull discovered 10 years earlier. These two species from <a href="http://www.livescience.com/37285-gondwana.html">Gondwana</a> – the ancient super continent formed by now separated southern continents such as Africa and South America – show features in their skull and teeth that indicate they were closely related.</p>
<p>Close examination of the two skulls, identified as four-legged or tetrapod animals that date back to a time before dinosaurs existed, revealed two further astonishing facts. The first is that 270 million years ago they were already capable of chewing their food like modern ruminants such as cattle, sheep, goats and deer. </p>
<p>The fossils, which date from what is known as the Middle Permian period, also show that the plant-eating tetrapods had developed two specialisations that they used in combat – a feature typical of today’s cows and deer.</p>
<p>And the most fascinating aspect of all is that these not too distant cousins were found more than 8000 kilometres apart on different modern day continents.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87380/original/image-20150704-20484-1hc0qj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The skulls of Anomocephalus africanus (left) and Tiarajudens eccentricus (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The deers of yesteryear</h2>
<p>Living mammals have a rich history documented by fossils going back 300 million years. Ancestral lineages of mammals were included in a group known as <a href="http://global.britannica.com/animal/therapsid">therapsids</a> that flourished during the <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/permian/permian.php">Permian</a>, which predated the age of dinosaurs, and are exquisitely documented in the Karoo Basin of South Africa.</p>
<p>Plant-eating animals are now far more diverse and abundant than carnivores, a trend that began during the Permian. A particular group called anomodonts can best be described as the “Permian deers”. Besides being plant-eating and the most abundant lineage of the Permian, anomodonts were extremely variable in size. They were also very different in their shapes, particularly the earliest members of the group.</p>
<p>The Brazilian fossil had some unexpected features for a herbivore. Three stand out. The first is that it had occluding teeth that allowed them to chew, or masticate, food – a feature that is a landmark of today’s mammals.</p>
<p>The second is that it had a long outsized blade-like canine (~120 mm long). This shows, for the first time, the presence of saber-tooth in herbivores mammals around 270 million years ago. Saber teeth are found in some great carnivores from the past such as the <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/gorgonopsia.html">gorgonopsians</a> or the <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/smilodon/"><em>Smilodon</em></a> sabre-toothed cat, and other Ice Age cats.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87381/original/image-20150704-20453-1ay1nxr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The skull of the Asian water-deer Hydropotes inermis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Provided.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But carnivores do not need to chew their food, so that the Brazilian anomodont had several occluding teeth proved that it was a dedicated herbivore after all.</p>
<p>But the surprises did not end there. <em>Tiarajudens eccentricus</em>, the Brazilian species, show teeth that are commonly located at the margin of the mouth, positioned on a bone of the palate. The novelty is that no other therapsid was known to possess teeth in this bone. In fact no other therapsids are known to have complex, molar-like teeth (molariforms) in the roof of their mouths.</p>
<p>After additional cleaning of the bones of the fossil found in South Africa, called <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/266/1417/331.short"><em>Anomocephalus africanus</em></a>, it was found it also had molariforms in the palate, identical to those of <em>Tiarajudens</em>. The South African fossil has a complete mandible and its teeth are in contact with the palate, confirming the occlusion between upper and lower teeth. The only apparent difference between the two fossils is the absence of blade-like canines in the African species.</p>
<p>The skull of these cousins are nearly the same size – between 210 and 220 mm. They show a domed profile with a very short snout, large orbits, and temporal opening for chewing muscles about the same size or slightly larger than the eye socket.</p>
<p>The long canine in the Brazilian species is represented in a few living deer such as the Asian water-deer, musk-deer, and muntjacs. In all these cases the enlarged canines are used in male-male visual displays during fighting. The long canine in <em>Tiarajudens eccentricus</em> is being interpreted as an indication of its use in a similar way, representing the oldest evidence of use of canine in a herbivore for male-male fight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43926/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fernando Abdala receives funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juan Carlos Cisneros receives funding from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico of Brazil.</span></em></p>New evidence shows marked similarities between two fossils – one from Brazil, the other South Africa. This confirms compelling geological findings that continents were once one giant land mass.Fernando Abdala, Reader, Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the WitwatersrandJuan Carlos Cisneros, Lecturer in Palaeontology, Universidade Federal do Piauí (UFPI)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/432712015-06-15T14:26:18Z2015-06-15T14:26:18ZJurassic World reviewed by a dinosaur expert: it isn’t faithful to science, but so what?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85050/original/image-20150615-5842-gocrsy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lunchtime at the super-croc enclosure</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4">Universal</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Jurassic World is shaping up to be a monster success, to say the least. The fourth instalment of the Jurassic Park series <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/15/jurassic-world-record-dinosaur-reboot-scores-monstrous-5118m-on-debut">has become</a> the first film to take more than $500m (£330m) in its first weekend (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows set the previous record with $487m in 2011). And there seems a good chance this will continue: audience and critics’ ratings on <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jurassic_world/">Rotten Tomatoes</a> are north of 70%, good numbers at a time when ever-more-cynical moviegoers have endless summer blockbuster CGI-spectacles to choose from. </p>
<p>Yet one group seems resolutely determined not to catch Jurassic fever. Step forward, my fellow palaeontologists. Of those who have been asked their opinions on Jurassic World, some have been positive, others lukewarm, but the vast majority have spawned articles <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11672045/Jurassic-World-dinosaurs-slammed-by-paleontologists.html">along the lines of</a> “palaeontologists slam Jurassic World”. </p>
<p>I suppose it’s a headline that gets people clicking. But they make palaeontologists look like grouchy whiners, disparaging a film because of nitpicky inaccuracies in the dinosaurs. The raptors hold their hands wrong, the mosasaur <a href="http://sciencemadeeasy.kinja.com/nitpicks-reveal-the-incongruity-at-the-heart-of-jurassi-1664287973">is too big</a>, the <em>T.rex</em> moves too fast, the colours of the dinosaurs look too much like crocodiles and not enough like birds. And that’s just a taster. </p>
<p>The contradiction is that palaeontologists are usually some of the giddiest, happiest, most enthusiastic people I know. We study the most fantastic, stupendous creatures that ever lived in the 4.5bn-year history of our planet, so cynics need not apply for our jobs. We love our dinosaurs, love talking about them, and love it when we can share our passion with others. </p>
<h2>The power of Jurassic Park</h2>
<p>Personally I think Jurassic World is a great thing for my discipline. I saw the film this weekend and loved it. It was a good monster movie. I was able to suspend my paleontologist’s brain for a few hours, forget about the scientific flaws, and have fun. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RFinNxS5KN4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I kept thinking back to 22 years earlier, when I saw the original <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/">Jurassic Park</a> in cinemas in 1993. I was a nine-year-old kid, frittering away a humid summer in the mid-western US, spending long days playing baseball with my neighborhood friends. I didn’t care much for science. It was my least favorite class in school. But I remember being awed by the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I didn’t become obsessed with them right away – that came about five years later – but the film brought science to life in a way that no book, museum or classroom lesson ever did.</p>
<p>For youngsters of this generation, Jurassic World will be a cultural milestone – just like in 1993. It will get people talking about dinosaurs, thinking, reading, doing web searches about them, asking their teachers, going to see them in museums. In my eyes, anything that gets people thinking about the world around them, the deep history of our planet, and the relationship between man and nature is a good thing.</p>
<h2>Jurassic Park and science</h2>
<p>Movies like Jurassic World can also have a great influence on science and scientists. The first Jurassic Park was probably the single most important thing that happened to palaeontology over the past half century. <a href="http://www.thenextgenscientist.com/2014/04/28/what-jurassic-park-did-for-paleontology/">It inspired</a> a huge number of people to study dinosaurs. Many palaeontologists of my vintage (aged 25-35) will say that it set them on their career path. This will undoubtedly be the case with Jurassic World as well, and it may even boost the take-up of other sciences. Maybe the person who eventually cures AIDS, discovers a new type of renewable energy or solves world hunger will have been hooked into science by Jurassic World.</p>
<p>The first Jurassic Park also led many museums and universities to hire dinosaur experts, and catalysed a burst of funding for palaeontological research. Some of the proceeds from Jurassic Park even went to fund original science, through the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/news/columns/97-49/e3556044.htm">Dinosaur Society</a> and the <a href="http://jurassicfoundation.org">Jurassic Foundation</a>. The latter is still active and bankrolled two of my projects as a student: a trip to China to describe the wacky meat-eater <em><a href="http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/m/monolophosaurus.html">Monolophosaurus</a></em> and fieldwork in Portugal discovering and excavating the <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-the-super-salamander-that-nearly-ate-your-ancestors-for-breakfast-39221">“super salamander”</a> <em>Metoposaurus</em>. My career may have never gotten off the ground if it wasn’t for these grants. If any of the executives from Universal or Amblin happen to be reading, I really hope that some of the staggering box office haul from Jurassic World can be pumped into research this time around.</p>
<h2>Movies and scientific accuracy</h2>
<p>Yes, some of the scientific inaccuracies in Jurassic World are a little annoying. I wish the dinosaurs were <a href="http://io9.com/why-jurassic-world-should-just-give-us-the-feathered-di-1685726010">feathered</a>, for instance, as we know many would have been from spectacularly preserved fossils. But Jurassic World is not a science documentary, and we shouldn’t expect it to be (unlike the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-i-dissected-a-t-rex-it-took-chainsaws-feathers-and-lots-of-latex-42920">T.rex autopsy</a> that I was involved in). </p>
<p>This is entertainment. They make it very clear that the dinosaurs they feature are movie monsters quite unlike anything that actually lived during the Jurassic period. The film’s villain, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/jurassic-world-dinosaurs-indominus-rex-17-other-dinos-featured-2015-sequel-1962996">Indominus rex</a>, is a genetic mash-up of <em>tyrannosaur</em> and <em>raptor</em> and all kinds of other stuff. To even begin talking about this creature’s scientific accuracy would be like a bat specialist discussing the fine points of Batman’s anatomy and biomechanics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85051/original/image-20150615-5829-77ypcn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Indominus Rex says aaah.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kUXnm7egww">Universal</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To colleagues who have been bugged by all the inaccuracies, I ask: does it really matter that many people will think dinosaurs were a little bigger or toothier or scalier than they were in real life? Does it matter that the original Jurassic Park incorrectly showed <em>T.rex</em> sprinting at highway speeds or <em>Velociraptors</em> that were larger than the real thing? To those of us who study dinosaurs for a living, these matters may seem important, even existential. In the grand scheme, they’re noise. When a film has the potential to both inspire and entertain people, to the point of changing lives, I say, bring on the sequel.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43271/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Brusatte does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Palaeontologists have been lining up to complain about the inaccuracies in the new blockbuster. They need to focus on the positives.Stephen Brusatte, Chancellor's Fellow in Vertebrate Palaeontology, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.