Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Experiment Will Determine Dinosaur's Skin Color

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-color-is-my-dinosaur dept.

Canada 98

AchilleTalon writes "One of the only well preserved dinosaur skin samples ever found is being tested at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) synchrotron to determine skin color and to explain why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years. University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (100-65 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grand Prairie, Alberta."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quite interresting (5, Interesting)

Silpher (1379267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576231)

Because this could also determine if they were feathered or not. No need for spectacular skin if feathered and probably need for colored skin if not feathered.
Disclaimer: Not an expert

Re:Quite interresting (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576289)

Disclaimer: Not an expert

On Slashdot, we assume that about everyone.

Re:Quite interresting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43579447)

@Black Parrot

"Disclaimer: Not an expert
On Slashdot, we assume that about everyone."

At least we know that you have feathers.

Re:Quite interresting (2)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580139)

We practically require it.

Re:Quite interresting (0, Troll)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576465)

No need for spectacular skin if feathered and probably need for colored skin if not feathered.

[citation needed]

Re:Quite interresting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43580655)

You are a useless human being that is nothing more than a source of annoyance to everyone around you. Why you feel the need to come to forums and spread your ignorance I cannot fathom, but please stop.

Re:Quite interresting (5, Informative)

Webs 101 (798265) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576699)

It's unlikely that this creature had feathers. Feathers are only known in Coelurosauria, which is a subset of theropods that, for example, includes Tyrannosaurus but not Allosaurus.

The hadrosaur under study is an ornithischian - a very, very distant relative that's more closely related to Stegosaurus and Triceratops. Psittacosaurus, a primitive horned dinosaur, did have tail bristles, but they appear to have been decorative for display and not feather-like at all.

Re:Quite interresting (2)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43579713)

Actually, Coelurosauria are not the only feathered dinos anymore. I think they have found feather evidence on Carnosaurs as well making pretty much all theropods likely to have been feathered.

And let's not forget the "hairy" tail fans of the Psittacosaurus which certainly indicate that even ornithischians had non-scaly skin covering. Actually there is even more evidence of proto feather like structures in both ornithischians and saurischians.

http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/blah-blah-feathered-ornithischians-yawn/ [wordpress.com]

All in all one can't discount some sort of skin covering. That being said, I seem to recall reading somewhere that many animals that have coloured covering over their skin (scale, feathers, or hair) often have corresponding matching colouring (or at leasat pattern) on the skin itself. It wouldn't be a complete waste of time in any case.

P.S. I am not an expert either, but David Hone (of archosaur musings is) is, so you can find a bit of good info on his website.

Re:Quite interresting (-1, Troll)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576707)

another First World Problem (or experiment).

Re:Quite interresting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43577045)

mod as Sour Grapes...

Re:Quite interresting (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43578497)

Maybe by late cretaceous. Early on there would have been sour gymnosperms.

Re:Quite interresting (1)

jbengt (874751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580239)

The photo in TFA clearly shows scales, not feathers.

Re:Quite interresting (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580355)

The only feathered dinosaur fossils that have been found are in China, either the volcanic ash eruption was unique because it preserved the feathers or feathers were an adaptation for dinosaurs in that region.

Re:Quite interresting (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a year and a half ago | (#43593539)

The only feathered dinosaur fossils that have been found are in China

Hmmm, I think that you're missing several well-known genera there - and the likelihood is high that there are as-yet-undisovered feathered dinosaur genera too. I'm thinking of - minimally - Archaeopteryx - but there have been others (Sciurumimus for example) which have "integumentary structures" which appear to have been feathers. Though not necessarily "contour" feathers as Archaeopteryx has.

Yes, the recent (last couple of decades) Chinese discoveries are impressive. But they're not all that is going on in the palaeontological world. And I'm pretty sure that the Chinese discoveries come from several different horizons and therefore represent different events.

Re:Quite interresting (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43588449)

Right, well, my original mildly facetious comment seems to have attracted frothy-mouted vitriol, so I'll try again.

No need for spectacular skin if feathered and probably need for colored skin if not feathered.

I'm not sure about your logic. Tigers have stripey pigmented skin despite being covered in fur. Polar bears have pigmented skin despite being covered in fur. There's also an assumption that a feathered dinosaur would be covered in feathers, when they may have only had them on limbs or in prominent places for display purposes.

Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576291)

It is unfortunate that realistic dinosaur costumes aren't nearly as interesting as they were before we did all the science, and figured out that they have feathers and whatnot.

I like the creepy, lizard-like monstrosities. We've already gone from HR Giger dinosaurs to Jim Henson dinosaurs ...so far. I worry the next step will be MLP:FIM dinos... bah.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576343)

Not the mama!

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576375)

This is a stupid comment bordering on retarded.

The point of doing this to find out how they really where. Not your twisted views on how they should have been, or whats more appealing.

I have found that the the truth is far more interesting the fiction.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576419)

This is a stupid comment bordering on retarded.

As opposed to being abrasive bordering on flamebait? Good manners really do cost nothing you know. Jerk.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577157)

How is this in any way, shape, or form insightful? They are doing tests on ONE sample from ONE particular dinosaur...this is supposed to tell us anything? For all we know that dino had a skin infection or was an oddball, a single sample isn't gonna tell us jack squat except about that single individual dinosaur.

Personally I say let kids draw the things with tiger stripes for all it matters, something that has been gone that long simply isn't gonna leave enough evidence behind for us to talk about anything more than conjecture anyway.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578509)

something that has been gone that long simply isn't gonna leave enough evidence behind for us to talk about anything more than conjecture anyway.

Oh dear. What an awful conclusion to jump to.

Perhaps you should go back to school for a little while and learn about paleontology. Or maybe read TFA, which tells you all about their techniques for extracting a lot of information.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576599)

Haha, imagine you're the one who has to publish that all the dinosaurs were shiny pink!

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576855)

OMG! Ponisaurs!!!

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577165)

OMG! Ponisaurs!!!

SQUEEE.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43581341)

I wanted a ponysaur for my birthday but my parents said no.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

NF6X (725054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43578443)

I hope they were gray and had derpy eyes.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578829)

Penisaurs?

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1, Funny)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577777)

Worse still, what if they were purple [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578325)

I dunno, some birds can be fucking scary with how they use their feathers to look bigger/scarier.. can you imagine a big dino doing the same thing?

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580757)

The 'scary' factor for birds is quite offset by how delicate they are.

In fact, I can't say I know of a single bird that really looks scary. Sure, bigger I've seen, but not scary.

Millions of years of primate evolution next to 'soft fuzzy thing that squeeks and explodes into a puff of feathers when hit with rock' seems to have bred out any 'fear' response for birds in me.

Re:Realistic Dinosaur costumes ... (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43582261)

You've obviously never had a large bird of prey, say a falcon or eagle attack you. Not that many people have, but I've seen what they can do with those huge talons, and they can be pretty scary indeed.

my crystal ball says... green! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576325)

or maybe that's just the obviousness of reptiles being green that leads me to that conclusion.

Re:my crystal ball says... green! (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576379)

But there are many non-green reptiles as well, the gila monster being the most striking example.

Re:my crystal ball says... green! (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year and a half ago | (#43578089)

I would even say most reptiles arent green. And the ones that are can change color usually. Most reptiles are probably various shades of brown.

Re:my crystal ball says... green! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576777)

But dinosaurs weren't reptiles.

Re:my crystal ball says... green! (1)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577717)

Yes they are. Dinosauria is a clade under Reptilia. But they are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, crocodiles and turtles (which we traditionally think of as reptiles).

Re:my crystal ball says... green! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43579845)

No, that are not reptiles!

Will this be the Third Theory of the Brontosaurus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576401)

I recall the Second Theory being announced awhile back, but like most TV viewers I never got a chance to hear the full presentation.

Green and Slimy (0)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576441)

They were different shades of Green, some almost Brown in color. Hunters such as T-Rex had multi-colors, a mixture of Green and Brown to better blend in with the surrounding brush. The really tall Dinosaurs actually developed a mildew on their Skin due to collecting Pollen, Bird feces and other organics and being unable to bathe like their smaller counterparts. At least that's my Theory. =)

Re:Green and Slimy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578223)

Why would tall animals be unable to bathe? Elephants bathe as well as roll in dust for "dirt baths". It's highly unlikely that any healthy animal couldn't keep itself clean. Predators especially, since a dirty smelly predator is a tip-off to its prey. Notice how clean cats keep themselves?

As for your color speculations, lizards, snakes and birds all come in a wide range of colors. Carnivorous Tegu lizards are black and yellow. Carnivorous coral snakes are striped in red, black, yellow and white. There's no special reason to assume that dinosaurs had to be green, brown, or some combination of the two.

In short, you're probably wrong.

Re:Green and Slimy (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year and a half ago | (#43579751)

So are you saying that a Supersaurus was dexterous enough to roll around on the ground? This isn't a small Cat we're talking about here. Here we have a very large, very heavy Reptile-ish creature. We should all know by now that the larger something is, the less agile it can be. Even a Cat can't reach some points on it's body.

And this isn't a Bird, what use would a brightly colored Supersaurus be, it would be a target if anything. I'm sticking to what I said, I'm sure it was a darker shade. The examples you gave are for Poisonous creatures, they are brightly colored to indicate a warning to potential attackers. The defensive mechanism for a large Dino like the Supersaurus would have been it's sheer size, mess with me and I'll stomp you, sort of thing.

I mean come on, you're talking to a guy who devoted a small portion of his life to the grooming habits of Blattaria.

Re:Green and Slimy (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580809)

I am frankly disappointed if there's anything called a "Supersaurus". Back in my day we had proper dinosaur names.

Supersaurus sounds like something on Disney, with a teenage American accident.

Re:Green and Slimy (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580747)

Notice how clean cats keep themselves?

That's just because they know it looks cute, and gets them additional food. It's got nothing to do with hunting - otherwise, why would dogs stink so much?

Re:Green and Slimy (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#43579515)

I'm pretty sure that the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever disqualifies your hypotheses from the lofty title of "theory".

Re:Green and Slimy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43580745)

I'm pretty sure an attitude like that disqualifies you from being a normal human being. In other words, stop being such a prick and maybe people wont hate you so much.

Why the focus on skin color (-1, Troll)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576489)

Identifying the skin-color of Dinosaurs will only serve to prove that Western Society STILL has fundamental issues with racial discrimination, ever after millions of years.

Re:Why the focus on skin color (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576645)

Yes, and if it determines that the cracker dinasaur is white, you had better be prepared for a people claiming this dam white dinasaur killed and rapped all the poor black, latino, and native american dinasaurs, and ultimately caused their extinction.

I personally vote to blow up the dinasaur and all his cracker cohorts if it turns out that he is in fact alba. This is the only sensible think to do, and I am sure all you reasonable sensitive /. will have no choice but to agree. I mean it is the human thing to do.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576491)

Didn't Spielberg do that 20 years ago?

Re:Why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43578037)

No, AFAIK it was just conjecture at the time. There wasn't the DNA or knowledge of DNA to know what color the dinosaurs should be. This was also millions of years before Kodachrome so the only pictures we have are in black and white or various monochrome pigmentation.

Fortunately, with a skin sample we might learn what color one specific dinosaur was. But, it's safe to say that it was some sort of earth tone.

Dinosaurs closer to Birds (3, Insightful)

Jagungal (36053) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576593)

In the past many think that Dinosaurs were most closely related to reptiles but we now know that Dinosaurs are most closely related to birds and thus may have the colour variations that one sees in birds rather than the colour variation seen in Lizards.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576817)

Birds are reptiles now.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580843)

Birds are reptiles now.

Yeah and my pet budgie's a fucking crocodile.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

Newtonian_p (412461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581737)

Birds are reptiles now.

Yes they are. Although in common everyday language usually "reptiles" means those scale covered green or brown land creatures, in taxonomy all living and extinct bird species are part of the reptilia class.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avialae [wikipedia.org]

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576897)

What is a Chameleon?

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#43580015)

What is a Chameleon?

All things to everyone
Run run away

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605015)

Applause How many people will get THAT reference

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

snikulin (889460) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576969)

Birds ARE the Dinosaurs.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577057)

So Alfred Hithcock's "The birds" was really Jurassic Park 5 Revenge 65 million years later?

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43577375)

Why do birds descending from dinosaurs rule out reptiles descending from dinosaurs?

Given the huge amount of dinosaur races, wouldn't it be more likely that different dinosaur races evolved into different types of animals over time? This would make them equally related to dinosaurs, but not the same dinosaurs. For all we know their common ancestor could be a pre dinosaur animal even though both were dinosaurs at one point in time.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (3, Informative)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577691)

Why do birds descending from dinosaurs rule out reptiles descending from dinosaurs?

Given the huge amount of dinosaur races, wouldn't it be more likely that different dinosaur races evolved into different types of animals over time? This would make them equally related to dinosaurs, but not the same dinosaurs. For all we know their common ancestor could be a pre dinosaur animal even though both were dinosaurs at one point in time.

Actually dinosaurs (and birds now) are reptiles, but they're not lizards. While dinosaurs and lizards (and crocodilians) are descended from the same family tree, the dinosaurs and birds have very distinguishable anatomic differences. Dinos and birds have their legs stretched under them, while the rest of the reptiles have their legs stretched out of the sides.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43581357)

Why do birds descending from dinosaurs rule out reptiles descending from dinosaurs?

Given the huge amount of dinosaur races, wouldn't it be more likely that different dinosaur races evolved into different types of animals over time? This would make them equally related to dinosaurs, but not the same dinosaurs. For all we know their common ancestor could be a pre dinosaur animal even though both were dinosaurs at one point in time.

Actually dinosaurs (and birds now) are reptiles, but they're not lizards. While dinosaurs and lizards (and crocodilians) are descended from the same family tree, the dinosaurs and birds have very distinguishable anatomic differences. Dinos and birds have their legs stretched under them, while the rest of the reptiles have their legs stretched out of the sides.

So that's why all dinosaurs taste like chicken!

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43579329)

We don't know of any other groups besides birds that are descended from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are pretty distinct because their legs swing vertically beneath their bodies rather than sprawling off to the sides like lizards and crocodiles. The only modern group we know of that does that is birds. Oh, and mammals, but I don't think anybody is suggesting mammals are descended from dinosaurs.

This specimen is a hadrosaur, an an ornithischian dinosaur [wikipedia.org] . They are completely extinct. Birds come from the saurischian [wikipedia.org] side of dinosaurs.

Some people have suggested that the common ancestor of birds could be a lot older and be a "pre-dinosaur" reptilian group, but it's not well-supported, especially with the huge number of bird-like features found within the maniraptoran theropoda (the same group to which Velociraptor is assigned), including finding some of them with feathers preserved.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577713)

In the past many think that Dinosaurs were most closely related to reptiles but we now know that Dinosaurs are most closely related to birds and thus may have the colour variations that one sees in birds rather than the colour variation seen in Lizards.

Did anyone else hear this in the voice of Richard Kiley?

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578429)

Birds' color variation is typically in their feathers, not their skin.

And birds are dinosaurs. The dinosaurs didn't become extinct, they just suffered a massive loss of biodiversity. Only a tiny tiny slice of dinosaur species made it through the extinction event, and they lead to today's birds.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

niado (1650369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581623)

And birds are dinosaurs. The dinosaurs didn't become extinct, they just suffered a massive loss of biodiversity. Only a tiny tiny slice of dinosaur species made it through the extinction event, and they lead to today's birds.

Today's birds did not evolve from any "traditional" dinosaurs that survived the K-T event. Anatomically modern birds (Neornithes [wikipedia.org] ) were already well-established in the late Cretaceous and distinct from "traditional" dinosaurs. This is why I do not like the whole "birds ARE dinosaurs!" meme because the situation is a little more complex than that.

Yes, birds are (probably) dinosaurs, and reptiles, and chordates. Mammals are also chordates. So are amphibians. So are fish. But nobody "corrects" someone talking about mammals saying "dude they are CHORDATES!!!" Calling birds "birds" is still a very useful distinction from dinosaurs and modern reptiles and mammals and whatever else.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43581909)

It's no more complicated than a situation if all the mammals in the world became extinct except for whales and bats. We'd still call them "mammals" even though they were highly modified versions of typical land mammals.

On the other hand, you're right about the confusing implication that (for example) all tetrapods are fish, but I don't think the difference between dinosaurs and birds is as pronounced as you're suggesting. They really are confusingly similar, especially the extinct dinosaurs with bird-like features (e.g., feathered dinosaurs like Microraptor). I start calling those things "dinobirds" or "birdosaurs".

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43582419)

The post said

Dinosaurs are most closely related to birds

Which is silly. That's like saying "mammals are most closely related to rodents". Rodents are mammals, but that's not to say that the term "rodent" shouldn't be used.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a year and a half ago | (#43594151)

Today's birds did not evolve from any "traditional" dinosaurs that survived the K-T event.

You're the first person I've encountered, other than a particularly deranged creationist from St Albans, to claim that "the birds" are descended from dinosaurs that survived either the Chixulub impact or the end-Cretaceous mass extinction (it remains to be proved that those two events are the same, though they certainly happened close together in time - within a few hundred thousand years of each other). Everyone who has made a more than cursory study of the subject is aware that there were multiple genera (and higher taxonomic levels) of avian dinosaurs diversifying through the Cretaceous. Whether those groups map well onto modern families etc. is a distinct question.

It is very clear to me that, not withstanding the non-monophyly of the dinosaurs and the possible non-monophyly of the birds, ALL of the organisms that acquired the "bird" lifestyle and anatomic characteristics in the mid-late Jurasssic were members of the dinosaurs, and therefore the assertion that I've been making in my signature for ages now (see below) is correct.

But nobody "corrects" someone talking about mammals saying "dude they are CHORDATES!!!"

You need to get out more, specifically to pubs where cladistics buffs go for a pint and a bun-fight after work.

Calling birds "birds" is still a very useful distinction from dinosaurs and modern reptiles and mammals and whatever else.

If you're solely considering how things are at the moment, the distinctions between these groups is clear. But if you're going back to the roots of these groups, which you are inevitably when you're talking about the fossils, then the problems of correctly identifying the paraphylies involved does become important. It's not as if we go around inventing these terminologies for the fun of pronouncing Latinesque jaw-crackers after the third pint.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

niado (1650369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43600631)

Today's birds did not evolve from any "traditional" dinosaurs that survived the K-T event.

You're the first person I've encountered, other than a particularly deranged creationist from St Albans, to claim that "the birds" are descended from dinosaurs that survived either the Chixulub impact or the end-Cretaceous mass extinction

I believe you misread my statement, as I did not claim that birds descended from dinosaurs that survived the K-T event - I was stating the opposite to correct the AC above. As I mentioned, no known dinosaur clades survived the extinction event, aside from the Neornithe birds (who had already been distinct from dinosaurs for some time). When discussing the extinction event (or really, any period post-Jurassic) it seems useful to call birds "birds", since they were already anatomically distinct and all other dinosaur clades (as well as the two existing non-modern bird groups, Enantiornithes and Hesperornithiformes) went extinct.

It is very clear to me that, not withstanding the non-monophyly of the dinosaurs and the possible non-monophyly of the birds, ALL of the organisms that acquired the "bird" lifestyle and anatomic characteristics in the mid-late Jurasssic were members of the dinosaurs, and therefore the assertion that I've been making in my signature for ages now (see below) is correct.

Certainly true. The assertion in your signature is too restrictive, though. Depending on context either "avian dinosaur", "bird" or merely "dinosaur" would be the most useful term.

But nobody "corrects" someone talking about mammals saying "dude they are CHORDATES!!!"

You need to get out more, specifically to pubs where cladistics buffs go for a pint and a bun-fight after work.

Ha.

Re:Dinosaurs closer to Birds (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43579261)

Given that both birds and reptiles come in all sorts of colours with all sorts of patterns I can't help but feel that your post has placed me firmly back where I was before I started reading it.

spoiler (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576639)

it's beige

Can't we just instead (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576663)

Judge them by the content of their character?

I'm putting my bet in on.... (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year and a half ago | (#43576803)

...OMG Ponies! pink.

I don't see color (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576921)

Does skin color really matter? Are we still not able to look past it?

Re:I don't see color (3, Informative)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577555)

Sure we can. Right up until your daughter's of dating age.

Re:I don't see color (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43577867)

After you daugter is dating age she won't want to talk to anyone white. She will need that BBC to fullfill that lusting hole. It does not matter that not all black men have big cocks. She will assumethey do. She will also assume all black people have been marginalized by the evil white man, and she will need to sleep with them to rectify this evil from the world. It used to be that girls would not talk to you if you were black. They wanted the blond haired blue eyed guy. Those days are long gone. In todays modern politically enlightened world we live in, whites are the new niggers. There is nothing more reprehensible than being a 'whitey'.

So yes we can look past skin color and all that as long as the skin color aint white.

Re:I don't see color (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581249)

Sure we can. Right up until your daughter's of dating age.

I'd be grateful if you could explain the difference between that statement and a piece of racist shit. Because I can't see one.

"Score +5, Informative" eh? I always forget that retards get modpoints too on slashdot.

Re:Ed, what an ugly thing to say... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43584425)

It is my belief the true measure of one's colorblindness cannot be adequately measured until such a time as it is up close and personal, such as the instance mentioned in the previous post. I would've expected moderation funny or perhaps interesting, but that particular vote was out of my hands. I abhor ugliness.... does this mean we're not friends anymore?

Re:I don't see color (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43582035)

Sure we can. Right up until your daughter's of dating age.

Somehow I think most of us draw the line at letting our child date a dinosaur. Doctors, ok; rich businessmen, ok; even maybe a rich businessman from the wrong (ie. other) side of the Mason-Dixon line, but no dinosaurs, dammit!

Re:I don't see color (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43579311)

Well, technically synchrotron X-rays will look past it.

The color of their skin????? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43576931)

Instead of knowing the color of their skin, I would be more interested in knowing the content of their character.

Re:The color of their skin????? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577011)

Damn! I *just* missed that one.

Re:The color of their skin????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578157)

They were beasts.

Re:The color of their skin????? (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581587)

Their character is very stony and rigid. They're very resistant to change. They're never the life of the party, but they also won't leave unless you escort them out. All in all, having one for an acquaintance is likely to be a rocky experience.

cold blooded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43577341)

Dinosaurs were cold blooded IIRC. If they were running around ripping other creatures apart all the time then it would seem they would need to conserve energy for this behavior. Feather's are good insulators.

Re:cold blooded (1)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43577703)

That's the old theory. Now that their connection with birds is gained more ground, scientists believe that many (if not all) dinosaur species were warm blooded.

Re:cold blooded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578401)

That's not even direct evidence, warm-bloodedness could be something that evolved only in the particular branch that lead to contemporary birds, and could have even evolved after the first of what we might call "birds" arose. There's other evidence, though, and of course Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] discusses some of it. Feathers seem like a pretty big one...

Re:cold blooded (1)

drxenos (573895) | about a year and a half ago | (#43579877)

Yes, there is evidence. There is evidence that dinos sat on their eggs. A cold-blooded creature would not do that.

Re:cold blooded (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581309)

I think I have seen a documentary where a snake was coiled around its eggs. IIRC, it even had muscle spasms to supply heat. Snakes are cold blodded, right? Or can an animal be warm blooded part of the time?

Re:cold blooded (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581371)

Awesome with the snake, didn't know that. Slightly different, but don't let us forget that alligators and their cousins sort of sit on their nests... not to keep them warm (the decaying leaves do that) but to protect the eggs from egg stealers.

Re:cold blooded (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a year and a half ago | (#43594259)

Snakes are cold blodded, right? Or can an animal be warm blooded part of the time?

Yes.

To both questions. Simultaneously.

An animal can be "warm blooded" (i.e. maintain a relatively high and constant internal temperature) without having a physiological mechanism for maintaining that temperature. Some animals can do it well-enough using behaviour alone.

One, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578139)

"One of the only"

Eh?

Some things you just DON'T want to know (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43578659)

That way no myths are shattered, and I would always enjoy being terrified watching Jurassic Park

Otherwise, I'd have to lean over and tell my kids, They're probably out-of-work dinosaurs that hang out in empty Hollywood lots, waiting for the pickup truck to come get them. Same as those out-of-work 'bad ass' bikers waiting for a different pickup, but still waiting for that same type of call, for their next walk-on role.

Pink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43578935)

pink! pink! pink! (cross fingers)

Politicall incorrect and unacceptable research. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43579189)

> One of the only well preserved dinosaur skin samples ever found is being tested at the Canadian Light Source synchrotron

During the US Civil War many canadians were saving negro fugitives, much like the Yad Vashem were saving jews during the Shoah. It simply does not seem right that present-day canadians should be interested in knowing skin colour, even if just concerning beasts, not humans. There are a lot of coloured people in present-day Canada and it makes them feel uneasy. We certainly do not need to draw parallels among dinos and the gipsy (roma), pakistani, africans, etc. for the greater pleasure of KKK-type whites!

Dinosaur color (1)

Deefburger (1345835) | about a year and a half ago | (#43581679)

Dinosaurs are purple. Everyone knows that!

Carbon Date (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43658817)

Why not run a carbon dating test on it? Is it really 70 million years old?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?