Skip to comments.Amazing find of dinosaur 'mummy'
Posted on 12/11/2007 6:25:53 PM PST by Fred Nerks
Amazing find of dinosaur 'mummy'
Scientists now think these dinosaurs were more muscular than previously thought
Fossil hunters have uncovered the remains of a dinosaur that has much of its soft tissue still intact. Skin, muscle, tendons and other tissue that rarely survive fossilisation have all been preserved in the specimen unearthed in North Dakota, US.
The 67 million-year-old dinosaur is one of the duck-billed hadrosaur group.
The preservation allowed scientists to estimate that it was more muscular than thought, perhaps giving it the ability to outrun predators like T. rex.
The researchers propose that the dinosaur's rump was 25% larger than had previously been thought. This probably meant more muscle mass and therefore greater acceleration, giving it a greater chance of evading meat-eating dinosaurs in hot pursuit.
Depth and structure
While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone.
But unlike the collections of bones found in many museums, this hadrosaur came complete with fossilised skin, ligaments, tendons and possibly some internal organs, according to researchers.
"It's unbelievable when you look at it for the first time," said palaeontologist Phillip Manning from the University of Manchester, UK.
The scales are still visible on the fossilised skin "There is depth and structure to the skin. The level of detail expressed in the skin is just breathtaking."
Dr Manning said there was a pattern of banding to the larger and smaller scales on the skin.
Because it has been fossilised researchers do not know the colour of the skin. But looking at it in monochrome shows a striped pattern. He noted that in modern reptiles, such a pattern is often associated with transitions between different skin colours.
The fossil was found in 1999 and is now nicknamed Dakota. It is being analysed in the world's largest CT scanner, operated by the Boeing corporation.
The machine usually is used for space shuttle engines and other large objects. Researchers hope the technology will help them learn more about the fossilised insides of the creature.
The reptile had no chest cavity, suggesting it had been partially eaten by predators before being "mummified" in unusual conditions: acidic, waterlogged sediments collected around the dinosaur, triggering the rapid deposit of minerals and trapping organic molecules before they decayed.
Re “did dinosaurs taste like chicken?”
Don’t let McDonalds find out about this fleshy hadrosaur or else they will try to clone it for the additional meat.
Juraissic Park has nothing on McD’s and chicken mcnuggets.
Re Helen Thomas’ photo. Can you imagine some kid waking up in the middle of the night looking at her (say, as a grandmother)? They will have nightmares for the rest of their lives.
Who said that zombies don’t wear lipstick, or is that blood?
Trying to keep my dinner down but not succeeding.
In other words, intact soft tissue should be an indicator that maybe 67 million years might be wrong.
This hadrosaur fossil was found in North Dakota. I think there was a hadrosaur fossil found in New Jersey that was one of the earliest dinosaur fossils ever found in the US, if not the earliest. The difference, of course, is that the ones in New Jersey are still on the voter rolls.
Since T-rex was unable to run at all I guess that would not be too hard.
YEC INTREP - maybe the specimen is not 67 million years old!
The program will identify the file name of the matching graphic and remove it by reseting the actual disk sectors occupied by the graphic to binary zeros.
It will terminate and stay resident, regularly scaning all graphics files for the pattern and taking appropriate action.
God has a copy of the virus. He will reload it after any attempt to delete it.
Post this abomination as much as you can. Your days are numbered.
“In other words, intact soft tissue should be an indicator that maybe 67 million years might be wrong.”
That fossil was taken when the dinosaur was much younger. ;-)
I’m under the impression that soft tissue can’t last as
long as 67 million years. When Mary Schweitzer recently
found the soft tissue of a dinosaur, the scientists
were agog at how the tisssue could survive, since it is
widely believed that it cannot survive and stay “friable”.
Well, here is perhaps another anamoly. But since
dinosaurs had to die out about 65 million years ago, it
is now concluded that tissue CAN stay friable for 65 million
Reminds me of the story of the man who went to his doctor
cause he believed he was dead, and needed confirmaton.
The doctor tried to convince the patient that the patient
“Do dead men bleed?” asked the doctor.
“Why, no they don’t” said the patient.
Whereupon the doctor quickly jabbed a sterile needle into
the patients arm, blood quickly flowed from the wound.
“Well”, said the patient, “dead men bleed after all.”
So if you believe the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago,
then you must refute the idea that tissue cannot last that
long, even though it would be hard to prove.
They should carbon date the tissue, to see if it shows
any C-14 age at all. Theoretically, carbon dating at ages
> 20-50 thousand years is supposed to unreliable, but it would
be interesting if an “anamolous” age is reported.
thanks for the link, fascinating.
They discovered the tissue when the fossil was run through an MRI machine. It was soft at one time, but it’s still fossilized rock hard just like every other 60-70 million year old dinosaur discovered.
please dont do that without some sort of spoiler and several lines of preparation. i cant look at it long enough to make out the scales
Mummified dinosaur may have outrun T. Rex
(Dakota the DinoMummy, a duckbilled Hadrosaur)
AP on Yahoo | 12/2/07 | Randolph E. Schmid - ap
Posted on 12/03/2007 12:54:16 AM EST by NormsRevenge
Secrets of the dinosaur mummy
The Australian | December 04, 2007 | Nicola Berkovic
Posted on 12/04/2007 10:22:23 AM EST by Diamond