"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312212,00.html"
New Dinosaur Found in Basement of British Museum
The 140 million-year-old specimen — actually just one bone, and a partial one at that —
"I've spent the last five years doing nothing but looking at sauropod vertebrae, so I immediately realized it was something strange," Taylor said. "It was unmistakably a dorsal vertebra from a sauropod, but it didn't look like any dorsal I'd ever seen before."
He and colleague Darren Naish figured the bone came from near the animal's hip area, which allowed them to estimate the dinosaur's size and shape and to establish that Xenoposeidon proneneukus is a new genus and species, and possibly represents a new family (a larger group) of dinosaur.
This is very much like identifying a tasteless, odorless poison by its smell. Inconceivable.
Where the found vertrebra would have been in a live Xenoposeidon; size and shape are approximate.
You do have a point there. Surprised they didn't jump to the conclusion that it was an alien bone from outer space... from millions of years ago...
ReplyDeleteYeah, silly old us.
ReplyDeleteWell, from my perspective, this was a stretch. Then again, jig-saw puzzles give me fits...
ReplyDeleteHi, Grandpa Jim, thanks for your interest in our new sauropod. If you are skeptical about our identification and its support, you're welcome to read the peer-reviewed paper that established it: it's freely downloadable from http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor-and-naish2007/TaylorNaish2007-xenoposeidon.pdf
ReplyDeleteOr if that's a bit too heavy going, there is the explanatory page for media people at
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/xeno/
and the looong sequence of Xenoposeidon posts on the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week blog:
http://svpow.wordpress.com/
Enjoy!
Peer reviewed? Isn't that like the fox guarding the hen house?
ReplyDeleteMike & Darren :
ReplyDeleteThat is indeed an interesting read. While I cannot pretend to be a peer -- my expertise lies in a much different area -- your presentation (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor-and-naish2007/TaylorNaish2007-xenoposeidon.pdf) is convincing insofar as the fact that you have identified a hitherto unknown species.
However, given the statements that the vertebra "differs from all other sauropods in the form of its neural arch", and that the "accessory fossa...seems to be an aberrant feature" which could be "either pathological or a developmental abberation", followed by the fact that part of the reconstruction of the vertebra is "based on an idealized slender neosauropod spine", and the reliance in Table 1 on estimates and interpolations of measurements of other dinosaur vertebrae in order to make an estimate of the beast's length and mass, I still have some serious reservations about the rendering presented in the Fox News story.
But, per your suggestion, after going to http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/xeno/ and seeing your statement, " (The size and shape are just informed guesses and shouldn't be taken too seriously.)", I can only empathize with you as being victims of the newsies.
And, as you could see, I didn't take it too seriously!