The dinosaur thread

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't hair and feathers made from the same material - keratin?

Yes... but, no: we're alpha-keratins. Them's beta-keratins. And, we fold differently.

In many ways, even the simpler filaments are actually a bit more complex then our hairs.

The Other Wiki on Them and Us.

PS — I can't believe my A-Level Biology essay on beta-keratins actually came in handy in conversation! Seriously, who'd've thunk? Beta-pleated sheets: come in feathered and silky. Don't wash with biological detergents.

edited 11th Jun '12 2:58:26 AM by Euodiachloris

Thanks for that. I had a follow-up question but that was before I went out shopping and visiting my local library for my Jack Reacher fix and forgot it, 8-)

About the dinosaurs/birds thing, I saw at my local zoo the statement that chickens are the closest living relative of the T-rex (in a section of the zoo that had farm animals and a petting zoo). I decided to research this to see where the zoo was getting this from, and I found some interesting articles that confirm it, or at least show that the two types of animals are probably strongly linked, mainly by their proteins.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007-04-12-trex-protein_N.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy

That statement is not entirely true. All living birds are equally closely related to T. rex. So while birds as a whole are the closest living relatives of T. rex (being the only living dinosaurs), there's nothing special in that regard about chickens specifically. (I assume chickens are mentioned so often because of their familiarity, and because a lot of news websites reporting science don't do their research properly.)

And because it makes for a stronger contrast than if they used a Badass bird like an eagle or ostrich.

Looking at the articles, I would have to actually look at the scientists' research to know whether or not they specifically found that the proteins were most similar to chickens, or if it was just similar proteins to birds in general. Because I would assume that since there are a lot of different types of animals under the general "bird" definition, there could be some specific types of proteins or sequences that are unique to chickens and other related birds.

The other big thing with this discovery is that it's an actual sample of soft tissue from an extinct dinosaur, rather than just the fossilized bones and eggs.

Why is Ankylosaurus less famous than Triceratops?

Perhaps it's because it doesn't look "cool" enough? Which is weird to say considering that they could have been at least as dangerous as the large herbivorous megafauna today, and with their osteoderms skin for defense I doubt most theropods would be crazy enough to tackle one alone.

I don't get why crocodylomorphs are hardly if ever represented in pop cultural media. What makes an oversized alligator more inherently cool than fully aquatic archosaurs, long-legged galloping bipedals, mammal-like crocs that presumably behaved like cats, and creatures that looked like ostriches millions of years before said creatures evolved? There aren't even very many competant documentaries that go over how "awesome" these animals were before they became extinct.

At least pterosaurs get some recognition. Even if their depictions want to make paleontologists want to gouge their eyes out.

I Am a Stegosaurus

/summarizing most of what I know about Dinosaurs

Re soft tissues in T. rex: Yes, said study used only chickens as a representative of birds in general; as far as I can tell they didn't compare any other bird species with the tissue sample.

x3 I do remember a land croc making an appearance on Dinosaur Planet.

Let's give Sciurumimus some loving (no, not that kind of loving, you sickos!).

edited 21st Jul '12 8:54:52 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Well, no discussion of prehistory can be complete without mentioning the giant insects that predated the dinosaurs. That's all I'm doing, though, mentioning them.

Raptor Red made Utahraptors my favorite dinosaurs. Yes, there was snow in that one. It was an important point at one time.

No mention of dragonflies with the wingspans of eagles, and spider relatives the size of a human head?

I figured y'all could get into the specifics. I, myself, was thinking of the Scorpions three feet long.

Not to mention the seven foot long millipede relative.

As for dinours being reptiles, I remember there being a special on either History or Discovery where they went back to the very beginning and spent a while coming all the way forward to us, discussing the different kinds of animals that existed throughout the planet's history. If I recall correctly, that special put Dinosaurs in their own separate category related to mammals, birds, and reptiles.

edited 23rd Jul '12 10:50:46 AM by Journeyman

I have to correct something I said way back on the first page. I was just at the museum again this past weekend, and you cannot in fact touch the real dinosaur eggs. They have a cast out that you can touch. But the real ones are in a case right next to it.

Even if there are thousands of something, that's a finite number. I never would have thought you could touch the eggs to begin with. A well made cast, on the other hand, is perfectly fine. Well made, of course. You still want it to feel like the egg.

edited 23rd Jul '12 2:01:17 PM by Journeyman

I misremembered because the triceratops toe bone that you can touch is the real bone, and not a cast. They have it in a little clear case with a very small opening that you can stick your finger in, so you only touch a small part of it.

Either that, or it's a rock carefully carved into the shape of a toe bone, and they're lying through their teeth.

Probably the second. Dino bones are finite, and it'd be fairly irresponsible of them to let crowds touch them.

It just seems strange that they would blatantly lie and say "This is a real dinosaur toe bone!" on the plaque.

Eh, whatever.

Did anyone else think it was a marvelous coincidence that all the dinosaur DNA they extracted and cloned in Jurassic Park came from genera already known to paleontology? You'd think the odds would be highly in favor of them discovering some completely new dinos that way.

I guess Michael Crichton didn't feel like inventing new dinos.

Either that, or it just didn't occur to him that there were far more dinos around (and getting bitten by mosquitos) than we have dug up so far.