Sundew Posted December 9, 2016 #26 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Wonder if dinosaurs could regenerate tails like lizards? With the long tails many had they would be tempting targets for predators, makes me wonder if they could lose a bit of tail and have it grow back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Waters Posted December 9, 2016 #27 Share Posted December 9, 2016 What a great find! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khol Posted December 9, 2016 #28 Share Posted December 9, 2016 16 minutes ago, Sundew said: Wonder if dinosaurs could regenerate tails like lizards? With the long tails many had they would be tempting targets for predators, makes me wonder if they could lose a bit of tail and have it grow back. dino's closest relatives,birds and crocs do not have this ability so it is likely they didn't either. https://www.quora.com/Did-dinosaurs-shed-tails-like-modern-lizards-as-a-defensive-mechanism-Is-there-any-fossil-evidence-of-such-or-other-organ-regrowth-in-dinosaurs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted December 9, 2016 #29 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Sundew said: Wonder if dinosaurs could regenerate tails like lizards? With the long tails many had they would be tempting targets for predators, makes me wonder if they could lose a bit of tail and have it grow back. As stated above, most likely not. Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs are not lizards, nor are they particularly closely related. The unfortunate reason why there is only a tail left is that the locals chip the amber into pieces to sell as jewelry, which means that the tail was probably attached to a fairly complete dinosaur at one time. A similar situation happened earlier this year at the same location, when they found a pair of preserved bird wings, but the body had been separated and lost. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted December 9, 2016 #30 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I must admit to being left fairly 'not that excited' by non avian* dinosaurs, but this is possibly the most fascinating thing I've ever seen. * Carnoferox, can you please remind me what the current correct term is? I know it's not 'non-avian', it's something similar but have no idea how to spell it, so can't look it up to see what exactly it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted December 9, 2016 #31 Share Posted December 9, 2016 10 hours ago, Habitat said: Quite so, is amber unique as a product of a biological process, that persists indefinitely in its original state ? Not sure how long it will hold up in the end, but 99 million years is remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted December 9, 2016 #32 Share Posted December 9, 2016 18 hours ago, South Alabam said: Amber is pretty amazing too. Yep. You seen the tail on Amber Heard? (apologies for lowering the tone and resorting to type) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpjoe Posted December 9, 2016 #33 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Def impressive. We need a 3d view video. And to think they thought it was plant material. I wonder how much they paid gor it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted December 9, 2016 #34 Share Posted December 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Eldorado said: Yep. You seen the tail on Amber Heard? (apologies for lowering the tone and resorting to type) lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted December 9, 2016 #35 Share Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, oldrover said: I must admit to being left fairly 'not that excited' by non avian* dinosaurs, but this is possibly the most fascinating thing I've ever seen. * Carnoferox, can you please remind me what the current correct term is? I know it's not 'non-avian', it's something similar but have no idea how to spell it, so can't look it up to see what exactly it means. I believe "non-avialan dinosaur" is the current correct term (the Avialae is a more inclusive clade contain more primtive forms like Archaeopteryx, Confusciusornis, and Hesperornis as well as the true Aves, but not troodontids or dromaeosaurids). Edited December 9, 2016 by Carnoferox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted December 9, 2016 #36 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Thanks for that. I've been trying various spelling combinations but missed that one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted December 10, 2016 #37 Share Posted December 10, 2016 14 hours ago, Carnoferox said: As stated above, most likely not. Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs are not lizards, nor are they particularly closely related. The unfortunate reason why there is only a tail left is that the locals chip the amber into pieces to sell as jewelry, which means that the tail was probably attached to a fairly complete dinosaur at one time. A similar situation happened earlier this year at the same location, when they found a pair of preserved bird wings, but the body had been separated and lost. I realize they are not lizards, but a structure like a tail which may have served for balance, or a weapon, would likely have been an easy place to attack the animal by a predator, therefor I wondered if the regeneration mechanism was possible in a related animal. Has any sign of regeneration shown up in fossils, and would we recognize it as such? I would find it hard to believe an entire animal the size of a dinosaur was trapped in amber except in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is rare to find any vertebrates in amber and most are fairly small, however the feathers could make entrapment easier, but it would seem doubtful to me anyway, the entire animal, even one the size of a chicken, would be encased in amber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted December 10, 2016 #38 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) There is no evidence of autotomy in dinosaurs, or any archosaurs, living or extinct. Considering that most dinosaur tails were heavily muscled and used as counterbalances (unlike lizards), tail shedding and regeneration would be highly detrimental to the dinosaur. Autotomy would be pretty much useless for a dinosaur from an evolutionary standpoint. A small dinosaur could easily be trapped in the sap of a large tree. Paleontologists have already determined that this specimen (nicknamed "Eva") represents a juvenile coelurosaur, so there isn't much of a question about its dinosaurian affinity. Edited December 10, 2016 by Carnoferox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted December 10, 2016 #39 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Really?! Two pages and no one has mentioned Jurassic Park and/or cloning yet? I'm baffled. And shame on you all. Anyway, any possibility to actually finally extract some useful dna from there, use it for cloning the dinosaur, unlock other species and open a real Jurassic Park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted December 10, 2016 #40 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Conventional wisdom says no, the DNA would have degraded by then. But then they said that about the idea of organic material surviving in fossils. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted December 14, 2016 #41 Share Posted December 14, 2016 On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Parsec said: Really?! Two pages and no one has mentioned Jurassic Park and/or cloning yet? I'm baffled. And shame on you all. Anyway, any possibility to actually finally extract some useful dna from there, use it for cloning the dinosaur, unlock other species and open a real Jurassic Park? Jurrasic park extracted dino dna from mosqutios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted December 14, 2016 #42 Share Posted December 14, 2016 5 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said: Jurrasic park extracted dino dna from mosqutios True, but the cloned ones weren't feathered either. Life imitates art, but it also updates it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted December 16, 2016 #43 Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 12/14/2016 at 0:07 PM, Parsec said: True, but the cloned ones weren't feathered either. Life imitates art, but it also updates it. I thought they dismissed that due to the "frog" DNA added to the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted December 16, 2016 #44 Share Posted December 16, 2016 It's a throw away line, but in Jurassic World BD Wong's character mentions they engineered the dinosaurs in part to fit public perception. And if they hadn't, they'd have looked very different. One of the few things I actually appreciated in the film. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted December 16, 2016 #45 Share Posted December 16, 2016 10 hours ago, ShadowSot said: One of the few things I actually appreciated in the film. Ditto ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted December 16, 2016 #46 Share Posted December 16, 2016 10 hours ago, ShadowSot said: It's a throw away line, but in Jurassic World BD Wong's character mentions they engineered the dinosaurs in part to fit public perception. And if they hadn't, they'd have looked very different. One of the few things I actually appreciated in the film. Why don't they just re-jig the CGI to add feathers and proper hand positions, they re edited ET to change the guns for walkie talkies, unless that was South Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted December 16, 2016 #47 Share Posted December 16, 2016 14 hours ago, ShadowSot said: It's a throw away line, but in Jurassic World BD Wong's character mentions they engineered the dinosaurs in part to fit public perception. And if they hadn't, they'd have looked very different. One of the few things I actually appreciated in the film. I shamefully confess: I still have to watch Jurassic World. That line makes a lot of sense. Anyway, on a more serious note, it would be really interesting if they'd manage to actually extract useful dna. Maye not (good) enough for cloning, but at least for sequencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted December 16, 2016 #48 Share Posted December 16, 2016 4 hours ago, oldrover said: Why don't they just re-jig the CGI to add feathers and proper hand positions, they re edited ET to change the guns for walkie talkies, unless that was South Park. Because it's a sequel to the other ones. Bit of a shave, but they can't go back and make the velocirapters small and fuzzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now