Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Study Shakes Roots of Dinosaur Family Tree


Claire.

Recommended Posts

New study shakes the roots of the dinosaur family tree.

More than a century of theory about the evolutionary history of dinosaurs has been turned on its head following the publication of new research from scientists at the University of Cambridge and Natural History Museum in London. Their work suggests that the family groupings need to be rearranged, re-defined and re-named and also that dinosaurs may have originated in the northern hemisphere rather than the southern, as current thinking goes.

For 130 years palaeontologists have been working with a classification system in which dinosaur species have been placed in to two distinct categories: Ornithischia and Saurischia. But now, after careful analysis of dozens of fossil skeletons and tens of thousands of anatomical characters, the researchers have concluded that these long-accepted familial groupings may, in fact, be wrong and that the traditional names need to be completely altered.

Read more: Phys.org

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not a free study unfortunately: A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution

This article from The New York Times includes the proposed new family tree, and this article from Science Magazine, provides a simple graphic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revolutionary' Study Shakes Up Dinosaur Family Tree | VIDEO
A groundbreaking study suggests that the dinosaur family tree, conceived 130 years ago by paleontologists, needs a radical reorganization. The new analysis suggests that theropods, such as Tyrannosaurus rex, are more closely related to ornithischian dinosaurs, such as duck-billed dinosaurs and stegosaurs, than previously realized.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to either need to see the real paper or the 'Ladybird' version by the looks of things.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I'm going to either need to see the real paper or the 'Ladybird' version by the looks of things.  

If you get a hold of it, please let us know what your thoughts are.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Claire. said:

If you get a hold of it, please let us know what your thoughts are.

I certainly would, but I don't think I'll be getting it. I live out of the way, so 'Nature' isn't a publication sold round here. I'd be surprised if Carnoferox doesn't have a few ideas though, this is right up his street. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I don't have access to the paper either. It'll be interesting to see the responses from the paleontology community though, considering it's a major shake-up in dinosaur cladistics. Naish has already commented on it over at TetZoo: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/ornithoscelida-rises-a-new-family-tree-for-dinosaurs/

Edited by Carnivorfox
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't actually the first time a novel re-classification for dinosaurs has been suggested. Back in the 70's and 80's the idea that the Dinosauria was polyphyletic (that not all dinosaurs shared a common ancestor) was actually considered, with Bob Bakker splitting the Dinosauria into the Theropoda and Phytodinosauria (Ornithischia + Sauropodomorpha). 

Edited by Carnivorfox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Carnivorfox said:

This isn't actually the first time a novel re-classification for dinosaurs has been suggested. Back in the 70's and 80's the idea that the Dinosauria was polyphyletic (that not all dinosaurs shared a common ancestor) was actually considered, with Bob Bakker splitting the Dinosauria into the Theropoda and Phytodinosauria (Ornithischia + Sauropodomorpha). 

As Naish states: While the data here looks good – good enough that it appears to represent reality – it’s only as good as the data available right now, and at this early stage it’s impossible to predict whether this novel model will survive to eternity.

So whilst this may not be the first re-classification, it may also not be the last.

Thanks for that tidbit of info, by the way, and for Naish's article. It's the best I've read on the subject thus far.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an appropriate occasion to remember the one extraordinary Ms Mary Anning ~
 

Quote

 

Mary Anning (21 May 1799 – 9 March 1847) was an English fossil collector, dealer, and paleontologist who became known around the world for important finds she made in Jurassic marine fossil beds in the cliffs along the English Channel at Lyme Regis in the county of Dorset in Southwest England.[2] Her findings contributed to important changes in scientific thinking about prehistoric life and the history of the Earth.


 

~

"the greatest fossilist the world ever knew" - UCMP Berkeley edu link

 

~

She sells sea shells by the sea shore ... God Bless ye Mary ... :yes:

~

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I really wasn't at my sharpest last night, I couldn't make much sense of this then. So, I saved the Tetzoo article for this morning when things were more 'in focus'. 

It's really very interesting as is the Q&A interview, in which one thing in particular stood out, 'Never ever accept something as true just because it has been said for a long time! Always be open to the idea that hypotheses can be wrong and should always be tested and challenged by inquisitive minds'

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/rewriting-the-dinosaur-family-tree

That is so true, and so central to the idea of science and scepticism. Something which a lot of people tend to overlook. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See - Nessie may be alive and well!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, paperdyer said:

See - Nessie may be alive and well!

Tsk, tsk - plesiosaurs aren't dinosaurs at all!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think bringing dinosaurs back is ethical, bringing them back in Scotland is rather stupid with our climate. We've got an independence referendum to worry about without T-stomping through our streets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, William buchanan said:

I don't think bringing dinosaurs back is ethical, bringing them back in Scotland is rather stupid with our climate. We've got an independence referendum to worry about without T-stomping through our streets

There has been some talk about "bringing back" a mammoth, but a dinosaur?  Have you any idea of the time difference -- no, considering other things you've posted, I doubt it.

What would be unethical about bringing back an extinct species anyway?  It is a living thing.  Of course if it suffered then the suffering would be unethical, but I'm talking about all else being okay.  All life is precious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.