Claire. Posted March 22, 2017 #1 Share Posted March 22, 2017 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 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 22, 2017 #2 Share Posted March 22, 2017 I'd like to read the paper. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted March 22, 2017 Author #3 Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 22, 2017 #4 Share Posted March 22, 2017 I'm going to either need to see the real paper or the 'Ladybird' version by the looks of things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted March 22, 2017 Author #5 Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 22, 2017 #6 Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 22, 2017 #7 Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 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 March 22, 2017 by Carnivorfox 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 22, 2017 #8 Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 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 March 22, 2017 by Carnivorfox 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted March 22, 2017 Author #9 Share Posted March 22, 2017 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 22, 2017 #10 Share Posted March 22, 2017 There's also a good Q & A with the lead author of the new paper, Matthew Baron: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/rewriting-the-dinosaur-family-tree 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 23, 2017 #11 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Ah, there we are. A Tetzoo version. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted March 23, 2017 #12 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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. wiki link ~ "the greatest fossilist the world ever knew" - UCMP Berkeley edu link ~ She sells sea shells by the sea shore ... God Bless ye Mary ... ~ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 23, 2017 #13 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted March 24, 2017 #14 Share Posted March 24, 2017 See - Nessie may be alive and well! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 24, 2017 #15 Share Posted March 24, 2017 9 hours ago, paperdyer said: See - Nessie may be alive and well! Tsk, tsk - plesiosaurs aren't dinosaurs at all! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William buchanan Posted March 28, 2017 #16 Share Posted March 28, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted March 28, 2017 #17 Share Posted March 28, 2017 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 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