Grass Grazing In Dinosaurs Confirmed

longhawn writes "Reuters AlertNet reports that a team of researchers found evidence in India that dinosaurs ate grass. This discovery was made when scientists found pieces of grass in fossilized dinosaur dung (coprolites). Prior to this finding, scientists did not even know that grass existed at that time." From the article: "Few scientists had ever thought that dinosaurs grazed, because there was no evidence that grasses existed that long ago. They believed that the grinding teeth found in some dinosaur fossils were used for munching other plant matter, perhaps trees, like modern beavers chew on today."

Comments

Slashdot Logic

[Lifix]

Science: Scientists find piece of grass in dinosaur dung.
Slashdot: Grass Grazing Dinosaurs CONFIRMED!

I'm glad that slashdot is prepared to make the leap from pieces of grass found in a pile of dung to active grazing by that animal.

Re:Slashdot Logic

[ozmanjusri]

I'm glad that slashdot is prepared to make the leap from pieces of grass found in a pile of dung to active grazing by that animal.

So what you're saying is that the grass might have climbed onto the poo pile and settled itself in there?

Not a bad survival strategy, when you think about it.

Dino pinches out a log, turns around for a ritual sneaky peek and sniff. Furrows brow, "Hmmm, I don't remember eating that". Shrugs shoulders, ambles off in search of less clever prey.

Smart, that grass.

Re:Slashdot Logic

[aussie_a]

Yeah, it probably just ate something that was eating grass.

Scoff if you will, but this isn't that far-fetched. It wasconfirmed that grass existed when the dinosaurs were around. But it could have been a mammal (they existed when the dino's did) that ate the grass. However it was found in a titanosaur's (a herbivore) shit. They didn't go around munching on mammals.

Re:Slashdot Logic

[kfg]

If you read more carefully written popular articles about this finding than the one linked to, written by authors who specialize in science reporting, you'll find that they say it is "suggestive" that the dinosaur at grass. The only thing that is really accepted as proven at this point is that grass existed at that time.

The OP's scoff is misplaced when aimed at "those whacky scientists." It should be aimed at the those whacky idiot reporters who report that the whaky scientists found "pieces of grass" when they did no such thing.

However, the distribution of the grass phytoliths in the copralite and the fact that they came from multiple species of grass is highly suggestive of consumption.

KFG

Indirect Evidence?

[core plexus]

My dog sometimes eats ground squirrels, mice, Moose, and other grass eaters. Sometimes, she even eats grass. My point is her stools contain grass, more often from the guts of the animals she eats.

I understand that the point is that grass was not known to exist during this time, but I'm saying could the dinos just be eating grass eaters?

Re:Indirect Evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

...which would make sense if there were, you know, the bones of them there grass eaters in the dung as well? The coprolith contained the usual veggie dino-food (FTFA: "cycads and conifers and other plants known to have grown during the Cretaceous period") along with the grass. Obviously the dinosaur was a vegetarian.

Re:You left them out :(

[TapeCutter]

"God! I've got to be missing something... What modern reptile eats grass?"

Yes, you are missing something. Dinosaurs were not reptiles, many belive their closest living relatives are birds. Also they didn't get the "ate grass" evidence from digestive organs, it was found in fossilised dino turds. Why not read TFA next time?

Re:You left them out :(

[dalutong]

You are right about the birds. But him talking about the digestive organs makes perfect sense (with his incorrect premise.) Some species can not eat grass because their digestive tract can not handle it. Just as some can't handle meat. If we had found meat in some herbivore's dung people could legitimately ask, "what do we not know about this herbivore? did they find any part of its digestive tract to indicate that it was different somehow?"

Re:More support for the Bible

[TheLink]

Well I'm a christian, and I think that christians should focus on spreading a more important message, than spend too much time on rather debateable points, especially things that don't actually form the foundation of the Christian faith (e.g. Jesus).

If you believe in the behemoth being a dinosaur in the long term it gains you very little even if it is true. Whereas the whole point of Christianity is that believing in Jesus gains you a lot.

In all the hot air from the intelligent design, creationist, evolution parties, was there much really to do with Christianity? Did it help spread the Good News? Was it a blessing to other people?

Instead of wasting so much time in debates like whether we are descended from apes or not, maybe we should ponder whether we really are behaving like God's children or not.

Now if the debate was on whether Jesus died and was resurrected or not, that would be an important doctrinal and core issue, and one worth defending.

Re:You left them out :(

[jeschust]

And how do they know that the grass doesn't come from the intestines of some critter that the dinosaur in question ate? Coming from a rudimentary understanding of paelontolgy, if a dinosaur with sharp, cutting teeth is found with grass in the stomach area, it would probably be assumed to have eaten a herbivore. TFA mentions that the droppings are of such a large size that they are assumed to be from a large sauropod, a type known to have the "gnashing, chewing" type of teeth exclusively.