Slashdot Mirror


New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released

A new species of dinosaur discovered in Utah's Grand Staircase was only recently released to the public. Dubbed Gryposaurus Monumentensis (derived from a combination of "hook-beaked lizard" and a tip of the hat to the discovery location) scientists estimate this duck-billed dino could have had as many as 800 teeth in his massive mouth. "While the diet is unknown, given the considerable size of the creature, the massive teeth and jaws are thought to have been used to slice up large amounts of tough, fibrous plant material. The teeth may hold important clues the dinosaur's eating habits. The Utah museum plans to study the composition of the dinosaur teeth, which when compared to other plant-eating dinosaurs from the Kaiparowits Formation, will help researchers decipher differences in diet."

108 comments

  1. pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This contradicts The Book of Moron, therefore it must be false.

    1. Re:pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... no it doesn't...

    2. Re:pfff. by apdyck · · Score: 3, Informative

      This contradicts The Book of Moron, therefore it must be false. If you're making a reference to the Book of Mormon, I feel that I must contradict you. There is nothing in the book of Mormon that indicates, one way or the other, the existence of dinosaurs. In addition, the book of mormon starts (chronologically speaking) around 600 BC, which is well after the time of dinosaurs. Check your facts before you post, anonymous coward!
      --
      .sig
    3. Re:pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez.. the concept and word of God exists in a plane above logic and reason dontcha know

    4. Re:pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh

    5. Re:pfff. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I think you mean the Book of Moroni. It's the Latin plural for moron, and incidentally, exists.

      (Sorry, I couldn't resist; and yes, I know that "moron" is Greek.)

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    6. Re:pfff. by Excen · · Score: 0

      This contradicts The Book of Moron, therefore it must be false.
       
      I read that as The Book of Mormon, and thought to myself, 'there aren't any dinosaurs in there, only Jesus fighting Indians or something.' Regardless, that's another book that people consider to be truer than the provable realities of the universe.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    7. Re:pfff. by xPsi · · Score: 1

      If you're making a reference to the Book of Mormon, I feel that I must contradict you. There is nothing in the book of Mormon that indicates, one way or the other, the existence of dinosaurs. In addition, the book of mormon starts (chronologically speaking) around 600 BC, which is well after the time of dinosaurs. Check your facts before you post, anonymous coward!


      Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    8. Re:pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give it a rest already. I know everyone on slashdot hates religion, but this story's only connection to Mormonism is Utah.

      Seems like everyone on slashdot is quick to preach tolerance and respect for anyone...except the religious. Seems sort of hypocritical. Slashdot is getting more and more like Digg every time I visit.

    9. Re:pfff. by portforward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, I don't know if you are making a joke or not. I don't feel well today, so I am humor-impaired. You do realize that you are really quoting things out of context? The satyr and cockatrice references are quotes from the book of Isaiah, (unless you are stating that all Jews and Christians also believe in those too). Mormons don't believe in dragons. The quote is talking about a group of men who "like dragons did they fight". The "generic monster" that you talk about is in context,

      "O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit."

      So the "monster" is death of the body and the separation of man from God. As for Cureloms and Cumoms, we don't know what they are, and I won't speculate. After all, they came to a place, found new stuff, and gave animals they had never seen before new names.

    10. Re:pfff. by xPsi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry if my comment came accross as rude humor. Your point is well taken. However, I was trying to indicate an irony: the Book of Mormon and indeed other holy books (which claim to have a fair amount of information in them about how the universe functions) have plenty of references to non-existent creatures. Yet, they somehow fail to mention the dinosaurs (real "mythological" creatures we know existed). In or out of context, in the form of quotes or bad humor, it is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out. To a *literalist* of any religion (and there are many), literary symbology is not possible in a holy book. Context still plays a role, but to a literalist, if a dragon is used in a simile, then clearly it must be real for the simile to hold true. Why compare something real (the fighting power of men) to something imaginary (dragons)? The Christian bible also speaks of unicorns. A biblical literalist must therefore also believe in actual unicorns. But on the other side, if you discard unicorns, dragons, satyrs, or cockatrice as being poetic flights of fancy, then where does it stop?

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    11. Re:pfff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mention of dinosaurs, but ... 600bc eh?

      With the references to steel and advanced metallurgy, wheels and chariots, horses, advanced weapons and countless other anachronisms it's surprising that anyone with an internet connection would still buy into that religion. On one hand, mormons will be the first to jump up and state that mitochondrial DNA is horse-shit because it links native Americans back to Mongolia and asia, and not a semitic-linked tribe has yet to be found? Maybe when god cursed the evil jews (now american natives) with dark skin, he re-wrote their DNA w/the Asian DNA? (Everyone knows, god hates dark-skinned people, Mormon Doctrine 101)

      There is no mention of Dinosaurs in the Book of Mormon, but there are various aspects of the book that are just as absurd.

    12. Re:pfff. by liquidf · · Score: 3, Funny

      no, it's raptor jesus. he went extinct for your sins.

      --
      i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
    13. Re:pfff. by apdyck · · Score: 1

      I should make it clear that, by no means, do I believe that any scripture has the answers to the universe. I was raised in a very religous (Baptist) home, however I was always taught that we should question everything. This includes the conflicts between scriptures and known facts (i.e. Science). I have done some research into the origins of the scriptures that are used today, and they can all be traced back to myths that predate any form of religion currently practiced. As such, we need to factor in the changes in language and other factors. Such other factors could include the natural evolution of men, as well as scientific advances made over the course of several centuries. My parents are biblical literalists; I believe scriptures to be a good reference of morality. That being said, we have to accept the fact that myths originate in fact, and there is some shred of truth. Dragons could be dinosaurs. Unicorns could by Rhinocerouses. All discrepancies in the scripture can be attributed to human error if we so desire, however we need to realise that scientific facts, such as the existence of dinosaurs, may not be correctly translated from the source documents. Regardless, it's wonderful that the scientific community has made this discovery, and I hope (and pray?) that they will continue to discover more and more about the history of our planet, unravelling the mysteries that are 'explained' by religion.

      --
      .sig
  2. 800 teeth by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    and the diet is unknown? I think it's safe to say that this thing ate whatever the hell it damn well wanted to eat.

    1. Re:800 teeth by thewiz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you imagine how much time it took for it to brush and floss?

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    2. Re:800 teeth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally the correct answer to "What has 800 teeth and can hold back a giant?".

    3. Re:800 teeth by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      Also: recent photographs indicate its continued presence in the world as well as its insatiable hunger for senior citizens.

      More seriously, this is pretty darn interesting, especially since the "most similar looking" modern equivalent (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) has no teeth whatsoever. Of course, real descendents don't literally have to look like their forebearers....

      I guess the prehistoric Tooth Fairy worked overtime.

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    4. Re:800 teeth by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's sodding obvious what it's diet was. Teeth.

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    5. Re:800 teeth by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      F'ing priceless. And not just for the use of "sodding".
      But mostly. ;)

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  3. released! by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Funny

    OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills!

    1. Re:released! by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Funny

      OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills!

      Fortunately, there are plenty of hills (and mountains) in Utah to run for. Our wives will be safe.

    2. Re:released! by Ngarrang · · Score: 0

      OMG they released a Dinosour in Utah! Run for the hills! What, was Newt Gingrich allowed out of his cage? 800 teeth, eh? And here mom and dad were saying that digging in the dirt would never amount to anything.
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:released! by thegnu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Fortunately, there are plenty of hills (and mountains) in Utah to run for. Our wives will be safe.

      From what I gather from my friend who grew up Mormon, the main Mormon LDS church doesn't condone polygamy. If you keep more than one wife, you get excommunicated. Though he says that people sometimes get around it.

      I think the bulk of the polygamists are in Colorado. But I could be wrong on this.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    4. Re:released! by moderatorrater · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've never heard of someone being able to be a member of the LDS Church and a polygamist, they've all been excommunicated as soon as it's known. There are still some polygamists in Utah, but it's uncommon, and most live on the borders of either Colorado or Arizona so that they can cross the state lines if someone comes to arrest them.

    5. Re:released! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "From what I gather from my friend who grew up Mormon, the main Mormon LDS church doesn't condone polygamy."

      Well, your wrong. The Mormon church doesn't condone secular polygamy, but they do still preach ecclesiastical polygamy.

      You can crack open a canonized Mormon scripture and read all about it: http://www.lds-mormon.com/132.shtml. If you don't think they practice it today, ask any mormon bishop what happens when a woman passes away and the man gets remarried in the temple, he's sealed to his 'second' (polygamous) wife which he can look forward to being in heaven with making babies.

      Unless I'm mistaken, then ONLY way to reach the endgame top-level of the mormon heaven-pyramid is to have plural wives.

    6. Re:released! by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm mistaken, then ONLY way to reach the endgame top-level of the mormon heaven-pyramid is to have plural wives.
      You are most definitely mistaken.
    7. Re:released! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

      Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

      seems clear to me

  4. A conclusion... by HungSoLow · · Score: 1, Funny

    One conclusion we can make about this dinosaur is that it was clearly a polygamist.

  5. Big ups to mah Joseph Smith krew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muthafuckin Mormons be gettin all the bomb-ass dinoz.

  6. Monument to Its Environment by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Practically whenever I see dinosaurs depicted in movies, TV or other mass media, they're shown living in deserts, among volcanoes, as if their environment were the same then as it is now, when we find their fossils in those harsh conditions. Since species go extinct when they're not fit to survive a changed environment, I expect they didn't actually live in places that looked like that.

    This "new" dinosaur was found in a desert, near the Grand Staircase. Does the Staircase predate the death of these dinosaurs? Was it a desert when they died, or was it fertile? What did these ancient landscapes, including ones we're used to seeing amidst desert, really look like when dinosaurs roamed them?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Monument to Its Environment by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      One thing to consider is that most dinosaurs did not die during extinctions. Most dinosaurs died before then (during the millions of years that they were not yet extinct).

      However, I do agree with you. What we know of dinosaurs is that there are many different types of them, and many have adapted to different types of living.

    2. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practically whenever I see dinosaurs depicted in movies, TV or other mass media, they're shown living in deserts, among volcanoes, as if their environment were the same then as it is now, when we find their fossils in those harsh conditions. Don't know about you, but long after we're gone, I certainly hope our species is depicted around harsh conditions as described.

      Volcanos kick ass.
    3. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Fallingcow · · Score: 1
      I wonder how those sorts of people would handle all of the marine fossils here in SW Kansas. Draw/film them lying around on the grass? Big-assed sea monsters in farm ponds? Heh.

      Does the Staircase predate the death of these dinosaurs?


      I can't tell if you're illustrating a point or seriously asking a question, but in case it's a question, the answer appears to be:

      Yeah, most of the stone was there, but it was nothing like it is today

      See especially the map on that page.
    4. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Webs+101 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Does it predate the dinosaurs? Parts of it do. During the Cretaceous, however, it was part of the seabed and coastal plain (depending on the water level, which varied throughout the era): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Staircase

      This wasn't desert back then, though. The Cretaceous coastal plain was scrubland with scattered forest. Flowering plants and grasses were replacing older conifers and other more primitive fauna. Hadrosaurs are known to have eaten pine branches from stomach remains. They didn't live in a desert, although some dinosaurs did, like some found in Asia.

      Here's a map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/EscalanteMap90MYA.jpg

      It was active volcanically as the Rockies were pushing up. In fact, the Grand Staircase itself has evidence of volcanic activity. But eruptions are rare, and are overdone in media.

      --

      "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    5. Re:Monument to Its Environment by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most absurd of all are movies showing giant dinosaurs roaming cities resembling Tokyo.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    6. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's quite a bit of variation in environment in the rocks of that part of Utah. There are intervals when it was fairly arid (e.g., in much of the Jurassic period, there are huge sand dune deposits, indications of desert-like soil development, and seasonally intermittent rivers and ponds). By the Late Cretaceous Period, the time when this dinosaur died, the conditions were wetter, because there are a large number of coal deposits that represent swamp conditions in river delta systems. These rivers were flowing from mountains in the west, across a coastal plain, and emptied into a seaway that ran from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean during most of the Late Cretaceous (it was only intermittently connected in the Early Cretaceous, and dried up towards the very end).

      Refer to these paleogeographic maps of the southwestern USA by Ron Blakey. The most relevant one is for the Late Cretaceous at 75Ma.

      The "Grand Staircase" an an eroded series of cliffs that formed long afterwards by erosion of these rocks.

    7. Re:Monument to Its Environment by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      >>as if their environment were the same then as it is now, when we find their fossils in those harsh conditions.

      I live in Missouri, which was under water much of that time. We have sea shells all over the place. Of course, that was likely due to the global flood around 4000 years ago.

      I've always wondered if bones millions of years old are perfectly preserved, or if they all go through some sort of change such as shrinking or enlarging that just takes millions of years to occur.

    8. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Which global flood 4Kya? And why would you think fossil bones shrink or grow? Does this have something to do with the schools in Missouri, or some Mark Twain society?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Monument to Its Environment by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      There is some sarcasm in that post. I find it odd someone would not know about the global flood. A sign of the times, perhaps?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

    10. Re:Monument to Its Environment by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I know about the global stories of "an" ancient flood. I didn't know there was any scientific consensus that it was even a single flood, let alone that it was 4Kya.

      Or are you just saying some Creationist timeline at me? If so, where do you get off talking about "sarcasm" about growing/shrinking bones confusion?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  7. More study needed by GogglesPisano · · Score: 4, Funny

    While certainly a fascinating find, bones alone can tell us only so much about these fascinating creatures.

    For example: how did Jesus strap His saddle on a Gryposaurus?

    1. Re:More study needed by boxlight · · Score: 1

      He may have seen a leviathan" or a behemoth.

    2. Re:More study needed by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Second-century sources suggest that he'd be more concerned about the impact on bystanders in your hypothetical...

      Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!" --Gospel of Thomas

      ...or the allusive...

      Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

      But probably wouldn't make general note of it until after Darwin, by, say, making the comment destined for some obscure, controversial extracanonical document, to be unearthed sometime after a basic under of the issue was comprehensible to mankind in general, many centuries later...

      ...or something like that.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  8. Gryposaurus's diet . . . by corifornia2 · · Score: 0

    Grip-osaurus?
    Sounds like a looter to me, fucking scavengers...

    "Yoink! I got your corpse!"

  9. Yes, I am a pedant. by Webs+101 · · Score: 5, Informative
    It had "only" 300 teeth in its mouth. The rest of them were replacement teeth in its jaw, waiting to replace worn out teeth in the mouth, sort of like sharks - in the loosest sense. Hadrosaur teeth melded together to create a single huge chewing surface. Imagine if your molars were pushed together without spaces between them.

    Now, this giant tooth masses would unroll from the jaws sort of like a massive roll of ultra-thick paper towels. Teeth would wear out at the chewing face and be continually replaced by teeth in the "roll" behind them.

    And, when you use genus-species binomial nomenclature, the genus is capitalized but the species is not: it's spelled Gryposaurus monumentensis, which TFA got right.

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:Yes, I am a pedant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The rest of them were replacement teeth in its jaw, waiting to replace..."

      If only my cock worked like that.

    2. Re:Yes, I am a pedant. by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      "The rest of them were replacement teeth in its jaw, waiting to replace..."

      If only my cock worked like that. You should have checked that out before you stuck it in your case fan...
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  10. so these things, like, ... by boxlight · · Score: 1
    So these things, like, evolved into ducks or something?

    "Run Doctor Grant, run for your life!" QUAAAACK!

    1. Re:so these things, like, ... by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Silly rubinistas, seeing ducktyping everywhere!

  11. Sounds like a naming opportunity was missed by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad they didn't choose to name this species after a particularly vocal anti-science crusader. I don't have any in particular in mind, but, seems like nothing would be quite so annoying as that.

    1. Re:Sounds like a naming opportunity was missed by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Ken Ham or Kent Hovind would be two obvious nominees.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  12. Name by rlp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Might I suggest naming it after another soon-to-be-extinct species, hence the "Zuneosaur".

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Name by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Might I suggest naming it after another soon-to-be-extinct species, hence the "Zuneosaur".

      Being Utah, maybe the Scosaur? I won't accept when it has been beaten and made itself irrelevant.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Name by devnulljapan · · Score: 1

      I would have thought SCOsaurus litigousbastardus would be more apt.

  13. obTBL by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Also, Dude, "hook-beaked lizard" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Saurian American," please.

    1. Re:obTBL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking priceless.

  14. Creationism Jokes Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please place all your cliche ID and creationism jokes here so that normal people, who are bored with those tired jokes, wont have to be bothered with them. It's the science-thread equivalent of "first post" so I know some people think they're clever when they do it.

    1. Re:Creationism Jokes Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The jokes will be retired when no one believes in such idiocy anymore.

    2. Re:Creationism Jokes Here by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Nah, I don't think ID / Creationism jokes are going to get old any time soon. It's always funny, in a scary sort of way, when a large group of people deliberately and systematically delude themselves.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:Creationism Jokes Here by Brothernone · · Score: 1

      Why did the dinosaur cross the road?

      To eat jesus.

      --
      He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
  15. Re:A place to look by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    It woun't be radioactive, it will just big a big deep lake of bullshit.

  16. huh? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anyone else parse that as "Gripeosaurus"? I thought they were talking about my ex there for a second.

    --
    The game.
  17. How big? Not how many! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even the simple garden snail has hundreds of "teeth". Reference.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  18. ...Is that you? by athdemo · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Utahraptor?

    1. Re:...Is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God! Is this the only reference? Google for 'dinosaur comic' and rofl away!

  19. High time science stops digging up these fossils by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every time the scientists dig up a fossil, they add two more "missing links" to the Creationists databases.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Gryposaurus? Undiscovered? UNTRUE! by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I married one of those! They only seem to come in the female form... and they gripe all the time!

  21. Could not find any mention of height/weight by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    I scanned the article, but the usual estimate height/weight of the dinosaur is missing. Would some one please dig up the info and post it. (Height in number of school buses or stories high, and weight in number of baby elephants or the good old standby libraries of congress).

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Could not find any mention of height/weight by I'll+Provide+The+War · · Score: 1
      http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/10/03/duckbilldino_din.html?category=dinosaurs&guid=20071003120000&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000

      The 30-foot-long dinosaur, which stood about 10-12 feet tall at the hips and weighed several tons[natch], is believed to be the largest specimen recovered from the site's 75-million-year-old Kaiparowits Formation. A description of the dino appears in this month's Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.


      Here is the full journal article: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00349.x

  22. How did dinosaurs get enough calcium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something I often wonder about at night.

  23. Living sample by db32 · · Score: 1

    I don't see why this is such a discovery. Dinosaur in Utah...pft... I mean we already have a live one in captivity here. I mean who cares about stupid bones...we even know what awful noises it is capable of making.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Living sample by LiLWiP · · Score: 0

      Way off topic.... They have samples of the music on his page. It is terrible, it is in real format.

      http://www.hatchmusic.com/real/my_god_is_love/mygod.ra The title of this file gave me a chuckle though.

      MyGod.RA... I didn't know that Hatch was an Egyptian!

  24. How many specimens? by TheBearBear · · Score: 1

    Is this the only specimen found for this species? If it's the only one, I wonder if science can tell whether it is a new species with a deformity, or whether the species actually look like that. Imagine some alien species in the distant future digging up bones of the elephant man or someone with a weird deformity and thought we all looked like that, or that we were a sub-species or something!

  25. Death to the ScoSaurius! by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Talking about extint dinosaurs, how about that old SCOsaurius DarlMcBridesus that met extinction past week.

    They said they where discovered under a pile of fosil excrement dubbed by archeologists as FUDiite.

    In the case of the scosaurios, archeologists say, the fudiite has been found to be produced by the same dinosaur, suggesting that they practically drowned in their own crap.

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Death to the ScoSaurius! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I though fossil excrement was called scoprolite?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  26. But not the book of Flintstone by infonography · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Friends bow your heads, and solemnly repeat your prophets words;

    yaaaa Baaaa Daaa Baaa Dooo

    ahem, and remember keep faith the the Fred least the Barneychrist get you.

    Modern Scholars are still debating if the scriptures refer the Bestest Friend Barney the Neighbor to the terrible purple one. No records of the schism exist other then references the book of Latter Day [Fruity] Pebbles which describes the war in Bedrock over the wonderful cereal (part of a balanced breakfast).

    Has seen here.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  27. Grass! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Informative

    Practically whenever I see dinosaurs depicted in movies, TV or other mass media, they're shown living in deserts, among volcanoes

    There is actually some logic to this: grass had not evolved while the Dinosaurs were around. There are now not many places on the planet where there is no grass except where nothing grows so volcanoes and deserts are logical locations. This was mentioned in the "Making of Walking With Dinosaurs" as one of the biggest problems with finding good filming locations.

    1. Re:Grass! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The article says these dinosaurs were Cretaceous. Piperno and Sues say grass fed Cretaceous dinosaurs. I don't think the Earth was as barren as you think.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Grass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your own link: "Plants having grasslike structures have existed for millions of years, providing fodder for Cretaceous dinosaurs..."

      In other words, there was no grass, but 'grasslike structures.'

    3. Re:Grass! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, in other words, whatever fed those Cretaceous dinosaurs was enough like grass that we're not making any distinction.

      The scale of Anonymous Cowards' ability to just create shit from shinola is epochal.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Grass! by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Informative
      There is actually some logic to this: grass had not evolved while the Dinosaurs were around. There are now not many places on the planet where there is no grass except where nothing grows so volcanoes and deserts are logical locations. This was mentioned in the "Making of Walking With Dinosaurs" as one of the biggest problems with finding good filming locations.

      Actually, there is some evidence for grasses in the Cretaceous. However, they were nowhere near as common as they are today, so there almost certainly there were no grasslands. Grasslands don't become common until relatively recently (a few tens of millions of years ago).

      Grass is so common today, of course, that artists seem to have trouble imagining what would have covered the ground. There are a few possibilities. One is that forests and brush may have been much, much more widespread in the past than they are today. Many familiar trees were abundant in the Cretaceous- you had conifers like the Dawn Redwood (Metasequoia), the ginkgo, palms, and magnolias, and towards the end the flowering plants were really on a roll, so they may have been forming much of the canopy and a lot of the forest understory. It's also possible that other plant groups took the place of grass in plains environments. In some modern semiarid environments, such as the Northern Great Plains, low-growing junipers cover much of the ground. In other environments, particularly the wetter ones, ferns may grow in huge, dense fields, so there may have been "fernlands" instead of grasslands.

      Many of the Mongolian dinosaurs did actually inhabit a desert environment. But still, there must have been a significant number of plants there for them to eat, otherwise they would have starved to death. It probably would have been scrubby desert, rather than a barren waste.

    5. Re:Grass! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      So perhaps by the end of the cretaceous there is some evidence for something akin to grass...but dinosaurs were around for a long time before the cretaceous.

  28. Is it called the SCOXosaur? by caluml · · Score: 0

    New Dinosaur Species Discovery In Utah Released:

    Is it called the SCOXosaur?

  29. Its called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barney MacBribe

  30. Don't think so by HangingChad · · Score: 1, Funny

    given the considerable size of the creature, the massive teeth and jaws are thought to have been used to slice up large amounts of...

    Mammals: It's what's for dinner.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  31. Old Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dubbed Gryposaurus Monumentensis (derived from a combination of "hook-beaked lizard" and a tip of the hat to the discovery location) scientists estimate this duck-billed dino could have had as many as 800 teeth in his massive mouth.

    More extensive coverage about this story was broken by the Salt Lake City Tribune a week ago.

  32. Eh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Why is this news?

    I read somewhere that we discover a new dinosaur species about once a month.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  33. whoops by dontspitconfetti · · Score: 1

    I thought it said "Gyrosaurus" there for a second. Mmm...Gyrosaurus...

  34. another dinosaur discovery in Utah? by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    Dinosaurs went extinct cuz Utah is so fuckin boring. They died of boredom.

    --
    Balderdash!
  35. The proper Christian view is... by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    No problem!

        Genesis talks about a 'land of giants' and other things. Young-Earthers might moan (yet again) because they're laboring under a misconception; the 6,000 year idea came from a well-meaning priest trying to make use of Numbers to learn the time between Adam and Christ, but all five of his assumptions, which he listed like a good scholar, were wrong. It's true; get over it. We have 200+ ways to date things, and they will all nearly-agree.

        But while there's no monolog about the creation of every secies of every animal isn't in there, the mention of the development of plants gets a summary that matches the fossil record. It's just not important; God made the plants and animals, sure, but what has his most interest is in _people_ not pre-Adam history. (And, it would make the canon a HUGE document!)

        For centuries the Bible talked about the Hittites that used to exist; only aroun 1950-1960 did they actually dig up one of their cities. And the common understanding of Babylonian leaders seemed 'wrong' until it was later learned that two leaders co-existed at the time, one on a battlefield, one at the government desk.
    ]
        The point is, the Bible isn't one document, handed down from generation to generation; it's hundreds-of-thousands of documents, some written by disinterested parties like Roman Journalist that are used to decide if the documents found are true. There are many good reasons, for example, that the Gospel of Judas isn't in the canon. Teams of people are reasoning the existance of such documents, it's not blind faith.

        But I know, a lot of folks will show up anyway, uninformed, that will yell and scream for well-meaning reasons, say a bunch of stupid things, but I'm here to clear the air; this isn't anti-Biblical. It just doesn't get much mention, for good reason. It's not a timeline published by the "Wall Street Journal" of the generations, it's a love letter from the entity that created all, hoping you'll give Him a proper chance. It's a lot more accurate than the people on the street might have you believe.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  36. You mean pirates and sea booty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The book of Mormon has a strong literary connection to Treasure Island. Sadly Dinosuar's weren't popular reading material for people back in dem'dere days.

  37. It's Ta Ta Toothy? by JThundley · · Score: 1

    Massive teeth and jaws you say? They should have named it the Bababooeyasaurus.

  38. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utah saints! Utah saints! U U U U U U Utah saints!

  39. Re:High time science stops digging up these fossil by Domini+Canes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually the number of missing links only go up by one :) There was a missing link before, we break it and add 2 more, so +2-1=+1

  40. Re:High time science stops digging up these fossil by Yoozer · · Score: 1

    This assumes that each new discovery creates 2 adjacent "missing transitional fossils". If between A and B, a "missing link" C is discovered, then the links D (between A and C) and E (between C and B) pop up. So yeah, it goes up by 2.

    I don't think they're satisfied until every possible specimen is discovered so you have an actual 1:1 family tree.

  41. New dinosaur? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    {OffTopic}

    i thought dinos were extinct. How could there be any that are new?

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  42. which means it isn't even fossilized by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    Because rock wouldn't give you the composition of such things as the percentage of nitrogen in the diet. This is more of a mummy.