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."

Comments

Re:pfff.

[apdyck]

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!

Yes, I am a pedant.

[Webs 101]

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.

How big? Not how many!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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

Re:Monument to Its Environment

[Webs 101]

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.

Grass!

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:Grass!

[flyingsquid]

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.

Re:pfff.

[portforward]

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.

Re:pfff.

[xPsi]

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?