Unusual New Species of Dinosaur Identified

cervesaebraciator writes "A new species of heterodontosaur, called Pegomastax, has been identified. Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist, published a description of this species in a recent issue of ZooKeys. Although this diminutive (60 cm or less) species was herbivorous, it also possessed a set of sharp, stabbing canines in its parrot-shaped beak. Dr. Sereno holds that these canines where likely 'for nipping and defending themselves, not for eating meat.' Perhaps the most imaginatively intriguing aspect of all, the body of the Pegomastix might have been covered in porcupine-like quills, making for perhaps the least attractive dinosaur of all time. You can almost hear Dieter Stark screaming 'Helvetes jävlar!'"

Comments

New?

[fnj]

Wow, a new dinosaur. I thought they had been gone for many million years. Goes to show.

Re:New?

[gigaherz]

New as in "previously unidentified" not as in "recently appeared".

Re:New?

[Dogtanian]

Wow, a new dinosaur. I thought they had been gone for many million years. Goes to show.

New as in "previously unidentified" not as in "recently appeared".

It's also believed that this particular dinosaur could fly, and made a distinctive "whoooooooshing" noise as it flew past. (^_^)

Re:New?

[quenda]

I understood that most surviving dinosaurs can fly.

Bless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet more evidence to prove the existence of God. Wait, hang on...

Re:Bless

[Z34107]

Surely if you can troll, an omnipotent, omniscient deity could troll as well. See also: the platypus, the kangaroo, and this dinosaur.

Re:Bless

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Rosy O'Donnel dude. Just making sure you covered everything.

Re:Bless

[Sulphur]

You forgot Rosy O'Donnel dude. Just making sure you covered everything.

Jurassic Pork.

Re:Bless

[davester666]

There were no homodontosaur's!

Det var som fan!

[G3ckoG33k]

Didn't remember Dieter's scream for help when he was attacked by a flock of small dinosaurs. Now I do. Thanks.

Still, by that time he was already the most hated guy in the movie anyway.

Re:Det var som fan!

[G3ckoG33k]

http://sv.bab.la/lexikon/svensk-engelsk/det-var-som

Det var som fan.
I'll be damn.

Det var som fan!
Son of a bitch.

Det var som tusan.
I'll be dogged.

Det var som det var.
It was like that.

Det var som i en mardröm.
It was like a bad dream.

Det var som manna från himlen.
It was like manna from heaven.

Det var som att tiden stod still.
It was as though time had stopped.

Det var som ett riktigt äventyr.
It was like a real, live adventure.

Du kan sätta ner det var som helst.
You can set that down anywhere.

Det var som Albanien med neonljus.
It was like fucking Albania in neon.

Det var som jag alltid har misstänkt.
Just as I always suspected, Fogg.

Det var som något ur Caligula.
It was like something out of Caligula.

Det var som i första klass.
Then there was this time in first grade.

Och det var som att bli psykoanalyserad.
And it was like being psychoanalyzed.

Det var som om de inte såg att han var där.
They acted as if he wasn't even there.

Det var som att få Theresa tillbaka.
It was like Theresa had been brought back to me

Det var som att vara på en annan planet.
Monrovia itself was Iike being on another planet.

Det var som att, det här är min stund i ljuset.
It was, like, this is my time for shine.

Det var som om luften blev ett mullrande tåg.
And she said it was like a thunderous train of air.

Det var som om jag tittade på en film från den tiden.
It was as if I was watching a film from those times.

Must be unique

[garryknight]

"stabbing canines in its parrot-shaped beak"

Now that's got to be really unusual: a beak shaped like a parrot...

Re:Must be unique

[Sulphur]

"stabbing canines in its parrot-shaped beak"

Now that's got to be really unusual: a beak shaped like a parrot...

Can he talk?

Interesting Hypothesis

[djl4570]

Every time I read about a new species of dinosaur I keep this documentary in mind: A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

The documentary makes a compelling case that juvenile examples of various species have been misidentified as a separate species of dinosaur.

Re:Interesting Hypothesis

[argStyopa]

This seems commonsensical not just for paleontology but anthropology as well.

IANAA (I am not an anthropologist) but I've never understood how someone finds a chunk of bone that's 1/8 of a intact jawbone, and from that intuits that this is an entirely new species of hominid? The breathtaking breadth of natural human variation is apparent to anyone in a large crowd; how is some minute morphological difference of a FRACTION of a piece of bone suggestive enough that it reaches beyond that variation into indicating speciation?

Or, my cynic gland suggests, is it that anthropologists are fallible humans like the rest of us, and it's much more exciting, rewarding, and fame-creating to identify a potential new species, particularly when there is very little evidence that might contradict your assertion?

Re:Interesting Hypothesis

[Anonymous Coward]

There's two aspects to this:
1) if you've got morphological/statistical variation well outside of the norm on the part that you do have, then, yes, it may be justification for proposing a new species. Teeth, in particular, are highly diagnostic fossils, and whole new species are routinely described on that basis. You wouldn't do the same on the basis of, say, a single bit of finger bone;
2) every species proposed is a hypothesis about differences from other species. If you find more of the creature (more of the skeleton and/or more individuals), then you test out whether it really is distinct. If it turns out it isn't, then you synonymize the species (merge them together).

This is no different from any other science where you make a hypothesis, test it with new evidence, and if it doesn't hold up, you toss it. But people won't even notice something might be different if you just lump any and all variation together with everything else that has been described. In short, if a proposal for a new species isn't legitimate it will come out in the wash eventually as people study more and more specimens, and every compilation of species at a given moment is a work in progress. It's the same whether you're talking about fossil dinosaurs or fossil hominids. The particular paper in question is a large review of all the heterodontosaurid dinosaurs. While some might be juveniles of other species of heterodontosaurids, most of them are quite distinct if you look at the details of their anatomy, and the new species that's been proposed is quite different. The chances it could be a juvenile of one of the other ones is pretty slim.

The idea that a third of all described dinosaur species may be unrecognized juveniles is a bit ridiculous. Some, yeah, that's possible, but 10% would be more plausible. The challenge is, you have to *show* that's the case, not merely speculate about it as a possibility. That takes a bunch of specimens at various growth stages, and it takes time to turn them up and analyze them. Paleontologists do toss species when the evidence is there to justify it. It's not expected that each and every species ever proposed is forever regarded as correct.

Re:Interesting Hypothesis

[argStyopa]

"...This is no different from any other science where you make a hypothesis, test it with new evidence, and if it doesn't hold up, you toss it...."

Except that upon finding a new metorite, astronomers don't speculate that there's an entirely new planet they 'just haven't found yet'.

I appreciate your points, but it seems that there's a level of hyperbole in the declaration of new speciation that exceeds mere scientific method.

Re:Interesting Hypothesis

[lsatenstein]

Every time I read about a new species of dinosaur I keep this documentary in mind:
A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
  That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

The documentary makes a compelling case that juvenile examples of various species have been misidentified as a separate species of dinosaur.

==========
Did you ever consider that with global warming, with the seas rising, that we are facing another meltdown (or boilup), similar in consequences to the ice age?

Parrot-shaped beak?

[wonkey_monkey]

It has a beak shaped like a parrot?

"least attractive"

[fa2k]

Sorry to nitpick, but I think the less politically correct "Ugliest" is better than rating the "attractiveness" of a dinosaur, or for any animal for that matter.

Re:Evolutionary lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

The "hetero" and "dont" in the name refers to the characteristic thing about this group: the fact they have two very different types of teeth, one kind that is an array of chisel-shaped teeth used for grinding up plants, and a set of bizarre tusk-like teeth in the front that have always been a bit of a puzzle for a plant eater. If you read the paper, it reviews the whole group of them. A pretty strange bunch, not only Pegomastix.

Re:Evolutionary lesson

[tverbeek]

A homodontosaur might not be any more attractive, but at least he'd be more stylish.

Herbivore with sharp teeth?

[wisnoskij]

So it is a herbivore, but all of its teeth are like those of a meat eater?
Yay right.

Re:Evolutionary lesson

[rossdee]

Er a homodontosaur isn't likely to reproduce, and would quickly go extinct.

Herbivore with tusks?

[kbahey]

Herbivore with tusks? That is unheard of!

They definitely do not exist.

Re:Skeksis?

[camperdave]

Ah! So you're the other person who saw the Dark Crystal!

Re:Evolutionary lesson

[camperdave]

Don't wild boars also have tusk-like and grinding teeth? They could be used for digging, or cutting away bark or husks, or perhaps these critters also had a taste for blood as well as sap. They could have been omnivorous.

DId Jesus see one?

[AndyKron]

I wonder if Jesus ever saw one of these?

Re:DId Jesus see one?

[Dogtanian]

I wonder if Jesus ever saw one of these?

It's unlikely, as Jesus is of a species that only appeared in the late Cretaceous period, whereas Pegomastax (the "new" dinosaur) was found in rocks associated with the early Jurassic period.

I mean, they might have met, but the Pegomastax would have been really, really, *really* old by that time, and too set in his ways to accept this newfangled whippersnapper and his newfangled religion.

This is exactly what's happening.

[Immerman]

The idea that a third of all described dinosaur species may be unrecognized juveniles is a bit ridiculous

I'm assuming you haven't investigated the phenomena being discussed.

Mammals and reptiles both tend to develop in a continuous fashion - infants look much like miniature adults, and a juvenile will look like a blending of the infant and adult forms. Many birds on the other hand do NOT develop in this fashion - a not-quite-adult Hornbill for example looks much like an almost-adult-sized infant, it's not until it reaches full maturity that it's skull undergoes a dramatic morphological change to acquire the "horn" that gives it its name. If you only ever saw their skeletons you would likely conclude that the juvenile and adult were both adults of completely different species. Moreover if you only had a few samples you'd likely assume that skeletons of intermediate stages of skull transformation represented several other species.

One possible way of detecting this sort of error is examining internal bone texture - infants typically have much more porous bones than adults, with juveniles falling somewhere in between. Doing this for several similar dinosaur species has revealed a trend where whole "families" of species show a correlation between bone texture and skull shape, strongly suggesting that they may in fact be different developmental stages of the same species.

Maybe I'm picking nits here

[__aaltlg1547]

... but doesn't a new species of dinosaur sound a little far-fetched?

There is one dinosaur species to be named.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is the group of individuals who believe in "America, Rebecoming The Great Nation We Once Weren't". Wonder what we can call them? Republicanodon? Republicanosarus?

Anyone else see the picture...

[Chordonblue]

...and think: Skeksis?

How obscure can we get?

[pongo000]

You can almost hear Dieter Stark screaming 'Helvetes jÃvlar!'"

Huh?