Slashdot Mirror


Dinosaur Brains Flight-Ready Long Before They Took To the Air

An anonymous reader writes "Dinosaurs evolved the brain power for flight long before they took to the air, new evidence presented in the journal Nature suggests. Contrary to the cliche, a 'bird brain' describes a relatively enlarged brain with the capacity required for flight. However, based on high-resolution X-ray computed tomographic (CT) scans, researchers found that at least a few non-avian dinosaurs had brains as large or larger than Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest known birds, indicating that some dinosaurs already suspected of flight capability would have had the neurological tools to do so."

34 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Paywalled. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?

  2. big brains needed for hunting by alen · · Score: 1

    i bet hunting other animals to kill and eat them requires bigger brains than simply standing around and eating grass or leaves. i mean not like the vegesaurians want to be killed and eaten

    1. Re:big brains needed for hunting by DexterIsADog · · Score: 4, Funny

      "How much intelligence do you need to sneak up on a leaf?"

    2. Re:big brains needed for hunting by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Low hanging fruit. Low hanging fruit.

      Anyway, I'm not sure picking up a tray of beef at the grocery store takes any more or less brain power than picking up a box of lentils.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:big brains needed for hunting by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      How long will a species survive without the ability to detect and evade predators?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:big brains needed for hunting by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "How much intelligence do you need to sneak up on a leaf?"

      To sneak up on a leaf? Not much. To avoid getting eaten by a lion while you're sneaking up on a leaf? Quite a bit more apparently.

      The African buffalo is reportedly rather more intelligent than you might suspect. There are numerous reports of communication, team work and even engaging in vindictive group behaviour like pursuing lions and killing lion cubs.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:big brains needed for hunting by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I can't ask the grass, zooplankton, krill, or any of the large number of bacteria that spread through being eaten.

    6. Re:big brains needed for hunting by icebike · · Score: 1

      Low hanging fruit. Low hanging fruit.

      Anyway, I'm not sure picking up a tray of beef at the grocery store takes any more or less brain power than picking up a box of lentils.

      True, but catching and harvesting the steer takes a tad more brain power than happening upon a lentil. Even the packaging takes more imagination.

      Historically, an animal chasing bigger animals with pointy sticks would seem less likely to be preyed upon than an animal squatting stationary in a lentil patch.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:big brains needed for hunting by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, naturally, but most people aren't farmers or hunter gatherers anymore. Less than 1% of the population is involved with food production, and even a lowly vegan can in theory be a cattleman.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:big brains needed for hunting by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      The most intelligent marine mammals (orca, bottlenose dolphin, sperm whale) are predators though. The top primates (humans, chimpanzees) are omnivores.

  3. Dupe by ArgonautThief · · Score: 1

    Posted last week.

    --
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Dupe by PPH · · Score: 1

      Chalk it up to small brain size.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  4. What's brain size got to do with it? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Hummingbird brains are tiny yet they're probably the best acrobatic flyers the bird world has. Geese have much larger brains but they're as dumb as hell compared to the highly intelligent crow family.

  5. So by JustOK · · Score: 2

    The brains allowed them to stand in long lines waiting for their genitals to be groped, and then subject to horrible service and food?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:So by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The brains allowed them to stand in long lines waiting for their genitals to be groped, and then subject to horrible service and food?

      They were smart enough to fly under their own power, thus avoiding the above.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:So by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      The brains allowed them to stand in long lines waiting for their genitals to be groped, and then subject to horrible service and food?

      No, you're thinking McDonald's.

  6. Re:Layman's explanation by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Memes confused you have
    -Dr Spock, Planet Druidia

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  7. It's probably brain to body size. by anss123 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's probably brain to body size.

    The Neanderthals had bigger brains than us (and so does elephants), but our brains are larger compared to our bodies.

    1. Re:It's probably brain to body size. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, you need a certain amount of motor-control brain, and the more muscle you have, the more mass you need for motor control. That's why it is not impressive that a giraffe has a bigger brain than a rhesus monkey. Or, similarly, that a human has 4-5 times less brain mass than an elephant.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:It's probably brain to body size. by anss123 · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope English is a second language to you, because you really suck at it. I stay out of Spanish language forums because I'd look as stupid on one as you do here.

      Why are grammar nazis always so rude?

  8. This *sounds* like pretty flimsy reasoning by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    researchers found that at least a few non-avian dinosaurs had brains as large or larger than Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest known birds, indicating that some dinosaurs already suspected of flight capability would have had the neurological tools to do so.

    So if something has a brain bigger than something that we know can fly, it could probably learn to fly too if you stuck wings on it? T. Rex brains were larger than humans', but I wouldn't fancy one's chances at beating me at Streetfighter II.

    In the interests of balance and reason, I should say that I'm going to assume we're missing out on some key facts thanks to some dumbed-down reporting, not because the researchers aren't doing proper science.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. That's because they came from dragons! by Alejux · · Score: 1

    Duh!

  10. Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Umm... yes? I bet that things that fly need to be capible of flight before they can fly. Is this an article to weed out the illogical among us or something?

  11. Dinosaur couldn't fly by Tukz · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember being taught there weren't any flying dinosaurs.
    Pterodactyl, Pteranodon, etc, weren't dinosaurs, they were reptiles.

    Never studied it intensely, so it could be a matter of details though.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    1. Re:Dinosaur couldn't fly by slapyslapslap · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember being taught there weren't any flying dinosaurs. Pterodactyl, Pteranodon, etc, weren't dinosaurs, they were reptiles.

      Never studied it intensely, so it could be a matter of details though.

      There were flying dinosaurs. In fact, there still are flying dinosaurs. The ones that still exist are commonly referred to as "birds". They are theropods.

    2. Re:Dinosaur couldn't fly by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was kinda taught the opposite, that Pterodactyls were "flying Dinosaurs" but "completely unrelated to Birds" who were "entirely different" from Dinosaurs.

      Turned out that a combination of my teachers not actually being that on-it, and the movement of science over the last 30-35 years, has meant I've had to relearn a lot of stuff that's turned out to be completely opposite to what I was taught.

      Birds? Those are direct descendents of dinosaurs. Some even consider them "living" dinosaurs. There were even, according to the fossil evidence, dinos with feathers, which may even have been the majority - they didn't look like Rhinos/Hippos/Elephants, which makes sense given those are completely unrelated. If Jurassic Park were remade today, the CGI would be completely different.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Dinosaur couldn't fly by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The "reptile" class is a pretty crappy one... it's basically just a catch all for vertebrates that aren't something else. For example, crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes or lizards. All of the aforementioned along with dinosaurs are more closely related to each other than they are to turtles (though this is coming under increased scrutiny - there are calls to move turtles back to diapsida).

      Basically, our groups are a little crap, confused and vague, and dividing species into classes etc is notoriously difficult. This page has a table about half way down that's relevant - basically Lepidosauromorpha consists of snakes, lizards, pleisaurs, possibly turtles (no one really knows), and other stuff. Archosauromorpha consists of birds, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and other stuff. "Reptile" commonly refers to some in one clade, some in the other clade, and some outside both of these clades.

  12. Re:The Archaeopteryx is not a bird... by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative
    But the Archaeopteryx is a theropod (actually, it is a paravus, which makes it a maniraptor, which in turn are theropods). Thus your argument does not hold.

    And yes, the Archaeopteryx is not a bird, but an extremely close relative to the first bird. The paraves include the aviales, which are "the birds".

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  13. This *sounds* like pretty flimsy science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of science is like that. The most tenuous of threads.

  14. Size isn't everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just look at crows. Pound for pound they're some of the smartest and most capable animals around. Total grey matter is nice... but having light, efficient cognitive processes is critical for staying in the air on a tight weight budget.

  15. Re:Finally, Conclusive Proof... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    This article does seem like it counter evolution the way it was stated.

    What was more accurate was the brains were doing something else that would allow for an easy migration to flight.

    Such as our thumb, our ancient Monkey like relieves had thumbs, like us, however they didn't use tools, they used them to help with climbing. As we evolved further we found the tools that we had for climbing came in rather handy for tools too.

    Evolution has a lot of random elements, and it isn't survival of the fittest per say but survival of the luckiest... However the one who were lucky to be more fit then the other would tend to have an advantage... However not always, sometimes something silly as having a brighter color or a lump in the right spot, did more to attract mates then giving them a normal survival advantage, in some cases due to its random nature becomes more of a problem to normal survival... However it was good enough to get to the next generation.

    The Intelligent Design folks state on how perfect the human body is... However we are not perfect by any means. Child Birth complication as a trade-off to being able to walk upright, or our noes when it is stuffed hinders breathing! We are prone to a bunch of aliments. But what we had was good enough to pass onto the next generation. In many ways Trees are more "evolved" then we are, they can survive much more then we can.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. Re:Paywalled - So left guessing... by icebike · · Score: 1

    Does the article discuss (or does anybody more familiar with today's dinosaurs, not the ones that they thought existed back when I was a kid, most of which seem to have been revised or eliminated, know) if the 'flight-capable' cranial capacities occurred in dinosaurs that, while not capable of flying, had enough pseudo-wing structure available that assorted flight-like stabilization and assisted locomotion strategies would be available, or is the conclusion that correlation between inferred brain structure and flight capabilities is surprisingly weak?

    Surprisingly weak is my guess. (This seems generally true of so many theories pushed into the mainstream press these days). Phrenology revisited.

    Flight may well have been preceded by centuries of hopping around in tree tops or cliff sides, and gliding down (like "flying" squirrels) thereby selecting for those capable of developing mental models of 3D space, and processing not necessary for ground animals. That life style would also favor those animals with lighter bodies, flattened tails and grasping claws.

    The theory, as characterized in the summary, suggests by analogy that humans were already specialized for typing long before inventing the typewriter. Clearly they didn't mean that, (one hopes), but they without access to the paywall, its hard to know which animals were selected for analysis.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  17. Journalist misinterprets research article by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The MSNBC journalist is reading way, way too much from the Nature paper. All the latter (and its cited sources) say is that a large brain is thought to be a prerequisite for flight, and that the overall brain morphology found in birds is also found in dinosaurs. The journalist implicitly assumes that this brain morphology has evolved for flight, but this is not a given. Bats have a different brain morphology (though there are some similarities) and are quite nimble fliers. Also, feathers are useful for flight (though bats don't have them), but they're also great for keeping warm (anyone ever tried a feather comforter?), and non-flying dinosaurs had them possibly for that purpose. I'm chalking the present finding in the same column as the feathers: turns out having a large brain with strong and fast spatial visualization ability is useful for other things than flying (who'd have thought, right?), and that avians simply inherited this trait from dinosaurs along with their brain morphology (and undoubtedly fine-tuned it). If anything, the present research adds to the (bat-brain) evidence saying that the overall brain morphology found in birds didn't specifically evolve for the purpose of flight.

  18. Re:Paywalled - So left guessing... by sylvandb · · Score: 2

    Exactly what I was thinking. Is a flying squirrel similarly adapted today?

    Or is this supposedly flight enhanced brain just the ability to visualize and process one's movements in a 3d space significantly larger than one's own body size?

    If so, it might be nothing more than the ability to conceive/visualize converging trajectories beyond the immediate reach of teeth and claws. Typical predator pursuit behavior, in other words.