Slashdot Mirror


Prehistory's Brilliant Future

An anonymous reader writes Senior Vice President and Provost of Science at the American Museum of Natural History Michael J. Novacek has written an op-ed piece about the glut of new dinosaurs recently discovered, including a fish fossil with flexible limbs which documents the transition from life in the water to life on land. In addition to the new species, a team has recently published its work on new skeletal remains of Spinosaurus, a 100-million-year-old carnivore. From the article: "As with any frontier of new knowledge, there are challenges as well as opportunities. Certain regions of the world, like North Africa, may hold the key to understanding the evolution of major groups, but remain poorly explored. Even as some regions become accessible thanks to political change, others can turn into conflict zones. Illegal fossil poaching is rampant in many areas and needs to be controlled before it does untold damage to our future knowledge. It is all the more important to deal with these challenges when we consider the unique contribution of paleontological evidence to human knowledge. From our study of living species, we could not have been predicted the existence of dragonflies as big as sea gulls or dinosaurs with the bulk of large whales that could support themselves on land. Such discoveries provide insights about the capacity of organisms to evolve, adapt and survive."

50 comments

  1. meh by swell · · Score: 2

    I was a great fan of paleontology as a child. I was in awe of the creatures and the dedicated scientists that discovered them. Now, not so much.

    After many decades of exploration and documentation of discoveries, how much useful information has been uncovered? These new discoveries are mildly interesting to an adult.

    Biology in the past, as biology today is not built upon awesome organisms that prey on giant creatures; it is far more about microscopic organisms. These often determine the fate of the glamorous plants and animals, and are far more important.

    As an adult, I'd like to learn about the less visibly impressive creatures that truly formed the world we have now. Funding for the study of ancient amoeba, fungi and bacteria may be hard to find, but should honest research take second fiddle to spectacular showmanship?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:meh by tsa · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the people who find this and of course other research like to boast about things that the layman public understands. And they want dinosaurs, the bigger the better.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:meh by tsa · · Score: 1

      Fund, not find. Sorry.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:meh by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Is there even such a thing as a fungi fossil?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you haven't heard of the glamorous exciting field of micropaleontology, where we do study ancient protists, fungi, and even bacteria. Okay, I'm exaggerating about the glamorous and exciting part, but it has wide applications in fields such as oil and gas exploration because you can recover thousands of tiny fossils from the tiny chips of rocks that arrive back at the surface from the drilling. It's used for studying the age of rocks (biostratigraphy), paleoenvironments, paleoclimatology, and even forensics sometimes (sediment can contain specific microfossils as a signature of where it came from). You can determine ancient ocean temperatures by measuring the oxygen isotope concentrations in the carbonate shells of planktonic foraminifera buried on the bottom of the sea. You can determine whether rocks have been heated enough to form oil and gas, or if they're overcooked. If you want to understand how events such as mass extinctions unfolded, microfossils will give you far more resolution than any other technique because of their abundance. You can study them cm by cm in a succession of rocks, which is not possible for rare fossils like dinosaurs. In short, micropaleontology is far more useful than study of dinosaurs if you want to understand the history of life on Earth and a whole lot of other subjects.

      The unfortunate thing is, people aren't as interested in those subjects as they are in large fossils like dinosaurs. It's unglamorous compared to dinosaurs, but micropaleontology gets the job done and has more employment opportunities.

    5. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Fungal spores are most common because they are made of similar durable stuff like the walls of pollen and spores from plants, but sometimes you also find filaments and other structures when preservation conditions are right. There are even some mushrooms known from amber. There's also the totally bizarre Prototaxites , which is a metres-tall structure from the Silurian and Devonian that is suspected to be a large fungus and/or a lichen (a symbiotic organism with fungi and algae).

    6. Re:meh by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Yes, do a search.

  2. Illegal? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    Illegal fossil poaching is rampant in many areas

    Who decides who is allowed to dig up fossils? Do you need a license? Things like this really bother me.

    1. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scientific consensus is that it is illegal. Correspondence to legal reality may vary.

    2. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most countries have strict regulations on what can be pulled out of the ground - this is primarily to govern the mining / oil & gas industries.

      Because palaeontological and archaeological finds come under a similar "shite pulled outta the ground" ruling, yes, there's concessions and regulations governing fossil finds, including a licence to do so. For someone who just wants to walk for a few days looking for fossils, I believe it's the same as an amateur gold prospecting licence.

      That's how it works here in Western Australia, anyway. YMMV.

    3. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if you find fossils (or gold) completely by accident? Do you get punished for not begging prior permission from her majesty's loyal goons?

    4. Re:Illegal? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      In China a lot of dinosaur fossils are sold in medicine shops. For some reason most Chinese still believe eating them cures disease and give you manly vigor.

      One of the first things paleontologists do when they go to China is check out the pharmacies. Some good discoveries have been made by buying dino bones from pharmacies.

    5. Re:Illegal? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      In China a lot of dinosaur fossils are sold in medicine shops. For some reason most Chinese still believe eating them cures disease and give you manly vigor.

      Whereas in fact manly vigor comes from driving a dinosaur-sized truck that guzzles fossil fuel.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Illegal? by Sique · · Score: 2

      It is not forbidden to discover fossils or gold. It is forbidden to excavate them or mine it without a license. That's quite a difference.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roasting your nuts on a driver's seat ain't gonna help your vigor none, boy.

    8. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be something seriously wrong with you. Leave the cars out of it.

    9. Re:Illegal? by Locando · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if sarcastic or just WHOOSH!

    10. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws like this tend to occassionally achieve the opposite of what they were intend. You find something, you have the opportunity to spend your own money and time to take care of it, or actively ignore it, and continue what you were originally wanting to do without the expense in time and money. Which do you do? If the law requires you to not damage it and get it taken care of, it should be payed for. If only more laws were like the later.

    11. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here (US) it depends entirely on who's ground you are pulling stuff out of.
      (IANAL, YMMV)

    12. Re:Illegal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is not forbidden to discover fossils or gold. It is forbidden to excavate them or mine it without a license. That's quite a difference.

      It's a distinction without a difference. You should be permitted to dig them up and do as you like with them provided you're not causing environmental damage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Illegal? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      But doesn't humanity "own" its own fossil record?

      If by that you mean universities and museums, no. You also have a very wrong view of what's done with fossils. The vast bulk of them simply sit in boxes in basements where researchers (read grad students) study them occasionally. These are the sources of the theft from the discoverers and sometimes preparers of fossils.

    14. Re:Illegal? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. Manliness directly correlates to the speed of ones computer averaged with the number of LEDs on it.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    15. Re:Illegal? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Bull. There's no difference from digging a swimming pool and excavating a fossil. Well, there is, but it's that universities an museums want to take the fossil from you without reimbursement.

    16. Re:Illegal? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Whereas in fact manly vigor comes from driving a dinosaur-sized truck that guzzles fossil fuel.

      So that's what they've been doing wrong. You aren't supposed to eat the dinosaur yourself, you're supposed to burn it in your truck.

    17. Re:Illegal? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      It is not forbidden to discover fossils or gold. It is forbidden to excavate them or mine it without a license. That's quite a difference.

      It's a distinction without a difference. You should be permitted to dig them up and do as you like with them provided you're not causing environmental damage.

      You can, if you are on your own property. The problem occurs when you are taking something of value from property that you do not own.

    18. Re:Illegal? by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

      There must be something seriously wrong with you. Leave the cars out of it.

      That's insane man, guzzling fossil fuel will kill you.

    19. Re:Illegal? by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

      damnit, misread the posts.

  3. biased man promotes his bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How very biased.

  4. Manifest destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    including a fish fossils with flexible limbs which documents the transition from life in the water to life on land.

    Fortunately, the finlimb walk to the lung store was mercifully short.

    1. Re:Manifest destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it backwards.

  5. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everything should operate under finder's keepers. I understand if you buy a small plot of land to build a house and discover something cool, it should probably be yours. But doesn't humanity "own" its own fossil record? I would want to entrust fossils to good stewards who will ensure their wide travel to different museums and other public places.

  6. Dinosaurs and fishes. by Argos · · Score: 1

    [N]ew dinosaurs recently discovered, including a fish...

    Fishes aren't dinosaurs!

    1. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Fishes aren't dinosaurs!

      No buy dinosaurs are fish. A small, obscure branch of lobe finned fishes t o be precise.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by Sique · · Score: 1

      Yay to Cladistics! ;)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Descending from a fish doesn't make you one.

    4. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Post a link. I do believe you're incorrect.

    5. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Fishes aren't dinosaurs!

      No buy dinosaurs are fish. A small, obscure branch of lobe finned fishes t o be precise.

      I thought dinosaurs were birds?

    6. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that bats are a type of mammal. That doesn't work the other way around and make all mammals bats or all dinosaurs birds.

      But the same logic does lead to the strange result that all tetrapods are an odd type of fish. That one is a little harder to fit your head around, but this diagram may help.

    7. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Post a link.

      Nope.

      I do believe you're incorrect.

      What do you think tetrapods evolved from?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Dinosaurs and fishes. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I thought dinosaurs were birds?

      Wrong way round. Birds are dinosaurs so they are also fish (a small branch of lobe finned fish).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Re:Banal and boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The ever-whining ACs suck just as hard. The complaints never end.

    Make your own blog. Linking to some stories is really not that hard... and if you are gonna ruin the only feature of Slashdot (the comments), then you might as well just quit it altogether.

  8. More missing links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah... You have more gaps now! [/bible_goggles]

  9. Re:Banal and boring. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0

    The corporate-friendly Slashdot sucks.

    Sounds like you, for one, don't welcome our new bitcoin & Tesla pimping overlords.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. Hard to wrap your head around it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, history is over. How can we suddenly have more of it?

    This sounds like finding loose change you lost ages ago in the folds of your sofa, only with dinosaur fossils.

  11. How long till... by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

    How long till we discover dinosaurs discovered nukes and wiped themselves out?

  12. Re:Banal and boring. by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Why not let scores go more that -1 and let us filter out the really unpopular stuff? If I wan't to read the really unpopular crap, I can change my filter.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  13. Re:will fat americans become new whales? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Bullshit.

    You're saying that humans would be more of a threat in the water, one-on-one, scarfing up fish as opposed to using vessels, hooks, bait and nets.

    Back of the class for you.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. Where's my crocoduck? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Let me know when fossils of this creature turn up. There's someone I really want to show it to.