Slashdot Mirror


First Dinosaur Tail Found Preserved in Amber (nationalgeographic.com)

The tail of a beautiful, feathered dinosaur has been found perfectly preserved in amber from Myanmar. It is a huge breakthrough that could help open a new window on the biology of a group that dominated Earth for more than 160 million years. From a report on the National Geographic: The semitranslucent mid-Cretaceous amber sample, roughly the size and shape of a dried apricot, captures one of the earliest moments of differentiation between the feathers of birds of flight and the feathers of dinosaurs. Inside the lump of resin is a 1.4-inch appendage covered in delicate feathers, described as chestnut brown with a pale or white underside. CT scans and microscopic analysis of the sample revealed eight vertebrae from the middle or end of a long, thin tail that may have been originally made up of more than 25 vertebrae. NPR has a story on how this amber was found. An excerpt from it reads: In 2015, Lida Xing was visiting a market in northern Myanmar when a salesman brought out a piece of amber about the size of a pink rubber eraser. Inside, he could see a couple of ancient ants and a fuzzy brown tuft that the salesman said was a plant. As soon as Xing saw it, he knew it wasn't a plant. It was the delicate, feathered tail of a tiny dinosaur.

70 comments

  1. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We finally get a Jurassic Park remake with feathered velociraptors ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Will they be 1 ft tall like in reality?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re: What could possibly go wrong? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yeah but then they will shoot it from a low angle to make them look taller.

      They should get the director from antz...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Tails! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lost!

  3. False alarm. by Snufu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just a dead parrot.

    1. Re: False alarm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not dead. It is resting. Beautiful plumage.

    2. Re:False alarm. by satcomjimmy · · Score: 2

      Just a dead parrot.

      It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords

    3. Re:False alarm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

    4. Re:False alarm. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!!
      THIS IS AN EX - PARROT!

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:False alarm. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      That should be "False Amber Alert"

    6. Re:False alarm. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You're not, actually, entirely wrong- though it's more like a dead parrot's great-great-great-great-great-great...-great-grandmother.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:False alarm. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      it's just pining for the fjords

      You can't fool me. The dinosaur is older than the fjords.

      (Based on exactly zero knowledge of the age of either)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  4. holy Jurassic Park! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so it begins

  5. and found to be delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the other hocus pocus medicine they have over there, I'm surprised it wasn't eaten.

    1. Re:and found to be delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think there's only a bit of tail left?

    2. Re:and found to be delicious by budgenator · · Score: 2

      Why do you think there's only a bit of tail left?

      It's like eating ramen, sometimes a little bit of noodle doesn't get slurped down and falls out! It's not likely dinosaur had good noodle slurping lips.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:and found to be delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You joke, but I'm seriously saddened by the thought of how many important fossils have possibly been lost to goddamn superstitious primitives.

    4. Re:and found to be delicious by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Why do you think there's only a bit of tail left?

      It's like eating ramen, sometimes a little bit of noodle doesn't get slurped down and falls out! It's not likely dinosaur had good noodle slurping lips.

      Great, now I got an image of a T-Rex trying to use chopsticks stuck in my head... great...
      still, not as bad as a T-Rex trying to play chopsticks... dammit!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:and found to be delicious by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The T-Rex can, however, bang a gong.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:and found to be delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant!

      https://memegenerator.net/instance/73774555

    7. Re:and found to be delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those arms are too small to operate a steering wheel. It's amazing how one clue makes it all fall into place.

  6. Crossing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone tell us where this Lida crossing (Lida Xing) is?

  7. Question by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know amber is fossilized tree resin, but at this point is it possible to somehow dissolve the amber without destroying what's inside it?

    It would be interesting if it could be done so we could see the tail and feathers in real light without the amber being in between.

    Also, from the picture, there are bits and pieces of vegetation not to mention at least one ant inside the specimen which could be recovered.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Question by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Amber is used as a rosin to make various things like varnish or paint, although more common in the past. I'm not sure about all the procedures, but most would involve heat and turpentine or other solvent, so I'm not sure it would be very kind to the inclusions.

    2. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AFAIK you don't want to mess with solvents when it comes to amber. The stuff's origin is resinous could theoretically be attacked with something like turpentine or a petroleum solvent. However the amber is hard; you'd be better off dealing with it like paleontologists approach dinosaur bones in rock.

      Ultimately though it's probably all a bad idea. Amber has proven itself to be an ideal preservation mechanism, lasting tens or hundreds of millions of years. Once the specimen is released from the amber shell, it is vulnerable to oxidation, fungal attack, physical disturbance and all the rest. It's the sort of thing you could consider for a few of your less-valuable specimens. You don't want to ruin your best stuff on some quixotic quest to make it 'better'.

      It would be a bit like approaching a dinosaur skeleton, fully restored and in museum display quality. Then going to the keepers of the displays and saying, "I want to free the display specimens from the obscuring qualities of the glues and lacquers, the unnatural steel support structures holding it up, the clearly fake restored components, and the interference of the display cases and presentation stands!"

    3. Re:Question by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Jeff Goldblum says that this is a bad idea.

    4. Re:Question by danbuter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, two complete insects from millions of years ago is also a huge find. I'm sure the bug people are excited.

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen residual 'oil' in petrified fossils imaged using NMR/MRI; I would presume that NMR could be used to image the internal structure of the feather in the amber.

    6. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean shellac not varnish. Once cured it can be very hard and difficult to clean up. Typically you use denatured alcohol.

    7. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK you don't want to mess with solvents when it comes to amber. The stuff's origin is resinous could theoretically be attacked with something like turpentine or a petroleum solvent.

      Except, amber is fossilized, meaning the resin was mostly replaced with minerals, meaning it's basically a rock. And rocks don't dissolve in turpentine.
      You could use some acids, but those would eat away the fossil too, because that too is mineralized.

    9. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amber isn't mineralized, and will dissolve in a variety of organic solvents, and can even be fused together with other pieces much like how solvents fuse together some plastics. Amber used to be heated to melt off "oil of amber" which is used in perfume and leave behind "pitch of amber" which is mixed with turpentine to make a lacquer.

    10. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, read your own cite, and then read the original paper:
      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9

      Synchrotrons, baby, Synchrotrons! NMR/MRI is so crude and last century.
      Specifically, the Beijing and Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facilities, using XAS and Phase-Contrast X-Ray Imaging.
      My hat off to the Chinese Researchers; this is quite a... Feather... in their cap.

    11. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean shellac not varnish.

      Shellac comes from bugs.

    12. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand corrected. I always believed "fossilized" to mean "mineralized", but it seems amber is a special case.
      It's more like a natural plastic, not unlike those paperweights they sell with spiders and scorpions inside.

  8. Jurassic Park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this be the start of a real Jurassic Park?

    1. Re:Jurassic Park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From CNN:

      McKellar said that soft tissue and decayed blood from the tail were found in the amber but no genetic material was preserved.
      "Unfortunately, the Jurassic Park answer is still a 'no' -- this is firmly in the realm of science fiction," he said.

    2. Re:Jurassic Park? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      At least they now can make a remake where a huge pile of feathers can indicate that a dinosaur fight took place.

    3. Re:Jurassic Park? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, when Chrighton wrote the original book 24-odd years ago, it was NOT 'science fiction' - it was definitely viable science based on the knowledge of the day. Amber was known to preserve soft-tissue, mosquitos and other blood-sucking insects from the dinosaur era had been found in amber and DNA had been recovered from amber.
      It seemed entirely within the realm of what would be possible in the next few years.

      In the intervening period a few things happened:
      1) It was found that the DNA from the original species in the amber decayed
      2) The human genome project was completed -and came with a massively shocking discovery: human DNA was far simpler than that of animals we'd genotyped years earlier like frogs (indeed - an order of magnitude fewer genes), which when we had to explain how that's possible turned our entire view of how DNA works upside down. The current view is that DNA is not a blueprint for a species, but a set of instructions for building a member of one - which makes assumptions. The more advanced the species is, the more assumptions can be made and the fewer conditionals have to be specified in the code. It's like stripping off the 'if arch == x86' part of your code because nobody uses a 32-bit computer anymore. Frogs have DNA to repond to various temperature ranges, humity levels etc. etc. basically to adjust the growth of the fetus to the ever-changing conditions in the pond all the time. Humans have a womb with very fixed conditions - so none of those are needed.
      3) With this realization - we actually genotyped the DNA recovered from amber - and it turned out to be from (much later) external contamination (mostly bacterial DNA).

      Those things shifted the Jurassic park scenario firmly into the science fiction region - but one should be fair to a brilliant writer with some pretty solid scientific credentials (in the field of medicine), when it was written it was in the realm of highly conceivable science fiction.
      He also updated his writing to reflect changes in the field. His last book "Timeline" also deals with genetics - and is set firmly in the areas of genetics where active research is happening right now, and dealing with the (very significant) social and legal questions that is raised by such ridiculous concepts as allowing companies to patent genes.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Jurassic Park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, when Chrighton wrote the original book 24-odd years ago, it was NOT 'science fiction' - it was definitely viable science based on the knowledge of the day. Amber was known to preserve soft-tissue, mosquitos and other blood-sucking insects from the dinosaur era had been found in amber and DNA had been recovered from amber.It seemed entirely within the realm of what would be possible in the next few years.

      First off, a lot of science fiction is based on what is considered to be potentially viable science projected to the future assuming some unsolved problems will be solved. Jurassic Park falls firmly within that category, as no one was expecting the ability to repair and piece together pieces of DNA fragments within a couple years. PCR had been invented only in 1983 and first example of recombination DNA was only ten years before that. That was enough time by the time the book came out that for a couple years it was realized that animal DNA decays in centuries timescale (human DNA took another decade before contamination issues were dealt with) and that the first transgenetic plant showed how difficult combining two genomes is.

    5. Re:Jurassic Park? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It was potentially viable science. However since nobody had actually done it then it's fiction by definition.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re: Jurassic Park? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes I worded that sentence badly. I was trying to say it was highly scientiffic sifi rather than highly speculative.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. tail feathers from bird by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:tail feathers from bird by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      That's a wing tip, not a tail. And, incidentally, the same people are quoted in that article, also about amber from Myanmar.

      They are the first Cretaceous plumage samples to be studied that are not simply isolated feathers, according to study co-author Lida Xing of the China University of Geosciences.

      "The biggest problem we face with feathers in amber is that we usually get small fragments or isolated feathers, and we’re never quite sure who produced [them]," says co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate palaeontology at Canada's Royal Saskatchewan Museum.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:tail feathers from bird by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And, incidentally, the same people are quoted in that article, also about amber from Myanmar.

      Yeah, but no one reads the article :)

      I used to write +5 moderated comments over and over, merely by reading the article, and restating some interesting points here in the comments. Easy mod points, and the mods hadn't read the article.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:tail feathers from bird by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I think Lida Xing is a marked man. If he shows interest in your piece of amber in the amber market in Myitkyina, you mark that thing up. Did I say this was $100? No, I meant $10,000.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:tail feathers from bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

    5. Re: tail feathers from bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This being Myanmar, it may be different, but I'm sure the Chinese have destroyed thousands of amazing complete specimens in order to sell them separately.

  10. But... by s.petry · · Score: 2

    When does the damn park open?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:But... by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure the Jurssaic-era Park would be a disaster, dinosaurs squawking and dropping feathers and poop everywhere. Changing square miles of newspaper every few days is a hassle.

  11. That looks gross by Muntzsky · · Score: 1

    Dinosaur birds are filthy animals.

  12. I feel terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for anyone named Amber right now.

    1. Re:I feel terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Ambers need a bit of tail now and then.

  13. If they've never seen one before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they've never seen one before then how do they know that it's a dinosaur tail with feathers?
    Isn't it also possible that this is a tail segment from some other kind of animal or even a flightless bird?

    1. Re:If they've never seen one before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the fine article.

    2. Re:If they've never seen one before... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Because they have actually seen dinosaur tail bones before, believe it or not. They've also seen ancient bird bones. It's true, amazing I know, but it's true.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:If they've never seen one before... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I think you might have broken my sarcasm detector. It is pegged at the maximum now, and won't drop back down.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:If they've never seen one before... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Have you seen any posts from our mutual friend lately? I haven't seen much from him since the last time I tore into him a few months ago.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:If they've never seen one before... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      He seems to have backed off on his rants recently, though I have seen a couple. I think he decided last time that I wasn't worth arguing with, so hasn't pestered me in a while.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. Easy solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's just ask the Grays to give us some dino DNA samples from when they collected them years ago.

  15. Jurassic Park That Much Closer? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Either way, what a huge find, this is awesome! Colors, positioning, type of feathers. The feathers on this tail are more floppy like the display, not flight, feathers in modern birds, showing that sexual display likely came before flight in evolution. Colors probably were important early on some are saying.

    Bird-like dinosaurs just got a whole lot more real.

  16. NSFW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NPR has a story on how this amber was found. An excerpt from it reads:
    "with the strong shaft coming first"

  17. Taxonomy by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    By today's taxonomy, birds ARE dinosaurs, not descendants of dinosaurs. But that would make the story less sensational. Besides, people need to hold onto their incorrect schooling that says that all dinosaurs were just huge lizards, even though the two have little to do with each other.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Taxonomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. What we're teaching today is the more truer truth. Those guys were so dumb believing that dinosaurs were reptiles.

    2. Re:Taxonomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those guys were so dumb believing that dinosaurs were reptiles.

      For most of the Triassic and part of the Jurassic, they were, as the archosaurs, the common ancestors to both modern reptiles and birds, were around up to the Triassic and it wasn't until later in the Jurassic that dinosaurs started developing bird like features.

    3. Re:Taxonomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, one must not forget about archosaurs. Of course during the Triassic, birds were much more common than Dinosaurs, when reptiles had more feather like features.

  18. Beautiful transition specimen by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We are predisposed to think of feathers as equipment for flying. But seeing all those flying "dinosaurs" flitting about our yard is misleading.

    Reptilian scales are basically fish scales that have been greatly toughened to control moisture loss, allowing colonization of the land. But if you are a non-big dinosaur, thermal regulation is a significant problem. Feathers are basically scales that can be fluffed up or laid flat, to varying degrees, giving different insulating profiles, at the cost of possibly losing some moisture, which many dinosaurs could well afford.

    The feather more appropriate for flying could have been variants that were big for display and could lay very flat. But the original purpose was not flying. Flatness is possibly desirable for: reducing insulation when desired, streamlining the body if traveling quickly through brush, making big visual displays with relatively light equipment. However a small dinosaur that jumped around trees would find that large flattish feathers would give it added control over gliding descents, which is a fabulous thing if you are in a hurry.