Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Largest Dinosaur Footprints Discovered In Western Australia (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the land-before-time dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The largest known dinosaur footprints have been discovered in Western Australia, including 1.7 meter prints left by gigantic herbivores. Until now, the biggest known dinosaur footprint was a 106cm track discovered in the Mongolian desert and reported last year. At the new site, along the Kimberley shoreline in a remote region of Western Australia, paleontologists discovered a rich collection of dinosaur footprints in the sandstone rock, many of which are only visible at low tide. The prints, belonging to about 21 different types of dinosaur, are also thought to be the most diverse collection of prints in the world. Steve Salisbury, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Queensland told ABC News: "We've got several tracks up in that area that are about 1.7 meters long. So most people would be able to fit inside tracks that big, and they indicate animals that are probably around 5.3 to 5.5 meters at the hip, which is enormous." "It is extremely significant, forming the primary record of non-avian dinosaurs in the western half the continent and providing the only glimpse of Australia's dinosaur fauna during the first half of the early Cretaceous period," he said. The findings were reported in the Memoir of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The largest tracks belonged to sauropods, huge Diplodocus-like herbivores with long necks and tails. The scientists also discovered tracks from about four different types of ornithopod dinosaurs (two-legged herbivores) and six types of armored dinosaurs, including Stegosaurs, which had not previously been seen in Australia. At the time the prints were left, 130m years ago, the area was a large river delta and dinosaurs would have traversed wet sandy areas between surrounding forests.

74 comments

  1. Was it really a dinosaur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was it evidence of... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiju

    1. Re:Was it really a dinosaur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the Florida Yeti.

  2. Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It is useless to study dinosaurs. They don't exist and haven't existed for tens of millions of years. Can anyone explain how studying dinosaurs benefits humanity in any way? That's right, the answer is that it's a complete waste of time and money to study dinosaurs. Of course, I'll be censored to -1 by the moderators, who know they can't answer my qiestion. But the truth remains: studying dinosaurs is useless and is a complete waste of time and money.

    1. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's easy to understand why one would feel the way you do, but I beg to differ. It has very real applications, especially today. Studying dinosaurs, their mass-extinction and in general, the era they lived in, gives us valuable data on our climate. If we understand what happened back then, we can prepare for the future. Climate research is extremely important and studying the dinosaur era is a crucial part of that research.

    2. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is pursuit of knowledge, purely for knowledge sake, a waste of time?

      And since when are you the arbiter of what other people find interesting?

      Model railroading is another thing that is unlikely to benefit humanity. I'm guessing you would like to go a step further and pass laws if you could, banning all the things you see as useless. Amirite? Just imagine the 100s of thousand of hours those stupid ass model railroaders all over the world waste building their little toy layouts in the basements and attics; when they could be doing productive things instead, like flyspecking penny blacks.

      Yeah, you'll be modded down, not because no one can answer your question, but because you're a stupid, ignoramus posting as AC. And yes, I'm posting this as AC too, just so I an also mod your dumbass posting down.

      Come back after you graduate from high school.

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

      It looks line an AC is butthurt because nobody agrees with his anti-intellectual viewpoint that the search for knowledge isn't useful.

    4. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend that you don't spend any time or money on it, then.

    5. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is useless to study dinosaurs. They don't exist and haven't existed for tens of millions of years.

      I see you're unfamiliar with birds.

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

      Here is your answer:

      Dinosaurs threaten nothing important to the 1% and are thus a perfect distraction for the 99%.

      Other things in this category: Kim's latest social media pictures, finding the latest exoplanet or most distant galaxy or the latest research on whether a shot of booze a day is good for you.

      Note how none of these involve pizza.

    7. Re:Useless by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You could always watch dinosaurs for yourself and see if you don't learn anything from them.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re: Useless by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Paleontology has no such value, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise. It is a waste of resources.

      Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re:Useless by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And turtles. Especially the teenage mutant ninja type.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    10. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. Paleontologists decadent people with no well defined sense of morality who are only interested in the pursuit of dubious pleasures - and often at the tax payers expense!

    11. Re: Useless by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3

      One of the famous mathematicians of the 1800s was proud that his work had no practical applications. (Sorry, I don't remember which one.) Lots of mathematical work seems that way, yet his work and much else that seemed useless at the time is now essential for fields like cryptography.

      Paleontology? Toy makers, movie makers, and vast hordes of children love dinosaurs. For some children, interest in dinosaurs leads to an interest in science generally.

      Paleontology leads directly into study of evolution and helps damage mythologies such as religion. (Is that why you're so sensitive?) If you are so interested in preventing the waste of resources, do something to prevent colleges from teaching their students how to provoke riots.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re: Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, I'm not a paleontologist, and I don't have any research; even your logical fallacies are flawed.

      But I'm curious, have you got a citation to support that claim that "a lot" of paleontology research is supported with government funds, or did you just pull that little factoid out of your ass? And thought you could get away with it going unquestioned?

      Ad hominem? You betcha. In these days of "grab 'em by the pussy" everything goes AFAIC. I'm feeling feisty and you can get over yourself. You're just another one of those precious snowflakes who thinks his opinion is somehow more important than any other random opinion. meh. bite me.

    13. Re: Useless by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Oh, it is super useful. For example, you cited climatology as being a useful science. We can use paleontology to inform us of changes in the biosphere in the past which we can correlate with what we can tell about the climate in the past. This knowledge is then presently applicable. If we know what ocean acidification did in the past (mass extinction) then we can decide that it is worth worrying about now.

    14. Re: Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the famous mathematicians of the 1800s was proud that his work had no practical applications. (Sorry, I don't remember which one.) ...

      I believe it was Charles Boole. ;-)

    15. Re:Useless by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Setting aside the pursuit of knowledge, dinosaur fossils have real world value that only an idiot would ignore. Individuals and institutions are interested in dinosaurs and are willing to pay a lot of money, sometimes even millions of dollars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) to own and display them. Dinosaur fossils can be tourist attractions that generate revenue. There's also a large black-market for fossils illegally stolen from lands. If some "study" allows one to protect, document, and safely unearth dinosaur fossils so that they can be resold at the highest value, that could be money very well spent.

    16. Re: Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOPS!

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

    Sounds like another one of God's tests of faith. Turn your back on these lies and return to the good book.

    Naah, those dinos were anti-vaxxer liberals.

  4. How old are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is Australia. Those prints could be fresh.

    1. Re:How old are they? by PPH · · Score: 2

      No. They would have been killed off by something meaner and more poisonous.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. So that's where Hillary! has been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We all wondered where Hillary! went on Wednesday, Nov 9, 2016.

    Now we know.

    1. Re:So that's where Hillary! has been by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Those are footprints, not cankle impressions.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. CLIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fat fucker from Queerland has been visiting the sand gropers?

  7. Footprints in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, why are your footprints 1.7m long?

    1. Re:Footprints in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a signal to the lady gods that I have a large Schwanzstucker.

  8. Re: missing monkey hymens still unfound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was yo mamma

  9. You call that a dinosaur footprint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <crocodile-dundee>
    That's not a dinosaur footprint. This is a dinosaur footprint!
    </crocodile-dundee>

  10. The perfect name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has huge feet like a clown, so how about Clownasaurus?

    1. Re:The perfect name. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      That's a good question. They have to make sure this isn't a print where a very large foot slid in mud (this may or may not be obvious to footprint specialists) and that it isn't the diseased or deformed foot of some 1-off, if very large, animal.

      Looking at all the large sauropods so far, assuming from the drawings they have examples of how big their feet are, and thus are accurate, this could be freaking huge.

      If you look at the biggest known dinosaurs, in the first picture overlaying some, the largest two are of dubious provenance, and their feet aren't even as big as this print.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. Amazing! by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When you think you're having a bad day, imagine what daily life must've been like for our mammalian ancestors in this age of giant dinos.

    Perhaps even more amazing, consider the catastrophic bad luck that befell the planet's dominant life form, and allowed our kind a window in which to proliferate.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Amazing! by tezbobobo · · Score: 2

      I always thought that. But, when I see videos of jaguars attacking caimans and mongooses and honeybadgers attacking cobras and mambas, I start to realise how adept mammals are at killing. I think we over identify with some of our most lethal cousins. Just because I'm a mammal and I'm not a killing machine doesn't mean a cheetah or wolf pack isn't totally bad ass. WAY more scary than a velociraptor - https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    2. Re:Amazing! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      There's a theory that homo sapiens proliferate today, rather than Neanderthals and Denisovians, partly because of their propensity for violent eradication of those who are different.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Amazing! by TheConway · · Score: 1

      The irony is that the homosapien's violent nature wouldn't necessarily be enough to beat down on neanderthals since they were bigger and smarter than us, and that it was our SOCIAL nature that allowed us to gang up on them. Irony being that despite it (social behavior) being quite possibly the reason we became the dominant (and I suppose only remaining) hominid, we still can't get along.

    4. Re:Amazing! by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I could have the timeline wrong, but I recall hearing a hypothesis that sapiens had domesticated dogs and Neanderthals had not, which would be a tremendous advantage competitively.

    5. Re:Amazing! by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Dinosaurs had a good run, they ruled for hundreds of millions of years. Eventually warm blooded species (birds and mammals) took over as the climate cooled; it would be interesting to see what happens if the Earth warms enough to give cold blooded species an advantage.

    6. Re:Amazing! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      When you think you're having a bad day, imagine what daily life must've been like for our mammalian ancestors in this age of giant dinos.

      I asked and Bernie said it was pretty nice. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:Amazing! by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Perhaps even more amazing, consider the catastrophic bad luck that befell the planet's dominant life form, and allowed our kind a window in which to proliferate.

      There have been 5 major extinction events we know of, and at least 20 minor ones we know of, in the last 600 million years or so.

      That is decidedly not "catastrophic bad luck." More like clockwork.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    8. Re: Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Neanderthals preferred cats. Sapiens had dogs that were bred and trained to serve. Neanderthals were adopted by cats & passively enjoyed the benefits of vermin-eradication & purring companionship.

      Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but there is a grain of truth in it. How many pet cats do you see today in central sub-Saharan Africa vs dogs? Now compare that to the equally-horrific genocidal conditions in parts of Syria & Iraq, where families about to be slaughtered spend their final moments attempting to shield their kitties from harm.

      Cats-vs-Dogs diffuses as you move away from central sub-Saharan Africa and the Fertile Crescent, but the overall distribution of cat & dog people is pretty blatantly obvious.

    9. Re: Amazing! by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Except, sauropod dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded, just like an ostrich, penguin, chicken, pigeon, owl, or hawk is now.

      T-Rex was basically the biggest, most bad-ass ostrich the world has ever known(*). And make no mistake... an angry ostrich can fuck you up quite badly.

      (*) In terms of genetic distance, T-Rex had more in common with a modern sparrow than it did with any modern reptile or amphibian.

    10. Re:Amazing! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fighting for territory is seen in many animal species though. It's not a "human only" trait. Homosapien 'victory' could be just as easily explained by better survivability (due to our ability to survive on the poorer diet that existed after the end of the ice age) expanding and pushing out some, while assimilating and mating with others.

      There is also strong evidence that Neanderthals and Humans were on friendly terms. Another factor that might be worth considering: in the historical period, even when armies do fight and conquer each other, it's surprisingly rare to see complete slaughter of the losing side.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Amazing! by Eloking · · Score: 1

      When you think you're having a bad day, imagine what daily life must've been like for our mammalian ancestors in this age of giant dinos.

      Perhaps even more amazing, consider the catastrophic bad luck that befell the planet's dominant life form, and allowed our kind a window in which to proliferate.

      Well I'd say it'll be comparable to, let's say, all of the animal kingdoms.

      Disney's Bambi is nice and all, but in reality the life of like 99.99999% of all species is a constant struggle for survival.

      Except maybe for the sloth and the honey badger, honey badger doesn't give a fuck.

      --
      Elok
    12. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries, mate! G'day, from WA!

      C H O M P

      Having some difficulties, are yeh? Bloody bastard! Cheers, mate!

    13. Re:Amazing! by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      The irony is that the homosapien's violent nature wouldn't necessarily be enough to beat down on neanderthals since they were bigger and smarter than us, and that it was our SOCIAL nature that allowed us to gang up on them. Irony being that despite it (social behavior) being quite possibly the reason we became the dominant (and I suppose only remaining) hominid, we still can't get along.

      Not only that. They have better tools and were built better for running and long distance trekking than Neanderthals.

      There is very little to suggest Homo Sapien killed off Neanderthals in direct confrontations. It was more a function of out-breeding them and out-competing them in harvesting resources. Barring a plague, over-predation or genocide, to go extinct, you do not need to get killed off or fail. You just need to succeed less often over millenia.

    14. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans might have organized and slaughtered the neanderthals, but enough of them had sex with neanderthal women to produce the hybrid human-neanderthal babies whose descendants went on to conquer the world (wiping out the pure strain neanderthals, and mostly enslaving the few remaining pure strain humans).

      Think about it. Humans were around for almost 2 million years before they finally left Africa. Neanderthals first appeared about 500,000 years ago. Yet 99.99999% of human technological progress, and basically EVERYTHING we think of as "human civilization", happened within the past 30,000 years or so... which just so happens to be around the time humans and neanderthals started having sex with each other. Hybrid Human-Neanderthals were the spark that ignited modern human civilization. Had the neanderthals all died off before breeding with humans, modern humans would probably be living in grass huts, wearing penis gourds, hunting with spears, and basically living like some of the inhabitants of inland Sub-Saharan Africa do now (or at least, DID until well into the 20th century).

      By any objective standard, neanderthal DNA was an overwhelmingly net gain for humanity.

    15. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We like to be the apex predator. Whenever we weren't, we killed whatever was.

  12. Why the unnecessary units change? by DumbSwede · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why the sudden switch from meters to cm when 106cm is 1.06 Meters? Comparing 1.7 to 1.06 is much easier to process, instead of making us go through the double check in our mind that we got the units right.

    --
    Letter To Iran
    1. Re:Why the unnecessary units change? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Why the sudden switch from meters to cm when 106cm is 1.06 Meters? Comparing 1.7 to 1.06 is much easier to process, instead of making us go through the double check in our mind that we got the units right.

      Relax. It's not as if you're being asked to compare 0.211 rods with 0.085 furlongs.

    2. Re:Why the unnecessary units change? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      +1

      I was going to post the same thing.. Although I guess we have to be happy they didn't mix metric and imperial as is apt to happen here.

    3. Re:Why the unnecessary units change? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because the author didn't want to screw up the conversion (dividing by 100 is hard...) and thus just used the exact number from the article they referenced.

    4. Re:Why the unnecessary units change? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Because anyone who is proficient with the metric system will not have any problem with this conversion and not even notice it. This is the fun part about the metric system. Yards to feet is a clumsy factor of three. With metrics you just move the decimal a tad.

      If this is becoming too difficulty for people I really do hope we go the way of the dinosaurs.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    5. Re: Why the unnecessary units change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time the prints were left, 130m years ago

      What? Now they are using meter-years!

  13. Re:Australia by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    How 'bout a 'bloomin onion, govner?

    FFS

    1. 'blooming onion' is a menu item from a US restaurant chain serving American cuisine in which the items are typically and arbitrarily given Australian names. (although in this particular case the item does not have an Australianized named)

    2. 'govner' is a bad rendition of an English (UK) word which does not have any traction in Oz.

    Struth mate. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with straya and you definetly can't talk strine.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  14. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bloomin Onion is damn good -- I'll tell you that.

  15. Incorrect headline by TheConway · · Score: 1

    The story can't be that these are newly discovered footprints. The aboriginals have known about them long enough that they are a part of their creation myths. Or is it just that white people know about them now?

    1. Re:Incorrect headline by chispito · · Score: 1

      The story can't be that these are newly discovered footprints. The aboriginals have known about them long enough that they are a part of their creation myths. Or is it just that white people know about them now?

      Sweet. Where did they publish their findings?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:Incorrect headline by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Maybe try reading the article?

  16. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now you can get it topped with cheese fries and steak, because an entire deep fried onion just didn't have enough calories!

  17. Low tide? I thought the oceans were rising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we are just now discovering them and they only show at low tide, how can the ocean be rising? It seems that the ocean levels must be dropping or these would have been discovered a long time ago.

  18. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm skinny. Doesn't affect me.

  19. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm skinny. Doesn't affect me.

    Love bloomin' onions. I can eat a whole one by myself. I have a propensity for fatness. Affects me greatly. Sadly.

  20. Your mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How was her stay in western Australia?

  21. This is a conspiracy theory in action ... by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    The perpetrators were intelligent raptors planting fake footprints to catch non-expecting dinosaurs with the Giant Old Biped Saurean Male Achillobator Creaking Killer Evading Detection experience. All a velociraptor joke to scare other dinosaurs. So they could eat them while paralyzed and gobsmacked with fear. Clever, clever girl ...

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  22. Jurassic Park Moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else have a Jurassic Park moment? You know, the one where Laura Dern and Sam Neill first see the dinosaurs?

    Can you imagine walking up to a creature that can leave a 1.7 m footprint? I wonder how they would react to a person just walking up to them?

  23. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that place is an abomination, couldn't even get beetroot, which in Australian pub food, you should get with ANY meal (except possibly soup, but I wouldn't rule it out)

    We could make their entire continent sick, and get them to serve Pie Floaters (lord knows that makes me sick)

  24. Re:Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course Bloomin in 'strine has nothing to do with blooming as in flowers...