Wow I would have believed this was fake because of how well preserved it looks. Awesome!This is another one from 2011, Canada
Mummified then fossilized too.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
North Dakota Geology Survey Paleo unveils mummified dinosaur. More pics added.
- Thread starter Cow Mengde
- Start date
Just gonna keep posting this pic for people who say this.
Just like some non avian dinosaurs which had feathery legs and feet. Still, most feathered avian dinosaurs, aka birds, have scaled legs without feathers.
The term "mummified" when applied to fossils just means soft tissue has been extensively preserved, or that the animal was mummified before it was fossilized. This mummified hadrosaur foot is absolutely a fossil. It's a rock. "Mummified" isn't really being used scientifically here, more of a slang term.
There also seems to be a bit of confusion about the hoof. A hoof is just a specialized toenail. Hooves evolved more than once in mammals and there's no reason to find their presence remarkable in a dinosaur. I'm not entirely convinced this fossil shows a hoof though, since there's not an indication of one in the toe bones. At least, not something that would encompass the entire foot. This could be something else.
Finally, to the people saying "why are we only hearing about this now?". Fossil preparation can take years. This is what the museum does and most museums are horribly underfunded. There are tons of fossils sitting around still in their plaster jackets that are decades old. Only after the fossil is cleaned will papers about it be finalized and published.
Last edited:
Man discovers dino skin
Man creates dino
Man furious dino has feathers
Man goes to war with man
Dino eat man
Aliens inherit the earth
Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom seen as a documentary
Man creates dino
Man furious dino has feathers
Man goes to war with man
Dino eat man
Aliens inherit the earth
Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom seen as a documentary
Dakota is a very large specimen, and prep takes a very long time. Remember that these fossils are attached to the matrix, and especially with very detailed specimens, prep work often includes painstaking removal of overlaying rock layer by layer with tiny dremels and dust blasters. Here's and example of what that looks like on a much smaller fish fossil: https://www.instagram.com/p/B3m_0E9J85-/?igshid=18jzf2qpjwdu0
Now imagine doing that on something the size of a small car, which is also preserved in 3d and not simply flattened against a slab.
After that, you then have to examine and describe the specimen in extremely painstaking detail, which also usually takes months or years of work, since you literally describe every bump, scratch, protuberance, and detail on the bone. And adding soft tissue preservation to the mix increases that time even more.
There's also the fact that paleontology programs often just aren't well funded. There are specimens still sitting in drawers from the *Bone Wars* that have never been scientifically described, simply because there's not enough money or manpower to do it.
Dakota was originally found in 1999, but 2007 is really when the work started being shown on it. It's interesting this is part of that original fossil, sounds like there was a lot more of the animal present that it seemed when I read about it earlier.
Yes I'm aware of that but some of the posters in this thread don't seem to be, or are extremely committed to the part
I don't think that I have ever seen, read, or heard anyone say that all dinosaurs had feathers. As you said it's always been the smaller bipedal dinos, but I haven't seen a single source ever claim otherwise. I have seen people speculate if like, T-Rex had down when young or some feathering.
Yes exactly, again I have never once seen anyone claim all dinosaurs had feathers. Are there people who think that like, Stegosaurus had feathers? Triceratops? Wtf.
Thats a crazy amount of work if it took over 20 years to prep these fossilss for analysis and display
Am I interpreting the picture right because it seems like their loose finger is also covered completely in a claw.
OP
OP
OP
OP
Looking like yup, it's a hoof.
Prior reconstructions were similar to this:
For the next weird dino discovery, I'm crossing my fingers for proof that carnotaurus's arms were nonexistent/covered in flesh!
Prior reconstructions were similar to this:
For the next weird dino discovery, I'm crossing my fingers for proof that carnotaurus's arms were nonexistent/covered in flesh!
OP
OP
Cause people were gripping about the lack of source. I don't know if the mods would change it again to sound more exciting.
and also birds/chickens don't have feathers on their legs, so...
Oh goodness I just realized I was looking at the foot backwards. The extra claw is the first digit, that makes a lot more sense.
To feather/anti feather people :
This isn't the sort of dinosaur where we would really expect to see feathers.
And even if it were, the group is really diverse in terms of integument. Some animals might have had feathers at certain times, but lost them in others. Some were basically big birds with arms and full tails, and others seem to have just had naked, scaly, or scale e-like skin, or skin covered in osteoderms.
So just get used to the idea that dinosaurs didn't look the way you think they did, and as we get better information, the way they are depicted is going to change.
It seems to be analogous to a hoof. Especially since a few of the digits are encased in the skin-mitten and not really independently mobile.
It's a remarkable specimen and a big deal.
This isn't the sort of dinosaur where we would really expect to see feathers.
And even if it were, the group is really diverse in terms of integument. Some animals might have had feathers at certain times, but lost them in others. Some were basically big birds with arms and full tails, and others seem to have just had naked, scaly, or scale e-like skin, or skin covered in osteoderms.
So just get used to the idea that dinosaurs didn't look the way you think they did, and as we get better information, the way they are depicted is going to change.
It seems to be analogous to a hoof. Especially since a few of the digits are encased in the skin-mitten and not really independently mobile.
It's a remarkable specimen and a big deal.
Last edited:
According to their diagram it looks like they may have supported their weight on just one toe, which is definitely different from how hadrosaurs have been typically depicted.
Just gonna keep posting this pic for people who say this.
Yes, any preserved soft tissue (still a fossil folks, no actual flesh here), especially this much is a big deal. I'm thinking skin mitten myself, which is already presumed in many hadrosaur reconstructions though this fossil looks more like a toeless sauropod mitten than what is often assumed for hadrosaurs. Still, it's too hard to say much from this picture and I hope the paleontology team isn't far off from publishing.
Based on my best interpretation of the photos and their diagram, I drew this quick comparison for how hadrosaur front feet were originally believed to look compared to this.
I could be really off, but that's what I see. We've known that hadrosaur front feet formed some sort of fleshy pad for a while but the presence of visible claws on the old foot was not necessarily known (obviously) but I just included them for easier comparison. Just goes to show how much we still don't know about dinosaurs.
I could be really off, but that's what I see. We've known that hadrosaur front feet formed some sort of fleshy pad for a while but the presence of visible claws on the old foot was not necessarily known (obviously) but I just included them for easier comparison. Just goes to show how much we still don't know about dinosaurs.
If you've ever had alligator or crocodile, it's basically the same texture as chicken or turkey. So using phylogenetic bracketing, we could assume something like that. The actual taste would probably be more like beef since the animal had an herbivorous diet.
That's what it reads like. Such a crazy foot!Based on my best interpretation of the photos and their diagram, I drew this quick comparison for how hadrosaur front feet were originally believed to look compared to this.
I could be really off, but that's what I see. We've known that hadrosaur front feet formed some sort of fleshy pad for a while but the presence of visible claws on the old foot was not necessarily known (obviously) but I just included them for easier comparison. Just goes to show how much we still don't know about dinosaurs.
Based on my best interpretation of the photos and their diagram, I drew this quick comparison for how hadrosaur front feet were originally believed to look compared to this.
I could be really off, but that's what I see. We've known that hadrosaur front feet formed some sort of fleshy pad for a while but the presence of visible claws on the old foot was not necessarily known (obviously) but I just included them for easier comparison. Just goes to show how much we still don't know about dinosaurs.
This seems to be right.
I'm not super familiar with Hadrosaur feet - are their any species where the old depiction was definite, or as it always been assumed?
This is another one from 2011, Canada
Mummified then fossilized too.
Sweet baby Jesus this is amazing. It's like I'm looking at a real dinosaur.
I want to touch it.
I think the consensus at this point is that only the Raptors had significant feather coverage, with perhaps some sparse feather coverage on larger theropods.
The "every dinosaur had feathers" conclusion was a bit overzelous.
Feathers, or at least filaments, are basal or near-basal to theropods. There are direct impressions of feather filaments in Yutyrannus, a fairly primitive (124 million years ago) tyrannosauroid, which is also the largest animal currently known to have them.
There's also circumstantial evidence that even Triassic dinosaurs had some degree of feathers, and pterosaurs were covered in soft, downy, hairlike feathers called pycnofibers.
There are also basal ceratopsians (Psittacosaurus) that had a large tuft of thick filaments running down the tops of their tails.
Last edited:
The "Trachodon" Mummy was found with its fingers partially covered in skin, but it wasn't preserved well enough to show any real anatomy. It was originally assumed it was webbing because hadrosaurs were assumed to be primarily aquatic creatures at the time, but it was later determined it was likely a pad of sorts when the aquatic theory was nixed. Beyond that it was guesswork.
This thing looks like it was randomly generated in No Man's Sky:
Goddamit, so we live in a simulation and the devs are reusing assets.
Smh, lazy devs!
the devil, which is who you'll be meeting if you fall for this unholy nonsense