Paleontology

[Dracowyn]

With the recent describing of the Wahlisaurus massarae, an Ichthyosaur that was discovered in England over 60 years ago but has only been described as a newly discovered species last week (article here and the full research paper here), I decided to make a thread about paleontology.

Are you interested in paleontology, the study of life before the Holocene (our era)? Which aspects interest you an why?

Are there any animal groups that really interest you or are you more interested in the concept of evolution itself?

Anyways, I've been interested in pregistoric life as far as I can remember. I've liked dinosaurs since I was a little kid that couldn't read yet. My firs books were about them and my favorite show in the 90's was the BBC's Walking With Dinosaurs.

When I started to get older, I wanted to know more. Not only about them, but about everything that lived alongside them (like pterosaurs, marine reptiles, extint crocodiles, mammals, etc), their world and how it changed an where they actually came from.

That last part eventually led me to the Paleozoic era (rougly 540 million years ago till 250 million years ago), from when multi-cellular life started to appear really rapidly in the Cambrian until the biggest mass extinction the Earth has ever seen at the end of the Permean 250 million years ago, which gave the small dinosauromorpha the opportunity to become the dominant group on the planet.

The groups I'm the most interested in are the early dinosaurs from the Triassic and the Maniraptora clade, which developed a lot of bird-like elements.

So yeah, that's pretty much my story about the matter in a really tiny nutshell.

If there's anything else you want to say about this subject, feel free to do so.

 

[KetsuekiR]

I've always found palaeontology to be extremely fascinating. The fact that there were these extremely complex, sometimes massive and extraordinary life forms that existed for millions of years before we did is amazing. It's almost akin to a completely alien world and that's awesome!

While I don't know much about it, I'm always excited to learn more and to hear of new discoveries. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who wasn't interested in palaeontology to some degree. It's just too mind-blowing, haha.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

The mainstream public loath paleontology for "ruining" dinosaurs, whether it's theropods being in horizontal positions instead of an upright position to feathers instead of scales. There have been some outrage about the Spinosaurus having short stubby legs instead of the longer ones we knew in popular culture.

 

[Dracowyn]

I'm more the other way around. I dislike movies like Jurassic World for still slapping the name Velociraptor on an oversized Deinonychus, give it scales instead of feathers (okay the original Jurassic Park had an excuse for this cause we didn't know they had feathers in the 90's). and making them smarter than your average chimpansee.

And yeah, not that long ago a new spinosaurus fossil has been discovered, which was something a lot of people were waiting for since the original holotype was destroyed in WWII and they found out they were semi-aquatic and walked on 4 legs, kinda like a croc. They weren't subby though, it just never walked on 2 and rarely left the water.

Either way, people who are "annoyed" by this and want to see killing monsters that make no sense should go watch Alien or something (which is a great movie btw).

But really, you have no idea how many times I cringed when I saw Jurassic World.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I'm more the other way around. I dislike movies like Jurassic World for still slapping the name Velociraptor on an oversized Deinonychus, give it scales instead of feathers (okay the original Jurassic Park had an excuse for this cause we didn't know they had feathers in the 90's). and making them smarter than your average chimpansee.

And yeah, not that long ago a new spinosaurus fossil has been discovered, which was something a lot of people were waiting for since the original holotype was destroyed in WWII and they found out they were semi-aquatic and walked on 4 legs, kinda like a croc. They weren't subby though, it just never walked on 2 and rarely left the water.

Either way, people who are "annoyed" by this and want to see killing monsters that make no sense should go watch Alien or something (which is a great movie btw).

But really, you have no idea how many times I cringed when I saw Jurassic World.

It was handwaved by Dr. Wu in the movie that they do acknowledge that the dinosaurs in their park are inaccurate, but they were done on purpose because that's what the public demand.

I remember there was a youtuber named balenaproduction who praised the decision of not having feathered raptors in Jurassic World because of how awkward they looked with quills on their heads in Jurassic Park 3.

 

[Dracowyn]

It was handwaved by Dr. Wu in the movie that they do acknowledge that the dinosaurs in their park are inaccurate, but they were done on purpose because that's what the public demand.

I remember there was a youtuber named balenaproduction who praised the decision of not having feathered raptors in Jurassic World because of how awkward they looked with quills on their heads in Jurassic Park 3.

That's just a cheap way they tried to get away with it. Plus it makes no sense. It's like cloning a dog and ending up with one that's 6 meters long and has scales.
And yeah, the quills kinda looked weird cause they were still no velociraptors. Oversized Deinonychus in a weird pose with some proto-feathers on their heads. Actual Velociraptors looked more like this and reached just below your hip.

Heck, even if you take Dr. Wu's ridiculous claim into account. That Pteranodon lifting someone off the ground is defying the laws of physics. They had hollow bones so that they could fly. Remember that time that eagle swept down and took off with your neighbour? No? That never happened?

 

[gimmepie]

I find palaeontology fascinating although I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't more interested in larger more complex organisms like dinosaurs, mammal mega-fauna and pterosaurs compared to smaller reptiles and mammals of the time.

Ever since I was a kid I've found the animals of the past extremely interesting.

 

[Shamol]

I know when people think of paleontology and fossils they immediately think about dinosaurs, but to me the most important part of paleontology are hominid fossils.

To my mind, humans are by far the most interesting creatures, and for really odd reasons- abstract reasoning, symbolic thought and activity, self-awareness, maybe autobiographical memory- all of these completely unheard of characteristics conspired to find expression in this one species. I definitely want to know how that happened.

And here fascinating methodological issues crop up- how does one correlate, say, symbolic expression with fossils and archaeology? Does the late achulean hand ax prove efficient skill transfer within a large group, and would that require a language? And even more fundamentally, how does one establish evidence of controlled fire use? Burial practices? Hunting vs. scavenging?

This is one of the areas which forces scientists and thinkers from different fields to collaborate- the paleontologist must consult with the geneticist, both of whom must be in touch with the occasional cognitive scientist and linguist. That opens interdisciplinary barriers in such an unprecedented and exciting way.

 

[Dracowyn]

I find palaeontology fascinating although I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't more interested in larger more complex organisms like dinosaurs, mammal mega-fauna and pterosaurs compared to smaller reptiles and mammals of the time.

Ever since I was a kid I've found the animals of the past extremely interesting.

Tbh, I find the smaller animals the most interesting. Sure, appearance-wise giant animals like the Tyrannosaurus, Mammoths, and giant pterosaurs like the Quetzalcoatlus look more impressive than smaller animals. But every single big animal group started small. And often after a mass extinction killed of everything big, the small ones have to adapt and fill in the gaps, which creates a lot of new species in a really short time.

The most interesting ones in my opinion are animals that are somewhere in between your categories. We love to categorize everything, but some animals don't really fit in. Examples are the Ichthyostega that's somewhere between a fish and an amphibian, the Westlothiana, which is in between an amphibian and a reptile, etc...
It's just fascinating to see where species, or entire groups of animals come from.

I know when people think of paleontology and fossils they immediately think about dinosaurs, but to me the most important part of paleontology are hominid fossils.

To my mind, humans are by far the most interesting creatures, and for really odd reasons- abstract reasoning, symbolic thought and activity, self-awareness, maybe autobiographical memory- all of these completely unheard of characteristics conspired to find expression in this one species. I definitely want to know how that happened.

And here fascinating methodological issues crop up- how does one correlate, say, symbolic expression with fossils and archaeology? Does the late achulean hand ax prove efficient skill transfer within a large group, and would that require a language? And even more fundamentally, how does one establish evidence of controlled fire use? Burial practices? Hunting vs. scavenging?

This is one of the areas which forces scientists and thinkers from different fields to collaborate- the paleontologist must consult with the geneticist, both of whom must be in touch with the occasional cognitive scientist and linguist. That opens interdisciplinary barriers in such an unprecedented and exciting way.

Oohh, I never really thought about it that way. I never really studied the Kenozoicum in-depth. I know the basics of mammalian evolution after the dinosaurs died out and know the hominids most people with an interest for paleontology know, but since I never really was extensively interested in the early humans, I never really thought of that. But you're right, it's really fascinating.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

When I'm talking larger and more complex I don't mean giant, I mean not arthropods and the like. Sorry for any confusion there xD

Also +1 to the person who mentioned hominids, it's interesting to see where we came from.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

So, a newly discovered dinosaur fossil was found in Argentina a few days ago, and it's a smaller and slimmer version of a T-Rex (called a Gualicho I believe).

 

[Dracowyn]

The new dinosaur is named Gualicho shinyae. It was an Allosaurid (Tyrannosaurids were only native to Eastern Asia and North America). The fossil is 94 million years old and seems similar to Deltadromeus,which lived in the same era but this one lived in what is now Morocco.

SOmething that's also remarkable are the tiny forearms. We all know later Tyrannosaurids like the Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus had these, but as far as I know it's unique to an Allosaurid.

There's an article here about it and the full scientific paper can be found here

Edit:
"Shinyae was chosen in honor of the discoverer, Akiko Shinya of the Field Museum in Chicago, while Gualicho is generic name derived from Gualichu, a spirit revered by the Tehuelches, Native American people of Patagonia."

Another Edit: There's been another theropod dinosaur discovered in Argentinia. The Murusraptor barrosaensis. This big predator belonged to the Megaraptora group, which is unlike the name suggests, not closely related to the Dromaeosauridae (aka raptors).

It lived 87 million years ago, was about 26 feet (8 meters) long and not yet fully grown. It was bigger but more slender than the Megaraptor, which was related to it.

An article about this dinosaur can be found here while the full scientific paper can be found here