Live data from Hacker News

A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#41
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

> [I] find it really hard to imagine going to work and spending all day chipping at rocks, for over 5 years straight. I feel they did the right thing when naming the dinosaur after him. Respect.

Honestly, this seems like a refreshingly honest take on life. Pounding rocks like a convict, is where its at! No?

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#42
post #30
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> enough time for almost all mammals and modern birds and darn near everything you can see today except crocodiles and horseshoe crabs to evolve. I know what you're trying to say, but every living thing today, from the mammals to the fungus among us, have spent the same amount of time evolving, dating back to the first life, or at least the first life encoded for reproduction. Except for the birds, the dinosaurs quit…

Whales evolved from small land mammals since about 50 million years (half the time since dinosaurs) (it took them more like 20 million, but I'm being generous because whales still exist). 100 million years is an extremely long time. A lot happens in that amount of time.

> 100 million years is an extremely long time. A lot happens in that amount of time.

during that period of time, the ancestors of every living thing on earth was also mutating and naturally selecting.

during the entire time the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the mammals and/or their ancestors were also evolving and saving up genetic endowment for being the fittest in every eventuality; sadly, the dinosaurs bet on the wrong ... horses.

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#43
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

I've often wondered, in a situation like this, how does one distinguish between fossil and the surrounding matrix? I mean, it's all rock, no? How can you be sure that the shape you end up with is the shape of the fossilized thing and not a reflection of the excavator's latent sculpting talent?

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#44

> “We can see it went in water deeper than 50 meters because it was preserved with a particular mineral called glauconite, which is a green phosphate mineral. And it only forms in cooler temperatures in water deeper than 50 meters,” explained Henderson. Surely this is nonsense. You cannot tell the depths that a living creature swam, from the mineral deposits on its fossilised body! I mean, if I drown and my dead body…

> > “We can see it went in water deeper than 50 meters because it was preserved with a particular mineral called glauconite, which is a green phosphate mineral. And it only forms in cooler temperatures in water deeper than 50 meters,” explained Henderson.

> Surely this is nonsense.

It is not, though the problem here seems to be that you have badly misread it.

> You cannot tell the depths that a living creature swam, from the mineral deposits on its fossilized body!

Probably not, but this isn’t saying anything about the depths that a living creature swam, but the depths to which the corpse of a land-walking creature sank.

The three paragraphs before the one you quoted about how far it went (after death, not in life), with some marked ellisions for brevity:

A land-based megaherbivore preserved in an ancient seabed is not as uncommon as one might think. […] Scientists suspect its carcass may have been carried from a river to the sea in a flooding event; it may have bobbed at the surface upside-down for a few days before sinking into the ocean depths.

It would have been kept at the surface by what’s referred to as “bloat-and-float,” as the buildup of postmortem gasses would keep it buoyant. Modeling done by Henderson indicates its heavy armor would have rolled it onto its back, a position he suspects may have prevented ocean predators from scavenging its carcass.

Once the gases that kept it floating were expelled, Borealopelta sank to the ocean floor, landing on its back.

> Oh please. How is it possible to deduce the colouring of a fossilized creature?

“One way to determine an organism’s coloration has been to examine the structure of fossilized melanosomes under the microscope. Melanosomes are small storage sacs within cells that store pigment. Two main flavors of pigments are found in animal tissues called eumelanin and pheomelanin.[…] Classically, scientists have examined the microscopic structure to distinguish between eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes. However, these structures are often difficult to distinguish microscopically and mineralized microbes can often be mistaken for these organelles. […]

“The genius of Wogelius and his collaborators was to study the chemistry of eumelanin and pheomelanin from modern surviving organisms and then apply what they found to ancient samples. It turns out that each form of melanin has a distinctive associated element – copper for eumelanin and zinc for pheomelanin. X-ray beams can be bounced off the fossil melanosomes, and the way they are reflected depends on the different elements of these pigments. The exact distribution of eumelanin and pheomelanin can be mapped onto a fossil’s structure, providing something like a ‘paint for numbers’ for the fossils! This technique has already been used to paint a picture of an extinct red mouse that lived 3 million years ago. Now investigators hope to use the technique to go even further back in time to capture pictures of the earliest organisms to roam the planet.”

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/color-dinosaur-actua...

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#45

> “We can see it went in water deeper than 50 meters because it was preserved with a particular mineral called glauconite, which is a green phosphate mineral. And it only forms in cooler temperatures in water deeper than 50 meters,” explained Henderson. Surely this is nonsense. You cannot tell the depths that a living creature swam, from the mineral deposits on its fossilised body! I mean, if I drown and my dead body…

> > “We can see it went in water deeper than 50 meters because it was preserved with a particular mineral called glauconite, which is a green phosphate mineral. And it only forms in cooler temperatures in water deeper than 50 meters,” explained Henderson. > Surely this is nonsense. It is not, though the problem here seems to be that you have badly misread it. > You cannot tell the depths that a living creature swam,…

I did misread - thank you for the correction.

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#46
post #42
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whales evolved from small land mammals since about 50 million years (half the time since dinosaurs) (it took them more like 20 million, but I'm being generous because whales still exist). 100 million years is an extremely long time. A lot happens in that amount of time.

> 100 million years is an extremely long time. A lot happens in that amount of time. during that period of time, the ancestors of every living thing on earth was also mutating and naturally selecting. during the entire time the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the mammals and/or their ancestors were also evolving and saving up genetic endowment for being the fittest in every eventuality ; sadly, the dinosaurs bet on the w…

The big famous ones got toasted, but one[1] of the small specie survived. A few decades ago, we realized that birds are the descendant of dinosaurs. (Or "birds are dinosaurs" if you prefer that classification.)

[1] One specie or a few species? I'm really curious about the current most popular hypothesis.

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#47
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

I feel like I’d take that job in a heartbeat if it paid similar to SW engineering

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#48
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

[deleted]

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#49
post #43
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

I've often wondered, in a situation like this, how does one distinguish between fossil and the surrounding matrix? I mean, it's all rock, no? How can you be sure that the shape you end up with is the shape of the fossilized thing and not a reflection of the excavator's latent sculpting talent?

a) That's why they are a specialist. They are trained in the techniques to differentiate the fossil structure from the surrounding matrix (to the best of their ability). One of the biggest differences is texture; bone is very porous relative to most rock. Under a microscope that difference is much more apparent. You can also lick it because the porous texture of fossil sticks to your tongue more than the surrounding rock, but I doubt he did that.

b) Thats also why it took 7000 hours to do. It's really fucking hard, and he wanted to get it as right as possible. That means going very slow, taking a lot of care, and not taking shortcuts to put sculpting into play.

Re: A dinosaur with a remarkably preserved face

#50
post #37

This bit: It took the researchers 14 days to excavate the find and bring it back in separate enormous blocks to the museum. There, senior preparation technician Mark Mitchell was tasked with separating the fossil from the stone. This was no small endeavor, taking Mitchell seven hours per day over five and a half years. That task, he wrote in an email, took him a staggering 7,000 hours. Is just staggering. I'm old(ish…

I guess he discovered himself the specimen bit by bit while doing it, which makes the job not boring.
Post reply on HN