|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Nov 9, 2011 23:43:16 GMT
|
|
weaver
Full Member
Icon by the great Djinni!
Posts: 156
|
Post by weaver on Nov 10, 2011 3:50:38 GMT
Roadtrip to the BHI anyone? Looks fantastic Minnesota Jones!
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 10, 2011 11:09:46 GMT
How much i'd love to go to BHI... How much i'd love it! Anyway, this discovery is EXTREMELY important for many reasons: as Larson implied, it would end the "Nano-T is/isn't a young Rex" debate, and among the other things is one hell of a well preserved fossil (i read that skin and maybe even muscle impressions from both the guys are preserved as well)... Wow, when i found about it yesterday... Man, it's been a long time i felt so excited about a paleontology find!  |
|
|
|
Post by neurotic on Nov 10, 2011 13:01:15 GMT
Just WOW!
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Nov 10, 2011 14:04:39 GMT
If you've ever thought of going to the BHI, do it! I was there back in 2003 (far too long ago) and Pete was there that day. My wife and I waited around to get him to sign a copy of his "new" (new at the time) book Rex Appeal. He finally signed it, apologized for making me wait, and asked if me and my wife wanted a look "in the back..." Of course I said yes! This is what they were working on...   It was a copy of Stan for the Indianapolis Children's Museum (which is now part of a kickin' display that I want to go see). Who takes time out their busy schedule to entertain a couple fossil fans? Peter Larson that's who. He's a genuine guy and a wonderful host. And he loves T. rex! How can you not like the guy?!?  |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Nov 10, 2011 14:33:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 10, 2011 14:58:29 GMT
I was there about 7 weeks ago--very cool place. No workers around to talk to though.
Shame, though, that because it is a for-profit venture, the finds are not considered eligible for publication (because they are not held in a public trust and could be sold to a private collector that won't allow further research).
And that Dueling Dinos is way more expensive than any other dino find--beyond what Sue went for, and that required buy-in from two of the largest corporations on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Jones on Nov 10, 2011 15:14:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 10, 2011 15:22:29 GMT
Wish i'd meet Peter Larson too, he's surely a very good guy... Plus, as you said dr. Jones ( ;D), he loves T.rex, so how can ANYONE on this planet not like him?  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 10, 2011 15:23:36 GMT
This is unbelivably cool.
'Dino-Cowboy' though...cringe ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Nov 10, 2011 16:58:07 GMT
I was there about 7 weeks ago--very cool place. No workers around to talk to though. Shame, though, that because it is a for-profit venture, the finds are not considered eligible for publication (because they are not held in a public trust and could be sold to a private collector that won't allow further research). And that Dueling Dinos is way more expensive than any other dino find--beyond what Sue went for, and that required buy-in from two of the largest corporations on the planet. Don't quite get this. What's to prevent, say Dr. Bakker from studying this critter at the invite of the owner of the fossil, then publishing his detailed results? Plus Larson states that he hopes they will be in a museum that will allow research. What - is the paleo community gonna be under a 'gag order' not to comment on the findings and description of same by those who actually get to examine it? Maybe you can expand on your point a bit because I don't get it. We live in a free country. No one can prevent research from being published here. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Nov 10, 2011 17:06:32 GMT
On another note - didya see the size of the Nanotyrannus' ARMS? HUGE compared to the size of the body. And obviously quite useful for grabbing and hooking prey.
The other thing, given the disparity in the size of the critters, is that the Ceratopsian was possibly old and sick, hence inviting attack ...
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 10, 2011 17:21:36 GMT
I was there about 7 weeks ago--very cool place. No workers around to talk to though. Shame, though, that because it is a for-profit venture, the finds are not considered eligible for publication (because they are not held in a public trust and could be sold to a private collector that won't allow further research). And that Dueling Dinos is way more expensive than any other dino find--beyond what Sue went for, and that required buy-in from two of the largest corporations on the planet. Don't quite get this. What's to prevent, say Dr. Bakker from studying this critter at the invite of the owner of the fossil, then publishing his detailed results? Plus Larson states that he hopes they will be in a museum that will allow research. What - is the paleo community gonna be under a 'gag order' not to comment on the findings and description of same by those who actually get to examine it? Maybe you can expand on your point a bit because I don't get it. We live in a free country. No one can prevent research from being published here. Here is the quote, as sent to me by P. Larson: “Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education.” In other words, a specimen that is up for sale, or is owned by a private person, is not available 'in perpetuity'. The specimen could be sold (and then tracking it down for further research becomes difficult to impossible) and a privately-owned specimen is often not available for scrutiny. In theory, someone could allow Bakker to look at it, describe it and publish on it. But then might not allow anyone else to even look at it--it's private property after all. And a hallmark of science is repeatability--in this case, having a second (or third, or fourth) observer to confirm details, or take research in a different direction. A lot of important specimens vanish into collections, and they essentially don't count as anything more than curios. In short it isn't about who can publish--it is about access to the specimens (in perpetuity) for publication. So yes, Peter would like to see it in a museum. But at over 9 million dollars (suggested price) I just can't see it happening--museums are usually on razor's edge funding as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Nov 10, 2011 23:41:27 GMT
Here is the quote, as sent to me by P. Larson: “Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education.” In other words, a specimen that is up for sale, or is owned by a private person, is not available 'in perpetuity'. The specimen could be sold (and then tracking it down for further research becomes difficult to impossible) and a privately-owned specimen is often not available for scrutiny. In theory, someone could allow Bakker to look at it, describe it and publish on it. But then might not allow anyone else to even look at it--it's private property after all. And a hallmark of science is repeatability--in this case, having a second (or third, or fourth) observer to confirm details, or take research in a different direction. A lot of important specimens vanish into collections, and they essentially don't count as anything more than curios. In short it isn't about who can publish--it is about access to the specimens (in perpetuity) for publication. So yes, Peter would like to see it in a museum. But at over 9 million dollars (suggested price) I just can't see it happening--museums are usually on razor's edge funding as it is. Thanks. That makes sense. So a paper on the fossil could be referenced to under a "however ....." paragraph in an otherwise accepted publication. In other words, as supporting documentation one way or another, but not definitive due to a (presumed) lack of verification after the initial examination? As an aside, why would anyone with the dough to finance such a dig want to keep it from the scientific community? If I could do that I would give it to a museum with the sole proviso that they make me a cast I could display....I know, there are probably fossil hunters aplenty who actually make a living out of selling these fossils, but I just don't see the sense of someone hiding one of these in their living room? Am I wrong here? |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 11, 2011 0:16:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 11, 2011 1:33:22 GMT
Here is the quote, as sent to me by P. Larson: “Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education.” In other words, a specimen that is up for sale, or is owned by a private person, is not available 'in perpetuity'. The specimen could be sold (and then tracking it down for further research becomes difficult to impossible) and a privately-owned specimen is often not available for scrutiny. In theory, someone could allow Bakker to look at it, describe it and publish on it. But then might not allow anyone else to even look at it--it's private property after all. And a hallmark of science is repeatability--in this case, having a second (or third, or fourth) observer to confirm details, or take research in a different direction. A lot of important specimens vanish into collections, and they essentially don't count as anything more than curios. In short it isn't about who can publish--it is about access to the specimens (in perpetuity) for publication. So yes, Peter would like to see it in a museum. But at over 9 million dollars (suggested price) I just can't see it happening--museums are usually on razor's edge funding as it is. Thanks. That makes sense. So a paper on the fossil could be referenced to under a "however ....." paragraph in an otherwise accepted publication. In other words, as supporting documentation one way or another, but not definitive due to a (presumed) lack of verification after the initial examination? As an aside, why would anyone with the dough to finance such a dig want to keep it from the scientific community? If I could do that I would give it to a museum with the sole proviso that they make me a cast I could display....I know, there are probably fossil hunters aplenty who actually make a living out of selling these fossils, but I just don't see the sense of someone hiding one of these in their living room? Am I wrong here? Sadly, you are wrong--there are plenty of rich people (although this amount is pretty extreme) that would pay big bucks for a 'trophy' like this, and sharing is not part of that equation. Charlie Sheen has his mosasaur. Leonardo DiCaprio and Nicolas Cage fought it out for a Tyrannosaurus (I don't know if either one got it, but someone did). And those were 'cheap'. There are truly rich people in other parts of the world that might not blink at this amount, but Peter is being picky about who gets it. And even a 'however' statement about the curating of the fossil wouldn't be acceptable for many publications. Maybe a National Geographic article or something, but those don't count. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 12, 2011 10:16:38 GMT
Either way it's an extraordinary discovery indeed.  Mmh... i don't know, maybe i'm wrong, but, by the sound of your reply, it seems you have a sort of grudge against Larson... Meh, i'm probably wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 12, 2011 12:09:42 GMT
Either way it's an extraordinary discovery indeed. Mmh... i don't know, maybe i'm wrong, but, by the sound of your reply, it seems you have a sort of grudge against Larson... Meh, i'm probably wrong though. No more than against Alan Feduccia or any scientist who clings to hypotheses which have little to no support for years and years. Remember that Larson and Bakker are pretty much the only scientists right now who believe Nanotyrannus is real, so the fact that this is coming from them warrants a lot of skepticism. If he's got some good histology to show that this "Nano" is an adult, or that there were definitely two different large tyrannosaurs in the Hell Creek, then I'll take him seriously. Until then, he does have a history of making a lot out of very little evidence ("but it has more teeth!"). |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 12, 2011 14:03:04 GMT
Either way it's an extraordinary discovery indeed. Mmh... i don't know, maybe i'm wrong, but, by the sound of your reply, it seems you have a sort of grudge against Larson... Meh, i'm probably wrong though. I think it's more about the media exposure in advance of actual study/publication. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 12, 2011 15:08:17 GMT
Oh right, i see your point Matt... However, if i remember well, not only Bakker and Larson defend the validity of Nano-T, also Witmer, after analyzing the skull of the holotype, said that this possibility cannot be totally ruled out.
Bear in mind, i'm not saying that i "believe" in Nanotyrannus, if they'll definitely find out Jane & co. are just young Rexes, well, fine; i'm actually more inclined to think that maybe a medium-sized tyrannosaurid could have easily lived along with the King (an albertosaurid? A driptosaurid?), nothing wrong with it, afterall in basically all the ecosystems (both prehistoric and modern) there is more than just one predator hanging around... The problem is: this "ghost taxon" really corresponds to the critter known as "Nanotyrannus Lancensis"?
|
|
