Courtesy Photo by Zang Hailong (via Nature)A huge one-and-a-half ton theropod discovered recently in China is further shaking up our old ideas of dinosaurs being oversized scaly lizards. The fossilized remains of Yutyrannus huali, a 130 million year-old tyrannosaur uncovered in the Liaoning fossil beds show evidence of a fuzzy coating of feathers on several areas, e.g. the tail, hip, foot, neck and arm. Yutyrannus huali is a distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex(there is some contention about this) which didn’t evolve until much later in the Cretaceous period. Evidence of feathers has been found on smaller dinosaurs including the basal tyrannosauroid Dilong but these are the first clues that larger dinosaurs had feathers. Three nearly complete and well-articulated skeletons of Y. huali - an adult and two juveniles were found in the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Liaoning Province in northeast China. The adult is quite large, being nearly 30 feet in length and estimated to have weighed in life around 3000 pounds! The two juveniles weighed around 1200 pounds. All show evidence of having filamentous feather. Large animals today, such as elephants, rhinos, and hippos are somewhat hairless and tend not to need insulation for retaining heat because of their size and the ratio of surface area of skin to their masses. Whether Yutyrannus huali’s well-known descendent Tyrannosaurus rex had any plumage remains a mystery. T. rex was six times as massive as its ancestor, and arrived on the scene 60 million years later in the Late Cretaceous when the climate was warmer. But all it takes to change that is some new fossil to come to light. Generally, it’s thought that feathers first appeared as a means of insulation, species identification, or for attracting mates long before they evolved for use in flight. Today, birds are considered the descendents of small theropods dinosaurs called dromeosaurids. The discovery of Yutyrannus huali adds new clues and additional mystery to our conception of how dinosaurs appeared in life. The new study by Chinese vertebrate paleontologist Xu Xing and his co-researchers appears in the science journal Nature.
Courtesy Twin Cities NaturalistA motion activated camera captured remarkable still images in Northern Washington County, Minnesota this week. The camera was set up on a dead coyote in hopes of discovering what scavengers would come eat. Raccoons and crows were not unexpected but it was exciting when Common Ravens showed up on the photos.
Northern Washington County is right on the edge of the breeding range of Ravens and simply seeing them during breeding season is an exciting sign they may be breeding. The photos went even further than simply showing the ravens were present however. What the series of photos which were complied into a video clearly show is a raven stripping the fur from the coyote and then carrying it away. Ravens are known to line their nests with animal fur so this is a clear indication these birds are nesting.
Information like this helps scientists build range maps of where birds breed. Many states are building breeding bird atlases with the help of citizen scientists who study bird behavior. Currently Minnesota, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have active atlas efforts. Find out more and learn how to take part at http://bird.atlasing.org/
Iridescence is usually a vanity thing in nature; birds and butterflies, for instance, use it to attract mates. This is
Courtesy Killer18the type of thing that would be completely lost on a blind mole...or is it? In the case of the golden mole, iridescence is very much a part of its appearance, but according to a new study about the structure of hair, this iridescence takes on a more functional role. The nano-sized structures on the flattened, paddle-shaped hairs not only give the moles a lovely sheen (for animals that can actually see them), but may also help to repel water and streamline the moles as they move through the sand. This is definitely a case of function over form.
This article describes the results of a study conducted by the Australian Government, which says some Australians “may be raising their risk of skin cancer by avoiding sunscreen due to unfounded fears over nanoparticles.” The article went on to say that one third of the people surveyed had heard or read about the possible risks of nanoparticles, and that 13% of these people would be less likely to use sunscreen. At first, this seemed like a very interesting finding – people would rank nanoparticles higher than skin cancer on their personal risk meters! But as I examined the article a little more, I realized I have a few issues with the way it presented the results.
Courtesy Friends of the Earth Australia
First, the article makes it sound as if survey-takers were faced with the question, “would you rather risk getting skin cancer or use a sunscreen with nanoparticles in it?” In actuality, they were simply asked if they would be less likely to use a nanoparticle-based sunscreen, given the risks they’d heard about. I realize it is implied that if you don’t use sunscreen your chances of getting skin cancer increase, but when taking a survey, you’re probably just answering the question at hand: Would you be less likely to use a product that you’ve heard could by risky. These answers are also coming from a survey that repeatedly mentions the “possible risks of using sunscreen with nanoparticles” in various questions. It seems to me that hula hooping could start to sound risky by the end of a survey like that. “Have you heard or read about the possible risks of hula hooping? If you have heard or read about the possible risks of hula hooping, do the stories make you any less likely to hula hoop in general? Agree or Disagree: 1.) Hula hooping is risky to my health. 2.) Hula hooping is more risky to my health than not hula hooping 3.) I am scared to hula-hoop.” Ok, I exaggerate a little, but the way a survey is presented has an effect on the answers people provide.
I get that they’re trying to highlight the fact that some people perceive nanoparticle-based sunscreens as dangerous, and that’s an interesting finding- not because they would stop using sunscreen, but because the current weight of evidence suggests that the nanoparticles in sunscreens don’t penetrate the skin - they’re harmless to humans. Which brings me to my point that perhaps a more telling result of the study is the high number of people who said they didn’t know if nanoparticle-based sunscreens are risky, and needed more information before deciding whether to use them. The fact that some people perceive nanoparticle-based sunscreens as dangerous when the current scientific evidence suggests otherwise, supports the idea that people just don’t know enough about nanoparticle-based products.
Now, I’m not suggesting that all nanoparticle-based products are safe, across the board. I’m also not trying to downplay people’s concerns about this relatively new technology. In fact, I think a healthy dose of caution is a good thing when it comes to new technologies. I just think that fear comes from not knowing, and people’s concerns could be alleviated if they had more information. What is concerning is that the information isn’t exactly available. There are no regulations on nano products (though the FDA appears to be working on it), companies are not required to label their products as containing nanoparticles, and there are no standards in defining what a nano product is. What I am suggesting is that maybe we should be demanding that information from the likes of industries, governments, policy makers, etc, instead of focusing on the few that perceive nanoparticles as risky.
The point of the study was to figure out the public’s perception of sunscreens that contain nanoparticles, and I think it did. It showed that the public doesn’t know enough about it to make any real/informed decisions.
What’s your take? How do you feel about nanoparticles being used in products you rely on every day? What do you think about regulating this technology? Creating standards for it? Do you think these regulations and standards would stifle scientific progress, or protect our health? What do you think about hula hooping?
Paleontologist Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang found the 314 slides while searching through the vaults of the Survey headquarters near Keyworth, UK. Each slide contains a polished thin section of a fossil plant, prepared for viewing under a microscope. But the best thing about the discovery is that some of the slides are of specimens collected by the young Charles Darwin during his legendary voyage on the Beagle. Darwin’s theory of evolution and subsequent book On the Origin of Species resulted from much of what he discovered during the five-year voyage. Among the specimens collected by Darwin is a piece of petrified wood from an island off the coast of Chile in 1834.
Falcon-Lang figures the collection has been languishing unregistered in the cabinet for 165 years. Joseph Hooker, a botanist and close friend of Darwin, worked briefly for the Geological Survey in the early 19th century, and given the job of cataloging the collection. But before Hooker could properly register the fossils, he left on an expedition to the Himalayas and the collection was soon forgotten. In the passing years the cabinet got moved several times until it reached its current storage place deep in the recesses of the Geological Survey where it was found in April of last year.
According to Falcon-Lang the lost fossils, some of which can be viewed on line, will add greatly to current science, and he expects some great scientific papers to result from the collection.
Courtesy Mark RyanI saw a posting on Facebook yesterday (tip of the hat to the Bell Museum) about a website called Project Noah. It’s a really cool site that allows anyone with a camera and a love of nature to upload pictures or video and help identify the plants and animals that populate our world, both locally and globally. And who doesn’t have a camera of some sort nowadays?
Anyway, according to their website Project Noah is:
"… A tool that nature lovers can use to explore and document wildlife and a technology platform research groups can use to harness the power of citizen scientists everywhere. The purpose of the project is to mobilize and inspire a new generation of nature lovers. It began as an experiment to see if we could build an app for people to share their nature sightings and has evolved into a powerful global movement for both amateurs and experts. The name “Noah” is an acronym that stands for networked organisms and habitats. “
That kind of sums it up. The site is easy to navigate and figure out. I uploaded a couple photos I’d taken recently and it wasn’t difficult at all. You can also join a “mission” dealing with a particular zoological or botanical subject you’re interested in. You can contribute to the mission’s knowledge base by adding your own photographs or some information such as the genus and species of an unknown specimen captured in someone else’s photograph. I like shooting photographs up around Lake Superior so I joined the “Great Lakes Monitoring” mission. It just took a click of a button to become a part of it.
You can even start your own mission. It could be a legitimate study you’ve devised like why "megapug" bees seek out sunflowers or something as simple as a call for the best wildlife photos of the year. Here at the Science Museum we could start a mission called Rotting Pigs. I wonder how many contributions that would garner?
As mentioned, there’s even a Project Noah app that you can download for the mobile device of your choice. I downloaded it for my iPod Touch but noticed the reviews for it seem to be mixed. It only got an average rating overall, but what the hey, it’s free so I’m giving it a shot anyway. You can do the same if you'd like. I already know the site works fine on my laptop.
I’m really excited about this. It’s a novel and cool way to intermingle our ever-changing networking technologies with the rest of the natural world, and contribute something to the science community at the same time.
If you have more questions you might find the answers on Project Noah’s FAQ page.
In this video renowned paleontologists Bob Bakker and Peter Larson visit the CK Preparations lab in Montana to examine the incredible discovery by Clayton (“Dino Cowboy”) Phipps of the remains of a tyrannosaurid and some sort of ceratopsian dinosaur preserved together (and touching) in a single block of rock from the Hell Creek Formation. Both skeletons are articulated, nearly 100 percent intact, and in a wonderful state of preservation. Teeth matching those remaining in the tyrannosaurid jaws are preserved imbedded in the ceratopsian skeleton. The predator’s skull, which is speculated to be that of a Nanotyrannus, shows signs of being kicked in. Early analysis of the geology of the matrix encasing the find suggests that the two battling dinosaurs may have gotten trapped in mire or overcome by a sudden environmental catastrophe, like a cave-in. Was this a unique moment frozen in time of a battle between a predator and its prey? Do the two "combatants" represent entirely new genera of dinosaurs? These questions require further study and preparation of this very unusual fossil.
I posted this picture a few days ago on Facebook and got a ton of comments. Apparently, I am not the only one that does this. I also thought this was something new, but a friend pointed out that I did this since I was 14 (9th grade sleepovers). My husband is really creeped out by it and he has to physically push my arm back down. Has anyone else ever experienced this? Does anyone know what causes this? The human body sure does weird things!!
Courtesy My Husband
Another Experimonth I am working on is "My how you have grown". I started out by posting a recent picture of me:
Courtesy My Husband
From there the converstation went into Horror Movies, favorites, and what we like about them. I mentioned that I like being scared and that adrenaline rush you get from the suspense. I didn't put any thought into why until I received this comment:
"Kiki, do you think your "need for scary/adrenaline rushes" is a result of genetics or your environment growing up?"
My head started spinning!! I needed to respond right away because I never thought about the things I do now being a reflection of either genetics or my environment. So, I responded immediately. This is what I wrote:
"ooohhh, good question!! Most "people" would say it probably stems from my parents divorce when I was 10. Until I left for college,I had to deal with my parents crazy relationships (my parents got along with each other fine, it was their boyfriends/girlfriends that was crazy). I guess I really never had "normal" growing up, so I like horror/suspense movies because they aren't "normal".
I love goofy/raunchy comedies as well, but NOT romantic comedies (unless the couple does NOT end up together). I find romantic comedies fake (yeah, i know, a pot calling the kettle black)....I get so mad when they end up together in the end because in the real world, that isn't how it works. It frustrates me and I actually get angry at the movie!! Blue Valentine was good because (spoiler alert!) they didn't end up together.
So there is my environmental factor in a nutshell....however, I do believe that there is genetics involved as well. My mom loves Dean Koontz (horror/suspense novelist) and my dad loves crime books. I am the only one in the family though that takes it to an extreme, but that is the way I am, no gray area, all black and white.
A psychologist would love this right now. haha
That was all just a quick blurb off the top of my head, however, that question was really good and i will be thinking about this for awhile!!"
Now, like I said, this is all off the top of my head and I really want to spend more time thinking about this as I find it extremely interesting. So, the reason for my blog isn't just to share my thoughts, but also get thoughts from others on either my response above or what they think about genetic vs environmental factors playing a role in their current life.
Courtesy Mark RyanEver wonder how something as big as a sauropod dinosaur was able to grow so large? Sauropods were those huge, long-necked quadrupeds estimated to have weighed anywhere from 50 to 120 tons, and with lengths of up to 200 feet. Just seeing the skeleton of any one of them – the Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus, Ultrasaurus or any their kind – you just know those Jurassic giants had to be on a constant eating binge to maintain their massive size. But just how much food could a single area supply? Doesn’t it make sense that these critters would have eaten up any food source within the reach of their extensive necks? Then what would they do?
A new study of sauropod teeth has produced some strong evidence that the giant herbivores migrated during times of drought or other environmental stresses, searching for new untapped food and water sources. Geochemist Henry Fricke of Colorado College in Colorado Springs along with student colleagues Justin Hencecroth and Marie E. Hoerner studied the teeth of various Camarasaurus specimens comparing the ratio of oxygen isotopes found in the enamel with the ratio found in the sedimentary rock deposits where the teeth were found. By sauropod standards, Camarasaurus was one of the smaller ones, but it's the most common sauropod found in the Morrison Formation deposits.
Courtesy Public domainDuring its lifetime 145 million years or so in the past, a Camarasaurus's teeth would absorb the isotopes ratio of its environment, that is the ratio of the oxygen isotopes found in the local water supply. So Fricke’s team sampled 32 camarasaur teeth, taking measurements of the younger enamel found near the base of each tooth with the older enamel near the crown. In some cases, the isotopes ratios in the enamel matched those of the sedimentary rocks from where the teeth were found. But some enamel didn’t match. This meant the dinosaur must have migrated at some time to higher ground, more than likely in search of a better food source.
"In a theoretical sense, it's not hugely surprising,” Fricke said. “They are huge — they would probably have eaten themselves out of house and home if they stayed in one place.”
So the camarasaurs did what any hungry animal would do: they headed out in search of more food, even if it meant a migration of 200 miles into the higher regions and back. Seasonal droughts were probably another factor. The highlands would have had more rainfall and therefore more vegetation and water. When the wet season returned to the basin so would the camarasaur herds. Fricke estimates the seasonal herbivore hikes took around five months to complete. He also thinks if one kind of sauropod migrated, other genera probably did the same, and an analysis of their teeth would probably show similar results.