The oldest dinosaur precursor from South America is discovered in Brazil

Credit: skeleton by Maurício Silva Garcia; photo and composition by Rodrigo Temp Müller

Paleontologists from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) published a study in the scientific periodic Gondwana Research describing the new fossilized specimen.

The oldest dinosaurs have been excavated from fossiliferous layers with approximately 233 million years from Brazil and Argentina. Furthermore, some older Argentinean deposits revealed remains of dinosaur precursors, which provide crucial data on the origin of "true" dinosaurs. These creatures lived approximately 236 million years ago and were small, with no more than 1 meter in length.

Whereas the fossil record of dinosaur precursors is relatively abundant in Argentina, there are no clear records of these animals from Brazil. Actually, no so far. A new specimen exhumed from the central region of the Rio Grande do Sul state revealed a set of traits unique from the group that encompasses the dinosaurs and their close relatives. The specimen was studied and published by the paleontologist from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Dr. Rodrigo Temp Müller and the Master's Degree student from the same institution Maurício Silva Garcia.

The fossil comprises a femur with 11 centimeters in length and bears diagnostic features that allows the assignation to the group named Dinosauromorpha. This group includes the dinosaurs and their close ancestors. Nevertheless, the most interesting fact is that the specimen was excavated from a fossiliferous site with approximately 237 million years. Therefore, it is the oldest record of a dinosaur precursor from South America. The fossil fills a gap in the Brazilian record and reveals that the dinosaur's ancestors lived in South America 1 million year before than previously expected.

Regarding the rest of the world, there are dinosaur precursors from Tanzania and Zambia that are possible older than the Brazilian record. However, some studies have questioned the age of these locations, indicating that these deposits are younger.

Another interesting fact relies on the fossilferous content from the site that yielded the new specimen. The fossiliferous site yielded numerous skeletons of large reptiles, such as the crocodile-relative Prestosuchus chiniquensis, a giant top tier predator with 7 meters in length. These creatures were far more abundant and larger than the dinosaur precursors, which were approximately 1 meter in length. Therefore, the dinosaur ancestors faced innumerous challenges before to evolve to large and dominant creatures in the next Periods of the Mesozoic Era.

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled “211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull.” We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents “conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.” Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the “Malibu Barbie”. It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it’s modern origin:
1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
3. The dentition pattern evident on the “skull” is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the “ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams” you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
B. Clams don’t have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it’s normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating’s notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation’s Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name “Australopithecus spiff-arino.” Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn’t really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation’s capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the “trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix” that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

“ideas about “dragons” came from?” Yes...

Dragons, Basilisks, Griffons, and other mythical monsters of all kinds found in literature from the Middle Ages and before-maybe even the Thunderbird (no-not the car)-plenty of people found fossilized bones of these “monsters” on construction sites, etc just like we do-they just didn’t know where they came from or a way to date them-so they made a supposition based on what they saw and wrote about it-there are written accounts/stories from as long ago as ancient Greece-and no doubt others we just haven’t found yet.

People didn’t have facts, so they made assumptions-primitive people still do it-check out “cargo cults” and a few other myths espoused by tribal societies who do not really interact with the outside world...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.