Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Researchers have found tracks of a previously unknown, two-legged swimming dinosaur with birdlike characteristics in northern Wyoming and are looking for bones and other remains in order further identify and name it.
"It was about the size of an ostrich, and it was a meat-eater," said Debra Mickelson, a University of Colorado graduate student in geological sciences. "The tracks suggest it waded along the shoreline and swam offshore, perhaps to feed on fish or carrion."
The tracks indicate a dinosaur that was about 6 feet tall and lived about 165 million years ago along an ancient inland sea, Mickelson said in a university news release.
"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," she said. "The tracks show how it became more buoyant as it waded into deeper water the full footprints gradually become half-footprints and then only claw marks."
Mickelson said research so far by herself and others supports the "conclusion that the dinosaurs were intentionally swimming out to sea, perhaps to feed."
Mickelson was presenting her findings at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting this week in Salt Lake City and was unavailable for comment.
The finding would be significant because so far no one has been able to prove that aquatic dinosaurs existed, Joanna Wright, assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado-Denver, said Monday. There were swimming reptiles that are now extinct, Wright said.
Wright said she has not reviewed what Mickelson and other researchers involved have found, but she would be interested in seeing photos of the tracks.
The news has perked up the ears of some prominent paleontologists.
"I'm not a trackway specialist, but it sounds pretty cool to me," Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies and one of the nation's leading fossil hunters, said by telephone from Bozeman, Mont.
Horner said he was unaware of any previously discovered dinosaur tracks "where it actually goes from land into the water."
The unique tracks were found at a number of sites in northern Wyoming, including the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area along the Wyoming-Montana state line.
The tracks are embedded in a layer of rock known as the Middle Jurassic Bajocian Gypsum Spring Formation. Geologists believe an inland sea covered Wyoming and a large area of the western United States during the Jurassic period from about 157 million to 165 million years ago.
Mickelson said the unidentified dinosaur tracks are found among tracks left by many animals, including ancient crocodiles and marine worms, and are of different sizes.
The tracks suggest that the dinosaur traveled in packs and exhibited some variation in overall size, she said.
Mickelson collaborated her findings with researchers from CU-Boulder, Indiana University, Dartmouth College, Tennessee Technological University and the University of Massachusetts.
"We see animals ever day.... carnivores that go into water... but don't hunt fish. Don't swim out to sea.... aren't part reptile part giant bird."
I am sure you had a point but just forgot to make it.
"Would you agree that there is not a shred of evidence beyond the foot prints as to what this new friend really was or what it looked like?"
The footprints ARE the evidence. Why do you assume nothing can be learned from footprints?
The finding would be significant because so far no one has been able to prove that aquatic dinosaurs existed, Joanna Wright, assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado-Denver, said Monday. There were swimming reptiles that are now extinct, Wright said.
So it's pretty much necessary to have the speculation in order to make the article significant... don't you think? The idea that this animal swam out to sea and fed off of fish etc. Other wise it just becomes an animal with no better swimming skills... and no better intention than my dog has. Isn't that right?
I don't assume that nothing can be learned from foot prints. But I'm not sure you can construct a part bird, part reptile animal that swims out to sea to eat fish and carrion for it's food source..... from foot prints. Why would you assume that one could?
A fair and accurate representation would be to say ... we found dinasour tracks... we think it's 165 million years old.... it appears they headed into water. We're looking for bones to figure out what the animal looked like.
Presumably the strata have been dated, or are bracketed by dated strata, or the figure would not have been cited. In that case the statement would implicate the theories (and the technical practices) involved in the dating procedures that were utilized. So, I'd say...
It's a claim deduced from data as interpreted by generally accepted theories appropriate to interpreting that data.
"I think this article was very unscientific."
That's nice.
Do you really see evidence there to construct a part bird, part reptile animal?
Where do you get the "part bird" part? Nothing in the article said it was "part bird."
What do you understand it to mean when it says "birdlike characteristics".
"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," she said.
What have they found that says demonstrates there were two limbs that never touched the ground?
"Bird-like characteristics" does not equal (!=) "part bird." Pteranodons had "bat-like wings." This does not mean they were part bat. What have they found that says demonstrates there were two limbs that never touched the ground?
There were no tracks of the forelimbs? Only two feet left the tracks, not four. This would indicate the dinosaur was bipedal, as indeed many dinosaurs were.
And so what are those bird like characteristics?? And how do these tracks tell us that our new friend had these characteristics?
What's with the double question marks?
Maybe it was an ostrich with wierd feet? 175 million years ago... an Ostrich could have had any sort of feet don't you think. Maybe it was a big bird.
Who knows..... maybe you're a big bird :) Just kidding
Must have been worth it enough for you, though, as you've been on this thread since its inception.
It wasn't the article... it was you Junior that made my time here worthwhile.....
Maybe it was an elf. Or a leprechaun. Or one of the Lizard Men of Zeta Reticuli.
You are taking a data point in a vacuum. You do realize there is a lot more data out there regarding this time period, its flora and fauna, don't you? The researchers are interpreting this data point in the context of all that other data.
But you agree there is no real evidence that it's really a 4 legged dinasour that walks on it's hind legs with bird like characteristics, and swims out to sea to feed on fish and carrion? Don't you??
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.