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.
The O.J. jury perhaps. Or are you one of those folks who think forensic science is just so much guesswork?
This is pretty well stated. I hadn't heard the term pit-ignorant in a long time. My grandfather use to use it when talking about someone who would believe anything you told them. Of course... in 1969 he was saying that there was no way those guys were really on the moon. :)
Well, your post 6 indicates you haven't studied at all. As I said, you berate with ignorance.
Well... I don't believe everything I see on CSI... do you?
Did I say anything about CSI? Do you think CSI is the only example of forensic science?
I just asked you if you believed everything you see on CSI? Do you have a problem saying NO... I don't believe all of that?
It's already hot and heavy here. Who woulda thunk it for a dinosaur thread?
And do you really think that saying "all dinosaures we have found to date with 3 toes were carnivores".... do you really think that's a part of forensic science???
I've studied enough about forensic science to know some of the stuff shown on that show is just straight fiction. I still enjoy the show, though.
It's a good thing you pinged some help.... I think you're gonna need it.
You're suppose to be smarter than the rest of us non scientists.... why are you pinging somebody else here to help you???
That the footprints are 165 million years old.
This footprints went from land into water.
This dinosaur was 6 feet tall.
This dinosaur ate meat.
This dinosaur is an ancester of birds.
This dinosaur was born on a Tuesday.
Every statements above are ludicrous and could only be made by someone who is ignorant of science.
The really stupid statement is when he says "all 3 toed dinosaures to date were carnivores"... and then he talks about forensic science.....
The modern animals that dwell along the beaches and then go swimming (seals, sealions, walruses, whatnot) are carnivores; they enter the water to hunt fish or shellfish. There isn't a whole lot of grazing available that close to shore. So, we have two data points for the animal being a carnivore. In the actual published paper (not the article above) odds are the researchers will say the animal was probably a carnivore.
It's built on supposition. That's what we're telling you. And you can believe it because you're smarter than the rest of us.
Might as well toss in "grammatically challenged". As has been pointed out already, the first few statements can quite readily be inferred from the evidence. The last two are simply your own invention and really don't fit in with the rest, unless the purpose of such a post is to compare and contrast someone else's knowledge and insight with your own...well, whatever it is.
" Three-toed dinosaurs discovered to date have been carnivores."
Based on what evidence?
I doubt they found their intestines lying around for perusal.
I'm not just guessing here. This is all testable and verifiable. I may be mad, but I am a scientist.
Now, if you knew anything about science, as I pointed out earlier, you would know how the researchers arrived at their conclusions, which makes your last two list items and your concluding statement look ignorant in the extreme. Nice try, though, trying to get your two ignorant conclusions lumped in with the well-founded conclusions drawn by the researchers and then claiming the entire thing was ignorant.
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.