New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[nwrep]

New Dinosaur Species Found in India

2 hours, 55 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

AP Photo Missed Tech Tuesday? Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget

The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.

[AndrewC]

Thank you for that. I was beginning to wonder if I was reading something that was not there.

It is the "enemy of the people" mentality. The government wants something of yours and you fight back, then you might lose it all.

[AndrewC]

You and I see eye to eye on this and you know we have been on opposite sides of the fence often.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

That about sums it all up in my mind too.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Indeed, the above post might seem harsh to one who has not followed the entire conversation.

One of the forum guidelines is that an argument from a previous thread should not be carried over to another thread. But since the subject poster brought bitterness from a thread in the Smokey Backroom - into this thread by his posts 464, 550, 554, 574, 575 - the "willing poster" was justified to end it quickly here in the formal sense by asking that we ignore his posts.

For the severity of the response to make sense, one would need to begin reading the subject thread in the Smokey Backroom starting at post 2288 One would also need to keep in mind the off-forum relationship between the subject poster and one who no longer posts here.

I personally quit trying to communicate with the subject poster at post 2640 when I responded to some frankly, personal accusations.

Truly, the Smokey Backroom issue should not have gotten out of the Smokey Backroom. But since it is here, the solution under the agreement is to not engage a disruptor.

[AndrewC]

Truly, the Smokey Backroom issue should not have gotten out of the Smokey Backroom. But since it is here, the solution under the agreement is to not engage a disruptor.

That is not the point. Scarlet letters are the point.

[AndrewC]

Truly, the Smokey Backroom issue should not have gotten out of the Smokey Backroom.

I may also ask where this troll label on posts 58 and 59 of this thread came from. There was no background associated with them. Why should anyone accept the labels thrown out by others with no substantiation?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Scarlet letters are the point.

That happens to the issue of contention for which the vote was called. One initiative was that a troll should not be called a troll. The other was that a troll should be called a troll only after a polite warning, followed by a refusal to behave, followed by a notice not to engage, followed by a refusal to behave.

In the vote, the troll-calling provision won in a landslide. That of course means that the willing posters will make on-thread polite warnings and notices not to engage.

If this issue is intolerable to others, then it should be brought up in the review and voted on again. If it cannot wait, we can have a review even now if some of the willing from both sides can agree to an earlier review and a mediator.

[Aric2000]

Oh, I don't know, maybe the OBVIOUS Flamebaiting in post 56?

Hmm, seemed fairly obvious to me and many others.

ALS was once again baiting for a flamewar, so I posted a warning, just as the agreement states I can.

If he had chosen to make his statement in a less inflaming way, I would have left it alone, but the boy has no finesse, and had to attack, so I gave the warning, just as I should have, then PH followed it up with a more succinct and explanatory post.

Pretty obvious to me where those 2 posts came from, or do you think that saying.....

To: StolarStorm

Just because evolution is an extinct dinosaur doesn't make dinosaurs the exclusive domain of extinct evoloonies.

Free speech is a problem for you. You should start your own discussion club in your closet where it's relatively safe.


56 posted on 08/14/2003 3:32 PM PDT by ALS

Responding to this, by a NONsignatory, and someone that had no idea the agreement even existed..

To: PatrickHenry

It would be nice if the creationists would simply stop trying to 'witness' on the science threads. Discussions regarding a purely scientific topic do not require any input from those who have no belief (or understanding) of the scientific method. They should feel free to discuss creationism all they want on threads dedicated to that topic.


51 posted on 08/14/2003 1:19 PM PDT by StolarStorm

Was NOT indeed an invitation to start a flamewar?

I believe it was safe to say that ALS was baiting a flamewar, just as he always has.

As I said, pretty obvious to me. Then again, I saw it coming and was waiting for him to do just what he did.

[AndrewC]

In the vote, the troll-calling provision won in a landslide.

Of course, it was already being used by one side. Why would they want to lose a weapon? Again you may have not gotten to my subsequent post, but where did the troll label in posts 58 and 59 arise? Why would anyone accept an unsubstantiated label. Those who know why the label is given, need no warning, and those that do not know why need evidence for that label.

[js1138]

I may also ask where this troll label on posts 58 and 59 of this thread came from. There was no background associated with them. Why should anyone accept the labels thrown out by others with no substantiation?

There was considerable discussion leading up to 58. It started with post #5:

Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings. Some may even be alive today.

This is equivalent to saying the resurection didn't happen. Perhaps it can be discussed, but to toss it out as a fact without giving an argument is just inciting.

The particular path that led to 58 and 59 is not clear or direct. Perhaps it shouldn't have happened.

[Aric2000]

Please see post 628, and the troll provision had already been made in another thread. ALS practically begged for it, so he got it.

A person that has been posted as a troll, does NOT get a fresh start on a new one, the name sticks as soon as they prove that they are going to continue the behavior.

#56 proved it beyond a doubt for me.

[Aric2000]

Please see post 628 for an explanation, and 631.

[AndrewC]

Aric, I will state this clearly and in sequence. Post 56 is the initial entry of ALS into this thread. Post 58 was your troll alert. ---Noncomplying, flamewar starting, trolling poster in the thread placemarker. It had no substantiation. It was not even directly addressed to the supposed victim since you directed it to post 52 with the addition of the generic "ALL". Post 59 was another unsubstantiated direct label of ALS as a troll. NO warnings, NO substantiation, nothing but a label.

[AndrewC]

The particular path that led to 58 and 59 is not clear or direct. Perhaps it shouldn't have happened.

ALS made one post at post 56.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Why should anyone accept the labels thrown out by others with no substantiation?

I don't see how anything can be done to make a person "accept" a label - especially perhaps the one being labeled. The troll-calling provision is roughly the equivalent of posting a "sharks in the water" sign on the beach. Not everyone will pay attention and the sharks probably don't appreciate it - but in the end, if someone doesn't get injured then it was worth the effort.

If you believe the original infringement ought be cited on a "do not feed the trolls" post, then you ought to bring it up in the review - or better yet, post it to the current Agreement thread so the mediator will be sure to remember the suggestion.

I will probably argue against your view though because I would rather not bring out all the dirty laundry every time we need to advise other posters that engaging a particular poster might lead to a flame war. A compromise solution might be a Freep mail to the newbies on the thread, but again it troubles me to speak behind someone's back.

Bottom line: the agreement is still quite young and subject to change and suggestions are much appreciated.

[Aric2000]

I did NOT have to give a substantiation, the substantiation had already been given on another thread.

Once a person proves that they are a troll, and it has been done per the agreement on another thread, said poster DOES NOT get to start fresh on another thread.

If, and I say IF, he had stated it in another less flamebaiting way, if he had neglected to attack the poster as he did, then I would have left it alone.

He was showing to ALL of us, that his behavior from the OTHER thread was going to indeed continue in this one.

No warning had to be given, it had already been stated in another thread.

It was a DONE deal, finished, he was on troll alert from then on.

He stepped in it, so I pushed the button.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may interrupt. The idea of a troll warning is to prevent the disruption before it happens.

[Aracelis]

I am aware that as a Christian, I am in uncharted waters here and will not attempt to swim with sharks, no pun intended. I am aware that I am in the minority.

You are completely entitled to your opinions and viewpoints, and I will defend your rights to such anytime, anywhere...as long as the opposing party(s) viewpoint is also respected. That being said, welcome aboard! As Alamo-Girl has already explained, it can get pretty "lively" in here, but it can also be a lot of fun and certainly quite informative. Enjoy!

[AndrewC]

The troll-calling provision is roughly the equivalent of posting a "sharks in the water" sign on the beach.

Sharks in the water signs, with people swimming in the surf is hard to imagine. I find your equivalency extremely weak and abetting of a well established tactic used to quell honest debate.

[Aric2000]

If 56 was honest debate, then I am a creationist.

That was pure and simply called a flamebait.

The warning was posted immediately to put a stop to it before it got out of hand.

To warn others NOT to engage the obvious flamebaiting poster that had posted BEFORE the warning.

And THAT post was #56 and it was so obvious that it was insane.