Culture T.Rex may have been capable of problem-solving and even culture, study claims. - Jurassic Park wrong again

Daily Mail: T.Rex may have been capable of problem-solving and even culture, study claims.


When you think about Tyrannosaurus Rex, you may imagine a roaring beast crashing through trees or tearing at its prey.

However, a more realistic image may involve the theropod dinosaur carefully crafting a fork with which to pick at a carcass, or peacefully interacting with its friends.


That's because new research from Vanderbilt University in the US has revealed that T. Rex may have had the same number of brain neurons as modern primates.


If this was the case, it would have been able to solve problems, create tools to use and even engage in cultural behaviours.


New research from Vanderbilt University in the USA has revealed that T. rex (pictured) may have had the same number of brain neurons as modern primates




WHAT WAS T. REX?
Tyrannosaurus rex was a species of bird-like, meat-eating dinosaur.

It lived between 68–66 million years ago in what is now the western side of North America.

They could reach up to 40 feet (12 metres) long and 12 feet (4 metres) tall.

More than 50 fossilised specimens of T. Rex have been collected to date.

The monstrous animal had one of the strongest bites in the animal kingdom.



Dinosaurs ruled Earth from some 179 million years, before suddenly being wiped out in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event around around 66 million years ago.

Prior to that, certain species had evolved bird-like features, like feathers, wings, claws and enlarged skulls.

This was a gradual process that started 100 million years ago and spanned tens of millions more.

It is thought that the small body size of some of these bird-like species is what helped them dodge extinction, and allowed them to evolve into modern birds.

As the soft tissues of dinosaurs are rarely preserved in fossils, not much is definitively known about their brains.

However, as they are known to be related to birds, information about them could be drawn from the brains of today's emus and ostriches.

For the study, published in The Journal Of Comparative Neurology, Dr Suzana Herculano-Houzel aimed to discover the cognitive capabilities of dinosaurs like T. Rex by looking at the brains of modern sauropsids - birds, turtles and scaled reptiles.

Recent studies have revealed that, despite their small heads, birds are intelligent.

For example, Eurasian jays are able to resist temptation to get a better reward, while crows have been described as being as smart as seven-year-olds.

Birds have been found to have more neurons per ounce of brain compared to mammals and primates, giving them the ability to solve problems.



Dr Herculano-Houzel studied the fossilised skulls of theropods - a group of bipedal dinosaurs that includes T. Rex - and existing sauropsids using CT scans.

She deduced that the dinosaurs would have had a similar brain mass to birds of the same size that can be traced back to pre-asteroid times.

Therefore, the neuroscientist could make assumptions about the T. Rex's brain by scaling up that of an emu, ostrich or chicken, as they are in proportion.

She next calculated how many neurons theropods would have had using the number and brain mass known to be possessed by sauropsids.


Relationship between neuron number and body mass for dinosaurs and modern animals. Asterisks = dinosaurs, Red polygons = modern birds, Green stitches = modern non-avian sauropsids, Red circles = primates

Estimates of numbers of neurons in dinosaur and pterosaur species compared to modern primates. Values below each image are numbers of telencephalic neurons (in millions, M) and brain mass (in grams)
Her findings suggest that T. Rex would have had a brain mass of 343 grams and 3,289,000,000 telencephalic neurons, not far from the 2,875,000,000 found in baboons.

A separate study by Dr Herculano-Houzel found that the number of neurons in warm-blooded animals correlates to their life expectancy by a mathematical equation.

Using this equation, she suggests that the T. Rex would have lived for between 42 and 49 years, despite the oldest known specimen estimated to have lived to 28 years.

In her study, she wrote: 'An elephant-sized but agile carnivoran biped endowed with macaque- or baboon-like cognition must have been an extremely competent predator indeed.

'The present findings invite the speculation that theropod dinosaurs such as T. Rex, with even more telencephalic neurons than modern tool-using and tool-making corvids, had the biological capability to use and craft tools, and develop a culture, like modern birds and primates.'


The infamous Tyrannosaurus Rex - or T. rex - could have weighed up to 33,000lb (15,000 kg) when it roamed the Earth.

This is just over the weight of two elephants, or a London double-decker bus, and is 70 per cent more than previously thought.

Researchers from the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa built a model that predicted the maximum size of the prehistoric beast.

So far, only 32 adult T. rex specimens have been discovered out of an estimated population of 2.5 billion.

The largest of these is 'Scotty', who weighed more than 19,400lb (8,800 kg) and was more than 42ft (13 m) long when it roamed what is now the western side of North America between 68 and 66 million years ago.

However, researchers say the specimens discovered may not be an accurate representation of the species, and that undiscovered individuals may have been much larger.
 
Not to doubt that crows wuz Rexes an sheeit but am I misreading this? It seems to imply they're as capable as primates but then immediately says the opposite by pointing out that although they have a similar amount of neurons their bodies are much more massive, even including a graph which shows that by neuron to body mass they're still less than primates. Edit: After looking back over their graph that's a pain in the ass to see shit on I notice one primate below the theropods, so they may have been smarter than niggers.
 
From what I've heard, Michael Crichton was guessing in some of the Jurassic Park novels. For example, the "their vision is based on movement" notion.

I don't hold that against him, though. Before Jurassic Park, paleontology wasn't much more than a niche science. It boomed in popularity afterward.

Sure, Crichton was wrong on some things, but he was working with what was known at the time. It'd be like judging Jules Verne for not knowing theories developed by Einstein or Hawking.
 
However, a more realistic image may involve the theropod dinosaur carefully crafting a fork with which to pick at a carcass, or peacefully interacting with its friends.

How the fuck could they have crafted anything with those tiny arms?
t44a800_clap.jpg
 
From what I've heard, Michael Crichton was guessing in some of the Jurassic Park novels. For example, the "their vision is based on movement" notion.

I don't hold that against him, though. Before Jurassic Park, paleontology wasn't much more than a niche science. It boomed in popularity afterward.

Sure, Crichton was wrong on some things, but he was working with what was known at the time. It'd be like judging Jules Verne for not knowing theories developed by Einstein or Hawking.
Wasn’t that a result of them using frog DNA? The reasoning is glossed over in the movie. I believe the idea was abandoned in the following novel/media.
 
Wasn’t that a result of them using frog DNA? The reasoning is glossed over in the movie. I believe the idea was abandoned in the following novel/media.
No, the frog DNA was to fill some gaps in their genetic code. But some African frogs can apparently troon themselves if they are in an environment overwhelmed by one sex. So the dinosaurs in JP, which were supposed to be all-female, were able to troon themselves and reproduce.

Though I highly doubt that would translate to an entirely different species. Sorry, trannies.
 
From what I've heard, Michael Crichton was guessing in some of the Jurassic Park novels. For example, the "their vision is based on movement" notion.

I don't hold that against him, though. Before Jurassic Park, paleontology wasn't much more than a niche science. It boomed in popularity afterward.

Sure, Crichton was wrong on some things, but he was working with what was known at the time. It'd be like judging Jules Verne for not knowing theories developed by Einstein or Hawking.
Plus in the series it's easy to retcon anyways - they're genetically engineered hybrids whose DNA the scientists had to guess at in certain places, and not real dinosaurs as existed millions of years ago.
 
No, the frog DNA was to fill some gaps in their genetic code. But some African frogs can apparently troon themselves if they are in an environment overwhelmed by one sex. So the dinosaurs in JP, which were supposed to be all-female, were able to troon themselves and reproduce.

Though I highly doubt that would translate to an entirely different species. Sorry, trannies.
Yeah but the idea of vision being based on movement is that frogs operate that way. So that would be an unintended behavior as a result of the dna splicing.
 
So you look at the skeleton of a long-extinct animal, look at other animals that you believe it to be related to, and extrapolate its intelligence from that?

Jesus Christ, nobody can even agree what these things looked like with their soft tissue intact, much less their rudimentary life processes, much less the possibility of complex intelligent behavior. This is complete bullshitting "well, I'll betcha they were like this" and entirely lacking in rigor or merit.
 
So you look at the skeleton of a long-extinct animal, look at other animals that you believe it to be related to, and extrapolate its intelligence from that?

Jesus Christ, nobody can even agree what these things looked like with their soft tissue intact, much less how they lived, much less the possibility of complex intelligent behavior. This is complete bullshitting "well, I'll betcha they were like this" and entirely lacking in rigor or merit.
A true scientist is full of uncertainty, and sometimes has to make educated guesses based on their observations. Part of the Scientific Method is falsifiability.

The "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" cretins who idolize Neil DeGrasse Dyson's every word make a mockery of science.
 
I don't hold that against him, though. Before Jurassic Park, paleontology wasn't much more than a niche science. It boomed in popularity afterward.
lolwut

Kids have been wanting to be paleontologists for as long as there have been books with pictures of dinosaurs and skeletons at the museum.
 
Jesus Christ, nobody can even agree what these things looked like with their soft tissue intact
I genuinely wonder how dinosaurs are going to look like based on the decree of Holy Science a few decades from today.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me paleontology is a fairly limited field. You can only do so much with a bunch of old bones, before your extrapolations start to sound like absolute bullshit fantasies, like this "theory".
 
Atrás
Top Abajo