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.
 
They were also all black of mixed ethnicity and fought against patriarchal gender norms.
Beat me to it. I was going to say that I was hoping this article would tell us that dinosaurs were taught culture and technology by Sub-Saharan Africans who were actually alive millions of years before humans and were actually Kings (T-"Rex).

I also wonder when we will be told dinosaurs were all actually gender non conforming.
 
Maybe, but not to the point that it is today.
When I was a kid, before Jurassic Park (either book or movie) came out, I had multiple toy collections based on dinosaurs (Dino-Riders and Bone Age), DIY paleontology kits, rafts of dinosaur-themed books, my dad installed a graphics card in his IBM XT for the first time so that I could play Designosaurus 2 ( a big leap up from the original Designosaurus that was on the school Apples), there were touring animatronic museum shows, etc. Banking on kids being Super Into Dinosaurs was a massive industry well before Crichton came along.
 
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.
Chrichton also had the insane foresight to make his dinosaurs fast and smart, especially the raptors and the Rex.

In the book, Muldoon the head ranger mentions just how ridiculously hard to kill dinosaurs and especially raptors are. He has to special order what's essentially a small anti tank rocket launcher to kill them as single shot hunting firearms wouldn't cut it and even machine guns needed to put a lot of rounds into them to kill them.

The book also states that if it wasn't for the asteroid then mammals would never have been allowed to evolve past a mouse by whatever the raptors/other dinosaurs evolved into.
 
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.
Consider this, Paleontology is a borderline pseudo science filled with the biggest spergs you've ever seen.
That is, according to my Paleontologist friend.
 
Every time I read about how they'd recreate a dinosaur and what dinosaurs were really like, I just remember this stuff.

EZB6v6QWAAAB2qg.png

And, of course, this line of memes:

23-5f0c48c1411e7__700.jpg


16-5f0c44e067169__700.jpg
(This one is legit freaky in the middle)

20-5f0c46e3846d2__700.jpg
skull-how-aliens-would-reconstruct-animal-meme-fb24-png__700.jpg

1-5f0c2e546259b__700.jpg

(And my favorite)
3-1.jpg
 
Every time I read about how they'd recreate a dinosaur and what dinosaurs were really like, I just remember this stuff.
I love these type of pictures, always give me a good laugh and they really are interesting.
Although I agree that "skinwrapping" is most likely incorrect, I really dislike how it was replaced by wild speculation on how soft tissue might have looked like on dinosaurs. Thanks to this, we get shit like the walrus Spino.
At some point we just have to accept, that we may never know how dinos truly looked, sounded and behaved like.
 
Finally some news about dinosaurs that isn't trying to make them gay and lame.
 
The book also states that if it wasn't for the asteroid then mammals would never have been allowed to evolve past a mouse by whatever the raptors/other dinosaurs evolved into.
It's interesting to note that the mammals were able to rise after the K-Pg extinction event because their size precluded a large nutritional requirement.

As to other comments in the thread, I can understand the derision towards academia. However, I'd like to read the actual study - the pop science article displayed here reflects what the journo thought was important.
 
At a time where anything could be a prey animal, you needed more neurons to be able to react and move with actual speed. Especially with a body that big and several predators being smaller and more numerous.
 
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.
He repudiated that in the second book, but it was supposedly based on skull casts. They still do that to estimate how dinosaur brains might have worked, though I doubt it gets as specific as Alan Grant's "if I don't move I'm visible" hypothesis.

(I think in the second book someone tries Grant's trick and gets eaten. Levine says, "Grant was an idiot. The T-rex had just eaten, it wasn't hungry.")
 
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.
Iirc explained in Lost World book the reason the t.rex had issues seeing was because of the storm happening. Dr. Malcolm points out "vision based on movement" is bullshit and even leads to characters being killed.
 
Iirc explained in Lost World book the reason the t.rex had issues seeing was because of the storm happening. Dr. Malcolm points out "vision based on movement" is bullshit and even leads to characters being killed.
No, The Lost World just shits on the idea of T. Rexes having retard vision with no explanation for what happened to Grant in Jurassic Park. Crichton didn't want to write a sequel and put a lot of stuff into that sequel that deliberately creates inconsistencies, plot holes, hanging threads etc.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo