A Guess Too Far

It's Wednesday, and this week, instead of my usual evolution post I am posting a semi-related article on paleontology. Stuff like this makes me just sorta sigh and shake my head in disbelief at the simple-minded irresponsibility of it all.

As a lover of science, good science, I tend to be a bit perturbed when I encounter stories like this.

A 41 foot carnivorous dinosaur, named Mapusaurus roseae has been discovered. It is thought to be a pack hunter that took down large suarpods. All of this is based off of the discovery a single, 100 million year old 3 ft long shinbone.

Note that all of this information has somehow been gleaned from a single shinbone.

I repeat, all this from one shinbone.

WHAT THE HELL?

When exactly did responsibility and science part company? This kind of irresponsible jumping to conclusions is becoming all too common.

Let’s assume for a moment that this bone is in fact, definitely a shinbone. This seems like a realistic thing to do because we are pretty good at identifying bone types. Where does all the rest of that come from?

How do we know that shinbone is even from a theropod if we have nothing else? Is it not possible that it is from a four legged dinosaur?

If it is from a two legged dinosaur, how do we know it was a carnivore instead of a very large two legged herbivore like the various duckbilled dinosaurs? We have found no teeth or skull structures.

And where the hell does this hunt in pack bit come from? Yes there were large suarpods in the same area, but this does not mean that any carnivores were busy hunting them in packs? Is there even one carnivore alive that hunts full grown elephants in packs? No. Therefore we have evidence in nature that we can observe that says that enormous size like the great suarpods had can be an effective defensive measure that eradicates predation on adults. We have absolutely no evidence of pack behavior in this new dinosaur. We have nothing but one shinbone.

As much as my imagination likes to be able to create images of a possible past, I don’t see anything of sufficient quality here to make any such speculations and call it science. How trained scientists can is a mystery to me.

One thing I do know for certain. If they ever find a similar shinbone, and a nearby skull of appropriate size has the broad, flat teeth of an herbivore there will be some seriously embarrassed storytellers, I mean scientists.

UPDATE:

Once in a great while I manage to go off half cocked. After reviewing more information about the dinosaur in this article I must admit that this was one such time.

Based upon a full review of the evidence I have to make an amendment to my initial assesment. It turns out that the size if the dinosaur was detrmined by the bone in question, but there were other bones at the site that were used to make the other determinations. Most importantly, there were skull and jaw fragments as well at least one tooth recovered from the site that provides more than ample evidence suggesting this dinosaur was indeed a carnivore.

Also, the supposed pack behavior was based upon the the fact that the toes of 7 distinct inviduals were discovered on the exact same site as the very first bone. The scientists who evaluated the evidence took it to mean that Mapusaurus Rosae was a pack hunter that took down prey much larger than itself. They are entitled to their professional opinion, however, it only took a few seconds to concoct other explanations that are equally valid based upon the evidence that was found. They are as follows:

1- There were so many remains in such a small place because ancient terain features were favorable to these animals dying there, such a pitfall or narrow ledge and it indicates nothing about the behavior of this animal.

2- Mapusaurus Rosae was a migratory hunter, and this was the nesting grounds. What was uncovered was a place used by many of this animal over generations due certain favorable conditions at the time. It did not hunt in packs, but chose this are to nest because of the young Saurpods recently hatched. Being a solitary hunter such abundant, and easy to kill prey would be a fantastic food source for a growing family.

3- The dinosaur may have hunted animals smaller than itself in a solitary fasion in the pattern of most large predators. The number of individuals found in this one spot are a concidence resulting from an abundamce of the animal in the are over the span of the species existence.

4- Many males of carnivourous animals will prey upon the young of thier own species in order to eliminate the offspring of the competition. It is possible that the younger individuals are there as a result of such predation at a lair or nest. The larger specimens are potentially the remains of mortally wounded males who were attacked by infuriated mothers, or possibly the remains of mothers who died atthe nest from mortal wounds.

5- In nature, sometimes even solitary aminals have an event that brings many of them together at one time. One fine example is deer in rut. A male will gather a herd of females temporarily for breeding pourposes. this could have been once such harem that was beset by a majar calamity resltin in the deat of most or all of the individuals i the group.

All of these alternatives are equally viable based upon the evidence on hand. The way scientists have jumped to conclusion sabout the behavior of a dinosaur we still know practically nothing about is irresponsible. There is no need to go beyond the fact and start teling stories just because you don;t have enough evidence to prove yourself right or wrong. The scientists who made all of these iresponsible assumptions regarding the behavior of this animal are still irresponsible storytellers, they just made up thier stories with a little more evidence than I initally knew about.