Mummified dinosaur skin yields up new secrets
July 1, 2009
Microprobe image of silicon distribution in a tendon from Dakota.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists from The University of Manchester have identified preserved organic molecules in the skin of a dinosaur that died around 66-million years ago.
The well-preserved fossil of the plant-eating hadrosaur - known as ‘Dakota’ - has been analysed by researchers writing in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The team report how the fossil's soft tissues were spared from decay by fine sediments that formed a mineral cast.
A wide range of tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures, although the constituent proteins have decayed.
Advanced imaging and chemical techniques have revealed that the mummified duckbilled dinosaur had two layers of skin - just like the skin of modern birds and reptiles, which scientists believe are closely related to duckbilled dinosaurs.
They believe the hippo-sized Dakota fell into a watery grave, with little oxygen present to speed along the decay process. Meanwhile, very fine sediments reacted with the soft tissues of the animal, forming a kind of cement.
As a result, the 66 million-year-old fossil still retains some of the organic matter of the original dinosaur, mixed in with the minerals.
"You're looking at cell-like structures; you slice through this and you're looking at the cell structure of dinosaur skin,” said Dr Phil Manning, Senior Lecturer in Palaeontology & Research Fellow School of Earth, Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences (SEAES). “That is absolutely gobsmacking."
Provided by University of Liverpool (news : web)
Dec 03, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
sigh.
This has been the problem with this site since its inception.
I think it is possible that we will evetually know enough about developmental genetics and morphology that we could write an ontogenic "program" that would recreate the shape and size of the hadrosaur. This might happen as soon as 10-25 years from now.
It seems less likely that we could ever know its exact biochemistry, as some of the needed evidence is molecule-sized. However, there may have been trillions of copies of some such molecules, and if one assumes that nanotech could eventually allow a precise atom-by-atom analysis of a fossil and its surroundings, a few might still be undecayed, and there might be sufficient information there to resolve most questions about the DNA sequences and protein expression in various tissues. I'd guess we're talking at least 50-100 years in the future though.
When in that department we are still possible 50 years away. Medicine and genetics has made great advances but we are still having trouble with the basic anti-biotics and they have been around for 50 years already.
So in predicting any advancement from understanding some DNA to be able to go to the next step of constructing an animal based on that DNA is a very big step.