Here is something you don't find every day - 90 million year old exposed therizinosaurus dinosaur bones while out doing landscape photography.
But here they are. A nearly complete skeleton of this dinosaur was excavated at this spot. These small bones from the front legs of a dinosaur that walked upright were not recovered during the dig and have since become exposed by erosion.
For those into geology the bones are embedded in a layer of the tropic shale formation. The tropic shale is the flaky, gray colored material you see in this color photograph. The tropic shale is a heavily volcanic ash laden layer of sediments deposited at the bottom of an ancient ocean called the Cretaceous Western Inland Seaway.
There is a mystery, called "The Mystery of the Sickle-Claw Dinosaur", surrounding this particular therizinosaurus. And that mystery is, how did this land-based, plant eating dinosaur manage to get almost 60 miles out to sea and then buried intact at the bottom of the ocean?
...he fell in, but forgot to put on his life jacket so he drown. His body eventually bloated, then floated out to sea.
...his boat was capsized by a sea dino.
...he was stranded afloat on an ancient glacier, which melted above the spot he now lies.
...he was fishing at the beach when a sea dino grabbed him, and dragged him out to sea. A battle of sea dino's competing for the tasty morsel ensued. His body was dropped and forgotten.
...he was loafing around in the crater of the ancient volcano responsible for the Tropic Shale Formation. It blew and blasted him out to sea.
It’s all in the name Nothronychus graffami, Obviously a Italian Dinosaur that set sail to the new world. Within miles of completing his arduous undertaking, his ship capsized do to Hurricane Stega.
Its probably due to the fact that the oceans were much larger than they are now, and covered many inland areas, so the possibility of finding land creatures bones in the bottom of the ocean is just as likely as finding ocean creatures bones in unlikely inland spots.
Its probably due to the fact that the oceans were much larger than they are now, and covered many inland areas, so the possibility of finding land creatures bones in the bottom of the ocean is just as likely as finding ocean creatures bones in unlikely inland spots.
Its probably due to the fact that the oceans were much larger than they are now, and covered many inland areas, so the possibility of finding land creatures bones in the bottom of the ocean is just as likely as finding ocean creatures bones in unlikely inland spots.
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Arizona used to be under water, the only parts that weren't where the petrified forest
Unless I'm being especially dense, you guys are both kind of missing the point: yeah, we know Arizona was underwater at the time (hence the description of the bones as 60 miles out at sea), but this is a LAND dinosaur, so what's it doing way out there? Where it is NOW is land, but it was sea at the time he died...
Its probably due to the fact that the oceans were much larger than they are now, and covered many inland areas, so the possibility of finding land creatures bones in the bottom of the ocean is just as likely as finding ocean creatures bones in unlikely inland spots.
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Arizona used to be under water, the only parts that weren't where the petrified forest
Unless I'm being especially dense, you guys are both kind of missing the point: yeah, we know Arizona was underwater at the time (hence the description of the bones as 60 miles out at sea), but this is a LAND dinosaur, so what's it doing way out there? Where it is NOW is land, but it was sea at the time he died...
R.
the waters receded during the dinosaurs time, so the land area got bigger and bigger. In Tucson and surrounding areas, we have dinosaurs that where land and sea findings. You have to remember the dinosaur period went on for a jolly long time!
the waters receded during the dinosaurs time, so the land area got bigger and bigger. In Tucson and surrounding areas, we have dinosaurs that where land and sea findings. You have to remember the dinosaur period went on for a jolly long time!
But I imagine they can tell by the material it's embedded in that at the particular time and place the dinosaur died it WAS still far underwater, for example sea plants, shells etc. embedded in the same stone holding the bones.
*side note* We went looking for dinosaur bones in the coulees near Drumheller, Alberta a few days ago but only found garnets :( Then again, we didn't have the time for a serious hunt.
eta; Sigh... Slippy said it in a lot less words. I hate Slippy.
I see the "mystery" has generated some speculation... Some comments about those speculations...
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Maybe...
...he fell in, but forgot to put on his life jacket so he drown. His body eventually bloated, then floated out to sea.
Amazing enough, Strikeslip's first suggested solution to the "Mystery of the Sickle-Claw Dinosaur" is one seriously proposed in an article of the same name published in the science journal "Plateau: The Land and People of the Colorado Plateau", Museum of Northern Arizona, Fall 2007, Volume 4, Number 2
Originally posted by alans_world:
It’s all in the name Nothronychus graffami, Obviously a Italian Dinosaur that set sail to the new world. Within miles of completing his arduous undertaking, his ship capsized do to Hurricane Stega.
This dinosaur is named after it's discoverer, Merle Graffam. Merle is an American. He would play Strikeslip's hero in the movie. The paleontologist, not the geologist, is always the hero in dinosaur movies. Here is a picture of him at the discovery site:
If you look at the picture be sure to read in the description about the two special bones he is holding in his hands.
Strikeslip, an appropriate user name for a geologist, is both funny and right about most everything he says here. As is Bear_Music who never seems to be wrong about anything.
More Mystery! One last tidbit. Over 90% of the dinosaur skeleton was recovered. The only part missing: The Skull. Why?
I cheated and looked in Wikipedia about the missing skull just now. But it's not really an answer. My guess would've been that it was carried off by a hungry sea creature, or fell off and floated away. But apparently it's something related to the physiology of the beast. Cartilage-head?
You've also got an appropriate screen name if you're a paleontologist. :-O
IMHO skulls are usually made of bone and pretty damn heavy and not too much edible stuff on em. My guess is the skull's buried nearby but farther down.
IMHO skulls are usually made of bone and pretty damn heavy and not too much edible stuff on em. My guess is the skull's buried nearby but farther down.
You are in good company... there are paleontologists who believe that you are correct... especially the "further down" part, but NOT down deeper in the ground.
IMHO skulls are usually made of bone and pretty damn heavy and not too much edible stuff on em. My guess is the skull's buried nearby but farther down.
You are in good company... there are paleontologists who believe that you are correct... especially the "further down" part, but NOT down deeper in the ground.
But, but, but.... Wikipedia saaaays... "The feeding habits of Therizinosaurus are unknown, since no skull material has ever been found that could indicate its diet." ?
Curious... your comments mention that it had claws and walked upright like a Tyrannosaur, but was actually a plant eater. With the skull missing, how would you reach that conclusion since there would presumably be no teeth to examine. Given the mystery surrounding this particular specimen so far out to sea, it seems unlikely that there would be other ones in the area for comparison. There are certainly examples of similar species adapting to other food sources in different regions, so unless the stomach contents were also preserved, how would you know what it ate?
