72 million-year-old dinosaur tail unearthed in nearly perfect condition

Conaculta
This is the only articulated tail of such copies so far been discovered in Mexico, the 50 excavated vertebrae are united and reach five meters.

TheVerge

The fossilized remains of a truly ancient dinosaur have been discovered in the north-Mexican state of Coahuila. Remarkably preserved for their estimated age of 72 million years, the 50 vertebrae that were dug up once formed the basis for a 15-foot tail that was attached to a 40-foot dinosaur. Although the researchers from Mexico's National Institute for Anthropology and History aren't yet certain of the species of dino involved, their early findings suggest it might have been a hadrosaur, also known as a duck-billed dinosaur.

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


What happened to the rest of the fossil? I would like to know who the tail belonged to. Hopefully we'll find out soon.

Remarkable discovery and a testament to just how much is still out there to discover.

When we are talking about the vertabre being attached, are they still attached by some fossilized ligaments? Can we go Jurasic Park on his ass?

Nice find and thanks for sharing....

There is so much to learn of our past and it's typically hard to piece things together.....but when you find something already together, man is that a treasure trove or what?!?!?!

Loven it!

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


Rocks, I just see rocks!

reply to post by Phoenix267
He would of looked like this.



Or this, on bad day!

I bet that dyno is searching for a decent retailer.....





what?

edit: terrible joke aside, very cool find, both the dyno nutters and you OP

reply to post by Atzil321


I love these awesome pictures. I feel like a kid again looking at dinosaur pictures. It's amazing how different the world was and how they ruled the earth in the past.

Looks like the tail from that lizard guy in the new Spiderman movie. They will not find the body because he grew a new tail.

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

reply to post by jiggerj


It's funny, I was thinking that too.
72 million years is an incredibly long time. Given the dramatic changes that science tells us the earth has been through (ice ages, drought, epic periods of heat and cold), how could ANYTHING possibly survive? Surely everything should have been destroyed and remade over and over? 72 million years of erosion... 72 million years of depositing... I can't imagine anything surviving that long, rock or not.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

What happened to the rest of the fossil? I would like to know who the tail belonged to.

I know, right?! Perhaps it is an ancient (HUGE) ancestor of the little lizards that lose their tails when a predator grabs hold, then grow another. (Well in that case, I can't fathom the size of the predator...)

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

Rocks, I just see rocks!

I guess you can say that about raw diamonds too

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

Rocks, I just see rocks!

I guess you can say that about raw diamonds too

edit on 24-7-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

Yeah was equating with the ones showed on mars and the responses, it does remind me of "rocks" seen on mars.

I know the power of imagination but it should be combined with logic, not with wishful thinking. 72 million years is not funny, even its faraway from imagine too. You should remember that, Dinosaur was a giant organic material, not especial kind of bacteria or virus. No it’s unacceptable.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

It's all in the carbon dating or I should say incorrect dating method.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

It's all in the carbon dating or I should say incorrect dating method.

Hey smart guy, their dating method had nothing to do with carbon

Originally posted by Awen24
reply to post by jiggerj

 

It's funny, I was thinking that too.
72 million years is an incredibly long time. Given the dramatic changes that science tells us the earth has been through (ice ages, drought, epic periods of heat and cold), how could ANYTHING possibly survive? Surely everything should have been destroyed and remade over and over? 72 million years of erosion... 72 million years of depositing... I can't imagine anything surviving that long, rock or not.

Pfft 72 million years is nothing. Some of the oldest dated surface rock is ~4 billion years old. The oldest dated signs of life are ~3.7 billion years old..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

It's all in the carbon dating or I should say incorrect dating method.

Hey smart guy, their dating method had nothing to do with carbon

My point exactly!!!!

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

It's all in the carbon dating or I should say incorrect dating method.

You can only carbon date organic material. Not rocks. Not fossils. It can only date organic material that goes back approximately 60,000 years give or take. Nobody made any claims of using this method to date the fossils. Nothing wrong with being skeptical as long as you understand the science behind what your skeptical of.

Originally posted by peter vlar

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

That piece of land hasn't moved in 72 million years? Can anyone explain this?

It's all in the carbon dating or I should say incorrect dating method.

You can only carbon date organic material. Not rocks. Not fossils. It can only date organic material that goes back approximately 60,000 years give or take. Nobody made any claims of using this method to date the fossils. Nothing wrong with being skeptical as long as you understand the science behind what your skeptical of.

Yes - but I do understand the different dating methodology. Problem is, when report like a "72 million-year-old dinosaur tail unearthed in nearly perfect condition" is released, it's accepted as though it's a fact. But the truth is the number "72 million" is misleading for it's NOT the age of the "organic material - carbon" but the age of the the "rocks" that bracketed the organic material.

In short - "72 million" is the age of the rock NOT the "fossil". By using radiometric dating they are able to approximate the decay of the radioactive elements in the rocks.

As it's already widely accepted - carbon dating has an accuracy of half-life (i.e. 5k-6k but can be extended to 60k as you mentioned). Thus carbon dating methodology can't be used on rocks (fossilized materials) due to short carbon life.

But how I wish that they be more specific when reporting such things as a "72 million-year-old dinosaur tail unearthed in nearly perfect condition".