Rare Fossil Shows Mammal Attacking a Dinosaur
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лип 2023
- See the story of a fossil from China that shows a mammal locked in mortal combat with a larger dinosaur during the Early Cretaceous Period. The rare fossil captures a moment-in-time that presents some of the first evidence of predatory behaviour by a mammal on a dinosaur. The study of the fossil was published July 18, 2023 in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports.
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
French version: • Un fossile rare montre...
Canadian Museum of Nature- nature.ca - Наука та технологія
Both creatures were buried early cretaceous period around 65 million before the extinction of the non avian dinosaurs. Then it’s stayed buried for another 65 or 66 millionyears till it was discovered. Fascinating in all its glory!
I find the conclusions drawn from this fossil not convincing. No matter if the cause for the quick entombing was a mud slide or an avalanche of ash, both events excert a big amount of force, that wouldn´t simply freeze their victims in their momentary pose, especially if they are so small and light weight.
Furthermore, it is stated that scavenging by the Repenomamus was ruled out due to the lack of bite marks, yet it is also claimed that Repenomamus did bite into the ribs of the Psittacosaurus, (which requires to get through tough skin and the body cavity on the inner side) yet still without leaving bite marks.
The Psittacosaurus seems to be in some form of a death pose: Collapsed onto its belly, the legs folded, the right arm twisted, with the palm of the hand pointing upwards. The big skull is laying on the side, with the jaws open, not closing on the foot of the alleged attacker.
Notworthy is also the left hind leg of Repenomamus: it sticks out in an extremely wide angle, both to the side and upwards - it is almost pointing backwards. Its claws are tightly clenching the bones of the Psittacosaurus´ leg, with no matrix in between, as if there was no flesh around that bone when the mammal died, though there should be quite a bit of muscle tissue, represented by the matrix.
To me, the evidence visible rather points to a scavanging attempt by Repenomamus on an already decomposing Psittacosaurus corpse, and some of the peculiarities of its body pose could be attributed to the force of the ash avalance and a last protective reflex by Repenomamus.
They never explain that, fossils of animals that were actually hit by a torrent of debris are found to be scattered all around. These two probably were fighting in water when they were petrified instantly by a huge electric discharge. Look up plasma petrification.
The research team assessed numerous scenarios and addressed them in their published paper in Scientific Reports - anyone can access if here. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-37545-8
Well the team that found it is going to have crazy scientific clout for their careers😂 props to them for not just finding it but also preparing it so skillfully.
Amazing! A fossil that is depicting an ancient vivid scene.
Which in reality it's probably a fake composit
@@Fede_99 Nah
You see a fight. I see two animals curling up together terrified of the raging Earth flood.
"Attack" looks more like a scavenging mammal that found a dead adult herbivore. Then it started eating on the corpse (note the bite in the rib bone), and then died from volcanic activitiy. (The tangled bodies could be caused by the fact they have been fossilized. Tangled and strange body postures are common during the fossilization process). The fact it is stated the mammal are known to eat small babies is a sign that it would hunt for easy prey (opportunistic). A large, alive, healthy adult herbivore would't be a safe and easy meal.
someone actually talking sense
mammals represent
How do we know the dinosaur wasn't already dead and the mammal was eating it?
This mentioned in the video at 2:35.
this is simply amazing. Did not know Mesozoic mammals grew this big.
It would be amazing to see this event unfold in animation
who painted the picture of the attack?
Very cool!
I think they were both hanging on for dear life when the volcanic mud came flowing down.
Anthropomorphic nonesense. It's clearly a mammal bitting a dinosaur. Mammals often have the ability to kill prey much larger than them.
Right.. the mudslide just stopped time. The rat didn't even flinch when a caustic mudslide took it and the thing it was still eating
I think Repenomamus is an egg-eating mammal, means they are pest in dino standards even Repenomamus itself lays eggs.
This fossil also proves, Mammals RULE! Mic drop!
And now answer me this: what covered these two so quickly and completely that these two were frozen in the middle of some stressful activity? Maybe a flood???
My first thought was not predator/prey, but scavenger that just found a carcass, which is much more likely for a rodent. Why would a smaller animal place it's paw in the mouth of a larger animal if it was still alive and capable of snapping it off with a single bite? Isn't it possible the mammal was climbing? Or using that foot for leverage to get at a tender spot of dino flesh?
Is it possible that the mammal was acting like a lamprey, and was eating insects or other small parasites from the dino? Maybe it was a symbiotic relationship and we just happened to catch the mammal making a funny expression, not actually biting with aggeession?
What if the dino was sleeping, or protecting an egg, and the rodent was foraging? I mean, there are lots of scenarios, right?
Is it possible that the dino was attacking and was the actual predator, while the mammal was biting as a defense mechanism? But there again is that whole paw in the mouth problem.
What evidence is there that these two exact animals were engaged in combat AND that the smaller one attacked first? Wound pattern consistent with the other creature? Other bite marks in vulnerable spots? Anything?
I get really peeved when researchers make claims they cannot possibly defend, or taint future research by declaring "we think x" without concrete, direct evidence. It muddies the pool, so to speak. I onow ypu get excited when you find something cool, but there is a reason why we go through the peer review publication process before announcing our claims. It's okay to offer competing ideas after announcing a finding, but once you use your authority and rank to declare, "I think x is this," without knowing for sure, you are making scientists--and the process of science as a whole--seem foolish.
Because they're entangled with each other like they're both fighting for their lives. The mammal's leg is stuck between the dinosaur's own legs, and the mammal has climbed onto the body and broken its ribs. Plus, the dinosaur is about to bite the mammal's foot too. I don't see why repenomamus would voluntarily get itself into this strange and uncomfortable position if it was scavenging. You may be right, maybe it wasn't predatory and was a fight for territory, thats very possible. But it seems clear to me that both parties were very much alive and fighting before the volcanic falls swallowed them.
In paleontology due to how fragmentary it is, often scientists have to make more with less. But in this case, I agee with their conclusion, it's the most simple and needs the least amount of excuses and assumptions which typically means its correct.
If you are looking for modern examples , Mink vs swan or mink vs turtle. Were early mammals that high energy as the current ones? The present day wiggly fur balls are bonkers. The prehistoric mammal using the same body plan, makes you wonder.
It maked me wonder, too, but is that enough to make an assertion? As an academic?
"I t looks that way" is not devinitive enough for an academic to make an assertion. I am a published scholar, retired now, and I am constantly disturbed by stories like this.
We write, we peer review, we revise, we peer review again, and we publish. That is how we tell the world that we are confident in our research--because the academy supports our conclusions.
Not that anybody cares, but I'm with every word you say.
1:40 I thought there was something familiar about that other Fossil. 1:52 Now this one I have definitely seen before in a Documentary called Mammals vs Dinos. Hmm… wasn’t there something that preyed on one of those Dog sized Dinosaur eating Mammals I’ve seen on Mammals vs Dinos? Oh yeah, The Emperor Dragons The Dilong the close relative of T.Rex AKA Tyrannosaurus Rex. I remember seeing 3 of them huntingm killing & eating one of those Repenomamus in Mammals vs Dinos. 3:38 Oh Right, way before Yutyrannus the other close relative of T.Rex was unearthed & probably ate some Repenomamus as its smaller cousin Dilong did as well.
Very little is fact here. Mostly conjecture. Leaps in assumptions. But interesting
How do we know that it was for sure a predator/prey interaction, and not the Psittacosaurus being aggressive or defensive?
The teeth.
Repenomamus is known to have preyed upon Psittacosaurus young. It seems more probable to me that the Psittacosaurus was defending its young and that is why the fight is taking place. I doubt that the mammal deliberately attacked the much larger creature, but was attacked by a parent defending its young, the more likely target of the predator.
Fossised by the flood
Exactly :))) finally someone who really presenting the truth
The volcanic mud slide didn’t wrench them free from one another, and I always love how they talk about the mammals, biting his ribs through thick skin. He just happens to be wrapped around a rib with his mouth open come on people this is going to be exposed as a hoax eventually.
I like to think that the large animal just wanted to protect the small animal because the large one had sensed environmental danger so he covered the small animal with his body, endure its bites and hoped to somehow survive through volcanic event or any disaster but tragically didn't.
They may be predator and prey but we might never know that they actually protecting each other against larger dangers or environmental hazards temporarily sometimes or very rarely.