• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Near-Perfect Young Dinosaur Fossil Found in Bavaria

Kuko 4000

Graduate Poster
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,586
Wow, this looks almost too clean.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,791496,00.html

"The fossil found in the central Bavarian community of Kelheim is about 98 percent complete, and also includes preserved bits of skin. "The around 135-million-year-old fossil is of outstanding scientific importance," dinosaur expert Rauhut told the German news agency DPA."

"Though the 72-centimeter juvenile dinosaur is preserved in stone, a number of anatomical details remain. "The best-preserved Tyrannosaurus we have are about 80 percent preserved, and that is already terrific," said Rauhut, comparing the two theropods, which are among the rarest dinosaur fossils."

Great pics:

1305547216874


image-270907-galleryV9-plif.jpg
 
The area around Kelheim is famous for the ultra high quality fossils.

The first Archaeopteryx fossil was found there and the European equivalent of the Burgess Shale deposit Solnhofen Plattenkalk is also located there.

It is wonderful such a well preserved fossil was found. It does not surprise me where it was found
 
That's amazing. They should name the dinosaur "Perfectosaurus".
 
amazing indeed. Is that perhaps feather-like filaments around the thorax? And what's the wiry filaments around the belly?
 
How are we supposed to know if the dinosaurs did not tar and feather each other?
 
How are we supposed to know if the dinosaurs did not tar and feather each other?

You know that is really a silly question. tar and feathering has never been a Chinese tradition, yet we find Chinese dinosaurs with feathers, so the answer is obvious

Please think before posting in future :p
 
Wow, the ridge cut into the stone around it looks almost exactly like a "hard bevel" in Photoshop! I'm not saying whether it is real or not, it just amazes me that it looks so much like something from Photoshop. Maybe Photoshop is a better imitator of real life than I thought?

The completeness is also surreal. I mean, even the little bone bellow the jaw? That's just strange. And yet there are no kneecaps on the rear legs.

Again, I cannot say if this is a hoax or not but it rings all kinds of strange bells in my head.
 
Wow, the ridge cut into the stone around it looks almost exactly like a "hard bevel" in Photoshop!

That may actually BE a bevel from photoshop rather than a cut into the stone. If so though dunno why they would put it on the 'plain' photo and not just the 'enhanced' one. I know if I had that fossil I wouldn't want to cut the stone so close to the fossil. But then again I have no idea what the modern techniques are. I'd hope they'd have some kind of freaking surgeon's micromanipulation thing.
 
Wow...That's truly amazing!

The Article said:
"From far away they often look complete," he said. "But up close one sees that the bone preservation is not that great."
So true. I've seen decapods from the Solnhofen, and when you look at them with a hand lense they're more or less worthless. I hope that this is better preserved--young dinosaurs can give us a lot of information about growth and development, which will answer many questions (and, fortunately, raise many, many more).

ETA:

Lithrael said:
I know if I had that fossil I wouldn't want to cut the stone so close to the fossil. But then again I have no idea what the modern techniques are. I'd hope they'd have some kind of freaking surgeon's micromanipulation thing.
Just wanted to mention, this is pretty standard. You see this type of preperation pretty frequently, particularly with these types of limestone. Prep work is done with microscribes, air scribes, and quite frankly old engravers we buy at garage sales (got one for Christmas last year!!!), and it leaves a bevel like that. In small invert fossil photos you can see the marks left by them, but at this scale they're more or less invisible. Once bone is exposed it's often coated in Glyptol or something similar, which hardens the bone just a bit (and is easily disolved by acitate, which almost never harms the bone or rock) and keeps the bone from flying off. Some still does, and one of the worst feelings you can have is watching a bit of your fossil go flying in some random direction while preping it, but for a fossil like this they'd likely have some pretty experienced preperatures working on it. You also don't want to get too far from the bone, because every piece of rock you take out weakens the slab. And while there used to be "accidents" pretty frequently, the rise of CAT scans, MRIs, and the like have more or less made those a thing of the past.
 
Last edited:
You know that is really a silly question. tar and feathering has never been a Chinese tradition, yet we find Chinese dinosaurs with feathers, so the answer is obvious

Please think before posting in future :p

I think I will, from now on.
 
This fossil find is AWESOME! It's my desktop image for a few days!


Wow, the ridge cut into the stone around it looks almost exactly like a "hard bevel" in Photoshop! I'm not saying whether it is real or not, it just amazes me that it looks so much like something from Photoshop. Maybe Photoshop is a better imitator of real life than I thought?

Yes, photoshop bevel is designed to mimic just this -- a fairly precise angle/depth of minimal gloss

The completeness is also surreal. I mean, even the little bone bellow the jaw? That's just strange. And yet there are no kneecaps on the rear legs.

Do other therapod and sauropod skeletons have Patellas? I thought the patella was a more recent development, but I don't know where I learned/came-to-think that so I can't back it up.

Again, I cannot say if this is a hoax or not but it rings all kinds of strange bells in my head.

Caffeine. Cut back on it to reduce tinnitus. Do you have any specific complaints about this specific fossil?
 
Don't get upset at me ApolloGnomon, I'm not saying this is a fake. I'm just so shocked at how complete it is and how it includes such tiny bones that are normally lost. That little one under the jaw, the Patella you said it was, is so often missing even on modern skeletons (not that it wasn't there when they were alive, it's just so tiny it tends to get lost after death).

The reason I mentioned it ringing alarm bells is simply that such a complete skeleton just blows my mind and I want to be careful. There have been some pretty cruel fossil hoaxes in the past and I just don't want to get my hopes up.
 
No blood, no foul. I also have a browser tab open to the Icke Forum today, so maybe I'm a bit oversensitive to "its all teh fake" nonsense.

The fossils found in the last 30 years have been increasingly complete and well excavated. This is not out-of-character for the progression curve, but perhaps an example of what we can expect for the next 30 years.

{eta}
the patella is the knee cap you mention as missing. Not sure what the bone under the jaw is.
 
Last edited:
thanks for that info!

U are wellcome. Happy to be of some use.

But I must confess I just knew WTF a gastralia is because by sheer chance two weeks ago I saw an undergraduate's presentation on an exceptionally well-preserved fossil crocodile. I also confess I thought it was the croc's last meal when I saw the pics:boxedin:...
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom