Hogwarts Dinosaur

[Bladeswift]

'Hogwarts' Dragon Unveiled (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060522/hogwartsdino_din.html?source=rss)

Dracorex hogwartsia, which translates as "Dragon King of Hogwarts," was unearthed in 2003 in the Hell Creek Formation of South Dakota by three amateur fossil hunters working in cooperation with the Children's Museum of Indianapolis. But it wasn't until it was at the museum, while the fossil was being carefully prepared, that renowned dinosaur researcher Robert Bakker happened to catch sight of it while visiting. Bakker then recruited pachycerphalosaurs expert Sullivan and other paleontologists to take a closer look.

Dinosphere at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis (http://www.childrensmuseum.org/dinosphere/draco_rex/index.html)

I personally think the name's ridiculous. Awesome looking fossil, though.

[Ferahgo the Assassin]

I heard about this. I think it's pretty funny, really. In a way, I find it kind of annoying - of all the people who could or should be immortalized in the name of an organism, I don't really think that J.K. Rowling deserves to be one of them. But it's still fairly amusing. And pachycephalosaurs are just cool anyway.

The best illustration I've seen of this animal is here (http://www.deviantart.com/view/33682511/), drawn by a paleoartist on DeviantArt. He even drew it with a suspiciously familiar scar on its head. :cool:

[Lukesed]

13 species of mold beetle have been named after members of the Bush administration, Darth Vader and the like.

[chupacabra]

At one time, all dinosaur fossils were considered to be dragons. Maybe all the dinosaurs were dragons or look like them?

[Baby Rollo]

That's not true because the earth is only 5,000 years old

[Josiah the Warrior]

That's not true because the earth is only 5,000 years old
...rabble rouser.

I think it's a fake. The so called skull looks like a molding someone made. I guess only time will tell...

[Bladeswift]

I heard about this.
I figured you would have. When my friend at work showed it to me my first thought was "Ferahgo's probably already heard the news."

...rabble rouser.

I think it's a fake. The so called skull looks like a molding someone made. I guess only time will tell...
Except it was put together like a jigsaw puzzle and actually seen and studied by paleontologists.

[Lady Blaireao]

i think it looks sorta like one of those stygimoloch things.





-lady blaireao

[Ferahgo the Assassin]

I think it's a fake. The so called skull looks like a molding someone made. I guess only time will tell...
:rolleyes: You think it's a fake because it looks fake? Have you ever seen a fake fossil before? Generally if something has to be pieced together so meticulously, it's not a fake.

i think it looks sorta like one of those stygimoloch things.
It's a fairly close relative of Stygimoloch. They're both of the family Pachycephalosauria, which includes several different herbivorous, bipedal, head-butting genera.

[The dirgecallers]

:rolleyes: You think it's a fake because it looks fake? Have you ever seen a fake fossil before? Generally if something has to be pieced together so meticulously, it's not a fake.
.


Not to be rude,but that's exactly what they said about the piltdown man.
I'm not saying this dinosaur fossil is fake,i'm saying our understanding of what
constitutes fake is generally flawed:cool:

[Ferahgo the Assassin]

Not to be rude,but that's exactly what they said about the piltdown man.
I'm not saying this dinosaur fossil is fake,i'm saying our understanding of what
constitutes fake is generally flawed:cool:
Well, that's generally true, but several factors need to be taken into account. First of all, the Piltdown man was so inconsistent with other findings of the time that it was somewhat unsurprising that it turned out to be a fake. There is nothing about Dracorex that makes it out of place in its genera. Secondly, the Piltdown skull was composed of only a few pieces, many of which were forged with technology that would be fairly easily noticeable today. Dracorex was highly fragmented and had to be pieced together meticulously.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that I know for sure that it's not a forgery. After all, the issue with Archaeoraptor happened only a few years ago. Rather, I'm saying that thinking it's a forgery just from looking at the photograph, whilst having no formal (or probably informal, for that matter) training in paleontology is a bit ridiculous.

[The dirgecallers]

Well, that's generally true, but several factors need to be taken into account. First of all, the Piltdown man was so inconsistent with other findings of the time that it was somewhat unsurprising that it turned out to be a fake. There is nothing about Dracorex that makes it out of place in its genera. Secondly, the Piltdown .

nothing out of place except a complete reversal of the popular thinking:rolleyes:

[Ferahgo the Assassin]

nothing out of place except a complete reversal of the popular thinking:rolleyes:
Ok, let me rephrase that. Nothing out of place in such a way that people would want to forge it just to prove a pet theory, which is what happened with Piltdown.

[The dirgecallers]

Ok, let me rephrase that. Nothing out of place in such a way that people would want to forge it just to prove a pet theory, which is what happened with Piltdown.

you're right,and oops!I should have said a Paradigim shift:P

[Tesra]

All this sounds to me as if everybody was getting mad because of a spiny dinosaur's head... Many dinosaurs owning characteristics that could make think to dragons were discovered before : horned, long-clawed, spiny, etc. Why all that stuff around this one ? Because of its name ? I don't think it's a fake. But I believe there is a dinosaur that would be a lot more mediatised than many others... :rolleyes:

[Josiah the Warrior]

Except it was put together like a jigsaw puzzle and actually seen and studied by paleontologists.
I'mnotlisteningI'mnotlisteningI'mnotlisteningI'mno tlisteningI'mnotlisteningI'mnotlistening
:p

I guess we'll see.