Dinosaur Brain Tissue Discoverd

[Takama]

http://www.livescience.com/56665-fossilized-dinosaur-brain-tissue.html


Big news for 2016

[fason]

so would  non avian dinosaurs would have some similarities to crocodiles ?(in terms of group dynamics and behavior ?)

[DinoLord]

so would  non avian dinosaurs would have some similarities to crocodiles ?(in terms of group dynamics and behavior ?)

Seems like a pretty far extrapolation. The researchers are saying more that this suggests certain dinosaurs would have had similar capacities for such behaviors as extant croodilians (which are actually rather varied). It's important to remember that even closely related animals can be very different (lions and tigers for example).

It's a fascinating find for sure; kind of fitting it was announced close to Halloween! I wonder if a similar fossil from a theropod would yield a more avian structure.

[Jose S.M.]

While I don't think it can be said that they had croc like behavior exactly, it's still an exciting discovery!

[fason]

oh ok thx

[Papi-Anon]

Endocasts of dino-brains have been found of a few species I believe, but to find actual fossilized brain tissue is way cool.

[BlueKrono]

But this was from an iguanodont, a large grazer that didn't necessarily have to be an Einstein. I wonder how complex the brains of predatory dinosaurs would have been... Could they have figured out how to open doors?

[Lanthanotus]

I once read "brains are like wallets, their content is more important than their size". "Intelligence" is a very subjective term and the great array of experiments done by researches with a variety of animals are always developed and affected by our very own human experience and knowledge of our (cultural) environment, that they often barely can cover the requierements, skills and duties a brains of animals living in a wild, growing and ever chaninging environment encounters. Ecological research shows an ever more increasing and surprisingly rich treasure of complex behaviour, emotion and "intelligence" throughout all kind of animals.

Nevertheless, from a pure paleontological standpoint, that is a great find.

[BlueKrono]

I once read "brains are like wallets, their content is more important than their size". "Intelligence" is a very subjective term and the great array of experiments done by researches with a variety of animals are always developed and affected by our very own human experience and knowledge of our (cultural) environment, that they often barely can cover the requierements, skills and duties a brains of animals living in a wild, growing and ever chaninging environment encounters. Ecological research shows an ever more increasing and surprisingly rich treasure of complex behaviour, emotion and "intelligence" throughout all kind of animals.

Nevertheless, from a pure paleontological standpoint, that is a great find.

Case in point: octopuses.

[stargatedalek]

I beg to differ, rather I would put forward that the variety of behaviors present in nature is evidence that intelligence is less important than we might imply as opposed to evidence that "we can't define intelligence". There are a great many objective traits that can be tested to determine the mental capacity of animals. Yes any field of research is bound to show some degree of bias and this was definitely the case in prior when such tests were conducted almost solely on primates (obviously due to anthropomorphism). But these same tests are what have more recently proven corvids to be the smartest group, out-competing all primates sans humans, so I think it's safe to say that a lot of that bias is behind us.

[fason]

well,a bird might know how to fly and where the best nesting places are for it , but a whale isn't going to fly up there and claim that spot to lay its eggs (which it doesn't have ) , most animals are adapted to there habitat so really each animal will know more about its own way of life than others , therefore , there will probably never be a definite answer to that (I think  ? ? ?  ).

[stargatedalek]

well,a bird might know how to fly and where the best nesting places are for it , but a whale isn't going to fly up there and claim that spot to lay its eggs (which it doesn't have ) , most animals are adapted to there habitat so really each animal will know more about its own way of life than others , therefore , there will probably never be a definite answer to that (I think  ? ? ?  ).

But a population of orca can move into a new habitat by adapting their hunting habits, whereas an equivalent change in a shark (that isn't already adapted for a generalist diet obviously) would take generations. A corvid can test various methods of how to open a shell until it finds something that works, but a songbird might need to evolve a method to open it.

Being more intelligent does not make one animal better adapted at everything, but it isn't a trait that every animal has in equal. In some species lower intelligence can even be an asset to them (lower energy requirement allowing for more energy to be spent on physical strength or on eating less).

[fason]

im guessing you were using adaptability as an example , but yes I guess I understand .

[Papi-Anon]

I'm more of the opinion that adaptability is the greatest asset an organism can have, even over intellectual capacity. Intelligence itself can play a part in adaptability, but not always.

On the subject of octopi, as BlueKrono mentioned, their lifespans are shorter than the great apes (significantly more so than ours), is that what's kept them from world-domination?

Dr. Octo spends three years building his massive raygun to reduce the human cities and kitchens to rubble.
He crawls up to the controls.
His tentacle wraps about the switch.
His muscles strain to activate the grand lever.
"History shall be made upon this day," he gruggles aloud to himself.
But suddenly, the great Dr. Octo slumps, collapsing upon the cold tile floor.
His biological clock has struck midnight, and he succumbs to time itself.
And humans continue eating their tako-yaki in Japenese-styled restaurants unaware of their victory.

[stargatedalek]

I'm more of the opinion that adaptability is the greatest asset an organism can have, even over intellectual capacity. Intelligence itself can play a part in adaptability, but not always.

This.

And as per your question regarding octopi, they are probably under the same limiting environmental factors as cetaceans in that they will never be able to harness fire or electricity in the same way humans and their ancestors did.

[HD-man]

well,a bird might know how to fly and where the best nesting places are for it , but a whale isn't going to fly up there and claim that spot to lay its eggs (which it doesn't have ) , most animals are adapted to there habitat so really each animal will know more about its own way of life than others , therefore , there will probably never be a definite answer to that (I think  ? ? ?  ).

But a population of orca can move into a new habitat by adapting their hunting habits, whereas an equivalent change in a shark (that isn't already adapted for a generalist diet obviously) would take generations. A corvid can test various methods of how to open a shell until it finds something that works, but a songbird might need to evolve a method to open it.

Being more intelligent does not make one animal better adapted at everything, but it isn't a trait that every animal has in equal. In some species lower intelligence can even be an asset to them (lower energy requirement allowing for more energy to be spent on physical strength or on eating less).

Based on what I've read, Stargatedalek is right (See the Walsh/Milner quote).

Quoting Walsh/Milner ( http://nms.academia.edu/StigWalsh/Papers/1199934/The_avian_brain_and_senses ):

A wealth of data is emerging that links telencephalon size in living birds to a variety of factors including new problem-solving feeding behaviors (Lefebvre et al., 1997; Nicolakakis & Lefebvre, 2000; Timmermans et al., 2000; Lefebvre et al., 2004; Iwaniuk & Hurd, 2005) and associated tool use (Lefebvre et al., 2002; Cnotca et al., 2008), and even the presence of consciousness (Eccles, 1992; Butler & Cotterill, 2006; Prior et al., 2008). Apart from some striking instances of sequential and meta-tool use that exceed the abilities of nonhuman primates (Hunt & Gray, 2007; Wimpenny et al., 2009), some species are thought to exhibit social learning (Tebbich et al., 2001) and complex social behaviors (Clayton et al., 2007; Emery et al., 2007) such as cooperative hunting (Yosef & Yosef, in press). Although undoubtedly enhanced in those modern groups (especially corvids and parrots) compared with early birds and their immediate ancestors, such improvements in cognition would presumably represent a competitive advantage over less encephalized coeval species. For instance, increased encephalization has been linked to species richness (Nicolakakis et al., 2003) and success during introduction to new environments (Marino, 2005; Sol et al., 2002, 2005). In this context, the metabolic cost of a large brain may well be offset by the improved success in exploiting available resources, possibly providing a further explanation for the retention of large brains by flightless birds.

[HD-man]

so would  non avian dinosaurs would have some similarities to crocodiles ?(in terms of group dynamics and behavior ?)

See Buchholtz's "Dinosaur Paleoneurology" in Brett-Surman et al.'s The Complete Dinosaur for more info about that.

But this was from an iguanodont, a large grazer

Browser.

[Papi-Anon]

And as per your question regarding octopi, they are probably under the same limiting environmental factors as cetaceans in that they will never be able to harness fire or electricity in the same way humans and their ancestors did.

Not unless they learn to be at least amphibious and transition to being terrestrial. I know it was a bit far-fetched in its speculations, but I'm reminded of the Squibbons from 'The Future is Wild' when I think of terrestrial cephalopods.

[fason]

well,a bird might know how to fly and where the best nesting places are for it , but a whale isn't going to fly up there and claim that spot to lay its eggs (which it doesn't have ) , most animals are adapted to there habitat so really each animal will know more about its own way of life than others , therefore , there will probably never be a definite answer to that (I think  ? ? ?  ).

But a population of orca can move into a new habitat by adapting their hunting habits, whereas an equivalent change in a shark (that isn't already adapted for a generalist diet obviously) would take generations. A corvid can test various methods of how to open a shell until it finds something that works, but a songbird might need to evolve a method to open it.

Being more intelligent does not make one animal better adapted at everything, but it isn't a trait that every animal has in equal. In some species lower intelligence can even be an asset to them (lower energy requirement allowing for more energy to be spent on physical strength or on eating less).

Based on what I've read, Stargatedalek is right (See the Walsh/Milner quote).

Quoting Walsh/Milner ( http://nms.academia.edu/StigWalsh/Papers/1199934/The_avian_brain_and_senses ):

A wealth of data is emerging that links telencephalon size in living birds to a variety of factors including new problem-solving feeding behaviors (Lefebvre et al., 1997; Nicolakakis & Lefebvre, 2000; Timmermans et al., 2000; Lefebvre et al., 2004; Iwaniuk & Hurd, 2005) and associated tool use (Lefebvre et al., 2002; Cnotca et al., 2008), and even the presence of consciousness (Eccles, 1992; Butler & Cotterill, 2006; Prior et al., 2008). Apart from some striking instances of sequential and meta-tool use that exceed the abilities of nonhuman primates (Hunt & Gray, 2007; Wimpenny et al., 2009), some species are thought to exhibit social learning (Tebbich et al., 2001) and complex social behaviors (Clayton et al., 2007; Emery et al., 2007) such as cooperative hunting (Yosef & Yosef, in press). Although undoubtedly enhanced in those modern groups (especially corvids and parrots) compared with early birds and their immediate ancestors, such improvements in cognition would presumably represent a competitive advantage over less encephalized coeval species. For instance, increased encephalization has been linked to species richness (Nicolakakis et al., 2003) and success during introduction to new environments (Marino, 2005; Sol et al., 2002, 2005). In this context, the metabolic cost of a large brain may well be offset by the improved success in exploiting available resources, possibly providing a further explanation for the retention of large brains by flightless birds.

ok thanks

[HD-man]

Quoting Martin ( https://www.facebook.com/TheGreatCourses/posts/1151445244891892:0 ):

The discovery and study of a 133-million-year-old ornithopod-dinosaur brain from southern England is a major breakthrough in understanding the behavior of such dinosaurs. It is especially important for paleontologists who try to reconcile the products of dinosaur behavior – like dinosaur nests and tracks – with their original brain anatomy. For example, a few ornithopod nests and juvenile remains in those nests tell us those dinosaurs had nurturing behavior, with the parents taking care of and feeding their young. Ornithopod tracks tell us that these dinosaurs traveled together in groups, perhaps with multiple families. These are fairly sophisticated behaviors that we associate more with birds than reptiles.
But until now, we haven't been able to match these dinosaur behaviors with their "software," so to speak. Thus a fossilized brain gives us an extremely rare opportunity to test whether or not some ornithopods really were smarter than the average dinosaur.
This fossil was preserved through a series of fortuitous events. First, when the dinosaur died, its body must have settled down on the bottom of a pond or river. This environment also must have been eutrophic, meaning it had lots of organic production (think of a lake with lots of algae), but deep enough that its bottom waters were stagnant, low-oxygen, and acidic.
Once the dinosaur body settled, its head was buried rapidly and positioned upside down, which helped prevent decay in the topmost part of the brain. Sediment filled in spaces of the braincase, making a natural cast, but anaerobic bacteria also must have then helped precipitate fine layers or phosphate and carbonate minerals. These minerals then replaced (and hence mimicked) many of the original soft tissues in the brain, including the outer membranes (meninges) and blood vessels.
What's really astonishing about this fossil is how the combination of natural cast and minerals enabled the paleontologists to tell that the forebrain (with the cerebrum) was better defined than the hindbrain (with the cerebellar and medullary regions). From this, they concluded that this ornithopod was probably more intelligent than, say, a modern alligator or crocodile. Moreover, this brain was larger than expected for its owner's body size, yielding an encephalization quotient ("EQ") of about 5.0. This is closer to what's been calculated for theropod dinosaurs, which today includes their descendants, birds.
So although we won't be able to read this dinosaur's thoughts, the discovery of this fossil means we're a lot closer to understanding how it and its kin might have behaved before it died 133 million years ago. What's also exciting is that we now know that dinosaur brains can be preserved and what they might look like, which will help paleontologists to find more examples to study in the future.