Near-complete enantiornithean chick found in amber

[Patrx]

Lida Xing and colleagues describe a 99-million-year-old baby dinosaur found in amber, with incredible preservation:


Paper on Science Direct
Cau's post on Theropoda

[ImADinosaurRARR]

I was just about to drop the same news ;P

Here's a Dropbox version so you don't have to pay: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zmdilf07i61f8o1/enantiornith_amber.pdf?dl=0

[CityRaptor]

Oh, interesting!

Although I fear it is only a matter of time till comment sections on news sites will be flooded with creationists and people who think one can clone it.

[Lanthanotus]

Thanks very much for that interesting news and also a big thanks for the Dropbox link

[Neosodon]

T Rex Skin yesterday, birds in amber today, it has been a very exiting last couple days for paleontology!

Here is the national geographic version. A little easier to read. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/baby-bird-dinosaur-burmese-amber-fossil/

[EmperorDinobot]

What a wonderful discovery!

[Sinornis]

Yes, thank you posting this incredible news!

I wonder if there will ever come a day when there will be evidence that a bird fell from a nest in a tree. Twigs? Minute clumps of fibers?

I posed this same question to Ryan McKellar last year (one of the papers authors) when the 99 million year old bird wings were found in amber. He responded; As for the arboreal nature of the wings that we worked upon, the amber pieces also included beetles and ants that tend to be associated with trees. This suggested that we were looking at amber samples that were produced on tree trunks, instead of on the forest floor.

http://avianmusing.blogspot.com/

[laticauda]

Oh, interesting!

Although I fear it is only a matter of time till comment sections on news sites will be flooded with creationists and people who think one can clone it.

The first article I read on this bird mentioned how we might be able to clone the animal Jurassic Park style. 

[Neosodon]

Oh, interesting!

Although I fear it is only a matter of time till comment sections on news sites will be flooded with creationists and people who think one can clone it.

The first article I read on this bird mentioned how we might be able to clone the animal Jurassic Park style.

I heard that it is actually technically possible. But the amount of money and effort it would take would be ridiculous.

[stargatedalek]

Oh, interesting!

Although I fear it is only a matter of time till comment sections on news sites will be flooded with creationists and people who think one can clone it.

The first article I read on this bird mentioned how we might be able to clone the animal Jurassic Park style.

I heard that it is actually technically possible. But the amount of money and effort it would take would be ridiculous.

Considering we can't retrieve DNA from entire geckos in amber that are only a few thousand years old it's safe to say that's wrong.

[Faelrin]

The amber findings lately have been nothing short of spectacular. All the same, seeing whole creatures that had to die like this makes me sad, let alone a baby, even if it was millions of years ago.

Kind of off topic, but am I the only one that noticed on the sidebar of that National Geographic article on this discovery, that they have T. rex done as T. Rex? I would have thought they'd do it right. 

[BlueKrono]

Not every NG writer is a biologist, or a stickler like you and me. 

[Patrx]

I would have thought they'd do it right. 

Therein lies your problem, I think  Sadly, the days of National Geographic reliably getting things right appear to be well behind us.

[Megalosaurus]

I love amber.

Great find.

[ZoPteryx]

Now THIS is a discovery!!!

*crosses fingers* Up next, c'mon baby pterosaur!

[WarrenJB]

I heard that it is actually technically possible. But the amount of money and effort it would take would be ridiculous.

Well that's why you put it in a theme park and charge goofy prices to see it.

Fantastic find. Although I can see Faelrin's POV. Most fossils require something to die to kick off the process, but this fairly vivid snapshot can look like it's happening right now, under our noses.

[OpalornisHuali]

Wow! It is an amazing discovery!

I really hate that people go on about cloning.. These animals have no place in today's ecosystems, they will live only in captivity as spectacles for human entertainment, and they will suffer for it.

I say to anyone who wants to clone an extinct dinosaur.. Or any ancient extinct animal..
Leave her dead, she is no longer suffering..

[stargatedalek]

Wow! It is an amazing discovery!

I really hate that people go on about cloning.. These animals have no place in today's ecosystems, they will live only in captivity as spectacles for human entertainment, and they will suffer for it.

I say to anyone who wants to clone an extinct dinosaur.. Or any ancient extinct animal..
Leave her dead, she is no longer suffering..

Sorry but that's a very closed minded ideal. You make it sound like all zoos and aquaria are abusive, which is far from truth. The subtleties of law regarding animal husbandry are either ignored or blown ludicrously out of proportion by the media, but suffice to say zoos or aquariums that actually abuse their animals are almost nonexistent in the modern first world, and even ones with simply improper housing are seeing huge progress in updating and maintaining newer improved exhibits.

Even if we pretend we're living in the 1930's when zoos were composed of little more than concrete pits, a specimen that costs such crazy amounts of money to obtain would be well treated, irregardless of where it ended up.

Then there's also rewilding to consider, something like Raphus or the various extinct giant tortoises actually do still have a place in their respective ecosystems, and their presence would be very beneficial. One could even make a case for creatures like great auks or moas/Haast's eagle, which would require extensive populations and accompanying regulations before being reintroduced, but the actual ecosystem itself would likely be able to handle them if not benefit from their presence. It's impossible to clone something from a fossil which means aside from cases where humans or invasive species have already completely destroyed the habitat all extinct animals that realistically could be brought back would have a place in the wild.

If you want to talk about the animals suffering, feel free to bring up the likely failures of cloning, deformed hybrids, and highly likely future of inbreeding and overall poor health. Screaming "ZOOS ARE BAD" only makes you look like another sheep blindly following the exploits of dangerously misinformative organizations like PETA or ALF, and it won't earn your argument any sympathy, especially among a very scientifically minded community.

Goldfish have no place in any wild ecosystems, should we euthanize all goldfish?

[alexeratops]

Wow! It is an amazing discovery!

I really hate that people go on about cloning.. These animals have no place in today's ecosystems, they will live only in captivity as spectacles for human entertainment, and they will suffer for it.

I say to anyone who wants to clone an extinct dinosaur.. Or any ancient extinct animal..
Leave her dead, she is no longer suffering..

Sorry but that's a very closed minded ideal. You make it sound like all zoos and aquaria are abusive, which is far from truth. The subtleties of law regarding animal husbandry are either ignored or blown ludicrously out of proportion by the media, but suffice to say zoos or aquariums that actually abuse their animals are almost nonexistent in the modern first world, and even ones with simply improper housing are seeing huge progress in updating and maintaining newer improved exhibits.

Even if we pretend we're living in the 1930's when zoos were composed of little more than concrete pits, a specimen that costs such crazy amounts of money to obtain would be well treated, irregardless of where it ended up.

Then there's also rewilding to consider, something like Raphus or the various extinct giant tortoises actually do still have a place in their respective ecosystems, and their presence would be very beneficial. One could even make a case for creatures like great auks or moas/Haast's eagle, which would require extensive populations and accompanying regulations before being reintroduced, but the actual ecosystem itself would likely be able to handle them if not benefit from their presence. It's impossible to clone something from a fossil which means aside from cases where humans or invasive species have already completely destroyed the habitat all extinct animals that realistically could be brought back would have a place in the wild.

If you want to talk about the animals suffering, feel free to bring up the likely failures of cloning, deformed hybrids, and highly likely future of inbreeding and overall poor health. Screaming "ZOOS ARE BAD" only makes you look like another sheep blindly following the exploits of dangerously misinformative organizations like PETA or ALF, and it won't earn your argument any sympathy, especially among a very scientifically minded community.

Goldfish have no place in any wild ecosystems, should we euthanize all goldfish?

Wow, you seem like you've had this debate before.

[OpalornisHuali]

Wow! It is an amazing discovery!

I really hate that people go on about cloning.. These animals have no place in today's ecosystems, they will live only in captivity as spectacles for human entertainment, and they will suffer for it.

I say to anyone who wants to clone an extinct dinosaur.. Or any ancient extinct animal..
Leave her dead, she is no longer suffering..

Sorry but that's a very closed minded ideal. You make it sound like all zoos and aquaria are abusive, which is far from truth. The subtleties of law regarding animal husbandry are either ignored or blown ludicrously out of proportion by the media, but suffice to say zoos or aquariums that actually abuse their animals are almost nonexistent in the modern first world, and even ones with simply improper housing are seeing huge progress in updating and maintaining newer improved exhibits.

Even if we pretend we're living in the 1930's when zoos were composed of little more than concrete pits, a specimen that costs such crazy amounts of money to obtain would be well treated, irregardless of where it ended up.

Then there's also rewilding to consider, something like Raphus or the various extinct giant tortoises actually do still have a place in their respective ecosystems, and their presence would be very beneficial. One could even make a case for creatures like great auks or moas/Haast's eagle, which would require extensive populations and accompanying regulations before being reintroduced, but the actual ecosystem itself would likely be able to handle them if not benefit from their presence. It's impossible to clone something from a fossil which means aside from cases where humans or invasive species have already completely destroyed the habitat all extinct animals that realistically could be brought back would have a place in the wild.

If you want to talk about the animals suffering, feel free to bring up the likely failures of cloning, deformed hybrids, and highly likely future of inbreeding and overall poor health. Screaming "ZOOS ARE BAD" only makes you look like another sheep blindly following the exploits of dangerously misinformative organizations like PETA or ALF, and it won't earn your argument any sympathy, especially among a very scientifically minded community.

Goldfish have no place in any wild ecosystems, should we euthanize all goldfish?

You will be surprised who is truly misinforming the public. While PETA isn't completely reliable, and is actually very corrupt, so are the zoos themselves as of course they will try to make their businesses look good. PETA and ALF are not the only ones who go undercover behind the scenes at such facilities, either.
There is something called "zoochosis", it is abnormal behaviour induced by captivity. Most animals do want to run free and live in the wide open, it's their instinct. Often you can see elephants swaying their head, tigers pacing etc.
Surplus zoo animals are usually killed, and can be sold to canned hunting businesses and shady roadside zoos as well. I can imagine places like that would pay a large price for a dinosaur...
Many zoos kill around 10-30 surplus animals a year, again this varies.

However the big problem with zoos is that they never release animal back into the wild. They are businesses out to make profit and unfortunately this leads to corruption. If they were more like animal sanctuaries and bred animals to be rehabilitated  and released, I would support them for sure. But they aren't like that.

Inbreeding, as you mentioned, can be present as well, some zoos breed animals for a certain "look" such as white tigers, and they have all sorts of problems due to inbreeding.
This goes for hybrid animals like Ligers as well, while not inbred they also often suffer.

What good is it to bring back an animal from the dead, when their lives will be forever in captivity?The good is only to the humans who think it is "cool" to see them.

However I agree, if there are some species who can be  reintroduced into the wild, then yes I support them being brought back to life if possible. In this case perhaps the earth can gain it's lost biodiversity that was destroyed by humans. However as you mentioned there can be problems with that such as inbreeding etc.

I think zoos have great potential. "zoos are bad" is not a definitive, as zoos can be used for good. But neither is "zoos are good", as the majority are just businesses made off the backs of animals.

The same can be said for cloning, it can be used for good, but also for exploitation.

No, of course we shouldn't kill innocent animals who cannot be released, we should take care of the to the best of our ability, but I do think we should stop breeding them. We should focus on helping endangered species, not creating new ones for selfish desires of entertainment or decoration.

Anyways this is a rather controversial topic.. I really shouldn't have said anything as I know it can spark heated argument.. I'm sorry for that.