Near-complete enantiornithean chick found in amber

[Neosodon]

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.

That's the DTF for you.

It is possible to genetically engineer a dinosaur. An exact clone would be near impossible. But by manipulating bird DNA we could get a dinosaur like animal. The worlds ecosystems are already so screwed up I don't think it would make anything worse by re introducing dino birds back into the wild. A lot of people would find something like this outrageous but we've contributed to the extinction of so many species it would be nice if we could make up for it. With global warming a warm mezazoic like climate is what we will have in a century or so. If a mass extinction wiped out most mammals dinosaurs could once again rule the world.

[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?

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

That's the DTF for you.

It is possible to genetically engineer a dinosaur. An exact clone would be near impossible. But by manipulating bird DNA we could get a dinosaur like animal. The worlds ecosystems are already so screwed up I don't think it would make anything worse by re introducing dino birds back into the wild. A lot of people would find something like this outrageous but we've contributed to the extinction of so many species it would be nice if we could make up for it. With global warming a warm mezazoic like climate is what we will have in a century or so. If a mass extinction wiped out most mammals dinosaurs could once again rule the world.

Releasing these genetically engineered birds in the wild, particularly if they are predators, could be detrimental to native animal species, just as it would be with any "invasive" species. Already humans are killing off introduced animals because of this problem.
I think in the case of bringing back extinct animals, if it is done at all, it should be limited to recently extinct ones who still have their niche in the world.

The dinosaur/reptile "takeover" after the next mass extinction could  happen anyways even if we left things as they are. After all, birds are still rather diverse and usually of small size. Lizards and other small non-dinosaur reptiles could proliferate and diversify greatly as well.

Ah, imagining life flourishing again after the extinction of all humans (and unfortunately the animals we will bring down with us) cheers me up quite a bit..

[Neosodon]

Ah, imagining life flourishing again after the extinction of all humans (and unfortunately the animals we will bring down with us) cheers me up quite a bit..

That is probably the bleakest outlook on humanity I have ever seen. But I've certainly felt that way before. You should make that your profile quote.

[stargatedalek]

"Actual zoos" (by which I mean zoological institutions, not roadside parks or childrens fun zones) are under a lot more scrutiny than you seem to assume.

"Zoochosis" does not occur with every species, and is properly documented in very, very few. There is no proof that it necessarily even means an animal is unhappy, just that they find alternate methods of enrichment and develop new behaviors in attempt to accommodate their own needs. Happiness is a construct that is very difficult to quantify in most animals, just because an animal isn't doing the same things it would in the wild doesn't mean it is unhappy or stressed, it just means it's doing something different.

Worth noting that most of the animals we can quantify happiness for are actually very happy in captivity, birds being probably the most obvious example, nearly any bird can be cared for in captivity and will display "happy" behaviors accordingly. That being said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there are many large animals, namely sharks and large mammals, that are difficult if not impossible to properly provide for in captivity.

Surplus animals isn't something zoos deal with by choice. Zoos end up with surplus animals not because they keep buying new ones, but because of a number of regulating factors placed upon them. Organizations like the AZA are incredibly restrictive of where and how their members can buy and sell animals. A zoo that breeds animals, or allows their animals to breed as part of their naturalistic setting, will inevitably end up with more animals than they had when the year started, but if they're with an organization like the AZA they can't sell or even give them to facilities that aren't part of the same organization. They would be expelled, potentially even charged, just for giving the animals away for free. This is why zoos are forced to euthanize extra animals that they don't have the space to keep.

Most accredited zoos and aquariums actually do have release programs, a lot of the aforementioned surplus animals are actually bred for release but because they don't pass the tests they need to pass to legally be released, and no other accredited facility from the same organization wants them, they get euthanized.

As you say many hybrids and rare variants are not bred healthily, though you may be surprised that only a few places breed white tigers anymore. Many of the white tigers in captivity are at their second or even third home, which is why such fickle mutants are on display at otherwise high quality facilities. That and because people will come to see them, as you said zoos are businesses and some will make questionable choices if they think it needs to be done.

But that doesn't make them bad for animals, conservation isn't about defeating the "evil humans", it's about finding a balance of coexistence and meeting it successfully, one needs to be realistic in their expectations and generalized in their perspectives. Is it bad that some facilities are breeding unhealthy hybrids or mutations? Yes, but that's the fault of the general public demanding them, the zoos are only doing what they feel they have to in order to keep operating, which in turn allows them to do a lot more good than a few dozen unhealthy animals could ever undo. The good of the many thousands of animals that are helped through captive breeding and education outweighs a few sick cats.

Many hybrids and mutations with larger genetic pools, such as goldfish, dogs, game birds, or horses, live happy and healthy lives in captivity, and even have economic and cultural significance, but they are the silent majority of hybrids and are more typically seen as pets or livestock.

Being alive in captivity is better than not being alive. If an animal was going extinct, and the only way to give it even a chance of survival was to start a separate breeding population in captivity and wait for an opportunity to reintroduce them after the wild ones go extinct, even if that opportunity may never appear, it would still be wrong to let them go extinct. I don't see why recently extinct animals that can definitely be brought back (of which there is actually very few) are any different.

Organizations like the WWF are also businesses made on the backs of animals (and yes I'm aware the WWF has done it's share of iffy stuff) and they keep as much if not more of their profits than large zoos do. Zoos put most of the money they make into upkeep, comparatively little actually makes it to employees or owners. If someone wants to do actual, measurable good, they need money, and this includes educational facilities of all kinds (zoos, museums, national parks, etc.).

Outlawing goldfish breeding would have huge ramifications. Firstly is the huge cultural significance they play in many areas, outlawing breeding them would be cultural censorship, there is absolutely no getting around that, this is a morally wrong thing to do. Secondly is the huge economic significance they hold, some species are even bred as food in poor areas because of their hardy natures. And then of course there's the goldfish's role as a feeder animal, without them people would need to feed their larger fish and reptiles wild caught fish, or would keeping those also be outlawed? In which case all of the above repeats until you have humans sealed away behind walls, never allowed to interact with animals or nature.



Releasing "dino birds" sounds like a horrible idea at first, but think of the true potential. Toothed fowl that could eat more or less anything, adaptable enough to survive in cities and changing environmental conditions. "Dino birds" could be a wonderful thing for poor countries in the coming decades.

Of course all of this is irrelevant to the tiny bird in the amber, which can't be cloned and would serve comparatively little purpose being genetically recreated. One would think enantiornithes would have had high brood survival rates since they were self reliant, potentially even volant, from day one, but here we are with none of them left and no modern birds having evolved a similar strategy so who's to really say.

[Simon]

Yeah, reverse-engineering birds into something resembling their long-ago dinosaur forefathers might happen some day ... but cloning from fossils will never happen because its been proven that DNA decays quite rapidly.  TRex and Triceratops are gone forever.

Mammoths and other beasts from the last Ice Age have been gone for but a blink of a geological eye - and even some of their frozen bodies that have been found have, to date, failed to yield any usable DNA for cloning purposes...

...there is ONE way, however, in which all manner of dinosaurs from the fossil record can indeed, and probably WILL be "resurrected" some day, however - and that is as robotic animatronics (and I'm not talking about the puppets at Universal Studios).  The day is not far off when truly realistic-looking robot dinosaurs can be made to roam "Game Parks", mimicking the behavior of live animals, for the tourists passing through on a train, much like real animals do on "Safari Rides". 

The only drawback will be the suspension of disbelief thing - but for little kids it will be a great show, won't it?   

[Gwangi]

Yeah, reverse-engineering birds into something resembling their long-ago dinosaur forefathers might happen some day ... but cloning from fossils will never happen because its been proven that DNA decays quite rapidly.  TRex and Triceratops are gone forever.

Mammoths and other beasts from the last Ice Age have been gone for but a blink of a geological eye - and even some of their frozen bodies that have been found have, to date, failed to yield any usable DNA for cloning purposes...

...there is ONE way, however, in which all manner of dinosaurs from the fossil record can indeed, and probably WILL be "resurrected" some day, however - and that is as robotic animatronics (and I'm not talking about the puppets at Universal Studios).  The day is not far off when truly realistic-looking robot dinosaurs can be made to roam "Game Parks", mimicking the behavior of live animals, for the tourists passing through on a train, much like real animals do on "Safari Rides". 

The only drawback will be the suspension of disbelief thing - but for little kids it will be a great show, won't it?   

Jurassic Park meets West World.

[Dinoguy2]

Releasing "dino birds" sounds like a horrible idea at first, but think of the true potential. Toothed fowl that could eat more or less anything, adaptable enough to survive in cities and changing environmental conditions.

I agree with most of your points re: zoos but er... isn't this pretty much the definition of an invasive species? If dinobirds were to turn out as adaptable and versatile as you're assuming, is would spell chaos for natural ecosystems and extinction for many native species.

[stargatedalek]

Releasing "dino birds" sounds like a horrible idea at first, but think of the true potential. Toothed fowl that could eat more or less anything, adaptable enough to survive in cities and changing environmental conditions.

I agree with most of your points re: zoos but er... isn't this pretty much the definition of an invasive species? If dinobirds were to turn out as adaptable and versatile as you're assuming, is would spell chaos for natural ecosystems and extinction for many native species.

I'm not referring to emu sized beasts here, I'm talking about literal chickens with teeth. Chickens are an invaluable food source and making them better at surviving off of the land could improve lives.

[Neosodon]

I'm not referring to emu sized beasts here, I'm talking about literal chickens with teeth.

Chickens with huge tails, teeth, and claws.

[stargatedalek]

That's an unrealistic expectation. First off the wings are wrong, but even aside that that creature is probably never going to be allowed to exist. We say "small dromaeosaurs" but most of them would be "large" predators in today's world. A realistic "dino bird" is just going to be a bird, presumably a chicken or other game bird, with "teeth" and a longer tail (assuming this doesn't have health ramifications which it may well).

[Sim]

That's an unrealistic expectation. First off the wings are wrong, but even aside that that creature is probably never going to be allowed to exist. We say "small dromaeosaurs" but most of them would be "large" predators in today's world. A realistic "dino bird" is just going to be a bird, presumably a chicken or other game bird, with "teeth" and a longer tail (assuming this doesn't have health ramifications which it may well).

That image Neosodon posted is actually of the troodontid Byronosaurus, as can be seen here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-among-us/dinosaur-nests-eggs-and-babies

[ZoPteryx]

So anyways... Very interesting specimen!  Lots of cool info to be gleaned from a paleoart perspective: scaly palms on the hands, feathers emerging from among the scute-like scales of the feet, a possible beak on the ends of the toothed jaws that otherwise show no correlations for a beak, peculiar ecological and ontogenic implications; good stuff!   

[Sim]

So anyways... Very interesting specimen!  Lots of cool info to be gleaned from a paleoart perspective: scaly palms on the hands, feathers emerging from among the scute-like scales of the feet, a possible beak on the ends of the toothed jaws that otherwise show no correlations for a beak, peculiar ecological and ontogenic implications; good stuff!   

Where did it say or show it has scaly palms on the hands?  The paper mentions possible correlation for a beak, and that the ends of the jaws might not show teeth (a lack of teeth at the end of the jaws would suggest a beak was present instead):

The rostral ends of the facial margin of both the upper and lower jaws are jagged. This is most pronounced on the premaxilla and rostrally restricted on the dentary and could represent remnants of a horny beak or small teeth.

The rostral margin of the dentary displays the same jagged edge that was observed in the X-ray μCT data (Section 3.1.1) when viewed with strong incident light (Fig. 2c, e). However, this does not provide a clear indication of teeth. The dentary appears to be darkly pigmented, suggesting that a horny beak may have been present.

[Gwangi]

Releasing "dino birds" sounds like a horrible idea at first, but think of the true potential. Toothed fowl that could eat more or less anything, adaptable enough to survive in cities and changing environmental conditions.

I agree with most of your points re: zoos but er... isn't this pretty much the definition of an invasive species? If dinobirds were to turn out as adaptable and versatile as you're assuming, is would spell chaos for natural ecosystems and extinction for many native species.

I'm not referring to emu sized beasts here, I'm talking about literal chickens with teeth. Chickens are an invaluable food source and making them better at surviving off of the land could improve lives.

Chickens are fine at surviving just the way they are. I doubt teeth would make a difference. The chickens probably wouldn't even know what to do with them.

[BlueKrono]

I don't think birds lost their teeth for an evolutionary DISadvantage...

[stargatedalek]

I don't think birds lost their teeth for an evolutionary DISadvantage...

They lost them to be able to fly more efficiently. Many modern birds have "partially re-evolved" their "teeth" already, namely waterfowl but some birds of prey and a few hornbills have also tried to develop "teeth" although each in different ways. Chickens are great at eating more or less everything aside from grasses, geese need "teeth" to effectively eat them and they have a hard enough time eating them effectively.

Chickens are fine at surviving just the way they are. I doubt teeth would make a difference. The chickens probably wouldn't even know what to do with them.

I could have sworn someone had actually tried giving them "teeth nubs" and they changed their behavior accordingly to better utilize them, but it seems I was incorrect. The "teeth" were absorbed back into the beak before the chicks hatched. I must have been misunderstanding something someone said hypothetically. That was my bad.

I will still maintain the point that genetically engineered animals don't have to become real life xenomorphs and destroy the world, but I definitely phrased that too lightheartedly.

[Neosodon]

Chickens are great at eating more or less everything aside from grasses, geese need "teeth" to effectively eat them and they have a hard enough time eating them effectively.

Actually they will even eat grass too, lol.

[WarrenJB]

Chickens are fine at surviving just the way they are. I doubt teeth would make a difference. The chickens probably wouldn't even know what to do with them.

Feature in family films?

[Dinoguy2]

Releasing "dino birds" sounds like a horrible idea at first, but think of the true potential. Toothed fowl that could eat more or less anything, adaptable enough to survive in cities and changing environmental conditions.

I agree with most of your points re: zoos but er... isn't this pretty much the definition of an invasive species? If dinobirds were to turn out as adaptable and versatile as you're assuming, is would spell chaos for natural ecosystems and extinction for many native species.

I'm not referring to emu sized beasts here, I'm talking about literal chickens with teeth. Chickens are an invaluable food source and making them better at surviving off of the land could improve lives.

Who said anything about emu sized beasts? I'm talking about invasive species here. Which chickens already are in many parts of the world. Good for people? Sure. Havoc for the environment.

And by the way, that old canard about birds losing teeth for flight has been disproved and never made a shred of sense to begin with. The weight of teeth vs wing loading is utterly insignificant, and tooth loss occurred long after the refinement of flight in many lineages.

http://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-lost-their-teeth

I'm all for using genetic modification to make our lives better and in some cases actually help the environment. Golden rice etc. But bringing back an extinct animal to introduce into modern ecosystems on the off chance they can be an improvement when we could just tweak a few genes in existing species that are already pretty well adapted to those roles is just unnecessary.

There are people who want to bring back mastodons to re-balance the ecosystem of California. There are others who say just introduce modern elephants to do essentially the same job. One group is so hung up on the cool factor and treat species like trading cards. The other realizes that species themselves are basically irrelevant, and it's their role in the ecosystem that counts. In an environmental crisis like the one we're facing today, we need to be pragmatic.

[ZoPteryx]

So anyways... Very interesting specimen!  Lots of cool info to be gleaned from a paleoart perspective: scaly palms on the hands, feathers emerging from among the scute-like scales of the feet, a possible beak on the ends of the toothed jaws that otherwise show no correlations for a beak, peculiar ecological and ontogenic implications; good stuff!   

Where did it say or show it has scaly palms on the hands?  The paper mentions possible correlation for a beak, and that the ends of the jaws might not show teeth (a lack of teeth at the end of the jaws would suggest a beak was present instead):

The rostral ends of the facial margin of both the upper and lower jaws are jagged. This is most pronounced on the premaxilla and rostrally restricted on the dentary and could represent remnants of a horny beak or small teeth.

The rostral margin of the dentary displays the same jagged edge that was observed in the X-ray μCT data (Section 3.1.1) when viewed with strong incident light (Fig. 2c, e). However, this does not provide a clear indication of teeth. The dentary appears to be darkly pigmented, suggesting that a horny beak may have been present.

Sorry, should've just said bare rather than scaly palms, my memory slipped.  See Fig. 4.e, and from page 270:

The ventral surface of the manus lacks plumage, and the exposed skin has a mottled grey, tan, and black surface that may be related to partial carbonization or saponification of the soft tissues, or to a thin layer of milky amber produced by decay products, or moisture interacting with the surrounding resin (Martinez-Delclos et al., 2004)

I take this to be that they're describing possible reasons for the odd coloration, rather than the lack of plumage.

RE beak and teeth:  That's what I get for not double checking before posting!    Although, is this the first enantiornithe to preserve a beak and teeth?  I was under the impression that it always seemed to be a case of either/or in this family.