2 new dinosaur species discovered in Utah
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
September 28, 2010 4:57pm CST
I just had to post this because I have failed to find and post about the discovery of those 2 new dinosaur species that was discovered in Utah a week ago. Is this due to the lack of interest in subjects like this? Well I think discoveries like this are cool and I would like to know if anyone else does too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100923/ap_on_sc/us_dinosaur_discovery
4 responses
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
29 Sep 10
I find "finds" like this interesting...and who knows, someday I may stop to see what they're doing to preserve this discovery. I've been to the dinasaur monument in NW Colorado; to the dinasaur discovery in Hot Springs, SD; and others. Didn't they just find some in California too?
@haxorfreek (523)
• Philippines
10 Oct 10
I also think these new discoveries are great.
Im sure there are lot more species of dinosaurs which are not yet discovered and just lying underground as fossils, specially in the deep oceans and seas.
These fossils can tell their tales on what they eat and give us ideas on what they eat based on how well they are preserved.
These are history and two new ones are just added.
Im sure they'll find more as each day passes by.
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
1 Oct 10
Yes, of course it's cool. Maybe they'll find something there that really teaches us something new about the dinosaurs!
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
29 Sep 10
Well, there used to be a bigger fuss about this kind of stuff when the science was still relatively blossoming, I guess. But then everyone was kinda fooled.
Paleontologists were tagging a new species on all types of bone sets they found. After time wore on, though, some realized that they were naming a baby (younger, but baby sounds better) dinosaur a new species, not even realizing that there could be baby dinosaur bones. 
I'll probably read about this, but I won't get my hopes up.
After all, they find 1 set of bones, usually incomplete, and name a species from what they see with that sample. It seems like they don't cross reference until decades later or unless they are already plenty samples to go on. So, a T-rex with a deformity becomes a "new" species for 30 years.
I'll probably read about this, but I won't get my hopes up.
After all, they find 1 set of bones, usually incomplete, and name a species from what they see with that sample. It seems like they don't cross reference until decades later or unless they are already plenty samples to go on. So, a T-rex with a deformity becomes a "new" species for 30 years. 