Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


November 10, 2011

Montana’s “Dueling Dinosaurs”


In 1971, a team of Polish and Mongolian paleontologists discovered a spectacular pair of dinosaurs in the Cretaceous strata of the Gobi Desert. A Protoceratops and Velociraptor, the herbivore and carnivore were locked together in a lethal embrace and came to be known as the “Fighting Dinosaurs.” We will never know exactly what happened in the moments prior to their deaths, but the two appear to have been entombed as they tussled.

Now paleontologists in the United States are proposing that they have found a different example of a predator and potential prey in the same Cretaceous grave. In a series of YouTube videos, preparator Chris Morrow, self-described “Dino Cowboy” Clayton Phipps, Black Hills Institute paleontologist Peter Larson and Houston Museum of Natural Science curator Robert Bakker present the remains of two dinosaurs—a ceratopsid and a tyrannosaurid—found in the famous Hell Creek Formation. Both dinosaurs are being cleaned up and readied for study at CK Preparations in Fort Peck, Montana, where the videos were shot.

Exactly what the two dinosaurs are is unclear. The skull of the horned dinosaur looks very much like a large Triceratops, and the smaller tyrannosaurid looks like a juvenile Tyrannosaurus. But Larson and Bakker think otherwise. In one video, Larson points out a number of ambiguous features he suggests distinguish the horned dinosaur from Triceratops. In another video, Bakker describes features of the tyrannosaurid’s arm as vastly different from Tyrannosaurus. He and the others in the room identify the tyrannosaurid as Nanotyrannus, a controversial genus that Bakker named and Larson has supported. The specimens are spectacular in terms of their completeness and preservation, but whether or not they represent unknown or little-known genera of dinosaurs that lived alongside Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus is presently unclear. A solid understanding of dinosaur growth and variation will be needed to tell whether these dinosaurs are actually all that different from what has been found before.

So why are these two being called the “dueling dinosaurs”? At one point in the video, the assembled crowd wonders why the tyrannosaurid skull appears to be crushed. Clayton Phipps suggests that the predator was kicked in the head by the ceratopsid dinosaur right before both became buried. (Peter Larson supports this view in another video.) That may be, but we can’t use proximity alone to determine why these dinosaurs were found together.

The question is one of taphonomy: What happened between the deaths of the animals, their burial and their eventual discovery? Have paleontologists truly caught a tyrannosaurid in the act of trying to take down a ceratopsid, or is there some other explanation—such as a catastrophic local flood, or some sort of mire that trapped them—for why the two dinosaurs were found together? Think about the pose of the tyrannosaurid—the dinosaur is in the classic “death pose” with the head thrown back and tail arched up. Previous studies have indicated that this pose might be caused by death throes associated with a lack of oxygen reaching the brain, or, more simply, by immersion in water. If the tyrannosaurid had died after being kicked in the face by the ceratopsid, I would expect the body to be slumped over or otherwise in a different position. More research is needed. Speculating and coming up with hypotheses is fun, but a detailed understanding of geology and the prehistoric environment these animals died in is required to know whether we can truly call them “dueling dinosaurs.”

Still, the two dinosaurs look like they are fairly complete and well-preserved. Together they will almost certainly provide some new information about two of the most famous dinosaur lineages present in the Hell Creek Formation. We’ll just have to wait for the research to be completed before we can tell whether the more sensational elements of the story are true.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

13 Comments »

  1. Sean Craven says:

    Hey, if random speculation is open, I’d suggest that it’s more likely that a cadaver had its head stepped-on than that a Triceratops used a high-kick on a Tyrannosaurus.

    If there is some other evidence of interaction. And if random speculation is open.

  2. Sean Craven says:

    Holy smokes, my comment showed up! Hi, Brian! How ya been?

  3. Anonymous says:

    It could also be that the two individuals fell into the river and the tyrannosaur simply got kicked in the head by a ceratopsian while the latter tried to struggle out of the water. Animals being smacked in the head or crushed by larger animals trying to struggle out of the water has happened during interactions between living species. Still, a more detailed taphonomic analysis of the site will need to be undertaken before we can say for sure.

  4. Zhen says:

    The tyrannosaur’s teeth were found embedded in the neck of the ceratopsian.

  5. As commented by Zhen there are multiple teeth, presumably from the Nanotyrannus, that were collected (as well as other Nano teeth, some too small and diminutive to have gone in the skull of the beast which has been collected). There is a very shallow layer of plant matter under the ceratopsian’s skull (other blocks have yet to be turned) which is currently being studied to see more clearly where exactly in the Hell Creek are these animals from.

  6. BJ Nicholls says:

    There’s one cast in particular that appears to me to kibosh the “dueling dinos” idea. At 8:40 we see a cast with verts and spines that have been displaced while maintaining relative articular positions. We hear Bakker talk about compaction pushing up liquid sand in-between the bones creating the displacement. That simply wouldn’t happen if the two dinosaurs were buried extremely rapidly with tissues firmly holding the bones in place.

  7. Zhen says:

    Huh? I’m not expert in fossilization process, but I’ve never heard any rule stating fossils must all be fossilized around the same time. Why can’t the body be covered in sediment first while the tail was still exposed for longer periods of time?

  8. Brett Booth says:

    Have to ask, the juvenile at the LA MNH (the middle sized one), isn’t that only slightly larger than Jane? I haven’t been able to learn much about it, but wouldn’t that help settle the Nano question?

    Great picks on the twitter!

    Best,

    Brett

  9. Doug says:

    Brett:
    It’s possible, but that specimen has been heavily reconstructed. The skull is fragmentary (but hey, when has that ever stopped us) and the post cranial skeleton consists of a couple forelimb elements, a few ribs, both ischia, 2 left toe bones, and most of the right leg. Not bad, but not as informative as Jane.

  10. Doug says:

    i know the discussion is dead, but judging from Pete’s description of the ceratopsian, it sounds like a giant cretaceous warthog. Well maybe not a warthog, but like a giant forest hog or red river hog, where they have lots of bumps covered with skin. At least in the case of hogs those “ugly warts” protect their face during fights between males. Whether or not the ceratopsian’s protuberances served a similar function is hard to say.

  11. Anonymous2 says:

    Brian – what qualifications must one have in order to qualify as a paleontologist? Among the “paleontologists” named in the article only one has a PhD, namely Bakker. Otherwise, how can the public identify who the real scientist is?

  12. A real scientist is one who employs the scientific method without prejudice and seeks to uncover true findings unadulterated by their hypothesis, letting the facts speak for themselves. To qualify to be a paleontologist one must only study ancient life as the word paleontologist means just such. Fossil discoveries of import are most often found by amateurs as Ph.D.s generally don’t have the time to go out into the field for the long periods of time necessitated for full scale excavations.

    As I said, the “real scientist” is whoever can employ the scientific method correctly and without prejudice; not letting others’ hypotheses influence the findings in observation.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement