from the world's big
Found in New Mexico: A tiny cousin of the T-Rex
A high-schooler's dig experience writes a new chapter in T-Rex history.
- The bones he found in New Mexico remained unidentified for 20 years.
- Suskityrannus hazelae turns out to be a diminutive predecessor to the "king lizard."
- The tiny terror is the ultimate "citizen scientist" victory.
A fascination with dinosaurs typically starts young. If an adult needs a question answered, a little kid is often the best, most enthusiastic, and up-to-date resource. Going on a paleontology dig is certainly one of the cooler, fascinating ways for a teen to spend a summer.
It's even better when he or she gets the thrill of gently prying from the dirt something that's been never seen before, which is what happened in 1998 when a 16-year-old high-school junior named Sterling Nesbitt found the remains of an unknown creature at Zuni Basin dinosaur site, which straddles the New Mexico-Arizona border. A year earlier geologist Robert Denton had found a partial, tiny skull of the same mysterious theropod, but Nesbitt's find was a more complete specimen.
This month, that creature has finally been scientifically identified: It's a tiny tyrannosaurid — dubbed Suskityrannus hazelae — and its remains offer an unprecedented view of what the mighty T-Rex was like before it became the killing behemoth kids know and love. Indeed, according to the researchers, the dino is phylogenetically the "intermediate between the oldest, smallest tyrannosauroids and the gigantic, last-surviving tyrannosaurids."
A partial Suskityrannus skull is dwarfed by just the jawbone of a T-Rex. Image source: Virginia Tech News
When Nesbitt originally found the bones, they were among the remains of other prehistoric fish, turtles, lizards, crocodylians, and mammals. Because of this, for a time, the assumption was that he'd found a dromaeosaur (think Velociraptor). "Essentially, we didn't know we had a cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex for many years," Nesbitt says, regarding the new taxonomy.
While a typical Tyrannosaus rex crushed the scales at about nine tons, the Suskityrannus weighed in at a mere 45 and 90 lbs. It stood just three fee tall at the hip, and was about nine feet long. The specimen found by Nesbitt is believed to date back to the Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago, and is thought to have been at least three years old. Like its larger cousin, it was also a meat-eater, though it likely supped on much smaller prey than did T-Rex.
Nesbitt tells Virginia Tech News, "Suskityrannus gives us a glimpse into the evolution of tyrannosaurs just before they take over the planet." He adds, "It also belongs to a dinosaurian fauna that just precedes the iconic dinosaurian faunas in the latest Cretaceous that include some of the most famous dinosaurs, such as the Triceratops, predators like Tyrannosaurus rex, and duckbill dinosaurs like Edmotosaurus."
"Suskityrannus has a much more slender skull and foot than its later and larger cousins, the Tyrannosaurus rex," Nesbitt reports. A partial claw has been found, and though it's unclear how many fingers Suskityrannus had, yes, they're just as oddly small as those of T-Rex.
The animal's new name comes from the Zuni word for coyote, "Suski" — the Zuni Tribal Council granted permission to appropriate the term. The "hazelae" is a tribute to Hazel Wolfe, who discovered the Zuni Basin site in 1996, and whose support has been crucial to the ongoing Zuni Basin Paleontology Project.
Nesbitt at the 1998 dig. Until 2006, his discovery was housed at the Arizona Museum of Natural History. Image source: Hazel Wolfe / Virginia Tech News
"My discovery of a partial skeleton of Suskityrannus put me onto a scientific journey that has framed my career. I am now an assistant professor that gets to teach about Earth history," says Nesbitt.
Nesbitt eventually took possession of his find and carted it around with him as he moved between academic jobs until it was finally identified.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
The multifaceted cerebellum is large — it's just tightly folded.
- The so-called 'little brain' is nearly 80% the size of the cerebral cortex when it's unfolded.
A neural crêpe
Study's cross-sections of a folded cerebellum
Image source: Sereno, et al.
A complicated map
Bigger and bigger
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>