They called it Hellboy
June 4, 2015 2:23 PM Subscribe
In their paper ("A New Horned Dinosaur Reveals Convergent Evolution in Cranial Ornamentation in Ceratopsidae"(pdf)) released today, Caleb Brown and Donald Henderson describe Regaliceratops peterhewsi, a new species of dinosaur. They called it Hellboy, and not just because of the horns.
A chasmosaurine, the dinosaur has a long nose horn, and two small horns over the eyes - the reverse of other chasmosaurines like Triceratops, who have two long horns over the eyes and a shorter nose horn. These features are more consistent with centosaurines. Regaliceratops lived 2 million years after the centosaurines.
In addition to the horns, Hellboy had a halo or crown of bony spikes around its head. The official name derives from the "regal" nature of the crown and Peter Hews, who first spotted the skull in a river bank above the Oldman River in Southern Alberta in 2005. The nickname of Hellboy after the comic book character comes from both the two short horns over the eyes and the difficult process of extracting the fossil.
Caleb Brown also used the paper as an opportunity to propose.
A chasmosaurine, the dinosaur has a long nose horn, and two small horns over the eyes - the reverse of other chasmosaurines like Triceratops, who have two long horns over the eyes and a shorter nose horn. These features are more consistent with centosaurines. Regaliceratops lived 2 million years after the centosaurines.
In addition to the horns, Hellboy had a halo or crown of bony spikes around its head. The official name derives from the "regal" nature of the crown and Peter Hews, who first spotted the skull in a river bank above the Oldman River in Southern Alberta in 2005. The nickname of Hellboy after the comic book character comes from both the two short horns over the eyes and the difficult process of extracting the fossil.
Caleb Brown also used the paper as an opportunity to propose.
Also, you know, New Dinosaur!!!
To be fair, I was a little disappointed that they did not find evidence of large stone hands as well....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:49 PM on June 4, 2015
To be fair, I was a little disappointed that they did not find evidence of large stone hands as well....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:49 PM on June 4, 2015
I'm a little disappointed with the artist rendering. It's pretty much accepted these days that nearly all dinosaurs were feathered.
(And don't get me started on Jurassic World. Feathered dinosaurs would be an order of magnitude scarier. Total missed opportunity. )
posted by monospace at 4:06 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
(And don't get me started on Jurassic World. Feathered dinosaurs would be an order of magnitude scarier. Total missed opportunity. )
posted by monospace at 4:06 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Jurassic World is run by shady theme park types who use frog DNA and don't care about authenticity. They're even making some rubbish hybrid dinosaur for no scientific reason.
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on June 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:34 PM on June 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
How do they know it's not just a variant Triceratops ?
posted by Renoroc at 6:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 6:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, crap.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:03 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by middleclasstool at 7:03 PM on June 4, 2015
How do they know it's not just a variant Triceratops ?
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it's because they evolved two million years apart. By that point, Triceratops were long gone.
posted by brecc at 9:24 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it's because they evolved two million years apart. By that point, Triceratops were long gone.
posted by brecc at 9:24 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm a little disappointed with the artist rendering. It's pretty much accepted these days that nearly all dinosaurs were feathered.
Or not. It seems like it's not really settled, although I know there's at least one ceratopsian that had quills of some sort on its back. So I think a ceratopsian with feather-like structures is totally believable but I'm okay with a depiction that doesn't include it. It's speculative either way.
Theropods, on the other hand? Those best be feathered.
How do they know it's not just a variant Triceratops?
I'm no scientist so I can't really tell you exactly how they make that sort of determination beyond "they compare and contrast characteristics". Looking at that skull I'd say there's definitely enough of a difference there to say it's a different genus. There are a lot of different Triceratops relatives. Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, etc. This is just another one of those. A relative, but not the same.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it's because they evolved two million years apart. By that point, Triceratops were long gone.
Triceratops were among the last non-avian dinosaurs. They died in the the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Where are you getting the 2 million year difference from?
posted by brundlefly at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or not. It seems like it's not really settled, although I know there's at least one ceratopsian that had quills of some sort on its back. So I think a ceratopsian with feather-like structures is totally believable but I'm okay with a depiction that doesn't include it. It's speculative either way.
Theropods, on the other hand? Those best be feathered.
How do they know it's not just a variant Triceratops?
I'm no scientist so I can't really tell you exactly how they make that sort of determination beyond "they compare and contrast characteristics". Looking at that skull I'd say there's definitely enough of a difference there to say it's a different genus. There are a lot of different Triceratops relatives. Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, etc. This is just another one of those. A relative, but not the same.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it's because they evolved two million years apart. By that point, Triceratops were long gone.
Triceratops were among the last non-avian dinosaurs. They died in the the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Where are you getting the 2 million year difference from?
posted by brundlefly at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Was just coming in to correct myself - listening to an interview with one of the authors right now, and he noted that this is a new genus, a step up from a new species.
Usually the local CBC station is good about posting their morning show interviews a few hours later; I will see if I can post the link later.
posted by nubs at 6:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Usually the local CBC station is good about posting their morning show interviews a few hours later; I will see if I can post the link later.
posted by nubs at 6:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Motivational Epicenter LaBeouf | Simpsons did it! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Normally, I disapprove of stunt proposals, but I guess getting your proposal into the scholarly record could turn the right gal (or guy)'s heart. Will Ms.* O'Brian be forced to confirm her decision in the letters to a later issue? Will this proposal need to undergo peer review? (In which case, the thrid reviewer is always going to call for further data.)
*Possibly Dr. She's authored some papers herself.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:34 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]