Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, November 10, 2005

The brain of T. rex

Michael Crichton was all wrong—he had his fictitious T. rex crippled with a crude exclusively motion-based visual system, a kind of dumb killing machine. Some recent work on reconstructing the brain of T. rex with CT scans of fossils suggests otherwise. Instead, while definitely not a brilliant thinker, what the animal had was elaborate multimodal sensory processing systems.

In the top panel of this picture, you can see were the brain is located in the skull; relatively tiny and buried deep, isn't it? The lower panel is the reconstructed brain, and what you can see is that the olfactory bulbs at the anterior end are relatively large, so it likely had a very good sense of smell. The inner ear structures are also large, so it probably had excellent hearing and a good sense of balance, a sign of an active animal.

image
CT scans of T. rex's brain (blue) reveal sizable olfactory bulbs (red arrow) and an inner ear (red) with long, delicate canals for balance and cochlear duct for hearing.

Other analyses of its visual system also reveal that its vision was sharp.

T. rex, with its forward-facing and widely separated eye sockets, turned out to have great binocular vision and, likely, depth perception. When T. rex dipped its head about 10°—similar to the angle of the alert posture that Witmer estimated—it would have maximized the width of its binocular field of view at 55°, as good as that of hawks, Stevens says. That's not quite as good as those of the highly birdlike dinosaurs, such as Troondon, but it exceeds that of other adult tyrannosaurids.

There is still some debate over Horner's proposal that T. rex was a scavenger, and these observations don't resolve that, since scavengers also need good sensory systems. That it may have had an unusually good sense of hearing, though, inclines me towards the big predator hypothesis.


Stokstad E (2005) Tyrannosaurus rex Gets Sensitive. Science 310(5750): 966-967


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3344/U6XYcIcr/

Comments:
#48332: coturnix — 11/10  at  08:53 PM
Yup, hearing is news to me. Big olfactory bulb is fine with scavenging - turkey vultures have, among the birds, relatively the largest one. But carcasses do not make noises and T-rex did not need to be on a constant alert for its own predators.



#48334: Heathen Dan — 11/10  at  09:04 PM
Who was it that said, "predators are just glorified scavengers"?



#48335: Federico Contreras — 11/10  at  09:42 PM
Somehow, the whole big vulture thing does NOT convince me...
I'm not smart, but I heard something about dinosaurs not quite being endothermic, but ... something else, the weather was very warm 65 million years ago where they lived so they did not require the systems that we do to _act_ warm blooded...

We need a paleontologist / paleobiologist here to help mez0rz!

I LOVE dinosaurs!



#48339: — 11/10  at  10:19 PM
Michael Crichton...wrong? You're kidding!



#48340: — 11/10  at  10:20 PM
I think he recanted on the motion-based vision thing in The Lost World.



#48343: — 11/10  at  10:35 PM
I actually have a paper floating around somewhere, from some obscure little journal, which describes a wound to the caudal neural spines of an Edmontosaurus that both matches the expected bite pattern of a T. rex (and there was nothing else known at the time and place that could have left such a wound) and shows evidence of healing, indicating the animal lived through the attack.

I'm no paleo expert, so it might just be one of those shoddy papers, but it looked fairly convincing for an outsider. I can dig up the reference, if you want.



#48344: Doran — 11/10  at  10:43 PM
Patrick beats me to that point. By the time he wrote The Lost World, any writing talent he once had, had become some blob of mush. Reading them again, I have to justify previously liking his work by saying "I was twelve."



#48347: — 11/10  at  10:46 PM
Patrick: yeah, and he did it completely without explanation. It was surreal, one of the characters was a palaeontologist who makes exactly the same argument as was used to explain the T-Rex's behaviour in the first book, and is for some reason proven wrong.

Horner's analysis on T-Rex as an almost pure scavenger has always struck me as a dramatic overstatement. I was extremely disappointed with his portrayal of the issue in Focus magazine - he categorised the opposing argument as essentially being that since Tyrannosaurus had big fangs and was itself large, that palaeontologists just assumed it was a hunter. I grew up practically idolising the guy and it was pretty disappointing seeing him do this. Same goes for when he delayed that paper (I think it was to coincide with a movie production schedule.) Humph.

-Schmitt.



#48349: — 11/10  at  10:50 PM
Henry, I just saw that Edmontosaurus about a month ago. It's at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, MT.

Rrawr!



#48355: Joel Sax — 11/11  at  12:17 AM
I was going to ask about the scavenger theory. Anyone who has watched a vulture scrying the ground for the smallest of carcasses appreciates their abilities.

This was tres kwel.



#48356: Dan Curewitz — 11/11  at  12:18 AM
Scavenger? Predator?

Hell, why not both? Lions, Dogs, Eagles, Hyenas, any number of modern carnivores eat both hunt and scavenge for meat....is there any reason to presume that extinct carnivores would not engage in similar behavior?



#48358: — 11/11  at  12:28 AM
If I remember correctly, it was the scriptwriters for the first Jurassic Park movie that had the paleontologist claiming T. rex's vision was movement-based. In the original novel, the two individual tyrannosaurs had movement-based vision, but it was explained as having been a result of the frog DNA used to "repair" their genome. Apparently the moviemakers thought it was appropriate to take part of the science-fiction, simplify it, and make the ficticious paleontologist state it as science. (They also failed by not killing off the irritating mathematician as was his due at the end of the novel, but this is beside the point.)



#48360: — 11/11  at  02:52 AM
Ok, the theories among whatever subject in paleontology had long been: 'it's this', 'no it's that', but nowadays it's more often a combination of the two. Also the predator/scavenger T-rex will have existed. Of course an animal with those features will not have scavenged only, but when it had the change it will have used it's size to grab an easy meal from a younger T-rex or smaller dinosaur.

We should never forget that we look only at the bones and interpret what we can. The way it will be known by people will be how and who speaks to the media or Hollywood figures.

As for Jurassic Park: also John Hammond died at the end of the first book. The three films explained the theories that were going around at those give moments. The Velocirators are a good example: in the first film they were bold and reptilian (they even had a split tongue in the first version that was corrected on time) and in the third movie they suddenly had featheres and more bright than ever. So, Hollowood is just following the idols like Horner or Sereno. But also these men can change their views, and they may as it it up to me.



#48361: — 11/11  at  02:56 AM
Ok, the theories among whatever subject in paleontology had long been: 'it's this', 'no it's that', but nowadays it's more often a combination of the two. Also the predator/scavenger T-rex will have existed. Of course an animal with those features will not have scavenged only, but when it had the change it will have used it's size to grab an easy meal from a younger T-rex or smaller dinosaur.

We should never forget that we look only at the bones and interpret what we can. The way it will be known by people will be how and who speaks to the media or Hollywood figures, for it are their thoughts.

As for Jurassic Park: also John Hammond died at the end of the first book. The three films explained the theories that were going around at those give moments. The Velocirators are a good example: in the first film they were bold and reptilian (they even had a split tongue in the first version that was corrected on time) and in the third movie they suddenly had featheres and more bright than ever. So, Hollowood is just following the idols like Horner or Sereno. But also these men can change their views, and they may as it it up to me.



#48362: — 11/11  at  03:00 AM
Ok, the theories among whatever subject in palaeontology had long been: 'it's this', 'no it's that', but nowadays it's more often a combination of the two. Also the predator/scavenger T-rex will have existed. Of course an animal with those features will not have scavenged only, but when it had the change it will have used it's size to grab an easy meal from a younger T-rex or smaller dinosaur.

We should never forget that we look only at the bones and interpret what we can. The way it will be known by people will be how and who speaks to the media or Hollywood figures, for it are their thoughts.

As for Jurassic Park: also John Hammond died at the end of the first book. The three films explained the theories that were going around at those give moments. The Velociraptors are a good example: in the first film they were bold and reptilian (they even had a split tongue in the first version that was corrected on time) and in the third movie they suddenly had feathers and more bright than ever. So, Hollywood is just following the idols like Horner or Sereno. But also these men can change their views, and they may as it is up to me, because they come up with new information or get new thoughts.



#48363: — 11/11  at  03:04 AM
I had a little error with submitting, it did not work very well and now I see it's in duplo. Ah, well the last one is the one, with small modifications. Greetings



#48365: — 11/11  at  07:24 AM
as an aside, don't the folks at the witmer lab always include the prettiest pictures in their publications? look at those pretty rendered scans!



#48366: — 11/11  at  07:58 AM

Instead, while definitely not a brilliant thinker, what the animal had was elaborate multimodal sensory processing system

That's a rather disrespectful way to talk about Michael Crichton!



#48372: John Emerson — 11/11  at  10:00 AM
Crichton also screwed up a novel based on the travels of Ibn Fadlan. About 800 -- 900 AD Ibn Fadlan witnessed and recorded an XXXXX Viking funeral (orgy, human sacrifice) at Bulgar on the lower Volga. Fadlan's is probably the most detailed account we have of the pagan Vikings, but Crichton junked up the story with a lot of BS about Neanderthal survivors. What a jerk.



#48375: Keith Douglas — 11/11  at  10:13 AM
Just out of curiousity: on what basis do we assume that the tyrannosaur brain filled its skull? Couldn't it have some oddly shaped ventricles or something?



#48377: coturnix — 11/11  at  10:40 AM
But, is the large size of the skull sufficient to shield he brain from the radio waves?



#48380: Keith — 11/11  at  10:59 AM
Hows that for serendipity: I was just reading Gould's criticism of Jurrasic Park in <I>Dinosaur in a Haystack</a> last night. Gould didn't buy the T Rex as scavenger either and took umbrage with the filmmakers for increasing the size of the Velociraptors by a third (and mentioned his mild displeasure at the dinos all being dull gray-green rather than colorful like birds). As usual, Gould is well worht reading, and not just for his criticisms of Chrichton and Spielburg.



#48386: — 11/11  at  11:26 AM
As long as we've brought up the subject of what a pantload Michael Crichton is, let's not forget his latest book, where he informs us that global warming is fake, and in fact scientists are making the glaciers melt in a desperate bid for attention...



#48394: — 11/11  at  12:04 PM
Looks like I might have to get ready to reverse my opinion again. Good hearing does suggest a strong pred leaning on the predator/scavenger spectrum to me.

I still have difficulty with one thing: I've heard that if T-Rex tripped while running, it would crush its ribcage, inflicting fatal injuries on its internal organs. Can't remember where I heard it, but does anyone know more about that?



Trackback: Friday Ark #60 Tracked on: Modulator (63.247.135.223) at 2005 11 11 12:48:00
Friday Ark Template We'll post links to sites that have Friday (plus or minus a few days) photos of their chosen animals (photoshops at our discretion and humans only in supporting roles). Watch the Exception category for rocks, beer, coffee cups, and....? We will add your post to the list if you do one of the following: Leave a comment...



Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Next entry: How to draw a woman

Previous entry: California dreamin'

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college