Stay Curious

SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER AND UNLOCK ONE MORE ARTICLE FOR FREE.

Sign Up

VIEW OUR Privacy Policy


Discover Magazine Logo

WANT MORE? KEEP READING FOR AS LOW AS $1.99!

Subscribe

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?

FIND MY SUBSCRIPTION
Advertisement

Researchers Debate: Is It Preserved Dinosaur Tissue, or Bacterial Slime?

A new study reveals that what was thought to be dinosaur soft tissue might just be bacterial biofilm in fossils, challenging past findings.

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Sign Up

A new study may burst the bubble of dinosaur buffs by contradicting an exciting announcement of three years ago: what was earlier identified as soft tissue preserved in the thigh bone of a Tyrannosaurus fossil is actually just modern-day bacteria, researchers say. The new study challenges the work done by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who

garnered headlines in 2005 for reporting in the journal Science [that her team] had found the remains of blood vessels inside the fossils unearthed in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Finding tissue preserved at least 65 million years shocked paleontologists who believed any such traces were lost forever [USA Today].

For the new study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, paleontologist Thomas Kaye

went to the same formation where Schweitzer's sample came from, dug up a 65-million-year-old dinosaur bone, cracked it open, and looked at it [Reuters].

He saw the same branching structures that Schweitzer ...

Stay Curious

JoinOur List

Sign up for our weekly science updates

View our Privacy Policy

SubscribeTo The Magazine

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Subscribe
Advertisement

0 Free Articles