
What did dinosaurs sound like?
Alamy
We tend to associate dinosaurs with ground-shaking roars, but the latest research shows that this is probably mistaken.
You'd feel it more than hear it – a deep, visceral throb, emerging from somewhere beyond the thick foliage. Like the rumble of a foghorn, it would thrum in your ribcage and bristle the hairs on your neck. In the dense forests of the Cretaceous period, it would have been terrifying.
We have few clues for what noises dinosaurs might have made while they ruled the Earth before being killed off 66 million years ago. The remarkable stony remains uncovered by palaeontologists offer evidence of the physical prowess of these creatures, but not a great deal about how they interacted and communicated. Sound doesn't fossilise, of course.
From what we know about animal behaviour, however, dinosaurs were almost certainly not silent.
Now with the help of new, rare fossils and advanced analysis techniques, scientists are starting to piece together some of the clues about how dinosaurs might have sounded.
There is no single answer to this puzzle. Dinosaurs dominated the planet for around 179 million years and during that time, evolved into an enormous array of different shapes and sizes. Some were tiny, like the diminutive Albinykus, which weighed under a kilogram (2.2lbs) and was probably less than 2ft (60cm) long. Others were among the biggest animals to have ever lived on land, such as the titanosaur Patagotitan mayorum, which may have weighed up to 72 tonnes. They ran on two legs, or plodded on four. And along with these diverse body shapes, they would have produced an equally wide variety of noises.
Some dinosaurs had greatly elongated necks – up to 16m (52ft) long in the largest sauropods – which would have likely altered the sounds they produced (think about what happens when a trombone is extended). Others had bizarre skull structures that, much like wind instruments, could have amplified and altered the tone the animals produced. One such creature, a herbivorous hadrosaur named Parasaurolophus tubicen, would have been responsible for the fearsome calls described at the start of this article. (You can listen to the sound in the video further down this article.)
You might also like:
The polar dinosaurs revealing ancient secrets
The enduring mystery of T rex's arms
How mammals won the dinosaurs' world
P. tubicen had an enormous crest almost 1m (3.2ft) long protruding from the back of its head. Inside this were three pairs of hollow tubes running from the nose to the top of the crest, where two of the pairs performed a U-bend to wind back down towards the base of the skull and the animal's airways. The other pair widened to form a large chamber near the top of the crest. In total they formed what was essentially a 2.9m (9.5ft) long resonating chamber.
In 1995, palaeontologists at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science unearthed a nearly complete skull of this unusual looking Parasaurolophus. Using a computerised tomography (CT) scanner, they were able to take 350 images of the crest, allowing them to see inside in unprecedented detail. Then, working with computer scientists, they digitally reconstructed the organ and simulated how it might behave if air was blown through it.
"I would describe the sound as otherworldly," says Tom Williamson, one of those who worked on the dig and is now curator of palaeontology at the museum. "It sent chills through my spine, I remember."
Roars or rumbles: the sounds of dinosaurs on film
Reproducing the sounds made by dinosaurs is a particular challenge for television and filmmakers.
While the Jurassic Park movies give their dinosaurs the kind of deafening roars that install terror into audiences, the producers behind the BBC's new series of Walking With Dinosaurs chose a different route.
"We relied a lot on a process called called 'phylogenetic bracketing'," says Jay Balamurugan, an assistant producer who worked on the series. "It is essentially the process of looking at living relatives on either side of the family tree of prehistoric animals to infer what characteristics their ancient cousins would have had. In the case of dinosaurs, we look at birds and crocodilians, and see what traits in sound those two groups share – such as hisses, bellows, and rumbles. Because they share these features, it is likely that dinosaurs did too."
* The new series of Walking With Dinosaurs starts on BBC One in the UK on 25 May in the UK and on PBS in the US on 16 June. You can find information on how to watch the series where you are in the world via the series website on BBC Earth.
The closest analogues he can find in living animals today are the vibrating grunts of the southern cassowary, which lives in Australia. This flightless bird emits a series of deep bellows and growls that reverberate through the thick jungle where they live.
"It's easy for me to imagine a misty Late Cretaceous rainforest setting with those eerie sounds thundering in the background," says Williamson. "The sounds are of low frequencies – just what is necessary to penetrate the dense undergrowth."
Williamson and his colleagues simulated the sound P. tubicen might have produced both with and without an assortment of vocal organs, such as the larynx found in mammals and modern reptiles. They found that even without a larynx or the equivalent voice box, the dinosaur may still have produced a noise due to the way air would have resonated inside the crest when the animal blew air through it, much like blowing over the opening of a jug.
"We didn't have preserved soft tissues and we don't know, for example, if these dinosaurs had sound-producing organs such as mammals and birds do," says Williamson. "It became apparent that a sound-producing organ wasn't necessary to get the crest to resonate because it is such a long structure."
Other hadrosaurs had similar, if not so dramatic, musical crests on their skulls that are thought to have doubled as a visual display and an aid to vocalisation. Most would have produced low-frequency sounds, and the fossilised remains of these animals have even inspired some to create musical instruments based on hadrosaur skulls.
Not all dinosaurs were blessed with what amounted to a trumpet atop their heads. And we have no fossilised evidence of voice boxes from dinosaurs, leading some to speculate the animals may even have been mute.
"What we do have are fossil clues that can tell us about different parameters of the airways like its diameter and its length," says Julia Clarke, a palaeontologist at the University of Texas at Austin. "We can compare those geometries to see how they relate to those dinosaurs that are living today – birds."
But Clarke has another clue that has provided a further piece of the puzzle. In the mid-2000s, she and her colleagues conducted a detailed examination of the preserved skeleton of an early type of bird found over a decade earlier by Argentinian researchers on Vega Island, a tiny scrap of land on the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. The fossil itself remains partially embedded in a piece of rock, but using advanced CT scanning techniques, Clarke and her team were able to detect bits of the fossil hidden from view. They then digitally reconstructed the fossil from the scans.
And there, nestled amongst the fossilised bone fragments, were the remnants of something astonishing – the mineralised rings of a syrinx, the sound producing organ found in birds, dating back to the time of the dinosaurs.
The primitive bird it belonged to – a goose-like creature called Vegavis iaai – would have coexisted with non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, 66-68 million years ago. At around this time, this part of modern Antarctica would have been covered in temperate forests and surrounded by shallow seas. The honking sounds of V. iaai were probably part of that landscape.
But for Clarke, the discovery reveals something else by its presence – that these sound-producing organs can fossilise, and their absence from most dinosaur fossils is telling. Birds, or avian dinosaurs to be more precise, evolved from theropod dinosaurs around 165-150 million years ago during the Jurassic period. If the syrinx from a bird living 66-68 million years ago could be preserved as a fossil, what has happened to the voice boxes among the remains of their extinct non-avian cousins, such as Tyrannosaurus rex?
Only one known dinosaur voice box has ever been discovered, belonging to a non-avian dinosaur known as Pinacosaurus grangeri, an armour-plated creature that roamed the land on four legs and wielded a club-like tail around 80 million years ago. The larynx, which was unearthed in modern Mongolia in 2005, may have worked in a similar way to the syrinx of modern birds. Analysis published in 2023 suggests the creature may have produced loud, explosive calls and complex bird-like vocalisations similar to those produced by parrots, using its larynx to modify the sounds.
Discoveries like these have led Clarke to delve deeper into how modern birds produce sound. "There are around 10,000 living species of birds [some estimates put the number as high as 18,000 ], but there has been surprisingly little scientific research done on what sounds they actually make and how they do it," she says. Her work has led her to a revelation that will shake the ground from under the feet of five-year-olds and movie goers around the world. Dinosaurs almost certainly didn't roar. They probably cooed instead.
Or more accurately they may have produced sounds in ways similar to the way doves coo or ostriches boom. Many modern birds use what is known as closed-mouth vocalisation, where sound is made by inflating the throat rather than passing air through the syrinx. Crocodiles – another distant relative of the dinosaurs that split from a common ancestor around 240 million years ago – also use closed-mouth vocalisation to generate deep rumbles that can cause the water around them to "dance" around their bodies. Crocodiles, like other reptiles and mammals, have a larynx rather than a syrinx that produces the sound. But they bypass this when producing their mating bellows.
"The Jurassic Park films have got it wrong," laughs Clarke. "A lot of the early reconstructions of dinosaurs have been influenced by what we associate with scary noises today from large mammalian predators like lions. In the Jurassic Park movies they did use some crocodilian vocalisations for the large dinosaurs, but on screen the dinosaurs have their mouths open like a lion roaring. They wouldn't have done that, especially not just before attacking or eating their prey. Predators don't do that – it would advertise to others nearby that you have got a meal, and it would warn their prey they are there."
Fossils have also revealed some of the delicate bones that helped dinosaur ears to function
Instead Clarke believes that many non-avian dinosaurs may have produced sounds with their mouths closed by inflating the soft tissues of their throats, as part of some sort of mating display. But she says they could also have used open-mouth calls in other situations, such as moments of distress. "There's going to be a lot of different kinds of sounds out there in the landscape of the Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous," she says.
It is a view supported by research on another part of dinosaur anatomy for which there is better evidence in the fossil record – their ears. Studies of dinosaur skulls have allowed palaeontologists to reconstruct what their inner ears were like. A few fossils have also revealed some of the delicate bones that helped dinosaur ears to function.
"Dinosaurs only had this single bone in their middle ear, the stapes – a key structure in translating vibrations in air, sound waves, to the inner ear that can then be processed by the brain," says Phil Manning, professor of natural history at the University of Manchester. "Us mammals also possess the malleus (hammer) and the incus (anvil)."
Without these additional pieces of bony hearing apparatus, dinosaurs may only have been able to hear a much narrower range of frequencies compared to mammals, Manning says. And they were probably attuned to picking up low frequency sounds.
"The stapes in dinosaurs were often quite large, almost the size of a matchstick in T. rex, meaning it was well tuned to lower frequencies," says Manning. "Small species of dinosaurs with smaller stapes would correlate with high-frequency sounds."
The size of the cochlear ducts in the inner ears of dinosaur fossils offer other insights about their hearing abilities, and suggest they could have also been able to pick up high frequencies. "We know from living animals that the longer the cochlea, generally the greater range of sounds it can hear," says Steve Brusatte, professor of palaeontology and evolution at the University of Edinburgh. "Mammal cochleas are coiled like a snake, to pack in a long length into a small region of skull. Dinosaur cochleas aren't like this, but some of them are pretty long."
One detailed study of a species of tyrannosaur – a horse-sized predator from the mid-Cretaceous called Timurlengia euotica, which prowled what is now the Kyzylkum Desert in modern-day Uzbekistan – has revealed that these animals had unusually long cochlear ducts in their inner ears. "That suggests that it could hear a wider range of sounds than many other dinosaurs," says Brusatte who led the study. When we studied the CT scans of Timurlengia, we noticed that its cochlea was really, really long for a dinosaur."
Could young dinosaurs have been tweeting in their nests to get their parents' attention, like modern bird chicks?
In fact dinosaurs might have developed these elongated cochleas fairly early on in their evolution, perhaps in the very early days of their branch of the evolutionary tree, known as the Archosauria, around 250 million years ago.
"The cochlear elongation denoting sensitivity to squeaky noises occurred near the origin of the archosaurian 'ruling reptiles', which includes birds and crocodiles," says Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, associate curator of vertebrate paleontology at Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticu. He has reconstructed the ear canals of several archosaurs using three-dimensional scans of their fossilised skulls. "We considered all sorts of possible drivers of this transformation and realised that the only one that was consistent with all evidence was the advent of a high level of parental care, and more specifically the use of chirping 'location calls' by the babies."
So, could young dinosaurs have been tweeting in their nests to get their parents' attention, like modern bird chicks and young crocodiles do today? Bhullar thinks they might have. "Given that baby birds and baby crocodiles chirp, it's reasonable to infer that baby non-bird dinosaurs did as well, and that their parents listened to them and cared for them just as crocodile and bird parents do," he says. "As far as what sensitivity to high-pitched sound means about the noises that adult non-bird dinosaurs made – it's an open question. I would be entirely unsurprised if most dinosaurs, and especially those closely related to birds, made a variety of noises."
The ability to hear a wide range of sounds could have been useful in many ways, such as detecting predators or other threats, or allowing them to scout out prey more effectively, says Brusatte. But it could have been used for communication with each other too – either to warn about danger, to attract mates, intimidate rivals or to help herds stick together.
"We know at least some tyrannosaurus travelled and maybe hunted in packs, so communication between individuals was probably important," says Brusatte.
But with such large animals producing many of these sounds, how would they have sounded to our ears? Much of the booming calls of crocodiles and cassowaries is beyond the limits of human hearing in low frequencies known as infrasound (there are even reports of alligators living close to Cape Canaveral in Florida producing infrasound calls in response to the deep rumble of the rockets during launches of the Space Shuttle in the 1980s). Elephants are also known to communicate over long distances using infrasound and Sumatran rhinos use infrasound "whistles" that resemble humpback whale song to penetrate their thick forest habitat.
Low-frequency sounds and infrasound are especially good at travelling long distances, both in open environments and dense jungle habitats. In animals the size of the T. rex or giant sauropods like the Diplodocus, the sound could have been very low indeed.
Even if we could hear the biggest of the dinosaurs humming to one another, it would have sounded strange to our ears
"We know there is a fundamental scaling relationship between body size and frequency," says Clarke. "Small animals produce higher frequency sounds in general because of the length of their vocal cords, unless they've got some weird modifications. Large animals produce lower frequency sounds. And so in dinosaurs, you have these animals that are the size of four elephants stacked on top of each other. They're not producing sounds in the frequency range of human hearing.
"But you would probably feel them."
Other research suggests that even if we could hear the biggest of the dinosaurs humming to one another, it would have sounded strange to our ears. Giants like the Supersaurus may not have had great control over their vocal abilities due to the relatively long delay for nerve signals to travel down the 28m (92ft) long necks from the brain. It would have meant any calls they produced may have seemed remarkably sluggish in relation to events around them.
Some paeolontologists, however, have proposed that giant sauropods like the Diplodocus and Supersaurus might have relied more upon tactile communication while moving in herds. It is perhaps the reason why they have such elongated tails, as they allowed them to stay in almost constant contact with their neighbours while they migrated.
It is evocative to imagine a Cretaceous alive with the squawks of smaller dinosaurs, chirps of newly hatched young and the menacing rumble of giants somewhere in the distance. Faced with such an assault on the ears and vibrating through your bones, it's worth considering if you would stay to take a closer look, or simply turn and run.
* This article was originally published on 14 December 2022. It was updated on 23 May 2025 to include some new research on Pinacosaurus grangeri and details of the Walking With Dinosaurs series.
--
Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "The Essential List" – a handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, Travel and Reel delivered to your inbox every Friday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The drink that's linked to higher rates of diabetes than candy bars
A study by Brigham Young University and German institutions indicates that drinking sugary beverages, like soda, may be more harmful for your health than eating sugary foods. The research found a consistent link between drinking sugar and a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, with each additional 12-ounce serving of soda or sugary drinks increasing the risk by 25%. The lead author, Karen Della Corte, suggests that liquid sugars overwhelm and disrupt liver metabolism due to their isolated nature, leading to increased liver fat and insulin resistance. Unlike sugary drinks, dietary sugars found in nutrient-rich foods like fruits and whole grains do not cause metabolic overload due to the presence of fiber, fats, and other beneficial nutrients. The study suggests that dietary guidelines should differentiate between sugar sources, with more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars found in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cutting-edge AI models ‘collapse' in face of complex problems, Apple study finds
Apple researchers have found 'fundamental limitations' in cutting-edge artificial intelligence models, in a paper raising doubts about the technology industry's race to develop ever more powerful systems. Apple claimed in a paper published at the weekend that large reasoning models (LRMs) – an advanced form of AI – faced a 'complete accuracy collapse' when presented with highly complex problems. It found that standard AI models outperformed LRMs in low-complexity tasks, while both types of model suffered 'complete collapse' with high-complexity tasks. Large reasoning models attempt to solve complex queries by generating detailed thinking processes that break down the problem into smaller steps. The study, which tested the models' ability to solve puzzles, added that as LRMs neared performance collapse they began 'reducing their reasoning effort'. The Apple researchers said they found this 'particularly concerning'. Gary Marcus, a US academic who has become a prominent voice of caution on the capabilities of AI models, described the Apple paper as 'pretty devastating'. Marcus added that the findings raised questions about the race to artificial general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical stage of AI at which a system is able to match a human at carrying out any intellectual task. Referring to the large language models [LLMs] that underpin tools such as ChatGPT, Marcus wrote: 'Anybody who thinks LLMs are a direct route to the sort [of] AGI that could fundamentally transform society for the good is kidding themselves.' The paper also found that reasoning models wasted computing power by finding the right solution for simpler problems early in their 'thinking'. However, as problems became slightly more complex, models first explored incorrect solutions and arrived at the correct ones later. For higher-complexity problems, however, the models would enter 'collapse', failing to generate any correct solutions. In one case, even when provided with an algorithm that would solve the problem, the models failed. The paper said: 'Upon approaching a critical threshold – which closely corresponds to their accuracy collapse point – models counterintuitively begin to reduce their reasoning effort despite increasing problem difficulty.' The Apple experts said this indicated a 'fundamental scaling limitation in the thinking capabilities of current reasoning models'. The paper set the LRMs puzzle challenges, such as solving the Tower of Hanoi and River Crossing puzzles. The researchers acknowledged that the focus on puzzles represented a limitation in its work. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion The paper concluded that the current approach to AI may have reached limitations. It tested models including OpenAI's o3, Google's Gemini Thinking, Anthropic's Claude 3.7 Sonnet-Thinking and DeepSeek-R1. Anthropic, Google and DeepSeek have been contacted for comment. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, declined to comment. Referring to 'generalizable reasoning' – or an AI model's ability to apply a narrow conclusion more broadly – the paper said: 'These insights challenge prevailing assumptions about LRM capabilities and suggest that current approaches may be encountering fundamental barriers to generalizable reasoning.' Andrew Rogoyski, of the Institute for People-Centred AI at the University of Surrey, said the Apple paper signalled the industry was 'still feeling its way' on AGI and that the industry could have reached a 'cul de sac' in its current approach. 'The finding that large reason models lose the plot on complex problems, while performing well on medium- and low-complexity problems implies that we're in a potential cul-de-sac in current approaches,' he said.


Geeky Gadgets
2 hours ago
- Geeky Gadgets
AI Literature Review Tools Exposed: Which Ones Are Lying to You?
What if the tool you trusted to streamline your research was quietly feeding you lies? In the race to harness AI for academic productivity, literature review tools promise to save hours of tedious work. But here's the catch: not all of them tell the truth. Imagine submitting a paper only to discover that 1 in 4 of your references is fabricated. That's the reality I uncovered while testing three popular AI-powered tools—Manis, Gen Spark, and Gemini AI. The results? Eye-opening. Only one of them delivered the accuracy and reliability essential for serious research, while the others left me questioning their place in academic workflows. If you've ever wondered whether AI can truly be trusted with your literature reviews, this rundown might surprise you. Andy Stapleton breaks down the performance of these tools based on speed, usability, and—most critically—accuracy. You'll discover which AI tool churned out a 61-page report with near-perfect references, and which one sacrificed credibility for speed. Whether you're a researcher seeking to save time or just curious about the limits of AI in academia, this comparison will help you navigate the trade-offs. By the end, you'll know which tool is worth your trust—and which might lead you astray. Because when it comes to academic integrity, the stakes are too high for guesswork. AI Literature Review Tools Manis: Speed Over Accuracy Manis demonstrated impressive speed, completing a literature review in just three minutes. It generated a 14-page document with 38 references, making it an appealing option for researchers who prioritize efficiency. However, its accuracy raised concerns. Approximately 16% of the references were either fabricated or inaccurate, posing a risk to the credibility of any research relying on its output. Key Strengths: Exceptional processing speed (3 minutes). Organized research themes for easier navigation. Downloadable PDF format for immediate use. Key Weaknesses: Moderate fabrication rate (16%). Repetition and inaccuracies in references. Manis is a viable option for generating quick overviews, but its reliability is compromised by the need for thorough manual verification. While its speed is a clear advantage, the trade-off in accuracy limits its utility for rigorous academic research. Gen Spark: A Balanced but Limited Option Gen Spark offered a more balanced approach, completing the task in 5-7 minutes. It produced 19 references and demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the research prompt. However, its fabrication rate was higher at 26%, and its limited output made it less suitable for in-depth academic projects. Key Strengths: Moderate processing time (5-7 minutes). Reasonable comprehension of research prompts. Key Weaknesses: High fabrication rate (26%). Limited number of references (19). Output format is less user-friendly compared to competitors. Gen Spark may serve as a starting point for preliminary research, but its higher error rate and limited scope make it less dependable for detailed academic work. Researchers seeking comprehensive and accurate results may find its limitations restrictive. I Tested 3 Literature Review AIs – Only One Didn't Lie to Me Watch this video on YouTube. Take a look at other insightful guides from our broad collection that might capture your interest in AI Literature Review Tools. Gemini AI: The Benchmark for Reliability Gemini AI emerged as the most reliable tool among the three tested. While it required the longest processing time—20 minutes—it delivered a 61-page document with 105 references. Only 1% of these references were problematic, and the issues were related to accessibility rather than outright fabrication. Gemini AI also stood out for its inclusion of structured data, tables, and up-to-date references, providing a level of detail unmatched by the other tools. Key Strengths: Extensive output (61 pages, 105 references). Minimal inaccuracies (1%). Inclusion of tables and structured data for clarity. Key Weaknesses: Longest processing time (20 minutes). Does not strictly adhere to peer-reviewed sources. Lacks integration with reference management tools. For researchers who value accuracy and depth, Gemini AI is the most dependable choice. While its longer processing time requires patience, its detailed output and low error rate make it a standout tool for academic literature reviews. Final Assessment After evaluating all three tools, Gemini AI clearly stands out as the most reliable option for academic literature reviews. Its detailed output, minimal error rate, and comprehensive analysis set it apart, despite its longer processing time. Manis, with its speed and moderate accuracy, is a reasonable alternative for quick overviews, while Gen Spark falls short due to its higher fabrication rate and limited scope. Final Rankings: First Place: Gemini AI for its depth, accuracy, and comprehensive output. Gemini AI for its depth, accuracy, and comprehensive output. Second Place: Manis for its speed and relatively low fabrication rate. Manis for its speed and relatively low fabrication rate. Third Place: Gen Spark due to its higher inaccuracy and limited scope. Practical Insights for Researchers AI tools for literature reviews hold significant potential, but they are not without flaws. Regardless of the tool you choose, manual verification remains essential to ensure the accuracy and credibility of your references. Among the tested options, Gemini AI sets the standard for academic productivity, offering a balance of precision and thoroughness that researchers can trust. While Manis and Gen Spark have their merits, they fall short of the reliability and depth required for rigorous academic work. Researchers should weigh their priorities—whether speed, accuracy, or comprehensiveness—when selecting the right tool for their needs. Media Credit: Andy Stapleton Filed Under: AI, Guides Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.