Giant ‘megaraptor' dinosaur species discovered in Australia
Giant 20-foot-long raptor dinosaurs once roamed Australia, according to a new study that could rewrite the evolutionary history and hierarchy of predators on the continent.
The research, published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology on Thursday, identifies five new species of four-legged dinosaurs whose fossils were unearthed from Victoria's coastline.
Researchers excavated dinosaur shin bones and vertebrae at two fossil sites in Victoria – the upper Strzelecki Group dated to 121 million years ago and the Eumeralla Formation from about 113 million years ago.
The fossils provide unique insights into an ancient Australian ecosystem dominated by powerful 'megaraptor' dinosaurs measuring 6-7 metres in length.
Two of the new megaraptor species are the oldest known globally and shed light on the evolutionary history of the group that includes the iconic velociraptor made famous by Jurassic Park films.
The latest study highlights the role played by Australia 's dinosaurs in the ecosystems of the ancient world, a large part of which was clustered into the giant supercontinent Gondwanaland. These 'megaraptorids' lived alongside the smaller 'carcharodontosaurs', which were 2-4 metres long, as well as the even smaller but more agile 'unenlagiines' or 'southern raptors'.
'Two megaraptorid specimens from the upper Strzelecki Group demonstrate that this clade had achieved large body size at the time of its first appearance in the fossil record,' scientists said.
Jake Kotevski, a co-author of the study, called the latest discovery 'groundbreaking' due to the unique insights it offers into Australia's ecosystem during the Cretaceous era between 145 and 65 million years ago.
'It's fascinating to see how Victoria's predator hierarchy diverged from South America, where carcharodontosaurs reached Tyrannosaurus rex -like sizes up to 13 metres, towering over megaraptorids,' Mr Kotevski said.
'Here, the roles were reversed, highlighting the uniqueness of Australia's Cretaceous ecosystem.'
The new study offers 'compelling evidence' for the interchange of animals between Australia and South America via Antarctica during the Early Cretaceous era, scientists said.
It also highlights the key contributions of community volunteers working alongside seasoned researchers to further understanding of Australia's dinosaurs.
'The findings also challenge previous assumptions about body-size hierarchies in Gondwanan predator ecosystems highlighting Victoria's unique Cretaceous fauna,' said Thomas Rich, senior curator of vertebrate palaeontology at Museums Victoria Research Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie scientist breaks down what CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen SPF results REALLY mean - and it might surprise you
An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem. The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths. The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use. However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: 'I don't think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens. 'It's tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.' When asked about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report - after it returned an SPF of just 4 - the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don't tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas. 'It's difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn't necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,' she told FEMAIL. She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score. Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: 'I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.' She did however add that she felt 'reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy'. FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle's video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results. Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: 'You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle's video.' The article, titled 'How we test sunscreens', explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). 'All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,' the CHOICE article stated. According to CHOICE, the products were 'blind' tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had 'skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products' ingredients. The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a 'tightly controlled and consistent process'. On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreen Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand's popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,' she said. The results she said, visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done'. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow,' she added. One of Ultra Violette's products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels. After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it's a 'lot less precise than it might seem' - which inherently leads to 'a lot of variation with SPF results'. The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle - who has more than 640,000 followers - ultimately reassured viewers: 'Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them'. Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score In an explosive recent investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp - essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it. Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that 'a lot of little things can change the results'. These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on. 'Even within the one test in the one lab, it's common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,' Michelle told FEMAIL. For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55. As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that '19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good'. She added: 'It's better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past'. Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report. Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle's claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many 'little variables'. She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE's report should be investigating 'exactly what had happened and why'. 'I don't want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They're trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for - and the consumer should get what they pay for,' Hannah said. 'So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.' Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren't cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly. 'The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we've had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,' Hannah said. 'Even now, the campaigns we have don't necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that's true, but there's still a risk. 'I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don't necessarily read, which is not the brand's fault either. 'There's a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.' Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying - or re-applying - sunscreen correctly in the first place. 'Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,' Michele said. 'This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.' Hannah agreed, saying: 'If you're not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you're not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.' That's why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection 'layering' strategy - which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.
The Independent
5 days ago
- The Independent
Dinosaur fossils found in 1970s are missing link in evolution of T rex
A newly discovered dinosaur from Mongolia, Khankhuuluu mongoliensis, or "Dragon Prince," is considered a crucial ancestor of the Tyrannosaurus rex (T rex), providing insights into the T rex's evolutionary history. Khankhuuluu lived approximately 86 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, predating the Tyrannosaurus by about 20 million years; it was a mid-sized dinosaur, about 13 feet long, weighing around 1,600 pounds, and likely hunted smaller prey. Paleontologist Darla Zelenitsky notes that Khankhuuluu, meaning "Dragon Prince," was named to reflect its status as a smaller, earlier form that had not yet evolved into a king, unlike the Tyrannosaurus rex, which means "tyrant king of the lizards." Researchers determined Khankhuuluu's anatomy from fossils found in the 1970s, revealing it shared anatomical traits with tyrannosaurs but lacked certain defining characteristics, indicating it was a predecessor and a transitional animal between smaller forerunners and later true tyrannosaurs. According to University of Calgary doctoral student Jared Voris, Khankhuuluu demonstrates that the ancestors to the tyrannosaurs lived in Asia, later crossing a land bridge to North America and evolving into apex predatory tyrannosaurs, eventually leading to the emergence of T rex.
The Independent
5 days ago
- The Independent
Newly discovered ‘Dragon Prince' dinosaur rewrites family history of T rex
A newly discovered dinosaur from Mongolia, named Khankhuuluu mongoliensis, or "Dragon Prince," is believed to be a crucial ancestor of the Tyrannosaurus rex (T rex), shedding light on the T rex's complex evolutionary history. Living approximately 86 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, Khankhuuluu predates the Tyrannosaurus by around 20 million years. This mid-sized dinosaur, measuring about 13 feet in length and weighing roughly 1,600 pounds, walked on two legs and possessed a long snout filled with sharp teeth. In comparison to the more heavily built T rex, Khankhuuluu's body proportions suggest it was a swift predator, likely hunting smaller prey such as oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs. The largest known T rex specimen reached a length of 40-1/2 feet. Khankhuuluu means "Dragon Prince" in the Mongolian language. Tyrannosaurus rex means "tyrant king of the lizards." "In the name, we wanted to capture that Khankhuuluu was a small, early form that had not evolved into a king. It was still a prince," said paleontologist Darla Zelenitsky of the University of Calgary in Canada, co-author of the study published on Wednesday in the journal Nature. Tyrannosaurs and all other meat-eating dinosaurs are part of a group called theropods. Tyrannosaurs appeared late in the age of dinosaurs, roaming Asia and North America. Khankhuuluu shared many anatomical traits with tyrannosaurs but lacked certain defining characteristics, showing it was a predecessor and not a true member of the lineage. "Khankhuuluu was almost a tyrannosaur, but not quite. For example, the bone along the top of the snout and the bones around the eye are somewhat different from what we see in tyrannosaurs. The snout bone was hollow and the bones around the eye didn't have all the horns and bumps seen in tyrannosaurs," Zelenitsky said. "Khankhuuluu had teeth like steak knives, with serrations along both the front and back edges. Large tyrannosaurs had conical teeth and massive jaws that allowed them to bite with extreme force then hold in order to subdue very large prey. Khankhuuluu's more slender teeth and jaws show this animal took slashing bites to take down smaller prey," Zelenitsky added. The researchers figured out its anatomy based on fossils of two Khankhuuluu individuals dug up in the 1970s but only now fully studied. These included parts of its skull, arms, legs, tail and back bones. The Khankhuuluu remains, more complete than fossils of other known tyrannosaur forerunners, helped the researchers untangle this lineage's evolutionary history. They concluded that Khankhuuluu was the link between smaller forerunners of tyrannosaurs and later true tyrannosaurs, a transitional animal that reveals how these meat-eaters evolved from speedy and modestly sized species into giant apex predators. "What started as the discovery of a new species ended up with us rewriting the family history of tyrannosaurs," said University of Calgary doctoral student and study lead author Jared Voris. "Before this, there was a lot of confusion about who was related to who when it came to tyrannosaur species." Some scientists had hypothesized that smaller tyrannosaurs like China's Qianzhousaurus - dubbed "Pinnochio-rexes" because of their characteristic long snouts - reflected the lineage's ancestral form. That notion was contradicted by the fact that tyrannosaur forerunner Khankhuuluu differed from them in important ways. "The tyrannosaur family didn't follow a straightforward path where they evolved from small size in early species to larger and larger sizes in later species," Zelenitsky said. Voris noted that Khankhuuluu demonstrates that the ancestors to the tyrannosaurs lived in Asia. "Around 85 million years ago, these tyrannosaur ancestors crossed a land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska and evolved in North America into the apex predatory tyrannosaurs," Voris said. One line of North American tyrannosaurs later trekked back to Asia and split into two branches - the "Pinnochio-rexes" and massive forms like Tarbosaurus, the researchers said. These apex predators then spread back to North America, they said, paving the way for the appearance of T rex. Tyrannosaurus ruled western North America at the end of the age of dinosaurs when an asteroid struck Earth 66 million years ago. "Khankhuuluu was where it all started but it was still only a distant ancestor of T rex, at nearly 20 million years older," Zelenitsky said. "Over a dozen tyrannosaur species evolved in the time between them. It was a great-great-great uncle, sort of."
