Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth
- By Helen Fields
- Smithsonian magazine, May 2006, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 4)
Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”
In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.
It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.
Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.
To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.
As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.
In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.
In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (158)
+ View All Comments
Great feature, absolutely fascinating. The real shock though is reading the comments, and the alarming views of creationists.
Posted by Peter Davis on May 5,2013 | 05:43 PM
Decay is an observable process TODAY and if we don't understand it by now we certainly don't know anything about the "process" of evolution.(I put it in quotes because if it's unguided and random then you can't call it a process.)
Posted by Andrew on April 17,2013 | 08:02 PM
Finally in a fossilized dinosaur you found red blood cells that was thought to not have been able to preserve for 65 million years yet there are mummies or fossilized people in Egypt that they still cannot get cells or DNA from the bones to see if they can trace their line, why is this? It should be more easily accessed in mummies if it is found in fossilized dinosaur bones. I've always been interested in this type of information just knew how to follow it in the field. Please can I have an answer or help me find a way to answer it myself by getting me in-touch with those that could help me!
Posted by Debra Riley on April 8,2013 | 02:11 AM
it's funny searching this article for "million" and seeing how many time they continually try to emphasis it's millions of years old. I sense panic in the article. They dated the rock around the bones to be millions of years? Give me a break, they date rock by fossils, fossils by rock, and you have trees growing through many layers of 'millions of years' fossilized. When Mt. Saint Hellen's blew, trees were burried in many layers of dirt rapidly, vs. millions of years of sediment piling up.
Posted by Trevor Fayas on March 14,2013 | 02:34 PM
I have this red skinned toe with a long nail almost looks like Satan's finger lol I have both segments it's about a foot long both combined and the skins still in tact it was originally in a stone that was reddish brown.and shaped like a flask no joke curiosity got the best of my husband who then chipped piece by piece at it until he came to this discovery first flask shaped piece a segment to a toe of a dinosaur I assume then we worked on second flask like rock and discovered the other piece island what it is but I know it's not human and it's in perfect condition I do know it's petrified and I was wanting information on who to contact about these amazing discoveries
Posted by heather on February 22,2013 | 11:20 PM
Where can I get the paper about the soft tissue found in the Argentina theropod and the other tyrannosaur?
Posted by Randomosaur on February 17,2013 | 10:18 PM
It fascinates me that when good evidence shows that maybe scientists have gotten it wrong, it is explained away. They even want to believe that soft tissue takes billions of years to actually decay! There was no mention of the dinosaurs that have been recently carbon 14 tested and shown to be less than 50,000 years old. I found it humorous that Helen Fields had to continually "remind" us how old this dinosaur was! Why can't dinosaurs have lived 50,000 years ago? Why are scientists so scared of that being possible? It still doesn't prove creation. (I also thought it was funny how the writer said creationists only think the earth is a "few thousand" years old. She obviously doesn't know what they think). This whole article came across as being very biased and deceptive. Not impressed.
Posted by Anne on February 9,2013 | 09:54 PM
Instead of trying to make this fit with the Bible or Evolution, just welcome the steady and the information. People have to perpetually argue if it should fall on the evolution side or the bible side. It it what it is. Data presented to the public.
Posted by on February 9,2013 | 03:35 PM
Young Earth creationists didn't hijack the research. The interpreted it correctly. The young earth model much more likely predicts soft tissue preservation than the evolution model.
Posted by Tom Breuner on February 1,2013 | 11:53 AM
This Montana discovery very much proves that dinosaurs have not been extinct for 'nearly' as long as many claim. Now, is our government going to find a way to cover this up too, with the help of their 'atheist' scientists? This would not be the first time. This of course would be to support their belief in evolution, a 'THEORY' that is being pushed down peoples throats as fact and at the same time cleverly undermining God's place in the scheme of things. 1 John 5:19, Rev.12:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 2 Thessal. 2:9-11. I do appreciate Schweitzer's willingness to make all this known. I hope that she gets the support that she should get, for the sake of all who love the 'truth' from science.
Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 09:01 PM
The comment about how old the earth is according to some 'creationists' misrepresents what many people that put faith in the Bible KNOW: that the book of Genesis simply does NOT support the idea that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years. Through careful study one will find that each creative day was at least 7 thousand years long. I am tired of people who are too lazy to read and just don't care enough about the Bible and so inevitably 'misrepresent' it. Let's get it straight. God and his word are not against 'science'. It is science against the Bible and God. Because 'most' scientist make science their God to replace the real God, the Creator with whom they would also have to answer for their conscience or lack of one. Where there is no God there are no rules and no 'truth'.
Posted by eydie barrientos on January 25,2013 | 08:30 PM
I guess it takes a 875 Quadzillion years for the blood cells to decompse in a dinasaur. yeah that's it. This actually proves the earth is older. Maybe into the Bentillian quaddrouplezillion years. It's their story and they are sticking to it up until God returns and well it's too late.
Posted by Charles on December 18,2012 | 10:44 AM
Jack Horner “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” or 'Mary honey, everyone knows the world is flat, seeing those ship masts rising up on the horizon can't be right. Do you hear me dear? Would you like to continue your research? Ok, now that we see 'I to I' you are ready to continue.' Welcome to Scientism, where the high priest tells you what to believe and how to be absolved of your sin. Frankly I'm surprised that Schweitzer is still alive let alone still working for the Man. There is no desire to go where the evidence leads, just a ferocious holding to the template at all costs. Enter divergent evolution, Oort clouds, polystrate anomolies, living fossils, a bazillion helpful mutations, et al.
Posted by John S on December 18,2012 | 09:14 AM
maybe it's not as old as they think it is. How can a tree grow up through two different seams of coal that took millions and millions of years to form. To funny. Science would never admit they coud be wrong ?
Posted by flatpicker on December 5,2012 | 11:47 AM
+ View All Comments