Is There Any Evidence for Cannibalism in Dinosaurs

A few years ago, a paper published in the distinguished scientific journal Nature bore an arresting title: Cannibalism in the Madagascan Dinosaur Majungatholus atopus. In it, researchers described their discovery of various Majungatholus bones bearing Majungatholus-sized bite marks, the only logical explanation being that this 20-foot-long, one-ton theropod preyed on other members of the same species, either for fun or because it was especially hungry. (Since then, Majungatholus has had its name changed to the slightly less impressive Majungasaurus, but it was still the apex predator of late Cretaceous Madagascar.) As you might have expected, the media went wild. Its hard to resist a press release with the words dinosaur and cannibal in the title, and Majungasaurus was soon vilified worldwide as a heartless, amoral predator of friends, family,  children, and random strangers. It was only a matter of time before The History Channel featured a pair of Majungasaurus in an episode of its long-extinct series Jurassic Fight Club, where the ominous music and portentous narration made the offending dinosaur seem like the Mesozoic equivalent of Hannibal Lecter (I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti!) Notably, Majungasaurus, aka Majungatholus, is one of the few dinosaurs  for which we have indisputable evidence of cannibalism. The only other genus that even comes close is Coelophysis, an early theropod that congregated by the thousands in the southwestern U.S.  It was once believed that some adult Coelophysis fossils contained the partially digested remains of juveniles, but it now appears that these were actually small, prehistoric, yet uncannily dinosaur-like crocodiles like Hesperosuchus. So Coelophysis (for now) has been cleared of all charges, while Majungasaurus has been pronounced guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But why should we even care? Most  Creatures Will Be Cannibals Given the Right Circumstances The question that should have been asked upon the publication of that Nature paper wasnt Why on earth would a dinosaur be a cannibal?, but rather, Why should dinosaurs be different from any other animal? The fact is that thousands of modern species, ranging from fish to insects to primates, engage in cannibalism, not as a flawed moral choice but as a hardwired response to stressful environmental conditions. For example: Even before theyre born, sand tiger sharks will cannibalize each other in the mothers womb, the biggest baby shark (with the biggest teeth) devouring its unfortunate siblings.Male lions  and other predators will  kill and eat the cubs of their rivals, in order to establish dominance in the pack and ensure the survival of their own bloodline.No less an authority than Jane Goodall noted that chimps in the wild will occasionally kill and eat their own young, or the young of other adults in the community. This limited definition of cannibalism applies only to animals that deliberately slaughter, and then eat, other members of their own species. But we can vastly expand the definition by including predators that opportunistically consume their packmates carcasses--you can bet that an Africa hyena wouldnt turn up its nose at the body of a two-days-dead comrade, and the same rule doubtless applied to your average Tyrannosaurus Rex or Velociraptor. Of course, the reason cannibalism evokes such strong feelings in the first place is that even supposedly civilized human beings have been known to engage in this activity. But again, we have to draw a crucial distinction: its one thing for Hannibal Lecter to premeditate the murder and consumption of his  victims, but quite another for, say, members of the Donner Party to cook and eat already-dead travelers to ensure their own survival. This (some would say dubious) moral distinction doesnt apply to animals--and if you cant hold a chimpanzee to account for its actions, you certainly cant blame a much more dim-witted creature like Majungasaurus. Why Isnt There More Evidence of Dinosaur Cannibalism? At this point you may be asking: if dinosaurs were like modern animals, killing and eating their own young and the young of their rivals and gobbling down already-dead members of their own species, why havent we discovered more fossil evidence? Well, consider this: trillions of meat-eating dinosaurs hunted and killed trillions of plant-eating dinosaurs during the course of the Mesozoic Era, and weve only unearthed a handful of fossils that memorialize the act of predation (say, a Triceratops femur bearing a T. Rex bite mark). Since cannibalism was presumably less common than the active hunting of other species, its no surprise that the evidence thus far is limited to Majungasaurus--but dont be surprised if additional cannibal dinosaurs are discovered soon.

Athanasia Human Impermanence and the Journey for Eternal...

Athanasia: Human Impermanence and the Journey for Eternal Life in the Epic of Gilgamesh â€Å"Will you too die as Enkidu did? Will grief become your food? Will we both fear the lonely hills, so vacant? I now race from place to place, dissatisfied with whereever I am and turn my step toward Utnapishtim, godchild of Ubaratutu† (Jackson â€Å"Gilgamesh Tablet IX† 4-9) Gilgamesh so much feared death that he threw away his honor as a warrior in order to obtain immortality. For centuries there have existed individuals who yearn for everlasting life. A journey that so many have traversed, but have failed in the attempt. The ideology surrounding immortality transcends time and a plethora of cultures. The theme, immortality appears in stories from the†¦show more content†¦The life that he once lived is shattered into pieces and he finds it difficult to return to his former glorious self; this is the first time in Gilgamesh’s life that he has ever felt the emotions of fear. Gilgamesh is afraid to die. The inevitable fate that has plagued humanity for ages, death, has now become the greatest barrier that he must overcome. The immense scope that separates death from eternal life is breached, this crossover leads to a paramount connection between the supernatural and mortal universe. Gilgamesh, two thirds god, and one third human is left at the intermediary. His metamorphosis will establish a sense of restitution in his life. Along these lines, even though Gilgamesh existed â€Å"thousands of years ago, he remains immortal in a sense that we still refer to him and his story† (Sadigh 85). Enkidu is a primary character in the epic, his death dramatically changes the personality of Gilgamesh. His metamorphosis and death makes evident the innate rhythm of life, which represents the link that he has with nature. With love, and self-realization, Enkidu eventually becomes a friend to Gilgamesh. Readers are able to see the merging of Gilgamesh’s divine stature with Enkidu’s wild nature, which in turn changes Enkidu from a simple beast to a figure that is larger than life (Harris 122). He essentially becomes an equal to Gilgamesh. Enkidu undergoes the following transformation: From the barbarian man that he once was,

Smog as Air Pollution Free Essays

utNowadays pollution is becoming more and more serious problem, particularly air pollution. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the chemical elements of the atmosphere have changed. Along with the development of industrialization, air pollution has spread and now it is a global issue. We will write a custom essay sample on Smog as Air Pollution or any similar topic only for you Order Now There are many kinds of air pollution, one of them is smog. Smog can come from many areas, particularly factories and transportation systems, but there are some differences between developed and developing countries. In developed countries, highly developed industry is the main reason that smog is serious, they mostly use fossil fuels. However, developing countries started to industrialize, so increasing number of factories is the most important cause of smog and they always use the coal or wood burning. More and more people using cars and motorcycles also is a reason about that. Those of us who live in large cities are familiar with smog air pollution; the familiar brown haze resting over the city on a still day. We need to know what smog contains and where it comes from, as well as the health and environmental impacts of this hallmark of industrialization. There are two categories of smog to be covered: classic smog and the more recently described photochemical smog. Classic Smog In its most primitive and basic form, smog air pollution is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. It has several major components: 1) Smoke, which is tiny particles of ash, is released from the smokestacks of coal fired power stations. Coal power plants are now on the whole designed to trap this ash, called fly ash, which can be used to great effect in the concrete industry. These tiny particles contain not only carbon residue, but also silicon dioxide, calcium oxide and traces of heavy metals. If inhaled these can pose significant health risks. The silicon dioxide in the fly ash alone can cause lesions, scarring and inflammation of the lungs. 2) Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur is present in all  fossil fuels  and is released as Sulfur Dioxide when the fuels are burned. Sulfur Dioxide reacts with oxygen gas to give Sulfur Trioxide. This then can react with water to give Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4). Another possibility is that the Sulfur Dioxide reacts immediately with water to give Sulfurous Acid (H2SO3). Either way, the acid produced is highly reactive and capable of causing significant damage to crops, soil, buildings and more. Several industrialized nations now employ technology that captures approximately a third of Sulfur Dioxide from the emission gases of power stations, greatly reducing the problems of acid rain. Photochemical Smog This is a far more noxious mixture of chemicals than classic smog air pollution. Significant inroads have been made to reduce the main contributors to classic smog. Such efforts in relation to photochemical smog are still in their early stages. Photochemical smog air pollution is a mixture of various chemicals that react with sunlight to produce new chemicals. This is where the name comes from;  photo  means  light  and  chemical  means chemical, or product of a chemical reaction. The chemical reactions involved are complex and while they are important, we need to know the  source  of these pollutants and their effects. The chemicals involved need to be addressed separately. The three main ingredients are Nitrous Oxides, volatile organic compounds and Ozone. Carbon Monoxide is a toxic byproduct of fossil fuel combustion but is considered separate to photochemical smog. London smog disaster One of the famous smog with all bad effects is London Smog which was caused by heavy coal combustion during the winter of 1952, The weather in Greater London had been unusually cold for several weeks leading up to the event because of the cold weather, households were burning more coal than usual to keep warm. The smoke from approximately one million coal-fired stoves, in addition to the emissions from local industry, was released into the atmosphere. Increases in smoke and sulfur emissions from the combustion of coal had been occurring since the Industrial Revolution and the British were familiar with these types of smog events. At times, the smoke and emissions were so heavy that residents referred to the events as ‘pea soupers’ because the fog was as dense as pea soup. However, while the area had experienced heavy smog in the past, no event had caused such problems as the weather event in December, 1952. Thousands of tons of black soot, tar particles, and sulfur dioxide had accumulated in the air from the heavy coal combustion. Estimates of PM10 concentrations during December, 1952, range between 3,000 and 14,000? g/m? with the high range being approximately 50 times higher than normal levels at the time. PM10 is particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter. Conditions for Londoners today are much better with PM 10 concentrations around 30? g/m?. Estimates also suggest that sulfur dioxide levels during December of 1952 were 7 times greater than normal at 700 parts per billion (ppb). The weather preceding and during the smog meant that Londoners were burning more coal than usual to keep warm. Post-war domestic coal tended to be of a relatively low-grade, sulphurous variety (economic necessity meant that better-quality â€Å"hard† coals tended to be exported), which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke. There were also numerous coal-fired power stations in the Greater London area, including Battersea, Bankside, and Kingston upon Thames, all of which added to the pollution. Research suggests that additional pollution prevention systems fitted at Battersea may have actually worsened the air quality, reducing the output of soot at the cost of increased sulphur dioxide, though this is not certain. Additionally, there were pollution and smoke from vehicle exhaust—particularly from diesel-fuelled buses which had replaced the recently abandoned electric tram system—and from other industrial and commercial sources. Prevailing winds had also blown heavily polluted air across the English Channel from industrial areas of Continental Europe. There was no panic, as London was renowned for its fog. In the weeks that ensued, however, statistics compiled by medical services found that the fog had killed 4,000 people. Most of the victims were very young, elderly, or had pre-existing respiratory problems. In February 1953, Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton suggested in the House of Commons that the fog had caused 6,000 deaths and that 25,000 more people had claimed sickness benefits in London during that period. Most of the deaths were caused by respiratory tract infections from hypoxia and as a result of mechanical obstruction of the air passages by pus arising from lung infections caused by the smog. The lung infections were mainly bronchopneumonia or acute purulent bronchitis superimposed upon chronic bronchitis. More recent research suggests that the number of fatalities was considerably greater, at about 12,000. The death toll formed an important impetus to modern environmentalism, and it caused a rethinking of air pollution, as the smog had demonstrated its lethal potential. New regulations were implemented, restricting the use of dirty fuels in industry and banning black smoke. Environmental legislation since 1952, such as the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1954 and the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968, has led to a reduction in air pollution. How to cite Smog as Air Pollution, Essay examples