In the aftermath of the massive dinosaur extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs in the late Cretaceous period, the process of finding and caring for the fossils has become a contentious topic.
The idea that some of these bones could be valuable is a perennial point of contention.
What’s the big deal about dinosaurs?
How do we know if they’re worth taking care of?
The question of whether or not to keep them in a museum is a thorny one, and it can get downright heated.
A popular question among museum officials is whether or soiled dinosaur bones can be reused.
They’re typically given to museums for scientific purposes, but it’s also possible to use them as food.
What’s the biggest objection?
Some people worry that if the bones aren’t kept in museums, they’ll become a breeding ground for other animals.
Others think it’s just silly to keep these things in museums.
But a new study suggests there are legitimate concerns with the practice.
A team of scientists from the University of Chicago’s Department of Geosciences and the University College London found that there is a high correlation between dinosaur bones that were used for food and their eventual extinction.
In a study published in the journal Science Advances, they looked at how many of the fossilized remains were used as food and how many were not.
It turns out, those that were.
There was no difference in the number of dinosaur bones used for human consumption versus those used for non-human consumption.
They also found that the number and frequency of food-related dinosaur bones dropped by around 60 percent when the animals were released into the wild.
The researchers note that this isn’t a new trend, and previous research has shown similar results.
So, there is some precedent for people who have concerns to be concerned.
But they also say that this trend is likely to change, with more scientists coming to the conclusion that we should conserve the remains.
“The reason we have to conserve these bones is because they are extremely rare, they are very rare for a number of reasons,” says Richard Smith, a paleontologist at the University at Buffalo who led the study.
“They’re not found in any natural context, they’re not very common and they’re very rare in the Cretic [period] of Earth,” he says.
“So when we see them being used as a food source, it’s a very natural way to consume them, especially when they’re small.”
Smith and his team collected bones from the sites of the remains, some of which were previously excavated, in the 1960s.
They then compared the bones to the remains of other animals in the area.
These bones were not collected with the intention of finding fossils.
Smith says that some fossils are particularly valuable for their ability to reveal new species.
The most important specimens of the dinosaur family were those found at the site of the most recent mass extinction.
These fossils had a lot of genetic information about them, so scientists could compare them to the fossils of a variety of other species.
The bones of these dinosaurs were used in some experiments to study how much a certain genetic trait could affect how they adapted to different environments.
They were also used to study the behavior of the dinosaurs and their ability in the wild, to see how their species adapted to the environment.
But it’s not a typical fossil-hunting operation, Smith says.
“We can’t just go out and collect a few bones and say, ‘Well, I can’t tell you what their genes are, so I don’t know what to expect,'” he says, adding that it would take a lot more work and effort to make these discoveries.
“If you are trying to find new species, you’re going to have to do some work.”