It's in the perfectly preserved shape of a dinosaur embryo, but chemically, it's a rock. Generally speaking, that's what fossils are.
I bet Young Earth Creationists will be quoting this article for decades now. Thanks, Guardian, for the clickbait-y headline. Cheeses.
Tyrannosaurus Rex is amongst the most iconic of all dinosaurs. All knowledge we have of them comes from 18 known specimens. Of those, only 8 are 50% or more complete. "Sue", one of the best preserved examples, discovered in 1990, is 85% complete. The "dueling dinosaur" specimen (found locked in battle with a Tricerotops) is 98% complete, the most perfect yet found, discovered in 2006.
These finds are rare, they're often very partial, they're often distorted by geological processes. For example, Sue's skill is deformed due to movement of the substrates it was entombed in, a fabricated replica correcting this distortion is used on the mounted display at the Chicago Field Museum, the original is displayed separately.
A "perfectly preserved" specimen is one that is intact, in its original arrangement, not damaged, and not distorted or scattered over the landscape (or more accurately, across the strata in which it was buried).
Some respect for the time, processes, and good fortune involved here would be appropriate.
Agreed that findings this well preserved are incredibly rare and fortunate.
Point remains, though, that for a species (or possibly family) that existed on Earth for a few million years (Wikipedia gives 68--66 mya, so only 2 million years, same article you cite) ... has turned up probably fewer than 100 surviving specimens, out of an estimated total 2.5 billions which had ever existed. That's literally a one-in-amillion chance of fossilisation, preservation, and discovery, so far.
It is a clear and concise description of what the article is about.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
In the context of dinosaurs “perfectly preserved” means that even fine details can be discerned in the fossils. And yes fossils are rocks. Someone who knows the minimal amount about dinos will know this, and even if it’s the first time you encounter the concept the article explains it nicely.
Titles are titles. They are short and thus they can’t provide a treatrise on the sum of all human knowledge. You need common sense to parse them.
The problem is that common sense also depends on context. In this case the target audience is not paleontologists, so the headline should be adjusted.
I have seen another commenter say that the articles shared on social media often include an artist rendition. Those would definitely be clickbait.
> fossils are rocks
Not always, especially in paleontology. Any kind of preservation counts, e.g. amber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
That meaning's become confounded with the sense of "fossilised" as in "mineralised", but the original etymology referred to anything dug from the ground, hence coal as a fossil (that is, dug-from-the-Earth) fuel, a nomenclature later passed on to petroleum and natural gas.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fossil
(I'd only discovered this myself recently.)
(Etymology is fun.)
It’s basically like those articles that say “scientist proves existence of higher dimensions” where everyone who tends to read scientific literature figures they mean “has solved some physics equation using 4 dimensions instead of 3” but the majority who see it only through popsci articles and groups think the scientist has found physical evidence of another universe.
Sure. It would be much better to put it as "perfectly preserved fossil" or something like that.
I understand that for people who read articles about “perfectly preserved” dinosaurs often this instantly means "fine details can be discerned in the fossils", but for the majority of people who saw the title while scrolling the news feed - this means much more.
Many social media platforms allow the picture to be included in post. This article wouldn't be clickbait on one of those. This is only a problem on platforms like HN.
Then we have a much bigger problem than the headline.
In any case, the sub-title declares it as a fossil, which is more accurate.
No, it doesn't. It means something protected from decay, or kept intact, or protected.
It's common to preserve food in vinegar, sugar or salt, often after cooking it.
It's common to preserve plant and animals for study by drying them or pickling them (e.g. alcohol/formaldehyde).
"Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies were buried in sediments, such as sand and mud, under ancient seas, lakes and rivers."[0]
Or the Natural History Museum:
"A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive."[1]
[0]: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geolog...
[1]: A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive.
Found in storage. Doesn't make it clickbaity, but...
> The research team suspected they may contain unborn dinosaurs, and scraped off part of Baby Yingliang’s eggshell to uncover the embryo hidden within.
...makes me wonder about their paleontology practices.
"At least 66m-year-old fossil discovered in southern China reveals posture previously unseen in dinosaurs"
Most people know what a fossil is and that it's rock (though other materials such as amber can do the same thing).