Re: blood sample?

["Dan Lipkowitz" <lipkowit@midway.uchicago.edu>]

In message Mon, 14 Nov 1994 08:53:46 -0500,
  Tom Holtz <tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov>  writes:

>
>>When the MOR first put out a press release on this about a year
>>  ago, it was stated that these possible "red blood cells" appear to
>>  contain a "nucleus". Does MOR still think they have blood cells?
>
> Last I heard, Schweitzer et al. still considered them "potential blood
> cells".  Also, "higher vertebrates" do not have non-nucleated red blood
> cells, mammals do ;-)  (Loss of nuclei in red blood cells characterize
> mammals, while the sauropsid [bird, "reptile"] lineage retained them).

Interestingly, the only real info that I've found on the cell is from a
children's book by Lessem, called _Jack Horner: Living with Dinosaurs_ (W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York: 1994) from the Scientific Superstars series of
Scientific American Books for Young Readers. Excerpted from page 40:

It appears under the microscope to be a blood cell. Inside this cell is what
appears to be the DNA of the T. rex. If so, it is the first dinosaur DNA
ever found.

There's more, but it's mostly information on what DNA is and the fact that
there's no way (with current technology, anyway) to bring a dinosaur to life
from its genetic material. There is an illustration with a sketch of a cell
(with the DNA inside the nucleus), but it isn't made clear whether the
drawing depicts the cell they found or simply the location of DNA within a
standard nucleated animal cell. Still, the tone of the chapter makes it
pretty clear that they consider the blood cell more than "possible"...

Dan Lipkowitz
lipkowit@midway.uchicago.edu