Re: MRI and dino eggs, etc. Murdoch

[NEIL CLARK <NCLARK@museum.gla.ac.uk>]

> 
> 
> As I stated before, all of the techniques have not been successful at 
> demonstrating EMBRYOS within eggs.  I am aware that the shell 
shows up 
> nicely in CT, X-ray, MRI, etc., but that was not the point I was 
> discussing.  The calcite of the shell is usually the original shell, so 
> has a different density than the surrounding and infilled matrix. This 
> morning Karl Hirsh told me of yet another experiment of his using 
CT of 
> a fossil egg known to have bones (seen on the broken edge).  The 
results 
> were again negative.  The egg was small, about 5 cm wide, 1 cm 
thick so 
> there was no difficulty with penetration by the X-rays.
> 
> 

We have probable evidence for embryonic remains inside an egg 
using CT-scanning.  The problem is that I am not allowed to use that 
time honoured geological technique of 'hitting it with a hammer'.  :~-(

I am about to produce a 3-D image of the results and then write it up.  
Some eggs are better for CT-scanning than others.  If there is too 
much calcite cement inside the egg then you won't get a useful 
image.  I have a turtle egg that has an embryo inside it, but I can't see 
a thing because of the diagenetic/taphonomic mineralisation.

As for MR.....I have thought of saturating the egg with water.  This 
woul provide an image of the porosity and hence perhaps.....the 
embryonic remains???  Maybe someone has the facility to do this?  
Please get on to some one with one of the red sediment enclosed 
bun-shaped eggs and try it out.

Neil


Neil Clark
Curator of Palaeontology
Hunterian Museum
University of Glasgow
email: NCLARK@museum.gla.ac.uk

Mountains are found in erogenous zones.
(Geological Howlers - ed. WDI Rolfe)