Close
today i learned (til)

Digging for Dungs: the Dinosaur Digest

April 22, 2026

Every parent that’s watched their children play with dinosaurs have all had the same thought at one time or another: thank God dinosaurs are extinct. While the idea of dinosaurs seems mythical to some, paleontologists have determined their existence through fossils since the 1820’s. As technology advances, and paleontologists uncover more dinosaur fossils, the science world is realizing how crucial dinosaurs were to their ecological environment. To better understand what dinosaurs ate, paleontologists are transitioning from observing tooth structures to something most individuals may find repulsive or uncanny: fossilized feces, otherwise known as coprolites.

More specifically, paleontologists are currently studying a 26.5 inch coprolite- the largest recorded fossilized dung- of a Tyrannosaurus rex (T.Rex) to uncover what kind of organisms they preyed upon. The reason paleontologists are so keen on examining coprolites compared to other fossils is because dung structures provide an in-depth look into their diet. Karen Chin, a paleo-ecologist and professor at the University of Colorado describes the coprolite search to be fascinating, “…they’re basically like receipts of transactions of carbon resources that are traveling through an ecosystem” (Scott et.al, 2023). Dr. Chin’s analogy breaks down the concept of coprolites and gently nudges at the importance of the molecular structure within coprolites, which allows researchers like Dr. Chin to identify likely organisms part of the food web. 

Firstly, what does a coprolite consist of? In terms of their chemical composition, coprolites are mainly composed of calcium phosphate, a compound that allows the structure to be preserved (as they have been for millions of years). Externally, coprolites do not have a universal look- some are coiled or cylindrical while others have defined features that create an unwieldy look. Color wise, coprolites look…well one doesn’t need a description for that. As paleontologists continue studying the internal components of coprolites, a major breakthrough emerges. While analyzing coprolites of carnivorous dinosaurs, like the T.Rex and Spinosaurous, they discover intact bone fragments. This suggests that carnivorous dinosaurs ingested bones and that their digestive systems adapted to this lifestyle, as seen in the coprolites. Furthermore, coprolites are aiding scientific advancements in understanding the types of living organisms that lived during the Triassic to Cretaceous periods. Bone remnants have the potential to revolutionize how we comprehend dinosaur digestion in relation to their ecosystem.

The future implications of dinosaur coprolites are unimaginable; paired with the technology scientists develop for paleontologists to utilize, novel discoveries are on the up and coming. One of the many technological devices paleontologists are focusing on is the synchrotron microtomography, an X-ray machine that analyzes biological specimens (Sena et.al, 2022). These images provide paleontologists with a micro-analysis of the coprolites and make the process of tracking dietary habits easier. Not only can paleontologists identify the type of prey (animal or plant) but are able to answer the biggest question regarding dinosaurs: how did these creatures become the top predator of their food chain? 

The search for possible solutions led paleontologists to discover herbivores and their reign among the food chain. They’ve discovered that dinosaurs who acquired plant-based diets were surviving, reproducing, and growing in size. Essentially, as carnivorous dinosaurs converted to herbivores and made their palate diverse, by the Triassic period, they could adapt to any type of environment. Coprolites played a major role in revealing this fact by displaying trace fossils of the animals herbivores hunted. (Pattison 2024). Herbivore coprolites are proving to be indispensable in the paleontologist world- who knows what other mysteries could be solved as more coprolites emerge. For years paleontologists have observed fossilized dinosaur teeth and even vomit as the primary methods of identifying dietary patterns. Now, they utilize dinosaur coprolites, or dung, with the help of innovative technology that is paving the way for thorough research like never before.

References

Scott, A., McCoy, B., & Ramirez, R. (2023, November 24). What fossilized poop can teach us about dinosaurs. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/24/1198908684/dinosaurs-fossilized-poop-utah-dung-beetles-jurassic-park 

Brumfiel, G. (2024, November 27). Over 500 fossilized poops show how dinosaurs came to rule the Earth. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/26/nx-s1-5206634/fossilized-poops-show-how-dinosaurs-came-rule-earth#:~:text=A%20few%20years%20ago%2C%20he,were%20eating%20lots%20of%20stuff 

Sena G, Fidalgo G, Paiva K, Barcelos R, Nogueira LP, Colaço MV, Gonzalez MS, Azambuja P, Colaço G, da Silva HR, de Moura Meneses AA, Barroso RC. Synchrotron X-ray biosample imaging: opportunities and challenges. Biophys Rev. 2022 Jun 2;14(3):625-633. doi: 10.1007/s12551-022-00964-4. PMID: 35791381; PMCID: PMC9250583.

Pattison, K. (2024, November). Dino droppings reveal how the Giant Beasts came to dominate Earth | science | AAAS. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/dino-droppings-reveal-how-giant-beasts-came-dominate-earth 

0Likes
About Author

Hi everyone! I am a third year Public Policy major. When I'm not writing, you can find me drawing, watching rom-com's like When Harry Met Sally and How I Met Your Mother, or running. This is my first semester at ChargedMagazine- can't wait to write more!

You May Also Like

Articles, today i learned (til)
GaTech Taking Steps to Improve Mental Health!
DIY, today i learned (til)
The Alien Equation
today i learned (til)
Computational Neuroscience Infographic
today i learned (til)
How Nature can Influence Innovation and Design

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.