Is It True That T. Rex Could Only See Things That Were Moving?

Freer Law/iStock via Getty Images
Freer Law/iStock via Getty Images

I rewatched Jurassic Park a few weeks ago and, from the story to the special effects, it still holds up. But I’ve been nagged by one thing that’s stuck with me from the first time I saw the movie—a thing that has been ingrained in our collective knowledge and perception of dinosaurs: protagonist Alan Grant's assertion about what the Tyrannosaurus rex can and can’t see.

In the scene where the T. rex gets loose and attacks a group of human characters, Grant says to Lex, “Don’t move. It can’t see us if we don’t move.” Sure enough, the dinosaur gets up in their faces without noticing them right after he says that. For what it's worth, Michael Crichton does explain in the Jurassic Park novel that the amphibian DNA used to help bring the dinosaurs to life hobbled their visual cortices. Director Steven Spielberg and the movie's screenwriters dropped the ball big time here, importing the dinosaurs’ vision problems but not the explanation for them. Instead, in the movie, Grant comes off like he’s stating an accepted dino fact.

Sci-Fi versus Reality

He’s not. In the last few years, real-world paleontologists have proven Dr. Grant very wrong. In 2006, Kent Stevens from the University of Oregon did an experiment inspired by that very scene to figure out what sort of binocular range (the field of view both eyes can see simultaneously) T. rex might have had. The wider that range, the better an animal’s depth perception and capacity to distinguish objects that are motionless or camouflaged.

Stevens built a scale model of the T. rex’s head and popped in some taxidermic eyes based on the eyes of three animals pretty closely related to T. rex—alligators, ostriches, and eagles—and adapted for situations that a dinosaur would have likely encountered. As he explains on his website, he used a technique called “inverse perimetry” to estimate “whether a given probe would be visible, based on whether there is a clear, unobstructed view of the pupil along a line of sight,” and mapped the model’s field of view.

Stevens' model study suggests that T. rex had a binocular range of around 55°, better than that of modern-day hawks and eagles. And it would have only gotten better. Paleontologists know from the fossil record that, over millennia, T. rex’s eyes got larger and its snout got lower and narrower, giving it even clearer sight lines than Stevens’ model.

For more on dino-vision, see Stevens' web page and the study. For more on other JP mistakes that make dino geeks fume, see this Wikipedia list.

The ChopBox Smart Cutting Board Has a Food Scale, Timer, and Knife Sharper Built Right Into It

ChopBox
ChopBox

When it comes to furnishing your kitchen with all of the appliances necessary to cook night in and night out, you’ll probably find yourself running out of counter space in a hurry. The ChopBox, which is available on Indiegogo and dubs itself “The World’s First Smart Cutting Board,” looks to fix that by cramming a bunch of kitchen necessities right into one cutting board.

In addition to giving you a knife-resistant bamboo surface to slice and dice on, the ChopBox features a built-in digital scale that weighs up to 6.6 pounds of food, a nine-hour kitchen timer, and two knife sharpeners. It also sports a groove on its surface to catch any liquid runoff that may be produced by the food and has a second pull-out cutting board that doubles as a serving tray.

There’s a 254nm UVC light featured on the board, which the company says “is guaranteed to kill 99.99% of germs and bacteria" after a minute of exposure. If you’re more of a traditionalist when it comes to cleanliness, the ChopBox is completely waterproof (but not dishwasher-safe) so you can wash and scrub to your heart’s content without worry. 

According to the company, a single one-hour charge will give you 30 days of battery life, and can be recharged through a Micro USB port.

The ChopBox reached its $10,000 crowdfunding goal just 10 minutes after launching its campaign, but you can still contribute at different tiers. Once it’s officially released, the ChopBox will retail for $200, but you can get one for $100 if you pledge now. You can purchase the ChopBox on Indiegogo here.

Mental Floss has affiliate relationships with certain retailers and may receive a small percentage of any sale. But we choose all products independently and only get commission on items you buy and don't return, so we're only happy if you're happy. Thanks for helping us pay the bills!

Why Are Common Graves Called Potter’s Fields?

Graves in potter's fields are sometimes marked with blank headstones or crosses.
Graves in potter's fields are sometimes marked with blank headstones or crosses.
vyasphoto/iStock via Getty Images

For centuries, regions around the world have maintained common graves called potter’s fields, where they bury unidentified victims and impoverished citizens who couldn’t afford their own cemetery plots. The term potter’s field has been around for just as long.

The earliest known reference to a potter’s field is from the Gospel of Matthew, which historians believe was written sometime during the 1st century. In it, a remorseful Judas gives the 30 silver coins he was paid for betraying Jesus back to the high priests, who use it to purchase a “potter’s field” where they can bury foreigners. It’s been speculated that the priests chose land from a potter either because it had already been stripped of clay and couldn’t be used for farming, or because its existing holes and ditches made it a particularly good place for graves. But Matthew doesn’t go into detail, and as the Grammarphobia Blog points out, there’s no evidence to prove that the original potter’s field was ever actually used for its clay resources—it could’ve just been a parcel of land owned by a potter.

Whatever the case, the term eventually caught on as English-language versions of the Bible made their way across the globe. In 1382, John Wycliffe translated it from Latin to Middle English, using the phrase “a feeld of a potter,” and William Tyndale’s 1526 Greek-to-English translation of the passage featured “a potters felde,” which was altered slightly to “potters field” in King James’s 1611 edition.

Around the same time, a new definition of potter was gaining popularity that had nothing to do with pottery—in the 16th century, people began using the word as a synonym for tramp or vagrant. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was first written in a 1525 Robin Hood tale, and William Wordsworth mentioned it in his 1798 poem “The Female Vagrant.” It’s likely that this sense of the word helped reinforce the idea that a potter’s field was intended for the graves of the unknown.

It’s also definitely not the only phrase we’ve borrowed from the Bible. From at your wit’s end to a fly in the ointment, here are 18 everyday expressions with holy origins.

[h/t Grammarphobia Blog]