New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Did any dinosaurs have poisonous saliva, as in Jurassic Park?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scott D. Sampson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Utah Museum of Natural History and assistant professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah, provides the following answer:

There is no conclusive evidence that any dinosaur possessed poisonous saliva. The poison-spitting dinosaur reconstructed in Jurassic Park is Dilophosaurus. At the time the movie was produced, there was no evidence that this or any other dinosaur spat poison or had poisonous saliva of any kind. In 2000, however, Mexican paleontologist Rub¿n A. Rodr¿guez de la Rosa of the Museum of the Desert in Saltillo presented suggestive evidence at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. He has recovered a single odd tooth from an unknown carnivorous dinosaur that possesses a groove reminiscent of those seen in snakes for transmitting poison. I have examined this tooth firsthand and, at this point, remain unconvinced. More examples need to be recovered before this hypothesis can be evaluated.

That said, it is well known that the largest lizard predator today, the Komodo dragon, does carry a potentially lethal bacterial load in its saliva that is used to poison prey. Not surprisingly, several people have suggested that some theropod (carnivorous) dinosaurs may have exhibited similar and equally unsavory behaviors, biting prey and letting the poison do the rest of the work. This might have proved an especially useful tactic for Jurassic predators such as Allosaurus, which most likely tackled prey animals many times its body size: the gargantuan, long-necked sauropods. Nevertheless, it is important to note that all of the above remains firmly embedded in speculation.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Answer originally posted September 4, 2001.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe