This book has a chapter devoted to each discovery. The nature of the discovery varies, and the definition of discovery is, necessarily and helpfully, very wide ranging. In many cases, the discovery, recovery, eventual reporting or publication, and integration of a dinosaur species is a long and drawn out process involving multiple field trips, many different characters, and a lot of action. For example, the “discovery” of spinosaurus (from Egypt) comes to us as a story involving two world wars, several expeditions, great human tragedy, and some cool dinosaur bones. Other discoveries are more about how we think about dinosaurs. This is especially true of the first few chapters, which serve to illustrate how clueless early researchers were about certain things, while being pretty smart about other things.
Chapter 6, on Eoraptor, focuses not on a specific discovery, but rather, on the question of what a dinosaur actually is, how taxonomy has changed, and on attempts to identify and define the basal dinosaur (which is not Eoraptor, but it kinda is). There are other similar orienting pauses elsewhere in the book as well.
Although the chapters vary a great deal in the range of time, space, or fossil material covered, they follow a general pattern of putting together in one place most of the pertinent facts about a particular episode in the history of dinosaur research, and the pertinent facts about a particular part of the overall dinosaur bestiary. All in all, there is a good bit of history, history of the science, anatomy, evolutionary biology, scientific drama, greatness and tragedy of the act of discovory (or loss), and many many bones.
It is important for you to know that Prothero brings the reader up to date on many, probably most, of the current dinosaur controversies and conundra. The Story of the Dinosaurs in 25 Discoveries: Amazing Fossils and the People Who Found Them is divided into four sections. The first is about early finds and early thinking, from the dark ages of dinosaur research. The second focuses on the long-necked giants, the third on theropods, and the fourth on the ornithischians (duck beaked, horned, and spiky armored dinosaurs). I’ve put a current draft of the TOC at the bottom of the post to give you an idea of the detail of coverage.
Part I. In the Beginning
1. Megalosaurus: The “Great Lizard,” the “Scrotum Humanum”, and the First Named Dinosaur
2. Iguanodon: Gideon Mantell, Louis Dollo, and the First Dinosaur Fauna
3. Cetiosaurus: The “Whale Lizard,” Richard Owen, and the First Known Sauropod
4. Hadrosaurus: Joseph Leidy and the First American Dinosaur
5. Eoraptor: The First Dinosaurs
Part II. The Long-Necked Giants
6. Plateosaurus: Ancestors of the Giants
7. Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus: Marsh, Cope, and the Bone Wars
8. Diplodocus: The Real “Jurassic Park” and Carnegie’s Gift
9. Giraffatitan: The Tallest of the Tall, and the Tendaguru
10. Patagotitan: Who’s the Biggest of Them All?
Part III. Red in Tooth and Claw: The Theropods
11. Coelophysis: The Little Dinosaur of Ghost Ranch
12. Cryolophosaurus: Denizen of the Polar Darkness
13. Spinosaurus: Lost Giants of Egypt
14. Tyrannosaurus: King of the Tyrant Reptiles
15. Giganotosaurus: Biggest Predator of All?
16. Deinocheirus: “Terrible Hands” Lead to Big Surprises
17. Velociraptor: “Terrible Claws” and the Dinosaur Renaissance
18. Sinosauropteryx: Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Birds
Part IV. Horns and Spikes and Armor and Duck Beaks: The Ornithischians
19. Heterodontosaurus: The Origin of Ornithischians
20. Stegosaurus: The “Roofed Lizard” and the Thagomizer
21. Ankylosaurus: Armored Dinosaurs and “Mr. Bones”
22. Corythosaurus: Duckbills with Headgear
23. Stegoceras: The “Unicorn Dinosaur” and the Boneheads
24. Protoceratops: The Griffin Legend and the Origin of Horned Dinosaurs
25. Triceratops: The “Dinosaurian Bison” and the Last of the Dinosaurs
It wasn’t a mammoth, it was a mastodon. But it was still a big hairy elephant featured at the climax-end of the main exhibit hall in the New York State museum. And it was an exhibit to end all exhibits. The New York State Museum, during its heyday, was world class, and the hall of evolution, which seemed old enough to have involved Darwin himself as a consultant, featured the reconstructed skeleton as well as a fur-covered version, of the creature discovered in a kettle only a few miles away. That exhibit, along with a dozen other spectacular exhibits that to my knowledge have not been equaled elsewhere or since, are the reason I became a scientist, and probably helped direct me towards the study of prehistory and archaeology.
It is because of that background to my own thinking that I paid a lot of attention over the years to elephants and elephant evolution. I got to help excavate an African four-tusker one year even though I had to push off my other responsibilities to do so. I’ve studied the pseudo archaeological traces left behind by wild forest elephants in the Congo, and now and then, ate one, which may seem strange but I was living among the Pygmy elephant hunters at the time so it seemed like the thing to do.
I liken the discovery of the Mammoth by western science to the mostly lost to history but critical coral reef debate involving Darwin. Both events shaped how we do science today and at the same time revealed mind-changing features of the natural world. I didn’t know until interviewing John on Ikonokast (check out the podcast!) that he had originally become interested in Mammoth by a somewhat indirect route because of the extinct animal’s role in, let us say, alt-theories about the Earth and its history. But regardless of how John became interested, he discovered a complex and almost inexplicable relationship between what people were thinking, the way they arrived at those thoughts, and reality which led to a centuries-long struggle to understand something that to us, today, is fairly simple but to 19th century scholars was outrageous.
Religion and cultural belief prohibited thinking about extinctions or the evolution of one species into another, while at the same time, these bodies of thought and knowledge provided explanations for ancient mammal remains that were, to our minds today, seemingly unbelievable. It was the process of going from being totally wrong and basing conclusions on a combination of bad information and unsupportable logic, to the state of understanding that mammoths are a different species of elephant that once existed where we find their remains, but that went extinct because of major changes in their habitats and possibly other causes.
And that is only part of the central story John brings to the reader in the engagingly written and carefully researched Discovering the Mammoth.
I tend to divide science books into two categories: those written by writers about science, and those written by scientists. Both categories have their duds and their great books, though the former category almost always lacks a certain depth and breath but often in a way the typical interested reader can’t see. Meanwhile, books in the latter category can easily go off the rails or assume too much, and be a burden to read. John McKay’s book is written by an expert on the field (this book is in lieu of his PhD thesis) who had previously spent years developing his craft of explaining scientific things, so it is well done in that regard. But there is another reason the typical reader of this blog will grok McKay’s Mammoths. John’s passion other than dead woolly elephants is falsehoods. This is an interest we share. John McKay is a Snope of science, especially in certain areas, but better. Unlike Snopes, which is content to find enough chinks in the armor of some myth or another to snarkily discard it, McKay often recognizes the ways in which a falsehood informs, and contains non-trivial truth, while various truths can misinform while at the same time containing insidious or at least interesting falsehoods. It is his thinking about the way people get things wrong, combined with scholarly training in various areas of literature and history, that uniquely allow him to tell this particular important story about the the evolution of modern scientific thought.
Large hairy elephants got me into paleoanthropology, eventually.
I had a strong interest in science, and it was nurtured and expanded by my frequent visits to the New York State Museum, and there was never a doubt in anyone’s mind, anywhere, that the coolest exhibit at that museum was the Cohoes Mastodon exhibit. Barbarians eventually came along and tore that exhibit down, along with all the other fantastic and traditional museum displays, when they made the new, slick, produced for consumption and not intense engagement with materials knowledge building museum.
My friend John McKay also got into paleo studies as a young child because of a hairy elephant, but in his case, it was diminutive and green, unlike the large hairy Cohoes elephant. But John persevered in the large elephant area, while I went in somewhat different directions (though I did get to help dig up an extinct four tusker in Africa once). Eventually, John became the Go To Guy in all matters Mammoth and related things. John is an historian, so his focus has been the emerging understanding of the past (and present) as western (and other) civilization(s) repeatedly encountered and grappled with the remains of ancient and unbelievable beasts.
I’ve not seen the book yet, but I’ve read some of the stuff that is going into it. Think Stephen Jay Gould meets Don Prothero. Rich, engagingly written, context-rich, carefully done description and analyses of the afore mentioned process.
This book promises to be an interesting and important, and very readable, exploration of the development of natural history and modern science. I know John, this is what I expect of him, and this is what I’m confident he is going to give us.
The book will be available in hardcover or kindle. Of course, I’ll write a review as soon as I can. The book is slated for publication in June 2017.
This book is an interesting idea. Never mind the field guide part for a moment. This isn’t really set up like a field guide, though it is produced by the excellent producers of excellent field guides at Princeton. But think about the core idea here. Take every group of mammal, typically at the level of Order (Mammal is class, there are more than two dozen living orders with about 5,000 species) and ask for each one, “what does the fossil record look like.” In some cases, a very few living species are related to a huge diversity of extinct ones. In some cases, a highly diverse living fauna is related to a much smaller number of extinct ones. And each of these different relationships between the present and the past is a different and interesting evolutionary story.
If you looked only at the living mammals, you would miss a lot because there has been so much change in the past.
The giant sloths may be extinct, but Don Prothero himself is a giant of our age among fossil experts. His primary area of expertise includes the fossil mammals (especially but not at all limited to rhinos). I believe it is true that he has personally handled more fossil mammalian material, in terms of taxonomic breath and time depth, across more institutional collections, than anyone.
Don has written several different monographs on fossil mammal groups, and recently, a general fossil book for the masses, that have, I think added to his expertise on how to produce a book like this. Illustrations by Mary Persis Williams are excellent as well.
A typical entry focuses on an order, and the orders are arranged in a taxonomically logical manner. A living or classic fossil representative is depicted, along with some boney material, in the form of drawings. Artist’s reconstructions, photographs, maps, and other material, with phylogenetic charting where appropriate, fills out the overview of that order.
The text is expert and informative, and very interesting. the quality of the presentation is to notch. The format of the book is large enough to let the artistry of the production emerge, but it is not a big too heavy floppy monster like some coffee table books are. This is a very comforatable book to sit and read, or browse.
It turns out that if you combine living and fossil forms for a given group, you get a much bigger picture of the facts underlying any one of a number of interesting evolutionary stories.
In addition to the order by order entries, front matter provides background to the science of paleontology, including phylogenetic method, taphonomy, etc. There is a bit of functional anatomy, and extra detailed material on teeth because, after all, the evolutionary history of man mammal groups is known primarily by analysis of (and discovery almost exclusively of) teeth.
The end matter includes a discussion of mammalian diversification, extinction, and an excellent index.
If you wold like some background on how a scientist like Don Prothero writes a book like this, you can listen to this interview, in which we discuss this process in some detail.
One of the most important things about this book is that it is fully up to date, and thus, the only current mammalian evolutionary overview that is available, to my knowledge. In some areas of fossil mammal research (including in our own Order, Primates) there has been a lot of work over recent years, so this is important.
I highly recommend this excellent book.
The book as 240 pages, and 303 illustrations.
For your reference, I’ve pasted the TOC below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1 The Age of Mammals 7
Dating Rocks 8
Clocks in Rocks 10
What’s in a Name? 11
How Do We Classify Animals? 12
Bones vs Molecules 15
Bones and Teeth 15
2 The Origin and Early Evolution of Mammals 20
Synapsids (Protomammals or Stem Mammals) 20
Mammals in the Age of Dinosaurs 23
Monotremes (Platypus and Echidna) and Their Relatives 27
3 Marsupials: Pouched Mammals 37
Marsupial vs Placental 37
Marsupial Evolution 38
4 Placental Mammals (Eutheria) 47
The Interrelationships of Placentals 50
5 Xenarthra: Sloths, Anteaters, and Armadillos 51
Edentate vs Xenarthran 51
Order Cingulata (Armadillos) 53
Order Pilosa (Anteaters and Sloths) 55
6 Afrotheria: Elephants, Hyraxes, Sea Cows, Aardvarks, and Their Relatives 58
Tethytheres and Afrotheres 58
Order Proboscidea (Elephants, Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Their Relatives) 60
Order Sirenia (Manatees and Dugongs, or Sea Cows) 67
Order Embrithopoda (Arsinoitheres) 72
Order Desmostylia (Desmostylians) 73
Order Hyracoidea (Hyraxes) 75
Order Tubulidentata (Aardvarks) 77
Order Macroscelidia (Elephant Shrews) 78
Order Afrosoricida 79
7 Euarchontoglires: Euarchonta Primates, Tree Shrews, and Colugos 80
Order Scandentia (Tree Shrews) 82
Order Dermoptera (Colugos, or Flying Lemurs) 82
Order Plesiadapiformes (Plesiadapids) 84
Order Primates (Euprimates) 86
8 Euarchontoglires: Glires Rodents and Lagomorphs 94
Chisel Teeth 94
Order Rodentia (Rodents) 95
Order Lagomorpha (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas) 101
9 Laurasiatheria: Insectivores Order Eulipotyphla and Other Insectivorous Mammals 103
Order Eulipotyphla 103
Extinct Insectivorous Groups 107
10 Laurasiatheria: Chiroptera Bats 112
Bat Origins 114
11 Laurasiatheria: Pholidota Pangolins, or Scaly Anteaters 117
Order Pholidota (Pangolins) 118
12 Laurasiatheria: Carnivora and Creodonta Predatory Mammals 122
Carnivores, Carnivorans, and Creodonts 122
Order Creodonta 124
Order Carnivora 127
13 Laurasiatheria: Ungulata Hoofed Mammals and Their Relatives 146
14 Laurasiatheria: Artiodactyla Even-Toed Hoofed Mammals: Pigs, Hippos, Whales, Camels, Ruminants, and Their Extinct Relatives 151
Artiodactyl Origins 153
Suoid Artiodactyls 154
15 Laurasiatheria: Perissodactyla Odd-Toed Hoofed Mammals: Horses, Rhinos, Tapirs, and Their Extinct Relatives 186
Brontotheres, or Titanotheres 199
16 Laurasiatheria: Meridiungulata South American Hoofed Mammals 203
Order Notoungulata (Southern Ungulates) 205
Order Pyrotheria (Fire Beasts) 206
Order Astrapotheria (Lightning Beasts) 207
Order Litopterna (Litopterns, or Smooth Heels) 207
17 Uintatheres, Pantodonts, Taeniodonts, and Tillodonts 209
Order Dinocerata (Uintatheres) 209
Order Pantodonta (Pantodonts) 212
Order Taeniodonta (Taeniodonts) 214
Order Tillodontia (Tillodonts) 216
18 Mammalian Evolution and Extinction 218
Why Were Prehistoric Mammals So Big? 218
Where Have All the Megamammals Gone? 219
How Did Mammals Diversify after the Dinosaurs Vanished? 222
What about Mass Extinctions? 228
The Future of Mammals 229
Illustration Credits 231
Further Reading 232
Index (with Pronunciation Guide for Taxonomic Names) 234
Don Prothero is the author of just over 30 books and a gazillion scientific papers covering a wide range of topics in paleontology and skepticism. Mike Haubrich and I spoke with Don about most of these topics, including the recent history of the skeptics movement, the conflict and potentials between DNA and fossil research, extinctions and impacts, evolution in general, and the interesting projects Don is working on now.
The number one rule of the Taphonomy Club is don’t talk about marks on bones … without placing them in context. Many marks on bones could have multiple causes, such as putative cut marks caused by stone tools on animal bones found on early hominid sites. In that case, hard sharp stony objects in the ground can cause marks that are hard to tell apart from stone tool marks. But when you find almost all the possible stone tool marks in the exact locations they would be if a hominid was butchering or defleshing the animal, then you can assert that that butchery or defleshing with stone tools was highly likely to have happened.
A similar logic has been applied by paleontologists DWE Hone and DH Tanke in their study of the fossil remains of a dinosaur from Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada. The dinosaur exhibits numerous bite marks, and apparently (unlike stone tool cut marks) identification of these marks as caused by carnivorous dinosaur teeth is not in question. But the location of the marks and other features allowed these scientists to argue that some sort of combat regularly occurred between members of members of the same species, or similar species, during the animal’s life. Given what is known about animal behavior and the kinds of dinosaurs around at the time, they claim that it is most likely combat between members of the same species.
The dinosaur in question is a juvenile Daspletosaurus. This is a genus of dinosaur extant in western North America between 77 and 74 million years ago (Late Cretaceous).
Since everyone knows all about Tyrannosaurus, it is helpful to compare Daspletosaurus to Tyrannosaurus. Daspletosaurus was smaller and older. Daspletosaurus ranged around 8 or 9 meters long and 2.5 tonnes, while Tyrannosaurus could be over 12 meters long and 10 tonnes. Tyrannosaurus also lived later (68 million years ago up to about the time of the great extinction). Both had short arms but Daspletosaurus’s arms were longer. Note that this kind of dinosaur, suborder Theropoda, gave rise to birds.
This particular juvenile Daspletosaurus was well preserved. Many of the bones are present, and their position in the matrix that bore them is not too far off from anatomical location. A good number of the missing bones may have actually eroded away after this part of the bone bed was exposed by erosion. There are marks on some of the bones that indicate post-death scavenging. But, most of the tooth marks are of the kind one would expect if a theropod dinosaur was biting it, and most interestingly, most of these marks show evidence of healing, and all but one mark indicating damage is on the head. Normally, theropod inflicted bite marks are found on various different bones of their prey. It appears that this individual was engaged in combat with other individuals of the same sort … other theropods. And, since this is probably the only theropod of this size at the time in the area, it is reasonable to conclude that this is evidence of infraspecific combat or competition.
Trace marks on the bones of non-avian dinosaurs may relate to feeding by large carnivores or as a result of combat. Here the cranium and mandible of a specimen of Daspletosaurus are described that show numerous premortem injuries with evidence of healing and these are inferred to relate primarily to intraspecific combat. In addition, postmortem damage to the mandible is indicative of late stage carcass consumption and the taphonomic context suggests that this was scavenging. These postmortem bites were delivered by a large bodied tyrannosaurid theropod and may have been a second Daspletosaurus, and thus this would be an additional record of tyrannosaurid cannibalism.
I contacted lead study author Dave Hone with a few questions and he was kind enough to give me answers.
I asked him if he had any guess as to the sex of this individual. While it is possible to sex some dinosaurs, he told me that this was not possible in this case.
I asked Dr. Hone to comment further on the suggestions that the most likely species to have inflicted the pre-mortum wounds was another Daspletosaurus, even though another similar dinosaur, Gorgosaurus, was around at the time. He told me, “We favour Daspleto for the premortem as we think (and based on previous papers) this is a more likely case with more intra than interspecifc aggression leading to these kinds of interactions,” similar to what we see in modern animals that exhibit this behavior. I also wondered if the size of the teeth could indicate the size of the offending beast, and thus confirm the species. He told me they did not look at this too closely because there are various problems with that approach. “We did look at the patterns of tooth distribution briefly but between different sizes of animals (juveniles vs adults) different sizes of teeth within the jaws (front vs back) and then things like missing teeth etc. there’s no way of separating them out. There’s just way too many variables and they are only leaving limited marks. It’s mostly hard to tell even very different animals apart from bite marks let alone two similar and close relatives like this.”
I asked how common Daspletosaurus is in the fossil record and if this was one of the more common tyrannosaurids. He told me that “Actually it’s not that common. The Albertan Tyrannosaurs are generally pretty common but we do for example have more Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus than Daspleto,” though Daspletosaurus is well represented.
Daspletosaurus is distinct in part because of various extra bony bits in the face and around the eyes, which could be for any of a number of functions. I asked if it is possible that Daspletosaurus was more involved with usually-but-not-always non-lethal infraspecific combat than other tyrannosaurids, if these features are related to what might have been extra protection (or signaling features that might arise from sexual selection). If so, would this indicate something about social structure? He told me, “I’m very wary of making these kinds of extrapolations as some things that look like certain classic signals turn out not to be. My personal opinion is that these hornlets in various Tyrannosaurs likely did function in sociosexual signaling (at the very least I suspect they wouldn’t do much to protect the eyes since that would be tricky place to bite) but it’s hard to say much. Sociality is misleading here as some things can be very social and fight lots and others almost never and vice versa for solitary animals.”
I also wondered about how infraspecific combat square with the individual being relatively young. Would this imply it was fighting off adults intent on cannibalism? Or, were juveniles fighting it out like hyenas do (new born hyena males from the same litter engage in deadly combat)? Or fighting over food? Or engaged in ritual fighting behavior that precedes, as preparation/practice, adult fighting behavior? I wondered if this would say anything about life history development of behaviors in this dinosaur. Dr Hone told me that “it is really hard to say. This isn’t an adult, but then nor is it really a juvenile. We know that some dinosaurs at least can reproduce before they are fully grown (so they are sexually mature when they are not osteologically mature – actually rather like humans, though obviously rather unlike most mammals, and certainly birds). So things get complex fast. This animals was certainly old enough to have been fully independent (though of course they may or may not have been gregarious / social etc.). I doubt cannibalism was normal, I’m sure there were the odd fights that resulted in deaths or adults killed the odd small juvenile (just like crocs do) but it’s a rare behaviour to go after other big carnivores for food – they are rare and dangerous, so stick to baby herbivores. After that it gets even harder so I’d prefer not to speculate too much, though I’d guess that IF solitary, smaller individuals would probably not be holding territories, since they are not big enough to defend them, and obviously immature animals would not be competing for mates or breeding sites or IF in a group to be an alpha of some kind (though that’s not to rule out some aggression to maintain even a lower rank), but it’s not much to go on – just too many unknowns.
What we need, obviously, is some way to bring these creatures back to life so we can observe them alive!
Caption for the figure at the top of the post: Figure 1: Skull in right lateral view showing numerous injuries indicated with black arrows and the relevant code letter (see the text for details).
Much is being made of Brontosaurus. Brontosaurus is a genus name for a large dinosaur, known to watchers of “Land Before Time” as “Long-Necks.” That generic name dates to the 19th century, but in the early 20th century it was eliminated as a proper Linnaean term and replaced with Apatosaurus. This made us sad. Most people discover dinosaurs and learn all about a select handful of the iconic ones, including Brontosaurus, then later learn that Brontosaurs is a bogus name. And become sad.
But perhaps this sadness is all for naught, because a very recent study seems to require the resurrection of Brontosaurus (the name, not the actual beast), and that is happy, sad-killing news. Here, I’ll give you a bit of background and some thoughts on this. Don’t worry, I’m not going to tell you that you need to remain sad for some reason. In fact, I’ll argue that you never really had to be sad.
Naming Names: Apatosaurus vs. Brontosaurus
The title of this post is borrowed from Stephen Jay Gould’s essay published in his book of the same name in 1991, from which I draw quite a bit of the information for this first part.
In 1877, paleontologist O. C. Marsh published a skeletally brief description of a new genus of dinosaur found in the “Jurassic Formation” (properly called the Morrison Formation) in Colorado. He called it Apatosaurus ajax (“Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic Formation,” American Journal of Science, 1877). Two years later, Marsh described a different find, a similar but larger dinosaur, which he named Brontosaurus (“Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles,” American Journal of Science, 1879). Both dinosaurs were quadrupedal, large, herbivorous beasts, differentiated primarily by size with Apatosaurus being about fifty feet long and Brontosaurus being about 80 feet long. (Note: The actual size of these dinosaurs varies in the literature. It will turn out that for dinosaurs, size probably matters but there is some disagreement about what exactly matters about it.)
From a public relations point of view, Brontosaurus had some advantages. It was much larger. In popular media bigness is best for a lot of things, especially dinosaurs. Brontosaurus as reported had a more complete set of bones, and it was mounted in a famous museum. (Eventually some form of it was mounted in all the famous dinosaur-focused museums that mattered, generally with that label: Brontosaurus). Marsh and others used Brontosaurus in major scientific overviews and popular commentary and reconstructions of the age. In his highly influential publication, “Dinosaurs of North America” (Sixteenth Annual Report of the US Geological Survey, 1895), Marsh penned:
The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus, described by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most complete of any of the Sauroiioda yet
discovered. It was found in the Atlantosaurus beds, near Lake Como, Wyoming, and the remains were nearly in the position in which they were left at the death of the animal. This fortunate discovery has done much to clear up many doubtful points in the structure of the whole group Sauropoda., and the species Brontosaurus excelsus may be taken as a typical form, especially especially of the family Atlantosauridae.
Marsh made the claim that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were separate but closely related genera. Remember that.
Decades after the initial discoveries of these extinct dinosaurs, Elmer Riggs of the Field Museum had a closer look at the accumulated material and, contributing to an emerging pattern of “lumping” species previously generated by the earlier generation of paleontological “splitters” (including Marsh), he sank Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus into one genus. He wrote, in 1903,
The genus Brontosaurus was based chiefly upon the structure of the scapula and the presence of five vertebrae in the sacrum. After examining the type specimens of these genera, and making a careful study of the unusually well-preserved specimen described in this paper, the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen.… In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term “Apatosaurus” has priority, “Brontosaurus” will be regarded as a synonym.
And by “synonym” he means, sadly, extinct as a Linnaean term.
In this manner, Brontosaurus disappeared, although Brontosaurus lived on. The official genus Brontosaurs was no longer considered valid because of the rule of priority. The first name applied to a specimen is, under the rule of priority, chosen when it is discovered that more than one name is being used to describe the same genus or species. However, Brontosaurus (not italicized) managed to hang on and was widely used in museum exhibits and popular literature (both popular science and fiction), and eventually, film. One could argue that there is nothing wrong with this. A genus of dinosaur has a scientific name, but it can also have one or more popular names. The genus Apatosaurus could be said to have a couple of popular names, non-italicized “Brontosaurs” being one, another being “Long-Neck,” and maybe there are others.
But, since Brontosaurus and Brontosaurus have exactly the same spelling, one could also be concerned that science is being messed with here. The old extinct genus name should not only be set aside because of Rigg’s science, but the use of this term in any other context is an offense to rational thinking. How dare you use the term Brontosaurus! You must be a Creationist or something!
That problem, the fetishizing of the names, is apparently what gave Stephen Jay Gould the impetus for writing his essay Bully for Brontosaurus. He wrote the essay at the time that the United States Post Office issued its famous dinosaur stamps, which were artistic reconstructions by the famous John Gurche. I remember meeting Gurche at that time, after his stamps had been accepted for use but before they were printed, which was also about the time John was becoming famous for his Smithsonian reconstructions of early human ancestors. John had developed to an art the science of building up.
You start with a cast of a skull, then using a detailed and expert knowledge of anatomy, you add the muscle, fat, connective tissue, and eventually skin. Only the skin will be seen in the final product, even though the underlying tissues were all built with anatomical precision. The artist as anatomist does not really know in advance what the result will be, but when flesh is added in this manner to bone, the final product is arguably the best possible reconstruction that can be made. Skin color or markings and hair or fur are at that point largely conjectural, but the surface of the skin on down to the bone is based on the best available science.
Gurche’s stamps were important for several reasons. First, this was science on stamps, not a habit of the United States Post Office. Second, it was paleo-science on stamps, which is extra cool. Third, the stamps represented reconstructions of dinosaurs based on newly emerging science and method applying to both what we think dinosaurs were, and how we reconstruct extinct forms generally. Fourth, these stamps joined an all too small collection of US produced stamps that were not terribly boring to look at.
The stamps were also important for two other reasons, not quite as positive. First, the four dinosaur stamps included three dinosaurs and a Pteranodon. Pteranodons are not dinosaurs. Second, the giant sauropod (and of course there had to be a giant sauropod along with the large carnivorous thing and the roundish spiky thing, to represent the most popular groups of dinosaurs) was Apatosaurus but labeled Brontosaurus. And, yes, Brontosaurus, on the stamp, is in italics. It is not clear that this was proper Linnaean typography or just an artistic choice.
Following Gould, the first thing you need to now about the sinking of Brontosaurs into Apatosaurus is that it did not need to happen. If you troll around the Internet and read the stories about the resurrection of Brontosaurs (the name, not the beast) you will find the Rule of Priority cited again and again as the reason for that decision. But there are actually a few different “rules” that have applied to the naming of names in the Linnaean system, and Priority is only one of them. Read Gould’s essay for rich detail on this. Here I’ll just note that there is another rule that can apply: Plenary Powers. This comes into play when someone brings up a good reason (there are no rules about what the reason should be, just that it be a good one) to pick a certain name that may not have priority for a given genus or species. This is done in the plenary context of the governing body for animal names, the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. The commission consists of a largish number (about thirty) of zoologists. They hear the argument (much of this is done on paper) and vote. Gould cites a classic example.
The protozoan species Tetrahymena pyriforme has long been a staple for biological research, particularly on the physiology of single-celled organisms. John Corliss counted more than 1,500 papers published over a 27-year span—all using this name. However, at least ten technically valid names, entirely forgotten and unused, predate the first publication of Tetrahymena. No purpose would be served by resurrecting any of these earlier designations and suppressing the universally accepted Tetrahymena. Corliss’s petition to the commission was accepted without protest, and Tetrahymena has been officially accepted under the plenary powers.
Gould also cites the example of Boa constrictor, but I won’t cover that here. Go read the essay.
The point is, Rigg’s effort to sink Brontosaurus, presumably well intentioned and arguably appropriate, could have been overruled. But remember, Riggs reclassification happened in 1905, and while Brontosaurus as a term was well on the way to postage stamp level status, the cultural centrality of the term was probably not as well established as it would eventually become. It seems nobody came to bat for Brontosaurus. There are probably a number of reasons for that. They are probably mostly not very interesting.
“Diplodocidae” are the Long-Necks. This Linnaean family was called the Amphicoeliidae (by Cope, Marsh’s famous rival) in 1878, and the Atlantosauridae by Marsh (Cope’s famous rival) in 1877. (The story of these family names and the dinosaurs to which they refer is rather complicated, not covered here).
The study, hundreds of pages long, looked at 81 “operational taxonomic units” (OTUs) distributed among something over a dozen probable species dating to the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. The research team examined a whopping 477 features. The OTUs consist of “name-bearing type specimens previously proposed to belong to Diplodocide” and other material. This approach starts out making very few assumptions about which bones belong which species, allowing the analysis to start out with less bias than otherwise possible. This is a modern cladistic analysis. This involves measuring or observing a large number of traits that are presumed to reflect the underlying genetics, and grouping corresponding bones based on similarity or equivalence of these traits. The result is one or more cladograms that should do a good job of representing a sort of family tree of probable species. I oversimplify.
Here is the key graphic representing the Brontosaurus related results, supplied by PeerJ:
The main result pertaining to the present discussion (though there are many other results from this important study) is that the specimens Riggs sank into one genus, thus setting aside Brontosaurus, are distinct. This requires that the term Brontosaurus be revived and applied. The iconic Long-Neck lives again (as a name, not an actual living dinosaur).
Does this vindicate Marsh and the US Post Office? As to the latter, probably not. It is highly unlikely that the US Post Office or those involved in making the Dinosaur stamps anticipated a revision of sauropod taxonomy. They were right to use the term Brontosaurus only in the way a stopped watch is right twice a day. But what about Marsh? That is a little more complicated. Marsh was working with a fraction of the material now available, and using that material, he separated Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus but did he do so correctly, based on the character differences that, if we take the new study as valid, turn out to matter?
Marsh distinguished Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus on the basis of a number of differences, but one of them was the overall robusticity of the animal, especially in the vertebrae. In “The Dinosaurs of North America” he wrote, Brontosaurus …
… aside from its immense size, is distinguished by the peculiar lightness of its vertebral column, the cervical, dorsal, and sacral vertebrae all having very large cavities in their centra. The first three caudals, also, are lightened by excavations in their sides, a feature first seen in this genus, and one not observed in the other families of this group.
The recent analysis does the same. Charles Choi, writing for Scientific American and quoting the study’s lead author, notes:
“Generally, Brontosaurus can be distinguished from Apatosaurus most easily by its neck, which is higher and less wide,” says lead study author Emanuel Tschopp, a vertebrate paleontologist at the New University of Lisbon in Portugal. “So although both are very massive and robust animals, Apatosaurus is even more extreme than Brontosaurus.”
In some details, Marsh may have been a stopped watch, but clearly not the important details. The old guy got it right, we can say. Cope would probably disagree on personal grounds, of course.
The lying lizard gets its due
People seemed to care that “Brontosaurus”, the name, be preserved, which implies preference over “Apatosaurus”. But why? Does one role off the tongue more easily than the other? Is one more poetic than the other? The main reason for sadness when learning that Brontosaurus is wrong is almost certainly, as has been pointed out by many, because the term was already so much in use that it is usually learned first and nobody likes to unlearn things. But it is interesting to ask of the etymology of the terms. In another essay (or two) Stephen Jay Gould laments the demise of a different genus name, Eohippus. Eohippus means “Dawn horse” and was applied to an early horse fossil. What a great, and appropriate, name! But other remains of that same extinct form had previously been named Hyracotherium. Hyracotherium is an affront to the poetry of paleontology for three reasons, when compared to Eohippus. First, it sounds ugly. Second, it is an example of a cool name (“Dawn Horse”) being tossed out. Third, Hyracotherium is wrong. The term comes from the belief that those particular early remains were a form of hyrax, which is not a horse. Tossing out Eohippus and replacing it with Hyracotherium may have been correct by the Rule of Priority but a third rule, not previously mentioned here, could have saved the day: The Rule of Appropriateness. Hardly invoked and considered these days arcane, that rule simply stands up for a name that makes sense over a name that does not, clearly the case with the early horse.
But what about the Long-Neck in question? Gould ends his essay with these words:
Apatosaurus means “deceptive lizard” Brontosaurus means “thunder lizard” — a far, far better name… They have deceived us; we brontophiles have been outmaneuvered. Oh well, graciousness in defeat before all (every bit as important as dignity, if not an aspect thereof). I retreat, not with a bang of thunder, but with a whimper of hope that rectification may someday arise from the ashes of my stamp album.
Well said. But, in the end, not relevant. A better reference than to dignity might be to a very different aphorism, “Don’t get mad. Get even.” It took a while, but Brontosaurus is back.
For now. As great as the new study is, there are a couple of reasons that things may change again. One is our understanding of the relationship between size and form, and actually, growth in dinosaurs. It could be that some features that work to distinguish specimens cladistically are a function of change over time within a given animal, as it grows larger. This, or some other developmental or environmental effect, could knock some of the traits off the pedestal of genetic presumption, and make them invalid cladistic characters, and thus change the analysis. I mention this simply because the main features that result in bringing Brontosaurus back to life (the name, not the actual dinosaur) may be size related. Another possibility is that even though Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are found in this study to be different, they are still close. If this research team turns out to be splitters and later on lumpers show up with more muscle, some of the now distinct taxa could be recombined, and any two closely aligned forms risk sinking, once again, into the Davy Jones’ Locker of the Linnaean system. Of course if that becomes a threat, there may be grounds, and impetus, for invoking the Plenary Rule.
I’ll end with this, somewhat tangental but I think important. The reason Gould wrote his “Bully” essay was annoyance. Gould was motivated by annoyance, by the way, in many of his popular works. He was annoyed at the way science was often portrayed in watered down form, and he was annoyed at the shallowness of the public discourse. Had he lived longer, he almost certainly would have gotten much, much more annoyed because this has become more, rather than less, of a thing because of the Internet. A simple example of this is the widespread mischaracterization of the Rule of Priority as the only thing governing resolution of naming conflicts. In the case of the “Bully” essay, Gould was annoyed at the annoyance of others with the Post Office stamps. Aping, cynically, classic conspiracy ideation, he wrote:
The Post Office has been more right than the complainers, for Uncle Sam has worked in the spirit of the plenary powers rule. Names fixed in popular usage may be validated even if older designations have technical priority. But now…Oh Lord, why didn’t I see it before! Now I suddenly grasp the secret thread behind this overt debate! It’s a plot, a dastardly plot sponsored by the apatophiles—that covert society long dedicated to gaining support for Marsh’s original name against a potential appeal to the plenary powers. They never had a prayer before. Whatever noise they made, whatever assassinations they attempted, they could never get anyone to pay attention, never disturb the tranquillity and general acceptance of Brontosaurus. But now that the Post Office has officially adopted Brontosaurus, they have found their opening. Now enough people know about Apatosaurus for the first time. Now an appeal to the plenary powers would not lead to the validation of Brontosaurus, for Apatosaurus has gained precious currency. They have won; we brontophiles have been defeated.
But more important than that, Gould underscored the importance of non-shallowness, of context, in understanding problems suffered by the likes of *Brontosaurus” (the name…), and he produced a message that in slightly modified form should go out to all those engaged in discussions of science, history, and other things, which are typically carried out on the slippery surface of very deep intellectual waters. “If you play this dangerous game in real life, remember that ignorance of context is the surest mark of a phony. If you approach me in wild lament, claiming that our postal service has mocked the deepest truth of paleontology, I will know that you have only skimmed the surface of my field.”
National Park Service Director Jarvis Participates in Public Meeting about Waco Mammoth Site
WACO, TX – Today, National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis heard from the citizens of Waco regarding the community’s vision to preserve, protect and enhance the Waco Mammoth Site.
At the invitation of officials from the City of Waco and Baylor University, Jarvis joined the meeting that included significant attendance from local community members and supporters of the site who are interested in protecting the site’s unique resources. Jarvis discussed how new sites are added to the National Park System and talked about the benefits associated with becoming a National Park Service unit. In 2013, national park visitors contributed $26.5 billion to the nation’s economy and supported almost 240,000 jobs across the country.
“The Waco Mammoth Site offers an exciting opportunity to engage students, visitors and scientists alike with the story of these extinct mammoths. The enthusiasm that the community expressed for National Park Service involvement with this site at today’s public meeting is inspiring,” said Director Jarvis. “As the National Park Service looks toward our centennial next year, places like the Waco Mammoth Site provide great opportunities for more Americans to develop a lifelong relationship with parks as places where they can play and learn about amazing stories contained at sites like this.”
“The city is proud to be partnered with community leaders and Baylor University in preserving and protecting the Waco Mammoth site. We welcome the National Park Service to join us in this partnership,” said Waco Mayor Malcolm Duncan, Jr. “We look forward to sharing the benefits of this collaboration with visitors from across the country for generations to come. We are very grateful for the contributions of our partners. We thank Director Jarvis and his staff for coming to look. It is our sincere hope we can share the discovery with the rest of this great country in working with the National Park Service.”
“We are proud of the Baylor University research that has contributed to unearthing this natural treasure and the long partnership we have had with the City of Waco to bring attention to this rare and valuable discovery,” said Baylor University President and Chancellor Judge Ken Starr. “We are honored by the visit of National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis and we thank him for his efforts to learn more about the Waco Mammoth Site and to consider our deeply held hope to make it a National Park Service unit.”
Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the Waco Mammoth Site, which was completed in 2008. It confirmed that the Waco Mammoth resources are nationally significant, worthy of permanent preservation and suitable and feasible for inclusion in the national park system.
Generally, Congress must pass legislation to establish a new unit of the National Park System. The first step in that process is usually a National Park Service study, like the special resource study completed in 2008 for the Waco Mammoth site. The President can also establish new units through the use of the Antiquities Act, which allows the President to designate a site as a national monument.
In 1978, Columbian Mammoth fossils were first discovered at the site, and it remains the nation’s first and only recorded discovery of a nursery herd (females and their offspring) of Pleistocene mammoths. The remains of 24 mammoths have been found to date, 19 of which were part of the nursery herd, and more remains from the Ice Age are likely in the area. The nursery herd died at the same moment in time as a result of a natural catastrophic event, the skeletons are relatively intact, and the individual mammoths range in age from 3 to 65 years old.The site offers a one-of-a-kind opportunity to examine the matriarchal herd structure and behavior of this extinct species. For example, juvenile mammoth skeletons rest atop the long tusks of adults, suggesting that the adults were trying to save their offspring from the rising waters and sucking mud. The site has already revealed other Ice Age fossils, including camel, saber-toothed cat, dwarf antelope, and giant tortoise.
The first pterosaur fossil was found in the late 18th century in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestones, in Germany, the same excellent preservational environment that would later yield Archaeopteryx. They person who first studied it thought the elongated finger bones that we now know supported a wing served as a flipper in an amphibious creature. Not long after, the famous paleontologist George Cuvier recognized the winged nature of the beast. Witton notes that at the time, and through a good part of the 19th century, it was possible to believe that many of the odd fossils being unearthed were of species that still existed but were unknown to science. This is because most of the fossils were aquatic, and who knew what mysterious forms lurked beneath the sea? But a very large flying thing like this first pterosaur was very unlikely to still exist, unseen by European and American investigators. It had to be something major that was truly extinct. So in a way the history of extinction (the study of it, that is) was significantly shaped by this find. By the early 20th century there had been enough publication and study of pterosaurs to give them a place in paleontology, but not a lot else happened until the 1970s, when a combination of factors, including advanced technology that allowed more detailed and sophisticated study of fossils, led to much more intensive study of pterosaur anatomy and behavior.
Pterosaurs are part of the large taxonomic group that includes the lizards, dinosaurs, and birds, but they branched off within that group prior to the rise of the latter two. So, they are not dinosaurs, but cousins of dinosaurs. You can call them flying lizards, but not flying dinosaurs.
Witton explores this interesting history in some detail, and then proceeds to explore various aspects of pterosaur biology, starting with the skeleton, the soft parts (of which there is some direct but mostly indirect evidence), their flight, how they got around on the ground, and their reproductive biology. These explorations into pterosaurs in general is followed by several chapters devoted to the various groups, with a treatment of the evidence for each group, reconstructions of anatomy, locomotion in the air and on the ground, and ecology.
The resemblance of this layout to a detailed field guide for birds (or some other group) is enhanced by the use of color-coded bleeds at the top of each page, separating the book’s major sections or groups of chapters. The book ends with a consideration of the origins and endings of the “Pterosaur Empire.” It turns out that we don’t actually know why they went extinct. They lasted to the end of the Cretaceous, so going extinct along with their dinosaur cousins is a reasonable hypothesis, but they had already become somewhat rare by that time.
It is called Spinosaurus aegyptiacus but it sounds a bit more like Godzilla. Spinosaurus is a theropod dinosaur (that’s the groups birds evolved within) found in what is now NOrth Africa, between about 112 and 97 million years ago. It was first discovered about one century ago, though those bones were destroyed during WW II. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus might be the only species of this genus, or there may be two. It is probably the largest carnivours dinosaur, up to 18 meters in length. Up top of the post is the picture from Wikipedia. Although the head looks a lot like a crock, you can see the overall Godzilla-esque body.
Researchers have long debated whether dinosaurs could swim, but there has been little direct evidence for aquadinos. Some tantalizing hints have appeared, however, in claimed “swim tracks” made by the bellies of dinos in Utah and oxygen isotopes indicating possible aquatic habitats in a group of dinosaurs called spinosaurs. Now, a research team working in Morocco has found the most complete skeleton yet of a giant carnivore called Spinosaurus [which] confirm that Spinosaurus was bigger than Tyrannosaurus rex, but also show that it had evolutionary adaptations—ranging from pedal-like feet to a nostril far back on the head to high bone density like that of hippos—clearly suited for swimming in lakes and rivers.
The scientists describe Spinosaurus aegyptiacus as “semiaquatic.” It’s pelvis is small, hind limbs short, and as mentioned, its limb bones are solid to act as balast. It’s hind limbs may have acted as quasi-flippers while in water. The dorsal sail “may have been enveloped in skin that functioned primarily for display on land and in water.” They say nothing about its ability to exhale nuclear fire-breath. Perhaps that will be ascertained with further study.
Here are some of the bones and a semi-reconstructed skeleton:
Of related interest:
<li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/05/titanic-fearless-dinosaur-unearthed/">Titanic Fearless Dinosaur Unearthed</a></li>
<li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/03/flying-dinosaurs-a-new-book-on-the-dinosaur-bird-link/">Flying Dinosaurs: A New Book on the Dinosaur Bird Link</a></li>
Dreadnoughtus schrani is a sauropod. Brontosaurus, if it existed, would be a sauropod. These are the dinosaurs with the little heads, long necks, and long tails. In cartoons they are sometimes called “long-necks.” Dreadnoughtus schrani is, as mentioned, a titanosaur, a particularly large long neck.
How does this relate to the other dinosaurs? The dinosaurs are part of a really big group of organisms that includes crocodiles, pterosaurs (those flying things) and so on. Within this group are the proper dinosaurs which you can think of as being divided into three groups. One group is the Ornithischia, named from the greek for “birdlike.” These are not birds either, but their hips somewhat resemble bird hips. (Birds are “lizard hipped” dinosaurs, which completes the paleoirony.) The Ornithischia are separate from the other two groups which are the Sauropods and the Theropods. The Theropods include Tyrannosaurus rex and pigeons. The Sauropods includes the Brontosaurus-like dinosaurs, though of course, there is no such thing as Brontosaurus. Because people who name dinosaurs are, essentially, sadistic.
Anyway, Dreadnoughtus schrani is estimated to have been about 26 meters (85 feet) long. So if you live in a typical city lot it could eat the bushes on your front lawn while knocking over your garage out back with its tail. It would have weighted about 59 metric tons. That’s about 65 regular tons. Nobody really knows what a ton is unless you are in certain professions, so that’s about 33 cars, or about 70 head of cattle. So, the average American could replace the usual meat in their diet with meat from one well fed Dreadnoughtus schrani for about two centuries. Give or take. This is all based on the one specimen found in Argentina. But, that individual was not full grown. So, wow. I’m not sure if Dreadnoughtus schrani is the biggest sauropod, as there are others in this size range.
The specimen is about 45% complete as a skeleton, but about 70% of the bones in the body are represented. Unfortunately the head is missing. But really, where could it be? I’m sure they’ll find it if they keep looking!
Titanosaurs were the major large dinos during the Mesozoic (252 – 66 mya) in the southern continents. This particular find dates to the Upper Cretaceous, the latest part of the Mesozoic.
From the paper:
(A) Reconstructed skeleton and body silhouette in left lateral view with preserved elements in white. (B) Left scapula and coracoid in lateral view. (C) Sternal plates in ventral view. (D) Left forelimb (metacarpus reconstructed) in anterior view. (E) Left pelvis (ilium partially reconstructed) in lateral view. (F) Left hind limb in anterior view (metatarsus and pes partially reconstructed and reversed from right). (G) Transverse ground thin section of humeral shaft, showing heavy secondary remodelling (arrow indicates extent of dense osteon formation), a thick layer of well-vascularized fibrolamellar bone, and a lack of lines of arrested growth or an external fundamental system. Abbreviations: acet, acetabulum; acf, acromial fossa; acp, acromial process; acr, acromial ridge; ast, astragalus; cc, cnemial crest; cof, coracoid foramen; cor, coracoid; dpc, deltopectoral crest; fem, femur; fhd, femoral head; fib, fibula; flb, fibrolamellar bone; gl, glenoid; hum, humerus; il, ilium; ilp, iliac peduncle; isc, ischium; isp, ischial peduncle; lt, lateral trochanter; mtI, metatarsal I; mtII, metatarsal II; of, obturator foramen; pop, postacetabular process; prp, preacetabular process; pu, pedal ungual; pub, pubis; pup, pubic peduncle; rac, radial condyle; rad, radius; sc, scapula; scb, scapular blade; sr, secondary remodelling; tib, tibia; tpp, tuberosity on preacetabular process; ul, ulna; ulc, ulnar condyle. Scale bars equal 1?m in (A) to (F) and 1?mm in (G). (Skeletal reconstruction by L. Wright, with G. Schultz.)
The name means “Fearless-creature guy-who-funded-expedition.” According to the authors, this is specifically where the genus name comes from:
Dreadnought (Old English), fearing nothing; genus name alludes to the gigantic body size of the taxon (which presumably rendered healthy adult individuals nearly impervious to attack) and the predominant battleships of the early 20th century (two of which, ARA [Armada de la República Argentina] Rivadavia and ARA Moreno, were part of the Argentinean navy). Species name honours the American entrepreneur Adam Schran for his support of this research.
Flying Dinosaurs: How Fearsome Reptiles Became Birds by science writer John Pickrell is coming out in December. As you know I’ve written a lot about the bird-dinosaur thing (most recently, this: “Honey I Shrunk the Dinosaurs“) so of course this sounded very interesting to me. In a way, Pickrell’s book is a missing link, in that he writes a lot about the history of paleontology associated with the discovery, undiscovery, and rediscovery of the early bird record and the dinosaur link.
Birds have rewritten dinosaurs. Not all dinosaurs are directly related to birds, but a large number of them are, and the features we reconstruct for them were once based on lizards, because it was thought dinosaurs were big scary lizards. Now we know many dinosaurs were big scary birds. Feathers are today a bird thing, but back in olden times — very olden times — they were probably just the normal covering for this entire category of dinosaurs (though they may have been very different). Dinosaurs were once thought of as greyish lumbering terrifying beasts. We now see them as highly active, aerobically efficient, socially dynamic, sexy (as in they had a lot of secondary sexual characteristics such as bright colors) terrifying beasts.
Pickrell covers the history of changing thought on dinosaurs and the bird-dinosaur link. In a way , this book is about dinosaurs, focusing primarily on the bird kind. Or, it is a book about birds, focusing on their dinosaur-osity. Pickrell also goes into detail on the behavioral biology of dinosaurs reinterpreted in the context of birds.
I remember finding out about the Tethys Sea and being really excited. I was just beginning my studies of Old World prehistory, Africa, and Human Evolution. What I learned about was the remnant sea separating Africa and Eurasia called Tethys, though it is much more than that (see below). Imagine a Eurasia with no Alps, no Caucasus, and no Arabian Peninsula. Much of southern Europe and huge swaths of North Africa are underwater, and Africa is so far away from Eurasia that all the classic seas of the region don’t exist simply because they are part of the ocean. If you were in the western Mediterranean, you would be able to travel across what is now the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea or the Persian Gulf and into the Indian Ocean, where you would not find India any where near it is today. That was all the Tethys. It allowed the world’s oceans to communicate not too far from the equator across the old world, instead of having the Indian and Atlantic oceans separated by Africa. Virtually everything about the modern climate system depends on tropical or subtropical closure of the major oceans. The fact that the Indian Ocean is on the equator and cut off from the North Atlantic determines and explains almost everything about Northern Hemisphere weather. The rest is explained by the Isthmus of Panama. Had Africa (and India) not moved north to close this sea and create the modern puddles known as the Caspian, Black and Aral seas, and the Persian Gulf, etc. there might well be no Atlantic Hurricanes, England would be rather cold, Canada might look much more like Greenland all year round, and if we add India moving north into Asia into the mix, and the formation of the great mountain ranges of Europe and Central Asia, we also get the present configuration of grasslands in Africa, and in fact, the evolution of grass itself. Prior to the closure of the Tethys, there was an oceanic habitat in Northern Africa and what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan in which evolved hippos, manatees, whales, and elephants. Probably. The sea was enormously influential and it’s demise equally so.
You know the story of Renaissance era scholars noticing sea shells made of lime stone high in the alps. Go look at the alps. Well, the geology there is pretty complicate, but the short version is that many of the fossil bearing (and other) sediments that the alps are made of were party of the western extent of the Tethys, during times when the Atlantic Ocean didn’t happen to exist, so if you were in a boat in that part of the Tethys you would not only be near Geneva (which didn’t exist yet) but also near Libya, Spain and Labrador. When the Tethys was finally pinched out the Alps, Caucuses, and other mountain ranges in the region were pushed up and those sediments exposed.
I’ve had close friends and colleagues who worked on a number of paleontological finds, and in some cases, I worked on them as well, that owe their existence to these dynamic changes. The hominoids of Pashalar were buried in sediments caused by landslides caused by uplift as Turkey became a place; The Siwalics, where all those amazing Asian pre-orang fossils were found, were once lowlands just risen from the sea, and later became the mountains of Pakistan. We will not speak of the Sahavi expedition, other than to say what is now among the driest deserts was once a sea in which it is possible, but highly unlikely, that early human ancestors rode on the back of dolphins swimming among hungry sharks. Well, the dolphins were swimming around among the sharks, anyway.
My own musings about this one thing … the sea that separated Africa from Eurasia, then went away as lands rose up and mountains formed, only addressed the latest period of the Tethys Ocean’s life. Like we have, mainly, the Atlantic and the Pacific today, in the very ver old days, even as life was just beginning to get complicated (and I don’t mean as in too many errands to run before Christmas, so much as I mean having more than one cell and organelles and stuff) it was the Tethys Ocean and the Panthalassic Ocean, the former to the east of, the latter to the west of, Pangea and the various daughter continents of Pangea as they formed over hundreds of millions of years.
It was in the Tethys that the Black Shales formed, during several (but many a few during a certain time period) in which a very large percentage of our oil was to be found, in many cases raised to dry land were it was easy (too easy, as it turns out) to get at. So, the Tethys sea gave us whales, and we used those for a while, but it also gave us Arabian Oil (and lots and lots of other oil around the world) which we are just now running out of.
So, given all this you can imagine how excited I was to see a book written just about the Tethys sea by an expert on it, who helped a great deal in developing our knowledge of it. Vanished Ocean: How Tethys Reshaped the World by Dorrik Stow is the story of the Tethys, told from the very beginning which is about a third of the way back to the very beginning of time itself, it’s fascinating disappearance. Stow is professor of Geoscience at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, and has a long history of research in oil geology and interpretation of deep sea cores. He was on some of the key deep sea coring projects that led not only to our understanding of the Tethys, but also, climate change.
To me, one of the most unsatisfying things one can do is to go to a place with interesting geology, stop in at the visitors center with the cute little museum, and see the same exact thing every time: “This region was once covered by a vast inland sea, bla bla bla” because those interpretive exhibits NEVER tell the most interesting aspects of the story. Like, the nearest shore off in that direction, even though you are currently in Michigan, was Norway and you could see if from here. Or, the rock formed by the reblown sand left behind when the sea receded is the same rock that outcrops at the other national park you visited five years ago and a thousand miles away. Or the wavy lines in this rock are from actual waves at the top of the water that were influenced by a wind that blew down from a mountain ridge that is now a low spot on a different continent, and when that was happening the only life on earth was … well there wasn’t any! (That sort of thing.) Vanished Ocean: How Tethys Reshaped the World actually undoes that frustration by placing a huge amount of what you will ever encounter in your life as a person interested in the Earth and its History in a single unified processual context. Not all, but a lot of it.
Despite the fact that the word “Dinosaurs” occurs in the title, this book is only partly about dinosaurs. In fact, I would say it is mostly about mammals, insofar as the critters go. And that’s good because Donald Prothero is probably the world’s leading expert on Fossil Mammals. The dinosaur part is major and interesting, though. One of the mysteries Don addresses is the presence of Dinosaurs in the region of the earth that is dark for 6 months out of the year and generally frozen. Indeed, the “greenhouse effect” was very much stronger (in that there were more greenhouse gasses) in those days than today. All that atmospheric Carbon (in the form of CO2) was eventually to be trapped in the lithosphere, which helped cause the planet to cool to the levels that were around when we, as a species (genus, really) evolved. The world in which everything alive today evolved in is a world with a few hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, the world of the “Dino Greenhouse” had much more CO2, and we are quickly heading back to the Dinosaur era level, which is going to really mess us up.
Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Future of Our Planet addresses questions of “Yeah, so, it was hot then and everything was fine, so Global Warming is not important.” Don also regales the reader with stories about doing palaeontology, about controversies in the field, and that sort of thing. And, he brings us past the K-T boundary, to the “Cainozoic” (age of “Cain) during which the earth cooled, and mammals took over to be the dominant large visible above ground life form. (Yes, yes, I know, bacteria are the dominant life form, yadda yadda… just don’t look for any murals of bacteria interacting on the wall of the Yale Peabody Musuem any time soon.)