Taking a quick break from all of the current Triassic papers because this is pretty significant for the field of vertebrate paleontology.
Smithson, T. R.,Wood, S. P., Marshall, J. E. A., and J. A. Clack. 2012. Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap. PNAS [advance online] doi: 10.1073/pnas.1117332109
Abstract - Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton
and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
Showing posts with label non-Triassic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-Triassic. Show all posts
Viviparity and Possible Maternal Care in Mesozoic Marine Reptiles
Not Triassic but too potentially cool to pass up....
O'Keefe, F. R., and L. M. Chiappe. 2011. Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia). Science 333:870-873. DOI: 10.1126/science.1205689
Abstract - Viviparity is known in several clades of Mesozoic aquatic reptiles, but evidence for it is lacking in the Plesiosauria. Here, we report a Late Cretaceous plesiosaur fossil consisting of a fetus preserved within an adult of the same taxon. We interpret this occurrence as a gravid female and unborn young and hence as definitive evidence for plesiosaur viviparity. Quantitative analysis indicates that plesiosaurs gave birth to large, probably single progeny. The combination of viviparity, large offspring size, and small brood number differs markedly from the pattern seen in other marine reptiles but does resemble the K-selected strategy of all extant marine mammals and a few extant lizards. Plesiosaurs may have shared other life history traits with these clades, such as sociality and maternal care.
O'Keefe, F. R., and L. M. Chiappe. 2011. Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia). Science 333:870-873. DOI: 10.1126/science.1205689
Abstract - Viviparity is known in several clades of Mesozoic aquatic reptiles, but evidence for it is lacking in the Plesiosauria. Here, we report a Late Cretaceous plesiosaur fossil consisting of a fetus preserved within an adult of the same taxon. We interpret this occurrence as a gravid female and unborn young and hence as definitive evidence for plesiosaur viviparity. Quantitative analysis indicates that plesiosaurs gave birth to large, probably single progeny. The combination of viviparity, large offspring size, and small brood number differs markedly from the pattern seen in other marine reptiles but does resemble the K-selected strategy of all extant marine mammals and a few extant lizards. Plesiosaurs may have shared other life history traits with these clades, such as sociality and maternal care.
Albinykus baatar, a New Small Alverezsaurid From the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia
I know it's not Triassic, but I have to give props to my friends, colleague, and two of my grad school advisors!
Nesbitt, S. J., Clarke, J. A., Turner, A. H., and M. A. Norell. 2011. A small alvarezsaurid from the eastern Gobi Desert offers insight into evolutionary patterns in the Alvarezsauroidea. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31:144-153. DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2011.540053
Abstract - A partial postcranial skeleton of a small alvarezsaurid from the Late Cretaceous of the Mongolian eastern Gobi Desert locality of Khugenetslavkant represents the first reported articulated theropod material from that locality. The specimen is recognized as the holotype of a new taxon herein named Albinykus baatar, gen. et sp. nov. Phylogenetic analysis places Albinykus within Alvarezsauridae as the sister taxon of Shuvuuia, another Late Cretaceous Mongolian taxon from the slightly younger Djadokhta Formation. The complete coossification of the proximal tarsals with the tibia, and of the distal tarsals and proximal metatarsals, present in Albinykus are previously unknown in Alvarezsauridae. Extensive fusion is consistent with histological data from the tibia indicating that the individual was a subadult. These results are striking given that Albinykus is among the smallest known non-avian dinosaurs with a body mass no greater than 1 kg and ranks among the smallest known alvarezsaurids. Alvarezsauridae shows a decreasing size trend throughout its evolutionary history, a rarity among dinosaurian clades. Within maniraptoran dinosaurs, such a trend has thus far only been recognized within Avialae and at the origin of Paraves with respect to other coelurosaurs. The holotype was recovered articulated in a 'seated' position, with hind limbs aligned and the feet tucked under the body. This body posture, which is present in Aves, has been previously noted in other maniraptoran clades (i.e., Oviraptoridae Troodontidae) and is now recognized in Alvarezsauridae.
Nesbitt, S. J., Clarke, J. A., Turner, A. H., and M. A. Norell. 2011. A small alvarezsaurid from the eastern Gobi Desert offers insight into evolutionary patterns in the Alvarezsauroidea. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31:144-153. DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2011.540053
Abstract - A partial postcranial skeleton of a small alvarezsaurid from the Late Cretaceous of the Mongolian eastern Gobi Desert locality of Khugenetslavkant represents the first reported articulated theropod material from that locality. The specimen is recognized as the holotype of a new taxon herein named Albinykus baatar, gen. et sp. nov. Phylogenetic analysis places Albinykus within Alvarezsauridae as the sister taxon of Shuvuuia, another Late Cretaceous Mongolian taxon from the slightly younger Djadokhta Formation. The complete coossification of the proximal tarsals with the tibia, and of the distal tarsals and proximal metatarsals, present in Albinykus are previously unknown in Alvarezsauridae. Extensive fusion is consistent with histological data from the tibia indicating that the individual was a subadult. These results are striking given that Albinykus is among the smallest known non-avian dinosaurs with a body mass no greater than 1 kg and ranks among the smallest known alvarezsaurids. Alvarezsauridae shows a decreasing size trend throughout its evolutionary history, a rarity among dinosaurian clades. Within maniraptoran dinosaurs, such a trend has thus far only been recognized within Avialae and at the origin of Paraves with respect to other coelurosaurs. The holotype was recovered articulated in a 'seated' position, with hind limbs aligned and the feet tucked under the body. This body posture, which is present in Aves, has been previously noted in other maniraptoran clades (i.e., Oviraptoridae Troodontidae) and is now recognized in Alvarezsauridae.
Direct U-Pb Dating of Fossil Bone Material and Does the Presence of Paleocene Dinosaurs Even Matter?
Interesting paper, the focus of which is twofold: 1) demonstate the applicability of new U-Pb dating technology on fossil bone material; and 2) support the hypothesis that some non-avian dinosaurs survived into the earliest Paleocene. I'll need someone with more background on radioisotopic dating techniques to evaluate this paper for me, especially regarding aspects of Pb loss, diagenetic recrystallization, etc., but the implications are exciting if indeed this technique can be used to directly date fossil materials.
I think the idea of Paleocene dinosaurs will be debated for a long time, but really what does it matter? It is not as if non-avian dinosaurs made it into the Paleocene, that they made it very far in. Our base geologic timescales are based upon stratigraphic ranges of marine organisms, which are only now starting to be well calibrated. Correlation of these intervals between the marine and terrestrial realms is tricky at best and I would not be surprised if as we get more precision and accuracy in our dating techniques we find that there is a little slop around boundary defining events (i.e. extinctions of major terrestrial groups) and the exact dates defining the marine-defined boundaries.
But does it really matter if the last non-avian dinosaurs died out entirely by the exact last day of the Cretaceous, or if a few locally squeezed into the earliest Paleocene? These dates are so similar in relation to the overall earth timescale that they are pretty much simultaneous and really have no bearing on our ideas regarding the extinction of non-avian dinosaur. Same goes for the Triassic, if we find a phytosaur in the very earliest Jurassic strata is this really significant other than for general bean counting? I for one would not be surprised one bit if such a specimen was found; however, these data would not offer much in resolving the real question, which is why these major extinctions occurred in the first place.
Fassett, J.E., Heaman, L.M., and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology 39:159-162. doi: 10.1130/G31466.1
Abstract - Vertebrate fossils have been important for relative dating of terrestrial rocks for decades, but direct dating of these fossils has heretofore been unsuccessful. In this study we employ recent advances in laser ablation in situ U-Pb dating techniques to directly date two dinosaur fossils from the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado, United States. A Cretaceous dinosaur bone collected from just below the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a U-Pb date of 73.6 ± 0.9 Ma, in excellent agreement with a previously determined 40Ar/39Ar date of 73.04 ± 0.25 Ma for an ash bed near this site. The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data. This first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone provides a new methodology with the potential to directly obtain accurate dates for any vertebrate fossil.
I think the idea of Paleocene dinosaurs will be debated for a long time, but really what does it matter? It is not as if non-avian dinosaurs made it into the Paleocene, that they made it very far in. Our base geologic timescales are based upon stratigraphic ranges of marine organisms, which are only now starting to be well calibrated. Correlation of these intervals between the marine and terrestrial realms is tricky at best and I would not be surprised if as we get more precision and accuracy in our dating techniques we find that there is a little slop around boundary defining events (i.e. extinctions of major terrestrial groups) and the exact dates defining the marine-defined boundaries.
But does it really matter if the last non-avian dinosaurs died out entirely by the exact last day of the Cretaceous, or if a few locally squeezed into the earliest Paleocene? These dates are so similar in relation to the overall earth timescale that they are pretty much simultaneous and really have no bearing on our ideas regarding the extinction of non-avian dinosaur. Same goes for the Triassic, if we find a phytosaur in the very earliest Jurassic strata is this really significant other than for general bean counting? I for one would not be surprised one bit if such a specimen was found; however, these data would not offer much in resolving the real question, which is why these major extinctions occurred in the first place.
Fassett, J.E., Heaman, L.M., and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology 39:159-162. doi: 10.1130/G31466.1
Abstract - Vertebrate fossils have been important for relative dating of terrestrial rocks for decades, but direct dating of these fossils has heretofore been unsuccessful. In this study we employ recent advances in laser ablation in situ U-Pb dating techniques to directly date two dinosaur fossils from the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado, United States. A Cretaceous dinosaur bone collected from just below the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a U-Pb date of 73.6 ± 0.9 Ma, in excellent agreement with a previously determined 40Ar/39Ar date of 73.04 ± 0.25 Ma for an ash bed near this site. The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data. This first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone provides a new methodology with the potential to directly obtain accurate dates for any vertebrate fossil.
Holy Lungfish! A Monster from the Cretaceous of North America
 |
| photo Kenshu Shimada |
This is the Kind of Study I'd Like to See Get Done More Often
I remain convinced that figuring out larger problems starts with the detailed collection of data at a smaller scale. This is exactly the type of study I'd like to consider for the Chinle Formation.....
Lyson, T. R., and N. R. Longrich. 2010. Spatial niche partitioning in dinosaurs from the latest cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print October 13, 2010, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1444
Abstract - We examine patterns of occurrence of associated dinosaur specimens (n = 343) from the North American Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation and equivalent beds, by comparing their relative abundance in sandstone and mudstone. Ceratopsians preferentially occur in mudstone, whereas hadrosaurs and the small ornithopod Thescelosaurus show a strong association with sandstone. By contrast, the giant carnivore Tyrannosaurus rex shows no preferred association with either lithology. These lithologies are used as an indicator of environment of deposition, with sandstone generally representing river environments, and finer grained sediments typically representing floodplain environments. Given these patterns of occurrence, we argue that spatial niche partitioning helped reduce competition for resources between the herbivorous dinosaurs. Within coastal lowlands ceratopsians preferred habitats farther away from rivers, whereas hadrosaurs and Thescelosaurus preferred habitats in close proximity to rivers, and T. rex, the ecosystem's sole large carnivore, inhabited both palaeoenvironments. Spatial partitioning of the environment helps explain how several species of large herbivorous dinosaurs coexisted. This study emphasizes that different lithologies can preserve dramatically dissimilar vertebrate assemblages, even when deposited in close proximity and within a narrow window of time. The lithology in which fossils are preserved should be recorded as these data can provide unique insights into the palaeoecology of the animals they preserve.
Lyson, T. R., and N. R. Longrich. 2010. Spatial niche partitioning in dinosaurs from the latest cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print October 13, 2010, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1444
Abstract - We examine patterns of occurrence of associated dinosaur specimens (n = 343) from the North American Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation and equivalent beds, by comparing their relative abundance in sandstone and mudstone. Ceratopsians preferentially occur in mudstone, whereas hadrosaurs and the small ornithopod Thescelosaurus show a strong association with sandstone. By contrast, the giant carnivore Tyrannosaurus rex shows no preferred association with either lithology. These lithologies are used as an indicator of environment of deposition, with sandstone generally representing river environments, and finer grained sediments typically representing floodplain environments. Given these patterns of occurrence, we argue that spatial niche partitioning helped reduce competition for resources between the herbivorous dinosaurs. Within coastal lowlands ceratopsians preferred habitats farther away from rivers, whereas hadrosaurs and Thescelosaurus preferred habitats in close proximity to rivers, and T. rex, the ecosystem's sole large carnivore, inhabited both palaeoenvironments. Spatial partitioning of the environment helps explain how several species of large herbivorous dinosaurs coexisted. This study emphasizes that different lithologies can preserve dramatically dissimilar vertebrate assemblages, even when deposited in close proximity and within a narrow window of time. The lithology in which fossils are preserved should be recorded as these data can provide unique insights into the palaeoecology of the animals they preserve.
What I am Currently Reading
I appear to be on an late 19th - early 20th century paleontology fieldwork kick right now regarding the books I am reading. I just finished Paul Brinkman's "The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush" book, which I found to be an enjoyable history of collecting Jurassic dinosaurs from the western U.S. by several institutions. At times I found it was difficult to follow the chronological order of the work being done, but overall the book is a solid offering of this important time in American vertebrate paleontology. For more see Brian Switek's recent review.
I am now starting "Bone Hunters in Patagonia" following John Bell Hatcher's work collecting fossil vertebrates in South America during the Princeton University expeditions of 1896-1899. This is supposedly an absolutely amazing narrative of an amazing collecting trip and I hope I enjoy it thoroughly because...
the next book in the stack is "Barnum Brown: the man who discovered Tyrannosaurus rex" by Lowell Dingus and Mark Norell. Several colleagues have told me that this is an excellent book. I had actually started reading this book earlier in the summer and was enjoying it immensely, but stopped to read Paul Brinkman's book when it came out. Reading Paul's book got me very interested in John Bell Hatcher and thus I've found myself reading "Bone Hunters in Patagonia" before going back to the Barnum Brown book. I hope I'm not making a mistake here.
Overall, from what I have seen so far these are three great books covering the work of many great American early paleontologists.
I am now starting "Bone Hunters in Patagonia" following John Bell Hatcher's work collecting fossil vertebrates in South America during the Princeton University expeditions of 1896-1899. This is supposedly an absolutely amazing narrative of an amazing collecting trip and I hope I enjoy it thoroughly because...
the next book in the stack is "Barnum Brown: the man who discovered Tyrannosaurus rex" by Lowell Dingus and Mark Norell. Several colleagues have told me that this is an excellent book. I had actually started reading this book earlier in the summer and was enjoying it immensely, but stopped to read Paul Brinkman's book when it came out. Reading Paul's book got me very interested in John Bell Hatcher and thus I've found myself reading "Bone Hunters in Patagonia" before going back to the Barnum Brown book. I hope I'm not making a mistake here.
Overall, from what I have seen so far these are three great books covering the work of many great American early paleontologists.
Jeff Martz Speaks Out on Publishing as a Paleontologist - the Professional vs. Non-Professional Debate
Over at the Paleo Errata blog Jeff Martz has an excellent discussion on what it means to make scientific contributions to the field of paleontology regardless of the possession of degrees, chosen scientific major, or even if you get paid to do paleontology full-time. As he states pretty clearly, science and scientific publication can be done by anyone who has questions and takes the time to reason out these ideas, support them with carefully collected data, and most importantly realize that the test of their ideas often involves intense scrutiny that can sometimes be uncomfortable. I have also touched upon this recently, but not as clearly as Jeff has. Science is not necessarily about degrees or jobs, it is about presenting the best thought out and supported work that you can to add to current attempt to figure things out. As Jeff states, "In the process of doing this work and fostering an intellectually honest attitude about themselves and what the produce, they earn the respect of the scientific community. These people are SCIENTISTS…regardless of whether they have degrees or not."
Jeff also throws my name out there in a list of persons he considers to do good scientific work (I do try) without have obtaining specific degrees. It is true that my highest attained degree is a Masters of Science, and I just only recently entered into a PhD program (this past Spring at the University of Texas in Austin). Despite this, between 2003 and the present I have published more than 25 peer reviewed papers, edited or co-edited four volumes, organized 3 scientific symposia, have provided my services as a reviewer for many manuscripts, and developed a successful research program at a major paleontological national park. I am proud of these accomplishments and have often tried to use my example to encourage others that one doesn't need an advanced degree to contribute to science (which I hope that I have), you just have to work hard and be willing to face criticism of your ideas. This criticism will actually strengthen your work if you allow.
Likewise, during my time at the Petrified Forest I have been fortunate to have hired personnel whom I would consider to be some of the best fossil preparators in the field. I have never made the possession of a degree a requirement for these positions as I am only concerned in their technical and intellectual abilities, things that do not necessarily require degrees. I've spoken out in the past how it has always amazed me that fossil preparator positions often come with a Geology degree requirement as in my opinion this requirement automatically disqualifies many of the best preparators in the business. Note that this is not meant to criticize or lessen preparators who have taken the time to get science degrees as hopefully the attainment of the degree provided them with much acquired expertise (this is what degree programs are designed to do); however, expertise can also be developed through hard work. In my eyes both paths are acceptable and I have yet to be let down by this approach.
Nonetheless, publishing is still not something to be taken lightly; however, as you need to first develop a strong foundation of the problem that you are interested in. This is done mainly through thorough reading of the literature and detailed first-hand examination of relevant specimens. Another fact I am proud of is that I did not produce my first publications on aetosaurs (the main group of fossils organisms I like to figure out) until around six years after I started really studying them. I've always encouraged my student interns to learn one thing really well to address problems within that discipline, and then branch out afterwards (I'm not sure if they listened ;)). This gives you expertise on a specific scientific subject, and can establish you in the community. There are actually quite a few "amateurs" on the various mailing lists who have always impressed me with the breadth and depth of their scientific knowledge on various subjects that appears to go way beyond a mild interest. I always wonder if these individuals will publish their ideas someday, especially as unfortunately some of their co-listers with only a seemingly mild interest have figured out various ways to put stuff out (and appear quite proud of this). I always wonder if these much more knowledgeable "amatuers" do not publish out of disinterest or because they have no been encouraged to do so by their peers.
Another major point that Jeff makes in his post is the idea that if someone who is considered to be an "amateur" (or even a degreed individual) publishes something in the non-peer-reviewed (or gray literature) then it is seen by some as acceptable to simply ignore that publication, presumably because it is unworthy of publication. I agree with Jeff that in a sense this is the "elitist" attitude that conflagrates the whole "professional vs. non-professional" discussion because it presupposes that an "amateur" cannot make a worthy scientific contribution. Instead, someone who decides to skip the steps of peer-review and self-publish should be prepared to face the intense scrutiny of their ideas that all scientists deal with, and if your self-published ideas are poorly supported, then be prepared for the heavy criticism. Like Jeff said, science doesn't care about your ego, just about the value of your ideas. However, everyones' ideas should be held up to the same scrutiny whether they have a PhD and have published dozens of papers or if they have no degree and this is their first offering. In a nutshell, science is a process of continuous building and it shouldn't matter who is doing the construction as long as the materials are sound. Come and join us.
Post-script: Why am I getting a PhD then if the degree is not necessary to do science? Simple, as I stated earlier the purpose of a degree program is to provide opportunities to acquire expertise from peers (we call them professors in the university setting). Networking is one of the most powerful tools available to us a scientists and the university setting allows for one to be submersed in a think tank constantly around people (students and teachers) with influential great ideas. Collaboration and consultation are remarkable learning tools that can take you very far in your career. Paleontology is a science that is not done well on an "island". We constantly need the input (including criticism) of our peers to see through the loopholes in our thinking and strengthen our ideas and their presentation. I felt that I had reached an intellectual "wall" in my career and returning to the university and exposing myself to a whole new cadre of peers was intellectually stimulating. I hope to continue.
Jeff also throws my name out there in a list of persons he considers to do good scientific work (I do try) without have obtaining specific degrees. It is true that my highest attained degree is a Masters of Science, and I just only recently entered into a PhD program (this past Spring at the University of Texas in Austin). Despite this, between 2003 and the present I have published more than 25 peer reviewed papers, edited or co-edited four volumes, organized 3 scientific symposia, have provided my services as a reviewer for many manuscripts, and developed a successful research program at a major paleontological national park. I am proud of these accomplishments and have often tried to use my example to encourage others that one doesn't need an advanced degree to contribute to science (which I hope that I have), you just have to work hard and be willing to face criticism of your ideas. This criticism will actually strengthen your work if you allow.
Likewise, during my time at the Petrified Forest I have been fortunate to have hired personnel whom I would consider to be some of the best fossil preparators in the field. I have never made the possession of a degree a requirement for these positions as I am only concerned in their technical and intellectual abilities, things that do not necessarily require degrees. I've spoken out in the past how it has always amazed me that fossil preparator positions often come with a Geology degree requirement as in my opinion this requirement automatically disqualifies many of the best preparators in the business. Note that this is not meant to criticize or lessen preparators who have taken the time to get science degrees as hopefully the attainment of the degree provided them with much acquired expertise (this is what degree programs are designed to do); however, expertise can also be developed through hard work. In my eyes both paths are acceptable and I have yet to be let down by this approach.
Nonetheless, publishing is still not something to be taken lightly; however, as you need to first develop a strong foundation of the problem that you are interested in. This is done mainly through thorough reading of the literature and detailed first-hand examination of relevant specimens. Another fact I am proud of is that I did not produce my first publications on aetosaurs (the main group of fossils organisms I like to figure out) until around six years after I started really studying them. I've always encouraged my student interns to learn one thing really well to address problems within that discipline, and then branch out afterwards (I'm not sure if they listened ;)). This gives you expertise on a specific scientific subject, and can establish you in the community. There are actually quite a few "amateurs" on the various mailing lists who have always impressed me with the breadth and depth of their scientific knowledge on various subjects that appears to go way beyond a mild interest. I always wonder if these individuals will publish their ideas someday, especially as unfortunately some of their co-listers with only a seemingly mild interest have figured out various ways to put stuff out (and appear quite proud of this). I always wonder if these much more knowledgeable "amatuers" do not publish out of disinterest or because they have no been encouraged to do so by their peers.
Another major point that Jeff makes in his post is the idea that if someone who is considered to be an "amateur" (or even a degreed individual) publishes something in the non-peer-reviewed (or gray literature) then it is seen by some as acceptable to simply ignore that publication, presumably because it is unworthy of publication. I agree with Jeff that in a sense this is the "elitist" attitude that conflagrates the whole "professional vs. non-professional" discussion because it presupposes that an "amateur" cannot make a worthy scientific contribution. Instead, someone who decides to skip the steps of peer-review and self-publish should be prepared to face the intense scrutiny of their ideas that all scientists deal with, and if your self-published ideas are poorly supported, then be prepared for the heavy criticism. Like Jeff said, science doesn't care about your ego, just about the value of your ideas. However, everyones' ideas should be held up to the same scrutiny whether they have a PhD and have published dozens of papers or if they have no degree and this is their first offering. In a nutshell, science is a process of continuous building and it shouldn't matter who is doing the construction as long as the materials are sound. Come and join us.
Post-script: Why am I getting a PhD then if the degree is not necessary to do science? Simple, as I stated earlier the purpose of a degree program is to provide opportunities to acquire expertise from peers (we call them professors in the university setting). Networking is one of the most powerful tools available to us a scientists and the university setting allows for one to be submersed in a think tank constantly around people (students and teachers) with influential great ideas. Collaboration and consultation are remarkable learning tools that can take you very far in your career. Paleontology is a science that is not done well on an "island". We constantly need the input (including criticism) of our peers to see through the loopholes in our thinking and strengthen our ideas and their presentation. I felt that I had reached an intellectual "wall" in my career and returning to the university and exposing myself to a whole new cadre of peers was intellectually stimulating. I hope to continue.
My Thoughts on the Peer Review Process (Part 2) - Including Dissenting Opinions
[see Part 1 here]
The peer review process is time consuming and thus inconvenient, and as stated several times during this debate, doesn’t always work properly. But I would argue that good peer review is absolutely crucial to not only the publication process, but in also ensuring that the author is putting forth the finest written, best supported and documented, piece of work that they can with the data available at that time. To do any less will only open yourself and your work up to criticism and ensure that your work will not have lasting effect on the field of paleontology. I consider one of the most important aspects of peer review is that of seeking how the specialists (i.e., persons actively researching and publishing in a certain aspect of the science) in your field regard your work, after all they will be the persons reading it more in depth and hopefully drawing upon it in future work. Often this may even entail having your work reviewed by a rival. After all isn’t it this person or group’s opinion that you want up front to know how your published paper will be regarded? If you include them in the process and address their concerns, you all may still not agree, but at least you are showing professional courtesy.
Recently on this blog I criticized a recent paper on aetosaurs (the group I study the most), where I expressed disappointment in the work because I felt that it was not well-documented (e.g., description and figures) or supported, and thus would not be of much use to myself or other colleagues conducting work on the Aetosauria. Besides these authors, there are two persons in North America who are actively studying and publishing on this group at this time. Neither was considered as a reviewer for this manuscript. The two reviewers who were utilized are highly competent, respected scientists who have published extensively on the Triassic, however, neither are experts in the taxonomic group, or the genus Typothorax, that is the focus of the paper. I will assume that the reason that the two North American aetosaur workers (including myself) were not asked is because the authors specifically requested that they not be used as reviewers. Presumably this would be because of past history (i. e. “aetogate” ) between these individuals and the authors, and that the authors of the Typothorax paper felt they would not get a fair review. If correct, this is extremely unfortunate, because that assumes that I would not objectively review the manuscript and instead would be petty and vindictive. This would not have been the case at all. In fact, having read the published manuscript (and seen first hand the specimens that were described) I would not have rejected the manuscript. I would have suggested that the description be fleshed out, incorporating details of the skull and providing comparisons with other Typothorax and aetosaur specimens; I would have asked that the figures be better labeled so that important details would be more clear; I would have asked for new data regarding the taxonomic points being made, and pointed out a few places were relevant literature has not been cited or had been misrepresented. Had all of this been done, I would have had very little criticism of the paper and indeed probably would have found it very useful (and thus positively citable) in my future work. It would have been of little use for me, if requested as a reviewer, to be petty and vindictive as this would have been seen through by the editor and would have done nobody any good [Before anyone says it, I’ll admit that my blog post review of the paper was a bit harsh in spots, but this was based mainly on frustration with what could have been, and of course my comments were made on a personal blog (everyone should understand that by their nature blog posts are prone to outbursts) and does not constitute a professional review for the purposes of journal peer review].
Interestingly, I have a paper in press (also on aetosaurs) where I did specifically request a “rival” as a reviewer. Of course I knew based on past circumstances that the person might be highly critical, proclaim the work unworthy of such a prominent journal, and reject it outright; and sure enough (and sadly as I was hoping to be wrong) a multiple page, scathing (and often very snarky) review came back completely rejecting the paper (the other two reviews were positive). In the end, however, the paper was accepted. Why? I’m presuming because of the other two positive reviews, and because I warned the editor ahead of time that I was requesting a potentially hostile reviewer and that a scathing rejection (but with useful comments) could be expected. This was seriously risky; however, in between the scathing, snarky comments, and the unsupported criticisms, were very useful comments that positively increased the quality of the final paper. These types of comments can often only be received from someone who does not like or agree with your work, and often allows you to see what their concerns are and to help identify the holes in your own argument in contrast to theirs. This resulted in a much better paper, containing portions that would have been lacking if I had not made this reviewer selection.
Thus, this will hopefully alleviate some of the future criticism of this paper from this reviewer as I was professionally courteous in including them in the process (instead of the paper being a surprise) and did cover many of their concerns. Overall this will hopefully result in a much more useful paper for all involved. Of course, this reviewer requested to remain anonymous and they would probably be stunned to know that I am clearly aware of their identity simply because I am the one who requested them as a reviewer. They may even be stunned that I even made such a request. Peer review is not about simply arranging for a close colleague to read through your work, nod approvingly, and then hand it back. You want someone who will critically, but fairly, tear the paper apart, and seeking out weaknesses in reasoning or support. Proper review, although inconvenient, almost always results in a much superior final product.
I think that we owe it to ourselves to make sure that our published work as paleontologists is of the highest standard methodologically, thus well thought out, well supported, and repeatable. Of course we will all never agree with the various hypotheses and conclusions, but we can all agree when a study is well done regardless of its results. Peer review is a crucial step in this process. We need the comments of our peers, including those who disagree with us, to ensure that we are meeting these scientific criteria and to improve our work. To do any less may be easier, and more convenient, but in the end it only lessens the influence of our work in the eyes of the scientific community.
One final note. E-mailing a peer who does not personally know you well and asking them to look something over for you does not constitute proper peer review. Often you will get back a reply that is simply based on pleasant correspondence etiquette, and the same detail will not go into the review as when the paper is presented by an editor for the person to judge if worthy of publication.
The peer review process is time consuming and thus inconvenient, and as stated several times during this debate, doesn’t always work properly. But I would argue that good peer review is absolutely crucial to not only the publication process, but in also ensuring that the author is putting forth the finest written, best supported and documented, piece of work that they can with the data available at that time. To do any less will only open yourself and your work up to criticism and ensure that your work will not have lasting effect on the field of paleontology. I consider one of the most important aspects of peer review is that of seeking how the specialists (i.e., persons actively researching and publishing in a certain aspect of the science) in your field regard your work, after all they will be the persons reading it more in depth and hopefully drawing upon it in future work. Often this may even entail having your work reviewed by a rival. After all isn’t it this person or group’s opinion that you want up front to know how your published paper will be regarded? If you include them in the process and address their concerns, you all may still not agree, but at least you are showing professional courtesy.
Recently on this blog I criticized a recent paper on aetosaurs (the group I study the most), where I expressed disappointment in the work because I felt that it was not well-documented (e.g., description and figures) or supported, and thus would not be of much use to myself or other colleagues conducting work on the Aetosauria. Besides these authors, there are two persons in North America who are actively studying and publishing on this group at this time. Neither was considered as a reviewer for this manuscript. The two reviewers who were utilized are highly competent, respected scientists who have published extensively on the Triassic, however, neither are experts in the taxonomic group, or the genus Typothorax, that is the focus of the paper. I will assume that the reason that the two North American aetosaur workers (including myself) were not asked is because the authors specifically requested that they not be used as reviewers. Presumably this would be because of past history (i. e. “aetogate” ) between these individuals and the authors, and that the authors of the Typothorax paper felt they would not get a fair review. If correct, this is extremely unfortunate, because that assumes that I would not objectively review the manuscript and instead would be petty and vindictive. This would not have been the case at all. In fact, having read the published manuscript (and seen first hand the specimens that were described) I would not have rejected the manuscript. I would have suggested that the description be fleshed out, incorporating details of the skull and providing comparisons with other Typothorax and aetosaur specimens; I would have asked that the figures be better labeled so that important details would be more clear; I would have asked for new data regarding the taxonomic points being made, and pointed out a few places were relevant literature has not been cited or had been misrepresented. Had all of this been done, I would have had very little criticism of the paper and indeed probably would have found it very useful (and thus positively citable) in my future work. It would have been of little use for me, if requested as a reviewer, to be petty and vindictive as this would have been seen through by the editor and would have done nobody any good [Before anyone says it, I’ll admit that my blog post review of the paper was a bit harsh in spots, but this was based mainly on frustration with what could have been, and of course my comments were made on a personal blog (everyone should understand that by their nature blog posts are prone to outbursts) and does not constitute a professional review for the purposes of journal peer review].
Interestingly, I have a paper in press (also on aetosaurs) where I did specifically request a “rival” as a reviewer. Of course I knew based on past circumstances that the person might be highly critical, proclaim the work unworthy of such a prominent journal, and reject it outright; and sure enough (and sadly as I was hoping to be wrong) a multiple page, scathing (and often very snarky) review came back completely rejecting the paper (the other two reviews were positive). In the end, however, the paper was accepted. Why? I’m presuming because of the other two positive reviews, and because I warned the editor ahead of time that I was requesting a potentially hostile reviewer and that a scathing rejection (but with useful comments) could be expected. This was seriously risky; however, in between the scathing, snarky comments, and the unsupported criticisms, were very useful comments that positively increased the quality of the final paper. These types of comments can often only be received from someone who does not like or agree with your work, and often allows you to see what their concerns are and to help identify the holes in your own argument in contrast to theirs. This resulted in a much better paper, containing portions that would have been lacking if I had not made this reviewer selection.
Thus, this will hopefully alleviate some of the future criticism of this paper from this reviewer as I was professionally courteous in including them in the process (instead of the paper being a surprise) and did cover many of their concerns. Overall this will hopefully result in a much more useful paper for all involved. Of course, this reviewer requested to remain anonymous and they would probably be stunned to know that I am clearly aware of their identity simply because I am the one who requested them as a reviewer. They may even be stunned that I even made such a request. Peer review is not about simply arranging for a close colleague to read through your work, nod approvingly, and then hand it back. You want someone who will critically, but fairly, tear the paper apart, and seeking out weaknesses in reasoning or support. Proper review, although inconvenient, almost always results in a much superior final product.
I think that we owe it to ourselves to make sure that our published work as paleontologists is of the highest standard methodologically, thus well thought out, well supported, and repeatable. Of course we will all never agree with the various hypotheses and conclusions, but we can all agree when a study is well done regardless of its results. Peer review is a crucial step in this process. We need the comments of our peers, including those who disagree with us, to ensure that we are meeting these scientific criteria and to improve our work. To do any less may be easier, and more convenient, but in the end it only lessens the influence of our work in the eyes of the scientific community.
One final note. E-mailing a peer who does not personally know you well and asking them to look something over for you does not constitute proper peer review. Often you will get back a reply that is simply based on pleasant correspondence etiquette, and the same detail will not go into the review as when the paper is presented by an editor for the person to judge if worthy of publication.
My Thoughts on the Peer Review Process (Part 1) - Self-Publication
The recent publication by Robert Gay of a self-printed set of theropod dinosaur papers using the printing service lulu.com has caused a rash of debate on blogs, the Dinosaur Mailing List, and even Facebook. Much of this debate regards whether the new taxonomic name, Kayentavenator elysiae, is valid under the ICZN. From what I can tell it is, furthermore the booklet has an ISSN number making it an official book or publication and thus the name is valid.
My issue with these papers (and I did purchase and read them) has been more regarding the issue of how they were peer reviewed. Robert claims they were both originally submitted to journals, accepted, but never actually published, thus he simply addressed the concerns of the reviewers and published them together in his own publically available booklet. I have discussed this with several of the reviewers listed and they vaguely remember reading the manuscripts, one even thought that the ms he read had been rejected. Nonetheless, my point (and one on currently concerned with regarding other potential publications discussed at the SVPOW blog) is that regardless of the outcome of the peer-review process conducted back in 2004, given numerous additional studies published in the six years since, these reviews are technically out of date and I argue no longer valid. Robert Gay should have rewritten his manuscripts, incorporating all pertinent recent literature, and then sent them back out for review. This surely would have lessened some of the firestorm.
Another concern would be editing. As Gay, through his actions, acted as both author and editor, where is the quality control to ensure he had incorporated the concerns of his reviewers accurately? Maybe he should have enlisted the aid of an outside editor? This is especially relevant as he introduced a new taxonomic name and thus would want to whole process to be as unambiguous as possible. A careful update, a few more reviews, and invited some editorial help may have lessened the controversy surrounding these papers and the new taxonomic name.
Why do I care? Primarily I am concerned with people who misrepresent themselves to the scientific community. All the time we see reference made to professionals vs. amateurs in regards to paleontological study and publishing, but what does this really mean? Does having a job (or a degree) where you get paid to do paleontology make you a better scientist than someone who does it as a side interest? Certainly not, and I think the history of the science will clearly support this. What matters is if good science is being done by the “professional” or “advocational” paleontologist. Is there a clear question being addressed, what is the quality of the data collected, are the hypotheses well thought out, supported, and testable? Does the paleontologist have a firm understanding of pertinent literature and is it properly cited? Has the study undergone an unambiguous peer review process to ensure that they have covered all of their bases and the work is considered sound? I've argued in the past that everyne has great hypotheses worthy of publication. Thus, it does not matter what your title is, all that matters is that if you want to publish your ideas, make sure you are producing good well-supported and repeatable science. That is what makes you a scientist, not a job or a degree. To do any less, yet still demand respect from peers, is misrepresenting yourself.
Second, I think that lulu.com can be a very valuable tool when used properly as a printing service. The SVP abstract books are now being offered in print through this venue, and it is an excellent choice for other types of publications including museum bulletin series, proceedings volumes, etc… As long as what is being printed has undergone proper peer review and editing. I’d hate to see this resource smeared in the scientific community because of mis-use by others in the field. As I stated elsewhere, lulu.com is a printing service, NOT a scientific journal.
Some have claimed that it is unfair to single out Robert Gay in these debates, as this type of publishing actually is more common than it should be, sometimes masquerading under the guise of a legitimate institution publication series, but his case is the most recent and the first to use lulu.com, thus certainly worthy of discussion. As scientists we should expect that any publishing we do will be scrutinized by the rest of the community.
[Part 2, will be posted Tuesday morning]
My issue with these papers (and I did purchase and read them) has been more regarding the issue of how they were peer reviewed. Robert claims they were both originally submitted to journals, accepted, but never actually published, thus he simply addressed the concerns of the reviewers and published them together in his own publically available booklet. I have discussed this with several of the reviewers listed and they vaguely remember reading the manuscripts, one even thought that the ms he read had been rejected. Nonetheless, my point (and one on currently concerned with regarding other potential publications discussed at the SVPOW blog) is that regardless of the outcome of the peer-review process conducted back in 2004, given numerous additional studies published in the six years since, these reviews are technically out of date and I argue no longer valid. Robert Gay should have rewritten his manuscripts, incorporating all pertinent recent literature, and then sent them back out for review. This surely would have lessened some of the firestorm.
Another concern would be editing. As Gay, through his actions, acted as both author and editor, where is the quality control to ensure he had incorporated the concerns of his reviewers accurately? Maybe he should have enlisted the aid of an outside editor? This is especially relevant as he introduced a new taxonomic name and thus would want to whole process to be as unambiguous as possible. A careful update, a few more reviews, and invited some editorial help may have lessened the controversy surrounding these papers and the new taxonomic name.
Why do I care? Primarily I am concerned with people who misrepresent themselves to the scientific community. All the time we see reference made to professionals vs. amateurs in regards to paleontological study and publishing, but what does this really mean? Does having a job (or a degree) where you get paid to do paleontology make you a better scientist than someone who does it as a side interest? Certainly not, and I think the history of the science will clearly support this. What matters is if good science is being done by the “professional” or “advocational” paleontologist. Is there a clear question being addressed, what is the quality of the data collected, are the hypotheses well thought out, supported, and testable? Does the paleontologist have a firm understanding of pertinent literature and is it properly cited? Has the study undergone an unambiguous peer review process to ensure that they have covered all of their bases and the work is considered sound? I've argued in the past that everyne has great hypotheses worthy of publication. Thus, it does not matter what your title is, all that matters is that if you want to publish your ideas, make sure you are producing good well-supported and repeatable science. That is what makes you a scientist, not a job or a degree. To do any less, yet still demand respect from peers, is misrepresenting yourself.
Second, I think that lulu.com can be a very valuable tool when used properly as a printing service. The SVP abstract books are now being offered in print through this venue, and it is an excellent choice for other types of publications including museum bulletin series, proceedings volumes, etc… As long as what is being printed has undergone proper peer review and editing. I’d hate to see this resource smeared in the scientific community because of mis-use by others in the field. As I stated elsewhere, lulu.com is a printing service, NOT a scientific journal.
Some have claimed that it is unfair to single out Robert Gay in these debates, as this type of publishing actually is more common than it should be, sometimes masquerading under the guise of a legitimate institution publication series, but his case is the most recent and the first to use lulu.com, thus certainly worthy of discussion. As scientists we should expect that any publishing we do will be scrutinized by the rest of the community.
[Part 2, will be posted Tuesday morning]
Can We Actually Determine the Thermophysiology of Extinct Animals as well as the Paleoclimate from Fossil Bones?
Eaglea, R. A., Schaubleb, E. A., Tripatia, A. K., Tütkend, T., Hulbert, R. C., and J. M. Eiler. 2010. temperatures of modern and extinct vertebrates from 13C-18O bond abundances in bioapatite. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print May 24, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911115107
Abstract - The stable isotope compositions of biologically precipitated apatite in bone, teeth, and scales are widely used to obtain information on the diet, behavior, and physiology of extinct organisms and to reconstruct past climate. Here we report the application of a new type of geochemical measurement to bioapatite, a “clumped-isotope” paleothermometer, based on the thermodynamically driven preference for 13C and 18O to bond with each other within carbonate ions in the bioapatite crystal lattice. This effect is dependent on temperature but, unlike conventional stable isotope paleothermometers, is independent from the isotopic composition of water from which the mineral formed. We show that the abundance of 13C-18O bonds in the carbonate component of tooth bioapatite from modern specimens decreases with increasing body temperature of the animal, following a relationship between isotope “clumping” and temperature that is statistically indistinguishable from inorganic calcite. This result is in agreement with a theoretical model of isotopic ordering in carbonate ion groups in apatite and calcite. This thermometer constrains body temperatures of bioapatite-producing organisms with an accuracy of 1–2 °C. Analyses of fossilized tooth enamel of both Pleistocene and Miocene age yielded temperatures within error of those derived from similar modern taxa. Clumped-isotope analysis of bioapatite represents a new approach in the study of the thermophysiology of extinct species, allowing the first direct measurement of their body temperatures. It will also open new avenues in the study of paleoclimate, as the measurement of clumped isotopes in phosphorites and fossils has the potential to reconstruct environmental temperatures.
Abstract - The stable isotope compositions of biologically precipitated apatite in bone, teeth, and scales are widely used to obtain information on the diet, behavior, and physiology of extinct organisms and to reconstruct past climate. Here we report the application of a new type of geochemical measurement to bioapatite, a “clumped-isotope” paleothermometer, based on the thermodynamically driven preference for 13C and 18O to bond with each other within carbonate ions in the bioapatite crystal lattice. This effect is dependent on temperature but, unlike conventional stable isotope paleothermometers, is independent from the isotopic composition of water from which the mineral formed. We show that the abundance of 13C-18O bonds in the carbonate component of tooth bioapatite from modern specimens decreases with increasing body temperature of the animal, following a relationship between isotope “clumping” and temperature that is statistically indistinguishable from inorganic calcite. This result is in agreement with a theoretical model of isotopic ordering in carbonate ion groups in apatite and calcite. This thermometer constrains body temperatures of bioapatite-producing organisms with an accuracy of 1–2 °C. Analyses of fossilized tooth enamel of both Pleistocene and Miocene age yielded temperatures within error of those derived from similar modern taxa. Clumped-isotope analysis of bioapatite represents a new approach in the study of the thermophysiology of extinct species, allowing the first direct measurement of their body temperatures. It will also open new avenues in the study of paleoclimate, as the measurement of clumped isotopes in phosphorites and fossils has the potential to reconstruct environmental temperatures.
The Oldest Fossil Feather from Europe
No it's not Triassic, but I'll bet I got a few hearts racing with that title on this blog! Anyhow, I couldn't resist, plus I'm not really sure what I think of this. I'm just seeing a smear, but then again I'm not a fossil feather expert. What do you think?
Schweigert, G., Tischlinger, H. & Dietl, G. 2009. The oldest fossil feather from Europe. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abh., DOI: 10.1127/0077-7749/2009/0061.
Abstract: We describe a fossil feather from Nusplingen, an Upper Jurassic Solnhofen-type Fossil - lagerstätte in SW Germany. It is Late Kimmeridgian in age and thus stratigraphically older than the isolated Archaeopteryx feather from the Lower Tithonian of Solnhofen, Bavaria, described in 1861. The features of the new find are unique, therefore it is impossible to identify the animal from which this feather came, but despite this uncertainty, the specimen may play an important role in our understanding of the evolution of feathers.
Schweigert, G., Tischlinger, H. & Dietl, G. 2009. The oldest fossil feather from Europe. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abh., DOI: 10.1127/0077-7749/2009/0061.
Abstract: We describe a fossil feather from Nusplingen, an Upper Jurassic Solnhofen-type Fossil - lagerstätte in SW Germany. It is Late Kimmeridgian in age and thus stratigraphically older than the isolated Archaeopteryx feather from the Lower Tithonian of Solnhofen, Bavaria, described in 1861. The features of the new find are unique, therefore it is impossible to identify the animal from which this feather came, but despite this uncertainty, the specimen may play an important role in our understanding of the evolution of feathers.
from Schweigert et al. 2010
Grant Funded Researchers, Are you Prepared for This? You Could be Next.
In case anyone out there hasn't seen this. Sean Hannity (Fox News) has a list of 'wasteful' uses for stimulus money and many of them involve scientific research projects. Although Hannity is discussing many of these projects outside of their real context to make them look foolish a priori, they've moved on to more "in depth" investigations of these "wasteful" "pet" projects financed by "liberals". So what would you say to non-scientists when Fox News sticks and camera and mic in your face and asks why your scientific project (or vertebrate paleontology) is important and deserves to be funded with taxpayer dollars?
For more see:
http://preplounge.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-fox-news-comes-for-you.html
http://paleocoll.blogspot.com/2010/03/fox-meets-beetles.html
For more see:
http://preplounge.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-fox-news-comes-for-you.html
http://paleocoll.blogspot.com/2010/03/fox-meets-beetles.html
Headline of the Year!
OK... I know that it is only the beginning of January, but how is it even remotely possible that another news headline as great as this will appear in the next 11.75 months?
"Cold Iguanas Free-Fall From Trees"
There is a severe cold spell through much of the United States right now including typically warm Florida obviously it is having an effect. You can read about it here and there is even a video!
"Cold Iguanas Free-Fall From Trees"
There is a severe cold spell through much of the United States right now including typically warm Florida obviously it is having an effect. You can read about it here and there is even a video!
End of the Year Happenings
I have not posted for a bit, things have been quite slow in the Triassic recently and I've been busy with the holidays. I also just joined Facebook and am trying to figure out what it is all about, however, most of my recent effort has been going towards finishing up (and starting) a group of manuscripts that are either due or that I have been wanting to get to for a long time.
I'm working on a few year end posts, which I hope to have out soon, but in the meantime I've been engrossed in Scott Sampson's recent book "Dinosaur Odyssey" (a Christmas present). I don't normally read too many general dinosaur books, usually preferring paleontologist biographies, books on historic field work, or civil war histories, but Scott's book is highly interesting and informative and I'm having a hard time putting it down. I'm only a third of the way through, but would already highly recommend it as a good current read on dinosaur paleontology. I'm also deeply honored that Scott mentions our recent Triassic work, especially on early dinosaurs.
I'm working on a few year end posts, which I hope to have out soon, but in the meantime I've been engrossed in Scott Sampson's recent book "Dinosaur Odyssey" (a Christmas present). I don't normally read too many general dinosaur books, usually preferring paleontologist biographies, books on historic field work, or civil war histories, but Scott's book is highly interesting and informative and I'm having a hard time putting it down. I'm only a third of the way through, but would already highly recommend it as a good current read on dinosaur paleontology. I'm also deeply honored that Scott mentions our recent Triassic work, especially on early dinosaurs.
Paw-talk
This is an interesting site, includes a blog and also various forums ranging from everything such as wildlife conservation to pet care and grooming. Recently I was asked some questions regarding my work and blog for a blog post on this site. You can read my cheesy answers here. I also see that Matt Wedel (Ask Dr. Vector and SVPOW) also has an interview here. Brian Switek (Laelaps) also appears to be a regular contributor. Check it out.
Thanks to Ava for the invite.
Thanks to Ava for the invite.
In Memoriam Carl Gans (1923-2009)
CNAH ANNOUNCEMENT The Center for North American Herpetology Lawrence,
Kansas http://www.cnah.org 7 December 2009
IN MEMORIAM CARL GANS (1923-2009)
. . . modified from the New York Times
Dr. Carl Gans, 86, died peacefully after a long illness in Austin, Texas, on 30 November 2009. He was born in Hamburg, Germany, where he attended the Talmud Thora Realschule, and emigrated to the United States in 1939. Here he attended GeorgeWashington High School in New York City, received a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from New York University in 1944, a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University in 1950, a PE License from New York State in 1950, and a Doctoral Degree in Biology from Harvard in 1957. He served in the U.S. Army in the Pacific Command in the Philippines and Japan from 1944 to 1946. Carl was a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow from 1953 to 1955 conducting reptile studies in Brazil. After working eight years with Babcock & Wilcox installing power boilers, he changed careers and became a Professor of Biology and Department Chairperson at the University of Buffalo (later SUNY) from 1958 to 1971. He moved to Ann Arbor as Professor of Biology and Chairperson of Zoology at the University of Michigan until his retirement in 1998. Carl's work and hundreds of publications were in evolutionary physiology and comparative biomechanics. He carried out his primary studies in the area of reptiles and amphibians. He became world-known as editor of the journal "Morphology" for 25 years and as the editor of the monumental 23-volume "Biology of the Reptilia," published between 1969 and 2009. His first book-length publication was "Biomechanics" in which he combined his engineering and biology backgrounds. He co-authored two biology texts used in universities throughout the United States: "A Photographic Atlas of Shark Anatomy" and"Electromyography for Experimentalists." He also wrote the popular paperback book"Reptiles of the World," translated into many languages. His library of over 20,000 items in herpetology is currently at Ben Gurion University in Israel, which also has his extensive scientific correspondence. Other of his publications may be found at the Scripps Institute, University of California, San Diego, and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. His extensive animal collections, which he gathered on five continents over many decades, can be found at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburg, and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard.
Carl was predeceased by his wife of fifty years, Mabel Kyoko Andow. He is survived by his brother Leo Gans of Teaneck, New Jersey.
*****
Memorial donations may be made to
THE CARL GANS AWARD
As some of you may be aware, we have been fund-raising for some time to endow the "Carl Gans Award," associated with the Division of Comparative Biomechanics, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB). This award, recently approved by the SICB Executive Committee, is the first such award for the newly founded Division of Comparative Biomechanics and honors the numerous scientific and editorial contributions to biomechanics and herpetology by Carl Gans. To date, we have raised approximately two-thirds of the $25,000 required for endowment of this award. Fortunately, matching funds ($10,000) were generously made available by the late Carl Gans, his brother Leo Gans, and Sandy Gaunt that will provide a 2-for-1 match for the first $5000 contributed, no matter how small that, in conjunction with the matching offer, will let SICB takeadvantage of this new funding opportunity and enable the award to be established financially. Contributed funds should be marked for the "Carl Gans Award" and be sent to the attention of the SICB Executive Director, Brett Burk (BBurk@BurkInc.com) at the address below. He will deposit them into an account and reserve them for the fund. Send your contribution to:
Brett J. Burk SICB Executive Director 1313 Dolley Madison Boulevard, Suite 402 McLean, Virginia 22101
Contributions can also be made online at
https://ssl4.westserver.net/birenheide/secure/sicb/cart/donations.php
Kansas http://www.cnah.org 7 December 2009
IN MEMORIAM CARL GANS (1923-2009)
. . . modified from the New York Times
Dr. Carl Gans, 86, died peacefully after a long illness in Austin, Texas, on 30 November 2009. He was born in Hamburg, Germany, where he attended the Talmud Thora Realschule, and emigrated to the United States in 1939. Here he attended GeorgeWashington High School in New York City, received a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from New York University in 1944, a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University in 1950, a PE License from New York State in 1950, and a Doctoral Degree in Biology from Harvard in 1957. He served in the U.S. Army in the Pacific Command in the Philippines and Japan from 1944 to 1946. Carl was a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow from 1953 to 1955 conducting reptile studies in Brazil. After working eight years with Babcock & Wilcox installing power boilers, he changed careers and became a Professor of Biology and Department Chairperson at the University of Buffalo (later SUNY) from 1958 to 1971. He moved to Ann Arbor as Professor of Biology and Chairperson of Zoology at the University of Michigan until his retirement in 1998. Carl's work and hundreds of publications were in evolutionary physiology and comparative biomechanics. He carried out his primary studies in the area of reptiles and amphibians. He became world-known as editor of the journal "Morphology" for 25 years and as the editor of the monumental 23-volume "Biology of the Reptilia," published between 1969 and 2009. His first book-length publication was "Biomechanics" in which he combined his engineering and biology backgrounds. He co-authored two biology texts used in universities throughout the United States: "A Photographic Atlas of Shark Anatomy" and"Electromyography for Experimentalists." He also wrote the popular paperback book"Reptiles of the World," translated into many languages. His library of over 20,000 items in herpetology is currently at Ben Gurion University in Israel, which also has his extensive scientific correspondence. Other of his publications may be found at the Scripps Institute, University of California, San Diego, and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. His extensive animal collections, which he gathered on five continents over many decades, can be found at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburg, and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard.
Carl was predeceased by his wife of fifty years, Mabel Kyoko Andow. He is survived by his brother Leo Gans of Teaneck, New Jersey.
*****
Memorial donations may be made to
THE CARL GANS AWARD
As some of you may be aware, we have been fund-raising for some time to endow the "Carl Gans Award," associated with the Division of Comparative Biomechanics, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB). This award, recently approved by the SICB Executive Committee, is the first such award for the newly founded Division of Comparative Biomechanics and honors the numerous scientific and editorial contributions to biomechanics and herpetology by Carl Gans. To date, we have raised approximately two-thirds of the $25,000 required for endowment of this award. Fortunately, matching funds ($10,000) were generously made available by the late Carl Gans, his brother Leo Gans, and Sandy Gaunt that will provide a 2-for-1 match for the first $5000 contributed, no matter how small that, in conjunction with the matching offer, will let SICB takeadvantage of this new funding opportunity and enable the award to be established financially. Contributed funds should be marked for the "Carl Gans Award" and be sent to the attention of the SICB Executive Director, Brett Burk (BBurk@BurkInc.com) at the address below. He will deposit them into an account and reserve them for the fund. Send your contribution to:
Brett J. Burk SICB Executive Director 1313 Dolley Madison Boulevard, Suite 402 McLean, Virginia 22101
Contributions can also be made online at
https://ssl4.westserver.net/birenheide/secure/sicb/cart/donations.php
Cruxicheiros newmanorum, a new Middle Jurassic Theropod from England
Benson, R. B. J., and J. D. Radley. in press. A new large-bodied theropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Warwickshire, United Kingdom. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, available online 20 Nov 2009.
Abstract - Previously undocumented postcranial material from the Chipping Norton Limestone Formation (Middle Jurassic: Lower Bathonian) of Cross Hands Quarry, near Little Compton, Warwickshire represents a new large-bodied theropod dinosaur, distinct from the contemporaneous Megalosaurus bucklandii. Cruxicheiros newmanorum gen. et sp. nov. is diagnosed by a single autapomorphy, the presence of a proximomedially inclined ridge within the groove that marks the lateral extent of the posterior flange of the femoral caput (trochanteric fossa). C. newmanorum shows three tetanuran features: widely separated cervical zygapophyses, a swollen ridge on the lateral surface of the iliac blade and an anterior spur of the caudal neural spines. However, due to fragmentary preservation its affinities within Tetanurae remain uncertain: phylogenetic analysis places it as the most basal tetanuran, the most basal megalosauroid (= spinosauroid) or the most basal neotetanuran.
Abstract - Previously undocumented postcranial material from the Chipping Norton Limestone Formation (Middle Jurassic: Lower Bathonian) of Cross Hands Quarry, near Little Compton, Warwickshire represents a new large-bodied theropod dinosaur, distinct from the contemporaneous Megalosaurus bucklandii. Cruxicheiros newmanorum gen. et sp. nov. is diagnosed by a single autapomorphy, the presence of a proximomedially inclined ridge within the groove that marks the lateral extent of the posterior flange of the femoral caput (trochanteric fossa). C. newmanorum shows three tetanuran features: widely separated cervical zygapophyses, a swollen ridge on the lateral surface of the iliac blade and an anterior spur of the caudal neural spines. However, due to fragmentary preservation its affinities within Tetanurae remain uncertain: phylogenetic analysis places it as the most basal tetanuran, the most basal megalosauroid (= spinosauroid) or the most basal neotetanuran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)