Hey there every peoples!

I seem to have gotten into hot water with certain folks (they’ll probably call this post stupid as well). But I’ll deal with them later. Before i did i really wanted to talk about something that i have wanted to for a long time. It is about a problem that is quite pervasive in museums and one that needs to be rectified. Because it has repercussions for us all.

To help you understand the problem, i’m going to tell you a little story. After being stabbed in the back by a lazy, ignorant commercialist the Grand Vision took a serious hit. After a while I thought i had a solution. Since i can’t collect fossils, most Central Coast specimens are locked away in distant museums, and no funding, I came up with a different way to share my vision for paleontology: a virtual museum. If i can’t create a physical museum (at least for now), then I could create a museum in cyberspace. I could still bring Central Coast specimens to light without them actually leaving the museum they were housed in. And this would help raise awareness to not just the general public but to scientists as well about specimens they most likely never knew existed. I thought it was a great idea. I started working on it right away. I even presented a poster about it at the annual meeting of the Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontology. But my solution to the Grand Vision problem was shot down by the end of the conference.

The majority of Central Coast specimens are housed in two places: The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the California Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. To build the “virtual collections”, i needed to get into their collections to photograph specimens. So i approached people from both institutions about my project. And what was i told? “We can’t let you do that because of copyright issues”. “You can use a few images, but for the scale you’re talking about we would rather have it on our site”. Before the conference, i even contacted the collections manager at the L.A. Museum so i could have more Central Coast specimens at the conference. He brushed me off (he “wished me luck” with the project, instead of doing something that would actually help it). He said i could use what is on display. That is hardly representative of the fossil wealth of the Central Coast. And wanting to keep it in house? How is that better? Their online database is garbage. Museums always complain that they can only display a tiny fraction of their collections. Online databases (like my museum) can help with that. But you won’t let anyone else do it why? Here is someone willing to do the same for free but you turn them down because if you can’t do it then no one can! Why does it matter if it is on your site or mine? Either way the information is being made accessible to all!

But the other reason is much more egregious. Are you actually telling me that specimens are actually copyrighted? WHY? How can you even do that? In case you can’t tell the implication is here, let me spell it out for you. By copyrighting specimens, the museum is basically announcing that it is their private property. Museums always describe specimens as “our heritage”, that it is being held in the “public trust”. Those words lose their luster when you find out that the specimens are copyrighted, turning everyone’s heritage into their property. It ceases to belong to the people. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that it is “our heritage” and that it is “in the public trust” if you just hoard it and shut out the very people it is supposed to belong to. Obviously you can’t just let everyone into the collections. But by copyrighting specimens (i have heard this even being done against scientists), you are not only marking them as YOURS, but you are also preventing others from sharing them with everyone else. So just how does this ownership thing work? Specimens found on public lands are said to belong to the nation. But if the fossils are owned are owned in the sense that the are the property of someone, then i guess this:

Needs to be renamed “the government’s T. rex”. I doubt that would go over well.

That actually brings up an interesting question. Fossils found on government lands (BLM, Forest Service, National Parks, etc) are legally the property of the government, with the museums holding the specimens in trust. I wonder what the government agencies would think about museums copyrighting their specimens? Is it right (legally, morally) to copyright specimens that don’t technically belong to you?

And it doesn’t help your case when you deny people with actual scientific reasons to visit the collections. I have tried repeatedly to get into Berkeley because i have wanted to investigate a specimen of theirs. According to their online database (while there is a lot of room for improvement, it is still one of the best online databases of any museum), they have a vertebra of Megatherium from Santa Barbara county. This is a very interesting and potentially important specimen. So I wanted to look it over and find out if it really did belong to Megatherium. I figured this could also be my first publication (I figured it best to start small, doing specimen reports and the like). Except i never heard back from the collection manager. No matter how many times i emailed her, all i got was crickets. I may not have the fancy piece of paper, but i am trying to do legitimate research here. The specimen is from the Central Coast, meaning it is part of my heritage. Apparently I’m not allowed to explore my heritage, be it just photographing specimens for my virtual museum or trying to further science by shining light on an unknown specimen. And you call yourself a museum?

L.A. is no better. First, a little background. I have been in several collections, but by far the best has been the Raymond Alf Museum of Paleontology. The curator, Andy Farke, allows me to go through the collections on my own. He even lets me photograph specimens and put them up on my virtual museum. Probably because he is one of the only people who understands the value of open access (including the potential to garner interest in your institution). The last time i was there i came across a small collection of fossils from Red Rock Canyon. Mostly fragments, but identifiable fragments, including a nice jaw from a fox-sized dog. So I mentioned this stuff to Andy, proposing that I take them over to the L.A. Museum to try and identify them. Why L.A.? They have the largest and most comprehensive collection from Red Rock Canyon. Andy said it wasn’t very high on their list of priorities so i was free to do so. So i contacted the collections manager, telling his i wanted to use the Red Rock Canyon collection to identify specimens from the Alf Museum. Never heard back. Again, I have a real reason to visit the collections, on behalf of another museum no less. Apparently that is not even worth a response. Again we have to ask the question: how can this be billed as “everyone’s heritage” if their exposure is so heavily restricted?

So what are we supposed to do? Well some might think selling fossils or opening up public lands are good alternatives. Except they aren’t. They are actually atrocious ideas. For starters, neither commercialists nor private collectors keep field notes, so even if any of those specimens were to find their way to a museum, they would have been robbed of much of their scientific value. Also they don’t have proper curation facilities. The fossils could detieriorate or even get destroyed in their possession. Not having a curation facility also means those specimen’s fates are uncertain, potentially getting sold or traded off; or getting inherited by a relative who either keeps it, sells it, or just throws it away. And those solutions don’t bring specimens to the public. They bring them to the homes of whoever can afford them or found them first. Those specimens will only be seen by them and their house guests. Even if they allow scientists to see it, it is still in private hands. Not too long ago, at a get-together hosted by my old geology teacher, one of the former students (and classmate) showed us a fossil owned by some guy. It is a partially preserved shark skeleton from Santa Barbara county (Refugio Beach, i think). Such a rare and valuable specimen should be in a museum so it could be studied by scientists and enjoyed by the public. But it can’t because some guy decided he needed it more. The person showing the picture said the guy let the L.A. Museum scan it; “so they at least have something”. That is hardly something. A cast can’t be x-rayed/CT scanned. You can’t do any kind of chemical analysis on a cast. You can’t use the matrix on a cast to try and figure out where is came from. Why does he need the original? It should be the other way around. The collector gets the cast and the museum gets the original. If the purpose is for it to sit around your living room so you can show it off to your buddies… a cast does that job equally well. Commercialists and private collectors only care about themselves and god knows how many specimens have been lost because of them.

Although that greed could explain why specimens are copyrighted. They are obviously afraid that if you post photos of their specimens freely, someone might use them to make money! We want that money! Well then who ever posted the photos needs to point out that if any for-profit use needs to be authorized by the museum housing the specimen. And while the most photogenic specimens would likely be targeted for commercial use, i doubt the same could be said for all the tooth and bone fragments that make up the majority of museum collections. I mean are you seriously telling me you are blocking open access because you think this will happen:

The new hit magazine?

And get ready to hear the Anza Borrego story again. At 2013 SVP, i had heard that the new fossil repository at Anza Borrego Desert State Park wanted all specimens returned to them. The L.A. Museum had a large collection, which i heard they fought tooth and nail to keep. But apparently Anza Borrego won out. And then guess what? That following spring the L.A. Museum was doing a field trip to Anza Borrego. Granted I don’t have the full story, but that sounds like a jaded institution bitterly trying to replace what it has lost. I mean yes you lost some of your collection, but shouldn’t you at least be glad they are going to a good home? If these fossils are truly “our heritage”, then them moving shouldn’t be such a big deal. Especially since they are going to another well maintained curation facility. This, if true, sounds like a case of someone made because they lost something belonging to THEM. Those were THEIR fossils! Again, just stuff i heard from others. But if true, it is just another sad case of a museum viewing specimens as property instead of a shared heritage.

I still feel like the best place for fossils is in a museum. But if they are truly the heritage of everyone, then it seems there are practices and attitudes that just need to die. Online databases can help fossils to become accessible to all. Only then can people finally enjoy their heritage. But that won’t happen if museums shoot down any attempt to do so because they think the specimens are their private property (as indicated by copyrighting specimens) or because they want to keep it in house. Furthermore, you are failing as a library of nature if you don’t allow people to use them for research and other legitimate activities. You can keep doing that if you want, but then you can no longer claim that the specimens are “our shared heritage” or that they are held in the “public trust”. Because if it only belongs to you, then it doesn’t belong to every one. If you truly believe fossils belong to everyone, then prove it. Quit copyrighting specimens. Quit denying access to people trying to do actual science just because you don’t think they are good enough. There are people out there who can and want to help people get in tough with their heritage. But they never will if you cling to this faulty notion that the specimens belong to you and only you. If we are in this together (as implied by “our heritage”), then we need to actually start working together. We can all benefit. But no one does when you only want to benefit yourself.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples…
I screwed up bad. I screwed up real bad. Not the kind of “it’s ok, we’ve all been there” bad. The “how dare you! You are utterly despicable!” bad.

My Jurassic World review (specifically part 3) has gotten me in real hot water. I expected insults of course. But its far worse. In trying to take on fanboys I became the fanboy. I am so much worse than those I sought to critise. And I got exactly what I deserved:

Actually the real “cancerous dinosaur fanboys” are those biased scaley monster-lovers, not those who support accurate depictions.
And for the last freaking time, THE SUCKERTIP IS NOT AN OVIRAPTOROSAUR AND NOT A HYBRID!!! It’s a modified scansoriopterygid! Geese pls…

 

The whole showing weapons one could take dinosaurs down with is…weirddd —–>response—-> One of those “yeah I totally have 12 authentic japanese katanas” ppl

 

Who the fudge is this person? I didn’t read the article but they seem like an epic douchebag.

 

What a boring person. Does he think a scaly dinosaur couldn’t be shot?

 

What a stupid article.

 

His “about” and “grand vision” sections lead me to believe that this gentleman is, in fact, a walking boner that has learned to type

 

So, people who want more accurate dinosaurs in popular media are considered fanboys now? When did this reversal of roles happen? I am just 1/5th into the article and think I have had enough stupidity already.

 

Don’t read it, it’s a waste of time. Written by a hateful idiot who doesn’t have a point to make. ——–> response ——-> Yeah read a few paragraphs and realize it was not worth reading further.

 

It’s classic victim-role-change.

 

I agree with , don’t look too close, it hurts deeply in the Prefrontal cortex.

 

Can’t we just let this guy be? Even if we think he’s stupid as all get out, which he may be, I mean, is he really hurting anything? I mean, you can lead a horse to water, there’s still plenty of people who don’t acknowledge evolutionary theory so it may take some time for people to get used to feathered dinosaurs, even though we are very used to it by now. Just some thoughts. ——-> responses:

-As far as I’ve seen no one’s commenting on the blog, and I’d advise people to not to comment, but I do think Nic is at liberty to comment on what he very well likes on his own Facebook wall.

–It’s easy to point out things that people are bad at.

–“It’s easy to point out things that people are bad at.”

Eh? It’s also easy to be bad at things. So, nobody should point these things out when they happen?

–I’m not saying nobody, but I will say that I try to keep it minimal, but I’m hypocritical here too. Im less stressed, I stopped caring about every little idiot on the Internet, it’s worked well for me, but indeed that’s ‘me’ so I want this to be me sharing my experience, I’m not trying to force it on anyone else. I’m not trying to tell the man what to say on his page either, I’m sorry that’s how it’s came off, I’ll try to do better next time. His opinion is valid as is yours, I have just been in a ‘disarmament’ mode lately I suppose.

–I think I see what you’re saying—that there’s value in adopting a placatory stance, but am a bit confused by:

“His opinion is valid as is yours”

Nic’s? Mine?

I would not think the linked blogger’s opinion was just as valid as that of scientists or artists. Opinions of willfully uninformed folk are seldom valuable

–Yes, those two. Not the blogger. I’m not advocating any validity for the blogger, just saying, I don’t feel compelled to pick on him either.

 

Talking about something on facebook isn’t the same as ‘taking action’ of any sort, right? We’re allowed to callout epic douchebagery.

 

sure, but I just prefer to share cool things rather than stupid ones. I didn’t read the article but why is he a douchebag exactly, what did he do to harm you?—- response—–>

For example he called one of my fake theropods “What?! You didn’t build a better fake theropod, you just spliced an oviraptorsaur with Ahnold.” It isn’t even a hybrid and also not an oviraptorosaur. Didn’t he notice the teeth? And he’s calling himself a palaeontologist? Oh, my! It’s a scansoriopterygid. Besides that he failed in writing the name “Arnold” and the term “oviraptorosaur” and realizing, that I have other more terrifying fake theropod designs. Same goes for Brian Engh’s designs, of which he chose one of the less terrifying ones. He specifically chose these theropods, so he can just “prove” his point, that there’s nothing better, than Indominus rex and scaley dinosaurs in general.—–> response ——> Mind you, Nic, “Ahnold” is, I presume, a textual rendition of how Schwarzenegger said his own first name back when he didn’t have a coach for his accent.

 

He’s calling us out and being openly insulting. ——> response ——->ok, my bad, didn’t realize that.

Stevie, that guy is sharing his (stupid, skewed, and misinformed) opinion on matters which he obviously doesn’t fully understand. We are sharing our opinions (in private, mind you) on his opinions. How’s that a problem. ——-> response ——-> I guess it’s not. Sorry. ——> response ———-> No need to apologize. We are just sharing thoughts.Also just think about all these less knowledgeable people who may not be as informed about paleontology as you or anyone else here and who will read this article thinking it actually presents valid points. This person is presenting his opinions as fact, or at least as more reasonable alternative to accepted and/or sound hypotheses. Disinformation of any kind hurts the public perception of paleontology and paleoart, so I really don’t think we should encourage it, or let it pass.

Personally I find it offensive for me and for other paleoartists/paleontologists to be called “fanboy/s” from a fanboy.

 

Just an example: “For those of you who don’t know, phylogeny is the practice of using relationships to predict soft tissues in animals.”

The guy is talking about what “phylogeny” means, without having any idea what phylogeny actually is.

 

Woah, just wasted five minutes on that article, and I was only scrolling through it to see if there was a concise take-home point. It goes on forever…

 

I see what you mean, I guess I was just born to be a defense attorney. I don’t think there is anything wrong with criticizing the guy, I just feel bad for him, but maybe he is in blissful ignorance. I would hope most folks could tell that he’s got more knowledge about Turok the Dinosaur Hunter than Paleontology, but nowadays, you do present a valid concern. It’s still not as bad as my (unfortunately) neighbors, the creation museum folks! So I guess when disinformation is disseminated, yes I agree, bad thing.

 

What is this stream of consciousness writing trying to get to? Someone wanna tl;dr this, ’cause I dunwanna.——–> response ———–> tl;dr Guns are better than feathered dinosaurs. ——–> response ——-> Some context: It’s someone who notes the overwhelming presence of dinosaurs in paleontology-inspired media items to the detriment of other fossil vertebrates and sets his sights on the dinosaurs themselves instead of the socio-economical factors that make market-oriented decisions a necessity for museums and other purveyors of such material.

 

…. you ruined my eyes again…

 

Actually, feathered dinosaurs had won gun one time. Google Emu war.

 

Nothing more then a Awesomebro type who happens to be slightly more well put together word wise but none the less my brain cells are still dying looking at it…

I could respond to each of those. But what’s the point? I would only be getting myself in deeper. After all, I tried to take on scientists when I’m the idiot who is currently on vacation but forgot his wallet at home. But the name calling isn’t what prompted this. It was these comments (one of whom is from a friend):

I’ve had a chance to look over stuff (I have not been through your entire post with a fine-toothed comb, but I’ve read through the whole thing), and I looked at the gist of the comments. So, there are several different things here (sorry, this will be long). 1) I don’t like name-calling, and I generally don’t do it-at least not in a public forum. I think the people on the Facebook post do not know you and probably have not corresponded with you, so they may not know your passion for paleo. Even so, in my mind that doesn’t justify personal attacks or public speculation about motivations. 2) That said, as I see it that’s exactly what you did in your blogpost. In the title itself, you refer to people as fanboys/girls, and you make it clear in your text that the people you are talking about are the scientists that have problems with the scientific issues in JW. In every definition I’ve ever heard, “fanboy” is used to mean someone who picks a side based on preference and not evidence; that implication is deeply insulting to a scientist. So, you had already established name-calling and personal attacks on intelligence and integrity as the standard for discussion. 3) There are two different issues at play with JW – 3a) did the movie have any redeeming scientific value, and 3b) does it matter (ie was the movie good anyway?) So first, 3a): sorry, but I disagree with you. I think JW was a travesty from a scientific standpoint. Within the context of the movie they made the attempt to emphasize that “these aren’t real dinosaurs”, and I’ll give them some points for that – they essentially explicitly turned it into a monster movie. But this was a disappointment to paleontologists because the original JP did attempt to make some effort to conform to the science of the day (if imperfectly at times), while JW pointedly ignored the science of 2015. Now, they weren’t OBLIGATED to follow modern science, but it would have been nice; after all, it is the hard work of generations of paleontologists that allow us to even know of the existence of dinos, and it would give the movie some redeeming social value if it furthered education. If I want a monster movie, I’ll go see “Alien” or even “Godzilla”. And, sorry, but efforts to try to justify the movie’s science are going to met with scorn by scientists; in my opinion, and that of most other paleontologists, there is just practically no good science in the movie. Incidentally, you also mentioned “Crystal Skull”, which is an interesting choice: every archaeologist I know absolutely loathes that movie, and are generally deeply offended by it (as was I, although it’s less personal for me), for much the same reason that many paleos dislike JW (although CS is much, much worse); it uses the work of scientists to develop a movie idea, but then ignores or even corrupts that work. You are trying to argue with scientists that are specialists in the very things you’re discussing, so of course they’re going to call out your errors (that’s not a reflection on you, by the way – some of these folks know far more than I do about these specialized areas. If I made those statements, they would call me out as well.). Then there’s 3b) – does it matter if the movie’s science was bad – can it be a good movie anyway? That is a matter of personal opinion. I did not really like it, nor did my wife. My son did like it, as did the reporter I saw it with (I think). I’ve talked to several paleontologists that said they really enjoyed it (but I’ve talked to none that said the science was good). If you liked the movie, great – but like it because you think it’s a good movie, not because you think it furthers paleontology or science in any way. Finally, 4) you drag in a certain amount of dino vs. mammal debate into your comments. Paleontologists joke about that sort of thing a lot, but it’s not as real a divide as you seem to think. Most paleos have a lot of respect for each other and their work, and many work on a variety of different things. As you know, I’ve published on whales, squirrels, protorosaurs, and stromatolites, among other things. Most of my collaborators have also published on other groups. My liking one group does not extend to a hatred of others. Where animosity typically will arise is over journal decisions (the in-joke is that if you want to have a paleo paper in “Nature” you better have a feathered dinosaur), but that is NOT a reflection on the scientists that did the work. So, I hope this helps. I suspect it’s not exactly what you wanted to hear, but it is my take on things. You are ambitious in your goals on paleontology, and that’s great. But remember, essentially in discussions like this you’re punching above your weight; many of these folks have a much greater range of exposure to paleo than you do. That doesn’t mean you have nothing to offer; quite the contrary! But it means that there’s a lot you can learn from these folks as well (as can we all).

I’m not going to lie, I couldn’t make it through that third review (and you’ll note I chimed in on your first) as it was written in a far meaner tone then anything I’ve seen the “fanboys” write. The opening to your third post (as far in as I made it) trends over the “hyperbolic, mean spirited manner, looking down on others who don’t share [your] opinion” line. Again I stopped reading it. You were being very mean about other people not agreeing with you. Whether they did it to you or not, calling the kettle black never resolved anything.

Now I haven’t had time yet (I’m just waking up) to check out that link, thank you for getting it, but perhaps keep in mind arguing that trained dedicated experts are nothing but fanboys, and that factual reality isn’t the greatest thing ever to someone who has dedicated their life to studying it is incredibly rude. I can perhaps understand why he would lose his patience when someone is telling him his opinion based on literally years of incredibly hard work isn’t as good as their amateur actual fanboy view point.
I will also be upfront and say I hated this film for its lack of anything resembling real science (as the genetics presented were beyond laughable).

Everyone of them (even the mudslingers) is right. In trying to call out some perceived atrocious behavior I was worse than any of them. But i have learned a few things. Apparently hating a movie without seeing it is just fine. Not only that, hating a blog post without reading the whole thing is ok too. Being an asshole is perfectly acceptable as long as you are doing it for science. And as long as the guy calling you out is a bigger asshole, your asshole behavior is off the hook. Not raging at a movie makes me the fanboy, and not viewing said movie as the worst thing to ever happen to dinosaurs makes me an “apologist” and a “biased scaley monster-lover”. When in an argument, it is ok and intellectually honest to hide behind facebook and snipe the the other guy in a way he cannot respond to. Also, never try to engage people who are smarter than you. Which in my case is pretty much everyone. I was always punching above my weight because I am a moron. Hell, I’m so stupid I cant even tell when people are joking. I spent weeks writing that review and it was brushed aside so easily. As it should be.

So before I embarrass myself any further I’m just going to end it here. This will be my last post (there may be another one. But that depends if they can actually follow my directions and figure out how to post it). It’s obvious from the minimal views and dearth of comments that no one cares nor will notice that I closed up shop. And since I’m your classic armchair paleontologist, nothing of value will be lost. I mean, if I did anything like that at Siwtek’s or Naishe’s places, I would have been torn to pieces because they have actual followers. Look at all the people heaping scorn on me int that first comment block. When my posts were automatically shared on facebook: no likes, no comments, just a share. No one in this situation came rushing to my defense (there was one person and while I appreciate him sticking up for me he was late to the party). I am all alone. As it should be.
Anyone who has actually read my blog will know I suffer depression. I have been on the longest down streak of my entire life (spanning the whole summer). It is safe to say that I may have been venting when I wrote my review. Me and my therapist use a scale to gauge my mood: 0 is baseline, 30 is very happy, and -30 is bordering on… well you know. I would say I was a solid -18 when I wrote that post. Right now, I am at rock bottom. Well, I was already at -30 before this whole mess started. The the stern words and ad hominum dog pile were just bad timing.

But let’s look on the bright side here. My stupidity will no longer plague the internet. You wont have to worry about an epic douchebag insulting innocent people over their love of science. No more insipid displays of “I have 12 authentic japanese katanas!” (even though that was not the point, but i’m a “hateful idiot without a point to make” so don’t worry  about missing the point because it was never there to begin with). No more will you have to worry about a “hateful idiot” fumbling to make no points and spreading disinformation to unsuspecting people. And when you think about it, you are actually getting a 2-for-1 deal. Not only will this “walking boner that learned how to type” no longer be typing, but since every effort to get the Grand Vision off the ground has failed miserably, the “walking boner” won’t ever realize his stupid dream of opening his own museum. Win win! Plus, since such a “boring person” isn’t writing anymore, no one will have to suffer his boringness.And you’ll be pleased to hear: I was planning on going to SVP this year, taking a 2 week long odyssey of discovery to be absorbed in the fossils of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. But there is no way in hell I could afford it or take the time off from school, so you won’t have to worry about me causing anyone’s “brain cells dying” across the southwest (including at a major scientific conference). And if I can’t discuss science accurately, then thank god I didn’t actually become a paleontologist. Nothing like a self-aggrandizing idiot to soil the good name of any profession. So you should all be real proud of yourselves. Your words of wisdom have stopped another idiot from desecrating science!

And that is all she wrote. I will miss doing this a little. But there are so many better writers out there. Go read them. At least they actually know what they are talking about. And they aren’t vicious, mean spirited assholes. So thanks for sticking with me but I appear to have hung myself and have nothing else to contribute.

Farewell…

Hey everyone

I don’t know if I’m returning. This was something that happened early in 2014. It has been eating away at me for a very long time. Things didn’t go as i thought recently. This was supposed to be posted as a final post by someone else. But with things as they are, i figured I’ll post it. Still may be the last.

A great while back I wrote a blog post about the problem commercialists pose to paleontology. I used some of my experience being stabbed in the back by one earlier this year as an example. Then someone came clucking at me, leaving behind this vacuous and inane comment. Based on how it is written, it is either the guy who betrayed me or someone who knows him. So i decided i would  give my side of the story (since his is  biased and one sided, if this dumbass’ blithering is anything to go by). If he (Aaron Miller of the “ancient earth trading company”) ever has the nerve to show his face around you, please give him a right hook for me, and let him know that my torment rests partially on his empty head. So here we go.

I am confused…are you against private collectors? One moment you bash amateur fossil collectors, saying they are “more of a nuisance.” Which seems odd. You seem like the type of person who would have some privately owned fossils, whether bought or found on your own.

Learn how to read. I didn’t bash amateur collectors. I bashed private and commercial ones. Yes, I privately own some fossils. Some I have found. Others I have bought. I am not proud of the later, but passion and desperation are a potent combination. And unlike private and commercial collectors, I was working towards something greater: to one day be able to share those fossils with the world. So guess what? Many of those fossils would have been on public display if that sniveling weasel hadn’t shut down the museum we were working on. And even more would have been seen during outreach. My collection would have been in the public domain if I wasn’t betrayed.

So even though he shot down the museum project, he still calls it a museum:

“Presented here in an unprepared tusk from a Desmostylus (a semi-marine mammal, which resembled a hippopotamus, with four stout legs and four small tusks). There’s a 99.999% chance this will end up in our museum for everyone to enjoy (unless one of you twists my arm pretty well).”

First: it is not a museum. Any yahoo can stick a few specimens in a display case and call it a museum. A museum is a library of nature. It preserves our ancient, natural, and social heritage. It preserves them so that everyone, present and future, can learn from them, admire them, and discover the mysteries and wonders of our world. They create special conditions and craft special supports so that this heritage will last. Museums conduct research using the collections they have built. Museum are dedicated not just to research but also education. The design exhibit halls and conduct many programs to help people understand the world they live in. This asshat and the hole in the wall he runs is the exact opposite. No research is done. There is nothing to learn because education isn’t even an afterthought. The specimens are not cared for properly. There is no mission statement, no curation plan, there are no educational standards. It was never about science or preservation. It is just about showing off your “prize” specimens.

But the number 1 reason it’s not a museum… no museum would ever consider selling a specimen. They understand it’s true value and want to share that value with everyone. If you’re willing to sell a specimen if someone offers you enough money… then you are lower than snake shit. Yes a couple museums did try selling some of their specimens. Those actions were by higher ups who do not understand how museums work nor understand the value of scientific collections (not the science or education staff). And those attempts at selling irreplaceable specimens were universally condemned by the museum and scientific communities. Since you unblinkingly put profit before anything else, your sideshow never was and never will be a museum.

Also…your “museum” is it associated in anyway with a nearby university or the city in which it will be based?

What’s that got to do with it? Also, I take it from the quotes that your condescending me (sorry, was that too big a word for you?). No it wouldn’t. It was in private hands. Such a project had to start somewhere. We were going to start outreach to try and partner up with universities, clubs, and others. But again, that never happened because he shuttered the project because he wasn’t making more money.

Also, your argument that commercialism needs to be stopped, in regards to fossils: how do we go about doing that? You offer no real solutions.

This is a complex issue. One that I have spent multiple posts talking about because it is complex. I have to do everything right this minute? Besides, I did suggest one. I said I’d be willing to give Thomas Carr’s eminent domain idea a shot. Again learn to read. What is more, you don’t seem to be offering any solutions either.

You just sit at your keyboard, and bitch about how all these other people have money, none that you can have a piece of.

You just sit at your keyboard bitching at me because I called out some jackass on his bullshit. I am envious of people with money (see my “Money: The Necessary Evil” post on that). But I don’t want ANY of the commercialist’s money. That money was made by whoring our ancient heritage in the name of greed. I don’t care that I can’t have a piece of it because I DON’T WANT IT!

Also, you seem to bad mouth this “commercialist who was different” when he seemed perfectly willing to help you.

Yes he was. That might have been more endearing if he didn’t so callously betray me in the name of profit.

So what if he didn’t want to get his hands dirty…how can you fill out paper work with dirty hands?

What the hell do you mean by “dirty”? He was the dirty one. He was selling fossils for money. He was busy looting another country (Morocco), robbing them of their heritage, so he could make a buck. He failed to properly get into paleontology, so he took the easy way out (big surprise there) and instead sells fossils. His idea of a museum is a glorified trophy room. I wanted to bring fossils into the public trust for the benefit of all. I wanted to create a place where people could learn about and engage in their ancient heritage. I wanted to protect these rare and irreplaceable resources for future generations. If that is your idea of “getting your hands dirty”, then you are a very ignorant and backwards person.

Like it or not, you have to have business savvy in ventures that require money. Especially if you are not affiliated with a public university or government on any level.

Yes, business savvy certainly helps. But when that “business savvy” puts personal gain ahead of the mission and welfare of the specimens; then that person shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a museum, let alone given a position in one.

He may not agree with you on what is valuable and what is not…that doesn’t mean it is a lost cause. Sit down, talk it out…

Talk it out? Let me tell you something: I tried that. I have depression. Having my dream torn away from me by some shit eating worm (who I thought was my friend) landed me in the mental hospital (because I tried to kill myself). I asked my parents to ask him to come in because I wanted to talk it out with him. The first words out of his mouth when he arrived? “What am I doing here?” Apparently this was such an inconvenience for him. I begged and pleaded with him to give me more time, that I now had the means to finish it. He wouldn’t budge. Then he looked at me with those empty emotionless eyes of his and said “There’s nothing you can say that will change my mind.”

I did some work for him, posting items on ebay while he was off at Tuscon. I figured I had earned $120. Granted, I didn’t do exactly what he wanted or enough of it. Maybe he should have given me more than a singular rushed tutorial (I wanted to do a dry run but he blew that off). And I talked to his business partner/wife who I thought was corresponding with him. I may have done a subpar job, but there was no profit in it for me. I needed that money just to cover the cost of gas (his shop was a full hour away from me. That kind of commute really runs up the gas bill). What happened? He stiffed me. Not only did he stiff me, he actually gave me a bill. Not only did he charge me rent (“5 months @ $60 a month discounted to $50 a month (“discounted”, I guess because he was such a nice guy) totaling $100), but he actually charged me $40 for the hospital visit! Hospitalized on suicide watch and wanting to talk to him face to face cost money? What, was he charging me for the fucking privilege of his company? Now I don’t know if he was serious or just thought he was being clever. All it did was show how his obsession with money made him unfeeling, petty, and dishonorable.

When he first told me he was killing the museum, I begged and pleaded with him. He told me: “You want to lead people out to find stuff? I don’t want to have to deal with any of that. If they find it they find it, it’s theirs”. Not “I don’t want to have to deal with that, so you’ll have to”. But “I don’t want to have to deal with that, so you won’t be either”. Way to think outside the box.

So we have someone who is close minded, stiffs a friend for work he did, can only think in terms of money, and only thinks about himself. Does that sound like someone who can be talked to and reasoned with?

… maybe you can help him see the value of a single horse tooth, or maybe he can help you realize that a single horse tooth may not make much of a difference overall.

I tried. I constantly tried explaining to him that you can’t have expectations in paleontology. I constantly told him that in paleontology, you never know what you are going to find and that you have to take what you can get. But no matter what I said, it never entered his thick skull. He could only ever view fossils in how much they would benefit him. As we already established, he his closed minded, so how do you expect me to teach him the value of fossils, which any real paleo enthusiast would already know?

Every fossil matters. Why? Because fossils are a finite resource. Fossil deposits aren’t constantly making new ones. What was preserved in the past is all that there is. Paleontology is a science. Science runs on data. Every fossil is a data point. The more we have, the more ideas we can test about evolution, growth patterns, ecology, and taxonomy. And new techniques are constantly being developed that allow us to utilize more fossils then ever before. A single horse tooth doesn’t make much of a difference overall? How do you know? That horse tooth could make all the difference! For example, my friend Eric Scott discussed at a couple of conferences his work on 3 horse teeth. These teeth were discovered over 100 years ago in southern California. These teeth were used to create the well known Western Horse, Equus occidentalis. He tracked down the general area where they were found and discovered they weren’t all they seemed to be. He proposed that Equus occidentalis may not be a valid name. Those little teeth that the jackass in question would let people keep or hock for a few bucks wound up having serious implications for ice age horses. But hey, that’s probably not much of a difference overall.

Or how about this. In a cave in Russia, scientists found a 60,000 year old bone fragment. Just a chip off the end of a finger bone. Commercialists like the jackass in question would probably have just thrown it way because it wasn’t some big showy specimen they could charge thousands of dollars for. But the scientists knew that every fossil is important. So what was that tiny bone good for? Well it was well preserved enough to harbor genetic material. So they ran a dna test on it. That tiny shard of bone, that commercialists would call worthless and a waste of time, led to the discovery of a new species of human: The Denisovans. But hey, that’s probably not much of a difference overall.

When he betrayed me, I was supposed to return to him a bone he found at Shell Creek. I kept it, not just because he screwed me, but because I recognized the importance of the bone. Just prior I had taken it down south to try and get it identified. Most people said it looked like the distal phalange (end of a toe bone) of a camel. See, finding terrestrial animals in a marine setting is not unheard of, but they aren’t very common either. So far the only other vertebrates from this formation in the area (aside from shark teeth) are a horse tooth and a partial rhino femur. Now we can add a camel to the mix. That little bone expanded the fauna. But he didn’t care. He “just thought it was an interesting bone”. He just wanted it because it was “his”. This bone is another piece to an ancient puzzle and yet he can only view it through the lens of possession.

That is what separates me from him and all craven money grubbing fossil whores like him. I see every fossil as the only record of a once living animal. That record has survived millions of years of geological processes and the elements to arrive in the modern world. It is precious because it made that incredible journey and can tell us so much about a world long gone. Commercialists only see a pretty rock that they can use to enrich themselves. They don’t care what that fossil is or what it can teach us. They only care about how much they can make off of it. Anything they deem too cheap or “not worth it” gets thrown by the wayside. Fossils are the heritage of us all. It belongs to us all. People like me and scientists and even amateur collectors want to make sure we can all enjoy and learn from them. The unthinking bastards you are fumbling to defend only serve those with the money to afford their heinous prices. The worth of a fossil lies not in dollars, but in knowledge and wonder.

Why didn’t you just work something out with this person? he does the paper work and pencil pushing, you do the leg work.

We had agreed to share the workload. When it’s just two guys, you both have to contribute. I gave him things to do that would have sped it along if only he got off his lazy ass. Actually, he did nothing but presumed to order me around, often wasting time by fighting me on exhibit fabrication instead of just letting me do it. I made a donation box, complete with a cast of a saber cat skull. I used plexiglass and ply wood I found in my garage. It wasn’t the prettiest, most perfect example, but it was functional and was one more thing done. Except it wasn’t good enough for him. He actually took a paint can and broke the top off. What the fuck? When your museum is starting off as a few cases in the back of some chintzy shop, you have to make due with what you got. I wanted to rent an ark welder (with my own money, mind you) so I could make stands for the ophiolite display. Instead of letting me do it and getting that much closer to opening, he just kept arguing with me. “The problem with stands is they have to be stable”. Hey idiot, I made some pretty stable stands out of cheep bailing wire. I could have made simple but very stable stands out of steel rods welded together. It’s like it wasn’t our project. It was his project and I was just some tool to order around. He obviously has terrible “business savvy” if he won’t let the worker actually do any work! He kept it from opening with his stubborn ignorance and misguided sense of perfection. Please tell me again how this was my fault?

Overall, I think this guy may be better off without you. And it is your loss for not taking the initiative you need to get this “museum off the ground.

No, I am better off without him. When we started, we had agreed on what we would do. I did my part to the best of my ability. He did nothing. I had given him exhibit descriptions to proofread (the ones I wrote, he was supposed to write one). He never touched them. I had given him a list of things to do (he said he knew people who could do this or that). It never happened. The stuff just sat around his precious shop (and then he charged me rent for it!). I was pretty much doing all the work and he did nothing. And when things went south, he dumped all the blame on me. I’m willing to take my fair share of the blame (maybe I should have asked why nothing was getting done), but I will not take it all when the other guy couldn’t be bothered to uphold his end. Why would this person be considered an asset?

In the end, I was betrayed by a greedy, thoughtless, non-aspiring, callous, lazy oaf. He acted like my friend and then stabbed me in the back when the novelty wore off. He took my dream of a Central Coast museum and wiped his ass with it. He and people like him make a mockery of science and rob people of their heritage. If that was him who left the comment, then what a flaccid attempt that was to try and look like a saint (unwilling to take responsibility, telling a very biased account). And if it was someone who knows him: why are you trying so hard to defend this guy? He obviously lied to you about how things went down. But what does it matter now? Considering how you fell on your sword to defend him (or managed to delude yourself, if you are him), I probably didn’t change your mind.  Words can’t describe just hoe despicable you really are. But he’s the one with the “museum”, so you probably think you won. You didn’t. He is scrabbling for “sell-able”, trying to scrape together enough “inventory” to make his pathetic living. Meanwhile, i have friends in museums who let do real paleontology. I actually get to go into the field and find things he can only dream of. That’s because we know their value and endeavor to preserve them in a real museum (not some guy’s pitiful facsimile of one). I actually get to work with a museum on an unprepared specimen I found in their collections. It looks like it may be important, in which case I would get to help write a scientific paper about it. He tries to slog through life on the bare minimum, selling fossils because he failed to see them as anything other than a means to an end. I think the winner here is obvious.

Hey there every peoples.

This is not my triumphant return. Despite many kind words and reassurances from friends and internet folk alike, I still feel like I’m not cut out for this. I learned that the hard way when I got into that whole mishigas. They of course had their little cadre to reinforce their narrative while I was pretty much alone to wallow in my failure (the support kind of trickled in, a little late however). This is yet more purging of my inept idiocy. So don’t expect any more after this.

A few weeks ago I was discussing some southern California museum when I got put in my place yet again. I bemoaned how those fossils were all the way in the American Museum instead of staying in the region. I was reminded that the museums I have been trashing (ever since I started this whole “museum quest” nonsense) recovered those fossils that would have otherwise eroded away had they not invested the time, resources, and work to recover them when no one else was. And that’s true. Blinded by my own self righteous stupidity I failed to realize the good work these institutions had done. Aren’t I the worst?

He tried to reassure me that it was just a sore point for him, since he and his colleagues had gotten so much local hate from their projects in Hemet (CA) and Tule Springs (NV). But I don’t understand it. For example, Tule Springs. Yes the fossils are leaving the reagion, but like the museums I maligned they are preserving the fossils when no one else is. Perhaps instead of ragging on them, you should try getting your local institutions (in this case, The Nevada State Museum and University of Nevada Las Vegas) to step it up. Maybe try to raise money so they can build (or upgrade) a curation facility so the fossils can stay local. Right now the only suitable place is over in California. Hell, he even told me once that if Tule Springs National Monument wanted to build a paleontology center (like the one at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument) he would happily return them. Not having a local repository in the area’s history of paleontological investigation is one thing. Having a capable institution in the region that has done little is another. But more on that later.

I get the hate from Hemet even less. The fossils were taken a grueling, punishing… 30 miles away. A half hour drive from Hemet to Redlands. The fossils were not only staying in the region, they are staying in the immediate vicinity. And I’m sure if the Hall Geological Wonders were ever finished, the Diamond Valley fossils would have gotten their own section. They would have been a stone’s throw away. If you wanted to build your own museum for the fossils (which you did) fine. But this is hardly the situation to hate on the people who actually did the work of excavating, preserving, and studying them. I had to learn that. Maybe you should too.

Now, I feel it is ok for fossils to leave their “homeland” if there is good representation. The American Museum is said to have the biggest collection from the Barstow formation. Berkeley has a bunch of stuff from there too. However, this didn’t rub me the wrong way since both the San Bernardino County Museum and the Raymond Alf Museum have significant collections from there. But when there is no local representation is where I see a problem. Especially if a new one is created and wishes to curate the fossils collected by previous institutions. I think they should be allowed to if they can properly care for them and are willing to do the work. This gets into the issue of fossil ownership.

I think the problem is museums thinking their collections are their personal property. This includes copyrighting them and not wanting to turn them over to another museum. That’s right, it’s time for the Anza Borrego Story yet again. At 2013 SVP, i had heard that the new fossil repository at Anza Borrego Desert State Park wanted all specimens returned to them. The L.A. Museum had a large collection, which i heard they fought tooth and nail to keep. But apparently Anza Borrego won out. And then guess what? That following spring the L.A. Museum was doing a field trip to Anza Borrego. Granted I don’t have the full story, but that sounds like a jaded institution bitterly trying to replace what it has lost. I mean yes you lost some of your collection, but shouldn’t you at least be glad they are going to a good home? If these fossils are truly “our heritage”, then them moving shouldn’t be such a big deal. Especially since they are going to another well maintained curation facility. This, if true, sounds like a case of someone made because they lost something belonging to THEM. Those were THEIR fossils! Again, just stuff I heard from others. But if true, it is just another sad case of a museum viewing specimens as property instead of a shared heritage.

Although another part of my conversation with my friend struck a nerve. He said he had gotten into a debate with some other scientists about fossil horses. He said they were wrong about whatever they were discussing. They brushed it off because he was just a masters holder and worked at a small museum. People tell me how archaeology and ancient history aren’t actual sciences. But if can put that shallow prejudice aside, you can learn some interesting things. Like how in most societies throughout time positions of power were usually earned through bloodlines. Such respect and confidence was placed in the power of relations that it often didn’t matter how good of a hunter or warrior or leader you were. It didn’t matter if you were a maverick or an imbecile, benevolent or just an asshole, what mattered was what clan or family or house you belonged to. And that is what is going on today.

I usually refer to the PhD as a fancy piece of paper. This gets a range of disgruntled responses from “it proves you’ve done the work” to “it’s your license to find fossils” to “it’s the key to being a paleontologist”. However it seems to be used as the new clan system. It’s used to automatically discount anyone who disagrees with you or to lock out anyone but the elite few. Don’t get me wrong, a PhD is quite the accomplishment. But I don’t think a lack of it should be used to dismiss someone out of hand. What happened to experience? What happened to merit? What happened to good old fashion hard work? Look at my friend. He has 30 years experience in the lab and the field, including two of the biggest paleo projects around (Diamond Valley and Tule Springs). In fact his work on one of those led to the recent creation of a national monument. How many people can say they have helped create a national monument? He has published innumerable papers on fossil species and presented at dozens of scientific conferences. But he is automatically wrong because he doesn’t have the fancy piece of paper.

And what does that accomplish? From the sound of it: the preservation of ego and academic dogma. How is that in anyway science? When did the old system of lineage worship accomplish anything? Say what you want about the Aztecs but at least they were meritocratic. Sure it was through war but you could become part of the nobility if you were good at it. Genghis Kahn was only able to conquer half the world by uniting the 5 mongol tribes. He accomplished this by not rewarding family ties but rewarding prowess in battle. According to legend, an enemy warrior wounded him on the cheek. Rather than killing him in retaliation, Kahn instead admired his skill and gave him a rank of honor. A PhD should be a step up. Not a get out of jail free card. There is more than one route to becoming a scientist. I have to take the back door approach because my learning disability prevents me from going any higher than community college. So am I just fucked? Should I give up my life’s passion and find some other line of work because I can’t get the ridiculously high standard? I think that if you have done the work and can show you know your stuff, it’s shouldn’t matter whether or not you have the fancy piece of paper. This use of the PhD as a means to stifle dissent or exclude others, like the treatment of specimens as private property, is a trend that just needs to die (preferably by acid bath or impalement).

But what do I know? I’m not a scientist. I’m not even a grad student. Just as they say, I’m noting more than a “hateful idiot with a point to make”. Those folks (at least one of them) were scientists. They have done the actual work. What have I accomplished? Nothing. A few fossils found (one on a pay-to-prospect field trip) and a virtual museum that was dead on arrival because all the specimens are copyrighted. What do I have to offer the paleontological community? Just delusions of grandeur fed by stupidity, blind hate, and wishful thinking. I am able to go to SVP, so I guess there is the threat of me killing brain cells there. And what if I encounter any of those people? I’m no good at confrontation. Thought that may not matter. I’m a nobody, a minnow in a sea of sharks. I’ll just melt into background like I always do.

So sorry to disappoint you all. I’d like to come back but I feel like I’m not fit for this.

Hey there every peoples.

It’s been practically a year since I last wrote. It has been rough. Very rough. In fact this has been, hands down, the worst year of my life. My daily challenge is finding reasons to keep living. But that is neither here nor now. After mulling over the events that lead to my departure, combined with some encouraging words from others, I am going to try to get back in the game. Plus there are some things I have been wanting to write about. But I need to get this off my chest first.

For those of you who think I’m the fanboy (especially those discussed in this post), please at least scroll to the bottom and see what your shining light accomplished.

Right off the bat, I’ll admit that I went overboard. I was in a bad place then (in fact, I still am). I did say some things I had no place saying. But after the responses I got and after hearing my detractor’s screeching echo in my head, I stand firm in my original positing: that these people are basically fanboys. That they want accurate representation of dinosaurs is irrelevant. Intent doesn’t matter. If you act like a fanboy you are going to be called a fanboy. You may not want to hear it, but there is really no other way to describe them.

For starters, they responded exactly like fanboys do. No conversation, no debate, no discussion of the specific points of the argument… They just plunged right into the ad hominum attacks. That is what fanboys do. Whenever they are confronted with an argument they don’t like (or even just something they don’t agree with), they instantly turn nasty and any pretense of civil discourse goes right out the window. Yeah mine contained snark and low blows but there was an argument there. What’s that you say? If you want people to take your argument seriously don’t be an asshole? To that I say: can you please explain why that only applies to me and not them?

Another reason they are fanboys: they are close minded to a fault. People tried explaining to them the reasons why the dinosaurs were the way they were. They tried explaining that movies don’t have to adhere 100% to reality. They even cited the in universe explanation. But they were just labeled “apologists”. Nothing was going to change their mind. Raw emotion was taking control, turning otherwise decent people into frothing mouthed jerkasses.

And you want to know why they are fanboys? Because they are extremists. They think there is no way but their way. Nothing is acceptable if it doesn’t conform to their specific outlook. Many people tried to explain to them why things were the way they were in the movie. And they were just shouted down, labeled “apologists” and fanboys. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Their opinion that Jurassic World having dinosaurs without feathers (despite in universe explanations for it) is the worst thing to ever happen was proven fact. At least that is how they acted. And treating their opinion as fact was one of the criteria I used to classify them as fanboys. But they were doing it in the name of science and that made it ok (more on that later).

Having time to think about it, their “counterarguments” were rather devoid of intelligent discourse. First up:

Actually the real “cancerous dinosaur fanboys” are those biased scaly monster-lovers, not those who support accurate depictions.

Ah, the good ol’ “I know you are but what am I!” Well we’re off to a flying start. I did not know that name calling, smug sniping, and generally acting like a snarlin dickhead constituted “support” for science. You know, if this was a science (not science fiction) book, documentary, or museum exhibit, I’d be right there with you. I too would condemn them for not following science. But a Hollywood blockbuster is not that place. I know, I know, Jurassic Park was so scientific. Except when it interfered with the plot. But that is ok because it still scienced! I mean, did it ever occur to you people that this isn’t a movie about how dinosaurs really were? Rather, it was about how we think dinosaurs should be? These dinosaurs weren’t created by evolution, they were manufactured by corporate malfeasance. Of course that could apply to both the in universe park and the movie itself. Wow, maybe that meta plot worked after all.

Geese pls…

Why do you want geese? Trololololololololol!

Who the fudge is this person? I didn’t read the article but they seem like an epic douchebag

First off, that’s King Douchebag to you. And you didn’t even read it? But then again this was the guy who wrote a whole article on a movie he hadn’t seen yet. Besides, you’re not exactly a ball of sunshine yourself:

Listen, I don’t care! It’s a crap movie with crap looking animals!

Moving on:

So, people who want more accurate dinosaurs in popular media are considered fanboys now? When did this reversal of roles happen?

Wanting accurate reconstructions isn’t bad in and of itself. But when you act the way you people acted… that is when you cross the line. How you go about getting your point across is as important as the point itself. Fanboys have a set of identifying traits and behaviors. You people engaged in them. Thus you are fanboys. It doesn’t matter your intent or purpose, if you are going to act like fanboys you will be called fanboys.

I am just 1/5th into the article and think I have had enough stupidity already

Another person who didn’t read the full thing. Why am I surprised by that? These are the people who had a burning, irrational hatred of a movie months before it even came out. There’s the real stupidity.

Don’t read it, it’s a waste of time.

Reading all your narrow minded, apoplectic, foul spirited bile could easily be argued as being a waste of time. But I did it anyway because unlike you I tried to understand my opposition and represent them through their own words. I did my best to present their side of the argument. You didn’t even read it, and yet declare it’s a waste of time. I thought scientists valued open debate and discussion. I guess I was wrong.

Written by a hateful idiot who doesn’t have a point to make

Can you believe I used to think highly of this guy? It’s like when you idolize a celebrity and dream of meeting them one day, only to find out they are a stuck up, unrepentant jerk. And par for the course, he doesn’t address anything, he just dismisses it out of hand. All that work researching, writing, wading through their miserable ravings amounted to nothing. So if I disagree with something, I can just dismiss it out of hand and declare myself the superior person? I’ll have to remember that. And I’m hateful? Have you read your own stuff? See, that’s another reason I called you fanboys. You weren’t interested in exploring the issue. You just ran on pure emotion, deriding anyone who dared to not agree with you. Why am I even arguing? You’ll just brush this aside without reading it as well. Such an intellectual heavyweight!

Opinions of willfully uninformed folk are seldom valuable

You know who is also seldom valuable? Hateful, closed minded, apoplectic assholes who elevate themselves above others if they don’t share their opinion. And I am willfully misinformed how? You people keep using that word.

It’s classic victim-role-change

How so? Again, who never builds an argument with detailed explanations and instead barks empty platitudes? I’ll give you a hint: it starts with an f and contains the word “boy”. And you are hardly victims yourselves. Did this movie specifically target you? Did it commit a crime against you specifically? If you act like smug, raging douchebags then no one is going to buy your victimhood.

I agree with , don’t look too close, it hurts deeply in the Prefrontal cortex

Wow, so clever. You can use big sciencey-sounding words in your insults! I totally accept your argument now!

What a stupid article.

What a compelling counterargument. Again, clearly we are in the presence of mental titans.

Personally I find it offensive for me and for other paleoartists/paleontologists to be called “fanboy/s” from a fanboy.

How am I a fanboy? I laid out criteria for my label. You seem to be calling me a fanboy because I disagree with you (the standard definition for fanboy among internet trolls). And you must rule the playground with your mind shattering “I know you are but what am I” argument.

This person is presenting his opinions as fact,

I was just following the example set by you fine folks!

What a boring person.

How so? Or is expounding on your assertion for losers? And I am boring? Look in a mirror! I used to enjoy talking about movies with people. I hardly do it anymore. That is because people get so worked up over something as innocuous as a two hour moving picture. I can hardly mention a movie without igniting a shit storm of ranting sarcasm and all out anger. If I’m lucky, they won’t think my liking a movie or not means I’m somehow less of a person. They are not engaging. They don’t make me want to talk to them. They make me think less of them because of the way they are behaving. They think less of me because of my taste in movies. Who wants to talk to someone like that? If all you have to offer is raw, unbridled hate (like what you people did) then sorry to say, but that makes you the boring one.

Does he think a scaly dinosaur couldn’t be shot?

I do think they can be shot. In fact I wrote a whole post about it. You’d know that if you actually read anything of mine. But why try to determine if someone is a “hateful idiot” when you can just call them one and be done with it?

He specifically chose these theropods, so he can just “prove” his point, that there’s nothing better, than Indominus rex and scaley dinosaurs in general

I searched high and low for examples of the “build a better fake theropod” project. So where are these alleged better versions? Just because I couldn’t find them doesn’t mean I was cherry picking. Once again we see the fanboy mentality at work. Ignore the opposition’s actual argument and instead accuse them of using their own dirty tactics. My point was that what you people created was every bit as generic as the Indominus rex (despite them being labeled better). And all joking aside, I really do think Brian Engh’s entry was by far the best example . The use of shadows and eye shine does achieve a level of dread. The jungle clashing with the modern industrial infrastructure felt very much like Jurassic Park. I’m not sure why I am explaining this. You decided I was evil and nothing I could write could sway your superior intelligence.

Also just think about all these less knowledgeable people who may not be as informed about paleontology as you or anyone else here and who will read this article thinking it actually presents valid points

What are the points you think are invalid? Do you not explain out of laziness, or do you people have some sort of hive mind where you already know what you’re all thinking? If you are going to accuse someone of misinformation (something I never did to you) you have to be more specific!

This person is presenting his opinions as fact, or at least as more reasonable alternative to accepted and/or sound hypotheses

How? How did I do that? You people pull that kind of crap as well. But since it involves science, you get a free pass.

Disinformation of any kind hurts the public perception of paleontology and paleoart

You know, my fanboy post was proofread by a paleontologist. A fairly accomplished one at that who has done his fair share of writing. I’m pretty sure he would have let me know if something wasn’t factually correct. None of you can’t seem to point out what was and wasn’t valid so why should I trust you?

Nothing more then a Awesomebro type

No, the dinosaur people are still king of the “awesomebro” hill. Someone in the Jurassic Park Legacy page decided we needed to be reminded that feathered dinosaurs are totally scary. He asked me if I had ever been attacked by a chicken/turkey/goose/whatever domesticate fowl. I told him I have dealt with them plenty of times, that they could be handled with a small dirtclod. He unleashed this on me:

Now take something turkey sized, add in razor sharp teeth, and a 5 inch curved claw meant to stick in your like a giant meat hook while it uses it’s jaws to rip out your jugular.

Never have I seen a prehistoric mammal (with the exception of sabertooths, and even that seems limited to the Carnivora Forum) hyped like that. Or rather any prehistoric animal that isn’t a dinosaur. How does he know a dromaeosaur would act like that? How does he know it wouldn’t be shy and elusive like a bobcat? He doesn’t. But that is the image that has been cultivated by our popular culture (and you think lack of feathers in Jurassic World is a problem). People just assume it was a vicious killer. It has big claws, it has sharp teeth, it’s a dinosaur. Therefore it must have been the nastiest predator that ever lived! It is only in the last decade or so that this image has been challenged. And judging from the comments my raptor post got, people don’t want to let it go. It’s the same no matter where you go. You want awesomebro, look no further than your beloved dinosaurs. They’re drowning in it.

who happens to be slightly more well put together word wise but none the less my brain cells are still dying looking at it…

Consider yourself lucky that your brain cells only died. Mine engaged in a murder suicide pact after reading all your frothing comments for my original post.

The whole showing weapons one could take dinosaurs down with is…weirddd

Yeah, it’s totally weird to bring up means of self-defense when discussing hypothetical encounters with extinct animals. Don’t they know only idiots bring that up when being told they’re getting attacked? I was responding to your campaign of “feathered dinosaurs are too scary!” The majority of feathered dinosaurs (including birds) are small, lightweight, and kinda frail. It wouldn’t take much (including the larger forms like Sinocaliopteryx, which this was originally responding to) to fend them off. Why would people be afraid of something they could handle with the simplest of weapons? Being prepared or not can have a big impact on how afraid someone can be.

In case you haven’t noticed, the popular culture (including your beloved Jurassic Park) has done much to paint dinosaurs as these unstoppable, blood thirsty killing machines. Lions and tigers and bears? They can be shot or stabbed. Aliens? They’re not so tough once you get around their technology (like giving it a virus with a laptop). Zombies? Please, those can be cut down like wheat. Dinosaurs? We’re fucked! Shooting just pisses them off! Gruesome death awaits us all! But since you don’t think weapons should ever be considered with dangerous animals, surely you wouldn’t mind proving it: by taking a stroll, completely unarmed, through the African bush or the jungles of southern Asia. I’m sure you’ll be fine!

You scream for accurate reconstructions but your protest is only skin deep. They don’t act like real animals because the plot needs them to be monsters. Animals have a wide and diverse set of behaviors. Dinosaurs in movies have only one: attack people. All you people seemed to bitch about was lack of feathers. Never did I hear people make a fuss about how the dinosaurs only ever attack people.

The guy is talking about what “phylogeny” means, without having any idea what phylogeny actually is.

Funny. I got my definition of phylogeny from a paleontologist (the same one who proofread that post). So he must not know anything about phylogeny. The Bison latifrons example was given to me by another paleontologist when I explained what I was writing. So he must not know what phylogeny is either. But clearly you do. Could you please enlighten us lowly, shit-brained, mouth breathers what it is? Oh right you don’t because you people never expand on your mudslinging. You think whenever I encounter a samurai or ninja fanboy my first instinct is to stick my nose in the air and insult them? No, I try to explain the faultiness of their argument in a calm, non-inflammatory manner (which I failed in my fanboy post. I’m probably failing here too (and now begins the countdown for all you fuckers to take that line out of context) but I don’t care. I have a lot of pent up rage to get out). I usually don’t get through. But how will they ever learn otherwise? Yeah, their fanboy mindset probably won’t allow contrary information in but I’m going to try anyway. You never know what might get through. Calling them names and acting like pricks will ensure nothing gets through. I blog, make Youtube videos, and start conversations out of nowhere because I want to teach people. I want to share and spread knowledge. I want to teach people about this world of ours. Sorry if you people think that’s a bad thing. (I have a few words regarding phylogeny, but you can read those at the end of the post. Got plenty of other things to discuss).

We’re allowed to callout epic douchebagery.

But I’m not? Oh right, you’re epic douchebaggery is in the name of science so it’s perfectly fine.

What is with this stream of conscienceness writing? It goes on forever!

Do you even know what stream of consciousness even means? Fun fact: it has to do with how something is written, not how long it is. Stream of consciousness is a writing technique where you sit down and basically write whatever pops into your head. No break, just writing down each thought as soon as you think of it in real time. It’s alright if you didn’t actually know the definition. It’s important to use fancy sounding literary and scientific words when you are disparaging someone. It makes you sound so much smarter than them!

Stevie, that guy is sharing his… opinion on matters which he obviously doesn’t fully understand. We are sharing our opinions (in private, mind you) on his opinions

No, what you are doing is engaging in a mean spirited circle jerk of hate in a closed forum of like minded people where the subject of slander can’t defend themselves and the lone voice of dissent was brow beaten into agreeing with you. Forget fanboys. That’s some FoxNews shit right there.

I can’t help but feel like this is the most loathsome one:

His “about” and “grand vision” sections lead me to believe that this gentleman is, in fact, a walking boner that has learned to type

Really? Wanting to devote my life to science, to create my own museum to help share the majesty and wonder of the natural world and help share the knowledge gained by science… makes me a “walking boner”? And don’t say it was because it was how they were written. You didn’t say that so I am left to conclude that you said it based on the substance of those pages. I’ll again refer you to here, because this person’s words of wisdom had an especially potent impact. I’m a “walking boner” because I want to found a museum to serve science and the public. And I’m the despicable one?

Those were the words of the people I dubbed fanboys. I got a couple other responses. They just defended them like they did nothing wrong. The first one had an impact at the time but just became more noise.

I’m not going to lie, I couldn’t make it through that third review

Yet another person who didn’t read the whole thing. Is there any point in going on?

as it was written in a far meaner tone then anything I’ve seen the “fanboys” write

Oh, so that makes it ok? As long as the other guy is worse, the original offenders are off the hook. You know, this is the guy who once told me he left paleontology because he couldn’t stand the toxic attitudes. And yet here he is defending those same toxic attitudes. So why did I ever take him seriously?

You were being very mean about other people not agreeing with you

You think all that was about them not agreeing with me? I couldn’t care less whether or not someone agrees with me on a movie. Their opinion wasn’t the problem. Their behavior was. They were very mean towards people who didn’t agree with them but that’s ok in your eyes because they agree with you (see I can make accusations too). If they don’t want to be called fanboys then they shouldn’t act like fanboys. It’s as simple as that.

calling the kettle black never resolved anything

Tell that to them. They called people fanboys while acting like fanboys. Just because they are doing it in the name of science does not make them immune to criticism.

but perhaps keep in mind arguing that trained dedicated experts are nothing but fanboys, and that factual reality isn’t the greatest thing ever to someone who has dedicated their life to studying it is incredibly rude.

Again, it doesn’t matter how trained and dedicated they are. If they act like fanboys, I’m going to call them fanboys. I have dedicated my life to paleontology and spent most of that life being teased and picked on for it. I wish to study it as long as I live. So by your logic I can act like a miserable asshole as long as I do it in the name of science. Dedication to science renders me immune to criticism. That’s the theme you’re insinuating by defending these people.

I can perhaps understand why he would lose his patience when someone is telling him his opinion based on literally years of incredibly hard work isn’t as good as their amateur actual fanboy view point.

In most cases, those years of incredibly hard work would mean something. But when it comes to movies, they mean jack squat. Movies are subjective. Everyone has their own opinion. There are no experts because everything is subjective. Even the opinions of critics aren’t any better than everyone else’s. And how many times do I have to repeat myself: if they don’t want to be called fanboys, then they shouldn’t act like it. And apparently my years of hard work mean nothing. Only theirs do.

I will also be upfront and say I hated this film for its lack of anything resembling real science (as the genetics presented were beyond laughable).

The genetics of the first movie are laughable, but it gets a free pass.

Now these are the words of someone I actually know. I looked up to him for a time and his writings are what inspired me to write my own blog. This is going to be painful and uncomfortable. I will try to keep to the main points.

I think the people on the Facebook post do not know you and probably have not corresponded with you, so they may not know your passion for paleo.

So that makes what they did ok? I was calling them out on their apparent behavior. I said I was venting there and I said I did go overboard here.

In the title itself, you refer to people as fanboys/girls, and you make it clear in your text that the people you are talking about are the scientists that have problems with the scientific issues in JW.

Having problems is fine. Name calling, condescension, gang mentality, and other odious character traits are not. If most people simply said “I don’t like it because it isn’t very accurate to science” I wouldn’t have gone on at length. That is a simple statement of opinion. But these people didn’t do that. They got worked into a frenzy of hate, spitting on anyone who didn’t agree with them. The opinion isn’t the problem. How they expressed it was.

In every definition I’ve ever heard, “fanboy” is used to mean someone who picks a side based on preference and not evidence; that implication is deeply insulting to a scientist.

But that is what they did. Their thought process was highjacked and fueled by raw emotion. They didn’t want to discuss anything. They dismissed any counter arguments out of hand as “apologetics”, “fanboyism”, and even “nostalgia”. Thomas Holtz at least eased off when he learned there was at least an in-universe explanation. He changed his view based on new evidence. The people I talked about didn’t. They had made up their minds and nothing was going to change that. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t sound like a scientist to me. Once again, if these people didn’t want to be called fanboys then they shouldn’t have acted like ones.

So, you had already established name-calling and personal attacks on intelligence and integrity as the standard for discussion.

Really? The “you started it” card? Alright then. They were doing it before me. They were the ones who established it. It’s why I wrote my post.

But this was a disappointment to paleontologists because the original JP did attempt to make some effort to conform to the science of the day (if imperfectly at times)

Oh I get it. “It didn’t science right here but it scienced right here so all is right”. Science in a movie is great, but it shouldn’t be the driving goal. That is for documentaries.

And, sorry

Don’t tell me that. I have heard that word so many times it has almost lost all meaning. That’s because people more often use it to excuse themselves from any rebuttals rather than as a sincere apology

it uses the work of scientists to develop a movie idea, but then ignores or even corrupts that work.

I thought the work of scientists was to add to the knowledge base for the betterment of mankind. Not to dictate the workings of mindless entertainment. Frankly I’m much more worried about people like creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, and politicians ignoring and corrupting science. But these people rage about a movie. Something that has nowhere near the tangible impact on society. Sorry for having priorities.

If you liked the movie, great – but like it because you think it’s a good movie, not because you think it furthers paleontology or science in any way.

I do. I liked it because it was a fun movie. Everyone who liked it did because they thought it was fun. But the people you are defending think that makes us anti-science fanboys.

But remember, essentially in discussions like this you’re punching above your weight; many of these folks have a much greater range of exposure to paleo than you do.

I can accept that there are people smarter than me. I am all too willing to admit that I am not as smart as everyone else. What I cannot accept is that it gives people an excuse to be arrogant pricks. There is no justification for abusing people because you are “above” them. Letting people think they can use science to excuse abhorrent behavior is a very slippery slope. It’s why I stopped reading Pharyngula all those years ago. The people thought that because they are the science minded rational ones that they were above reproach.  When people would challenge them and call them out, they were viciously attacked as not being rational. Nothing would get through to them because they believed science and rational thinking made them right no matter what. It doesn’t matter how high above you they are. Nobody gets a free pass to behave deplorably. No one, no reason.

That doesn’t mean you have nothing to offer; quite the contrary!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I feel a “but” coming on.

But it means that there’s a lot you can learn from these folks as well (as can we all).

Like what? That it’s ok to be an asshole as long as the other guy is a bigger asshole? That you can act like an absolutely miserable human being as long as you do it for science? Because that seems to be the take home message here.

you drag in a certain amount of dino vs. mammal debate into your comments. Paleontologists joke about that sort of thing a lot, but it’s not as real a divide as you seem to think. Most paleos have a lot of respect for each other and their work, and many work on a variety of different things. As you know, I’ve published on whales, squirrels, protorosaurs, and stromatolites, among other things. Most of my collaborators have also published on other groups. My liking one group does not extend to a hatred of others. Where animosity typically will arise is over journal decisions (the in-joke is that if you want to have a paleo paper in “Nature” you better have a feathered dinosaur), but that is NOT a reflection on the scientists that did the work.

Usually they are the ones dragging the vs crap into this. Anytime someone tries to celebrate prehistoric life other than dinosaurs, you always have someone coming along claiming they will never beat dinosaurs. It doesn’t matter if they are joking. You never know who might read it and take it seriously. Like this, from one of the people you are defending:

It isn’t even a hybrid and also not an oviraptorosaur. Didn’t he notice the teeth? And he’s calling himself a palaeontologist? Oh, my! It’s a scansoriopterygid.

Aside from the fact that I was joking (as should have been evident by my claim he combined a dinosaur with an Austrian body builder), he thinks my knowledge of paleontology is measured by my knowledge of dinosaurs. According to him, the only way someone can be called a paleontologist if they know the anatomical details of every type of dinosaur. I’m not a paleontologist because I couldn’t detect the subtle anatomical clues in his made up animal to guess what dinosaur inspired it (and the group he chose is pretty obscure. I hadn’t heard of scansoriopterygids until a year and a half ago). You say people are never serious and yet here we have a guy pretty serious that you’re not a paleontologist if you aren’t an expert on dinosaurs. These people think I’m the one spreading disinformation? Besides, check out this tidbit that occurred when someone on Facebook made the post “mammals rule!”:

But only for the last 65 million years

What the hell does that mean? Not sure, I left this light hearted response:

“What am I, chopped liver?”- Rapenomammus robustus

And this is what he had to say:

No, but it would have been a small meal for the things that did rule.

Wow. Now don’t tell me he simply didn’t understand what was meant by “rule”. The context made it perfectly clear what was meant and you would have to have some of the worst reading comprehension skills on earth to not know. Someone was simply expressing their love of mammals. But this guy clearly felt he needed to remind those lousy hairballs what their place is. Mammals can only “rule” after the dinosaurs. Still think their jokes are no big deal?

And I might be able to laugh at these flaccid attempts at humor if the whole of society didn’t share the sentiment. It’s bad enough that this attitude infests the public conscience. Joking about it does nothing to assuage it. And excuses like this aren’t helping either:

Some context: It’s someone who notes the overwhelming presence of dinosaurs in paleontology-inspired media items to the detriment of other fossil vertebrates and sets his sights on the dinosaurs themselves instead of the socio-economical factors that make market-oriented decisions a necessity for museums and other purveyors of such material.

How did I “set my sights on the dinosaurs themselves”? And why am I still asking for specifics from these people? Besides, that is straight up bullshit. They are not forced do anything. They don’t do anything out of necessity. People will like anything if it is done right. Fantasy isn’t required to use elves and dwarves out of necessity. They use them because they are easy to make. As a result we won’t get anything creative or original because the “purveyors of such material” think people should be pandered to. Here comes the Nostalgia Critic quote again:

Did it ever occur to you that by giving people more of the same they will never know what is different? And so will in turn just ask for more of the same?

You rag on Jurassic World for pandering to people’s outdated ideas of dinosaurs and then excuse that pandering when I point it out. Putting feathers on the dinosaurs could be interesting and different, but only if done right. Those same marketing decisions you defend will ensure that feathered dinosaurs in popular media will be a very slow process because it’s not a popular image. But according to you, those market-oriented decisions are a necessity so there is no point in griping about them. Give me a break. But this perhaps enrages me the most:

….that make market-oriented decisions a necessity for museums and other purveyors of such material.

Museums aren’t forced into marketing decisions. They are just pandering to people’s concepts of prehistory. And they are still struggling. Museums are the libraries of nature. They are supposed to represent the whole of the natural world, not just the parts we think are cool. They are supposed to challenge peoples biases, not cater to them. By only showcasing what the public wants. they are turning their backs on their mission to interpret the natural world. Dinosaurs make up only a part of prehistory and yet thanks in part to museum’s overemphasis on them people think that’s all there is. Besides, if an exhibit is good, they won’t care what it’s about. Fossil Mysteries at the San Diego Natural History Museum has only one section about dinosaurs. And yet the rest of the exhibit is always just as full of interested people. That is because the rest of the exhibit was put together in a vibrant, engaging manner. The Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits gets tens of thousands of visitors every year. Not only does it not have any dinosaurs, but its exhibits have hardly changed since the 1970s!

But because museums want to go with the “modern” look with its bland and boring design, sterile environments, and fixation on complete skeletons, they force themselves into focusing on the bigger and badder dinosaurs. They are the only ones forcing themselves to go down that path. One of the examples I used in my original post was the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Their Cenozoic hall is uninspired and non-engaging. The dinosaur hall on the other hand is grand, vibrant, and immersive. It was new in every way whereas the Cenozoic hall features most of the old mounts. Hell, save for 3 specimens the mounts are in the exact same positions as they were before the renovation!

And, they did themselves no favors by focusing so much on Rancho La Brea and modern animals. The tar pits have their own museum just a few miles away. I get you wanted to demonstrate that the age of mammals continues today, but devoting so much precious space (in what was a small cramped hall to begin with) only reduced how much room you can give to fossils, which are supposed to be the focus of the hall. The museum has three large halls featuring stuffed mammals. People can go see them there.

If you look around the dinosaur hall, you’ll notice that most of the specimens have been found in the last 15 or so years, and most are from the Jurassic (Morrison Formation) of Utah and the late Cretaceous (Hell Creek Formation) of Montana. That’s because many of these specimens were collected when Luis Chiappe took over  (at least to my understanding). The Cenozoic collection is much stronger and vastly more diverse. From just what I know it contains good to fantastic collections from: Eocene and Oligocene of the Sespe formation (California Central Coast); Eocene and Oligocene White River Group (South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado); Miocene Nebraska; Miocene Caliente Formation (California Central Coast); middle Miocene marine vertebrates from Sharktooth Hill, central California; The biggest collection from the late Miocene Red Rock Canyon locality, Central California; Miocene and Pliocene marine vertebrates from the California Central Coast; Miocene and Pliocene marine vertebrates from California and Baja California; Pleistocene tar pit localities of Carpenteria (California Central Coast), McKittrick and Maricopa (Kern County); Pleistocene of the Western U.S. including the California Central Coast. They could have created a diverse and magnificent Cenozoic hall that could be found nowhere else on earth. But, dinosaurs had to be given top priority (at least that what it feels like). Money may be an issue, but clearly museums have the collections to bring lost worlds back to life beyond the Mesozoic. They aren’t forced to do dinosaurs by any stretch of the imagination.

Now that post was a doozy. That was a year’s worth of pent up frustration and anger pouring out. Now I don’t know how many of you read the whole thing or just skipped to this part. You may be wondering why I am so impassioned and devoted so much time and writing to this issue. Well, you see, it isn’t just about taking on some loud mouthed snobs. You see, it’s because my last suicide attempt, which occurred a year ago, was due in good part because of them. They may think they were doing some good by abusing someone they accused of being a fanboy, that their words would have no harmful consequences. They did. Their insistence that I was a moron corrupting the thing that I was most passionate about, that I have nothing to offer the world, and that even wanting to start my own museum made me a horrible person… well that’s the kind of thing my depression thrives on. Their malignant bile festered in my mind, making me doubt who I was and where I was going in life. Their words only dumped gas on issues that I have been struggling with for most of my life. And so, partly because of these people, I crawled into a storm drain and took a knife to my wrists. I didn’t get very deep before I was found. And every day I look down at the scars, sometimes hoping I did go deeper. And every time I do I hear their venom echoing in my head, egging on the darkness. But please, by all means, keep telling me how I’m the villain here.

But in all this, I forgot about one of the most defining traits of fanboys: they are a minority. Fanboys are very loud which gives them more weight than they actually have. They aren’t as strong as they would have you believe. And they aren’t as numerous as their antics suggest. And that’s what has happened here. Going to conferences and museums has taught me that these people don’t represent paleontology as a whole. People like Andrew Farke, Eric Scott, Gabe Santos, Meredith Rivin, Crystal Cortez, Lyndon Murray, Jim Kirkland, and many others have taught me that these people are just an obnoxious little clique in the corner of a dedicated and professional community. One I can’t wait to get back to at the next SVP meeting in October. (To the people I pissed off with my words: I’ll be at SVP in Salt Lake City. If you want to have a civil conversation about paleontology, you’re welcome to do that. But if you insist on being abusive and nasty… well you can do that too, just don’t expect to leave with all your teeth)

TL;DR: while I may have gone about it in a less than graceful fashion I stand by what I said. There is nothing wrong in wishing for more accuracy in the popular media. However, there is something wrong in using that wish to act in an abhorrent, condescending, hateful, and mean spirited manner. Science is a vital tool in society and a gateway to the wonders of existence, not an excuse to behave like a rabid asshole. Intent is always crucial but could be rendered meaningless if not conveyed properly. It doesn’t matter how noble your cause or intentions. If you communicate those aims poorly no one will care about them. That goes for all of us.

Till next time!

I don’t think phylogeny doesn’t work. I never said that. What I said was that it has limits. Limits you people seem all too happy to ignore in your quest to put feathers on everything.

Discussions about the possibility of feathers (on animals where no hard evidence currently exists for them) don’t feel like discussions. It feels more like someone rattling off talking points designed to shut down any criticism:

Its early ancestor had them so everything after would have had them as well

There is no evidence extinct mammal x had fur

It’s surrounded by species with them

And my personal favorite:

Feathers and scales aren’t mutually exclusive

Really? Then why do most feathered reconstructions always have them fully feathered? Whenever even the slightest trace of feathers turn up, people are always trying to coat it completely in feather.

We are just saying that feathers are no less wrong than scales

But then why do some people treat feathers as the default? Furthermore, why do certain people flip their shit when certain dinosaurs are depicted without feathers? Namely the ones where hard evidence is lacking.

It’s the same mechanism we use to say Megatherium had fur

Oh silly me. Here I thought extinct mammals were depicted with hair because modern evidence shows it’s pretty universal among them. In fact I have heard it, to this day, used as one of the defining traits of the group. Whereas feathers have only been found in certain families of dinosaurs.

Phylogeny is evidence

Yes, yes it is. But it is not bullet proof. It is not 100% certain. But people seem to think it is. It is a tool used to help fill gaps in our knowledge. What it is not is a magic wand that allows you to restore extinct animals however you want and call it science. There are more factors than just relationships that dictate how an animal looks. It is also shaped by climate, habitat, foraging/hunting strategies, and the demands of reproduction. When these are taken into consideration (and not simply the desire to see the animal in feathers), the reconstruction becomes much easier to stomach. Like this:

See, this is a reconstruction with feathers I can get behind. It’s usually reasoned that T. rex wasn’t covered with feathers because it didn’t need the insulation. But who is to say it couldn’t have had a mane? Modern animals like lions use mane and mane-like structures for mating and social interaction. That was a pressing need for T .rex just like any other animal. The mane could serve an actual function instead of someone’s opinion that a fully feathered T. rex is “awesome”.

Here is another example:

Now I do have complicated thoughts on this one, but it is far easier to understand than a lot of the feather fetishists work. Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum is thought to have lived in an environment where latitude and long periods of darkness created a cold climate. Now so far no direct evidence has been found for feathers in ceratopsians. But it is getting harder to explain how an animal with no insulation could have survived in temperatures hovering around zero. Feathers are the best we can guess. Maybe it had something else we haven’t discovered yet. Point is I can get behind this a lot easier because they are putting actual consideration into why it may or may not have looked that way. Not simple kneejerk decisions based on shallow parroting of basic facts. Case in point:

Tyrannosaurus and Torosaurus have been found nowhere near an environment that could have had even the tiniest bit of snow. This guy did it just to be contrarian (and some half baked belief that he can predict what future discoveries will say about dinosaur reconstruction). It is not “reasonable speculation” like he claims. The Pachyrhinosaurus is reasonable speculation. Completely altering an ancient ecosystem in the face of decades of scientific study to make a fairly weak point not so much.

Finally, you have the ancestors argument. Psittacosaurus has been found with quills. Tianyulong had quills and feathers. Kulindodromeus, a basal ornithiscian (a member of the same group that includes thyreophorans, ornithopods, and ceratopids) was found with feathers. As such, people have been reconstructing everything tenuously related to them with feathers and quills. Their rationale? “It’s ancestor ahd them therefore everything after it had them too.” Is that how phylogeny works? Is evolution really that black and white? I don’t know. It sounds like the kind of broad sweeping generalization science usually frowns upon. Shouldn’t it factor in that only one example of early relatives (ceratopsians, hypsolophodonts, basal ornithopods) have been found? Or that the authors of the Kulindodromeus paper said its integument could have evolved independently? Or does none of it matter because you need to justify your quest to put feathers on everything?

I am not against feathers on dinosaurs. I just have trouble with some of your reasons for doing so. Not because I’m anti-science or a “biased scaly monster lover”. Not because of nostalgia. I am a man of science but that doesn’t mean I can simply be swayed by uttering the word. I need to have sound reasoning beyond the barest of scientific evidence. Is it so much to ask you actually think about why a dinosaur may or may not have had feathers? Instead of “because it’s cool” and then trying to justify it? I don’t think so. Long story short: I don’t have a problem with phylogeny. Just with those who use fling it around with reckless abandon.

Hey there every peoples!

Its been a long time since I last posted here. That’s because I was out living the dream. I spent over a month and a half out in Utah with the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. That could be a lengthy post in and of itself. But I can’t really share pictures or too many details about what we found. Suffice to say it was a very productive experience where I got to live my passion, learn a lot, and work with some great people.

Afterwards, I went on up to Denver so I could finally see the museum. I had known of it for a long time but I never visited it, as I never made it that far east (save for SVP last year). So I wasn’t going to miss this opportunity. On a nice day in November, I visited the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and it’s vast paleontology exhibit, for the first time. And I was not disappointed (for the most part).

The wildlife dioramas were spectacular. Not only were they well done, but their subject matter went far beyond the standard format for museums. Most major museums feature halls of North American and African wildlife. So did the Denver Museum. And that’s where the similarity ends. So many staples of wildlife halls, like cougars, deer, and bison, were instead featured in a hall called Edge of the Wild. This hall showed the animals in scenes from Colorado, putting a local spin on this museum mainstay. It also used this opportunity to discuss issues concerning how wildlife is coping with an ever growing human population. But even this cannot showcase Colorado’s diverse landscape. So a separate hall, called Explore Colorado, takes visitors on a tour of the state’s ecosystems from marshes and desert to alpine tundra.

Pronghorn running through Pawnee National Grassland in Edge of the Wild

Bighorn Sheep set against the Mount of the Holy Cross in Edge of the Wild

Summer in a riparian woodland along the South Platte River, Explore Colorado

Fall and Winter in the desert at Mesa Verde National Park, Explore Colorado

Summer up in alpine tundra in Loveland Pass, Explore Colorado

One hall was devoted to bears and sea mammals (pinnipeds in this case). Normally these would be lumped in with the North American mammals hall. But giving them a separate space helps break up the monotony of having to explore just one big hall. Birds got two halls of their own. Most bird exhibits just exhibit stuffed specimens in a generic hall of birds. The Denver museum instead displays them in traditional dioramas, which does much to remind people that birds are just as much a part of their world as everything else. Birds of the Americas displayed scenes from parts of the New World never seen in museums. Same with Rare Birds, but with an even broader scope.

But the greatest parts, the ones which set this museum apart from all others that I know of, are the dioramas from South America, the Pacific, and Australia. These exotic locales are never seen in museums because they always focus on North America and Africa. These places have much unique and fascinating wildlife to offer spanning habitats found nowhere else on earth. I have seen most of these animals in zoos, but never have I seen them presented in anything resembling their natural habitat. In a world dominated by dioramas of the same two places, of the same two faunas, these wildlife dioramas were a welcome (and engrossing) breath of fresh air.

A pair of cassowaries wander through an Australian rainforest

Elephant seals haul out on an island in the South Pacific

A diorama of the world famous Galapagos Islands

Giant anteaters forage for food in South America

Wait a minute! Aren’t I supposed to be talking about the paleontology exhibit? What’s with this modern animal crap? We’re here to talk about fossils! And you would be right. Now if I’m that enamored with their modern wildlife displays, then the fossil hall must be through the roof!

Prehistoric Journey, as it is called, is really quite… meh. Seriously, it is rather par for the course with most major museum displays. We have a fixation on mounted skeletons just thrown on display with no attempt to create an immersive environment. The Paleozoic section was decent, as was the Cenozoic. The Mesozoic, however, was seriously lacking. Yeah, we actually have a museum where the mammal section is actually better than the dinosaur hall. Well only because there was more to it. In design they are pretty much the same.

The bland setting really brings out it’s grandeur!

The blank wall and boring railing makes it feel all the more alive!

The hall is stocked with the usual suspects: Jurassic Utah, Cetaceous Montana, Eocene Wyoming, Oligocene White River Group, and Miocene Nebraska. On its face there is nothing wrong with this but it reveals the real weakness of focusing so much on just skeletons. It forces the museum to display only what is most common, which means every museum displays the exact same animals. This leads to a lack of diversity between museums, leading to a “seen one, seen them all” feeling. And it leads to a lack of creativity in museum displays because you are trying to cram as many of those charismatic, crowd pleasing skeletons as possible.

.
It also means the full extent of the fossil’s story can’t be told. Whole skeletons are the most pleasing to look at, but they represent only a fraction of the fossil record. A single specimen could be much more important scientifically than the most pristine skeleton. The fixation on only what can be displayed as a whole skeleton betrays the true diversity of ancient life. This is nowhere more apparent than in the White River Group, which the Denver Museum falls into as well. The White River Group is actually sequential, spanning the latest Eocene through the late Oligocene. It is a story of change, with species coming and going as the climate and environment change. Yet for most of paleontology’s history these animals have just been lumped together in one “Oligocene” display. And always as just the next step in the evolution of the Cenozoic. Never are we told of the detailed picture of a critical point in earth’s history that these fossils reveal. Thus visitors have gotten a very skewed and narrow view of these very important fossil deposits. Denver Museum is behind the curve in this regard, if only because of how they are still all grouped together like they are.

The magnificent beasts of the White River Badlands, and their fascinating history, once again find themselves pigeonholed.

The whole of the Mesozoic fits into one large room with little distinction between the time periods. The Triassic is represented by a couple Coelophysis skeletons while the Cretaceous has an Edmontosaurus skeleton as well as a Triceratops skull and a few casts. The Jurassic fares the best with an Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, Diplodocus, eggs, and a cast of Gargoylosaurus. The marine Mesozoic has what I assume are casts of common animals from the Late Cretaceous of Kansas. Well I assume they were casts because the labels never said whether they were real fossil or not (like they did in the rest of the exhibit) and they were plaque mounts (which usually end up being casts these days. But they very well could be real. It’s an old museum and plaque mounts were the popular way to display fossils in the old days, especially stuff from marine shales).

The Edmontosaurus made famous by the healed bite marks of a T. rex on it’s tail

And the one diorama for the Mesozoic was at the beginning of the section. This is a little confusing seeing as it’s a depiction of the latest Cretaceous, so you would think it would be at the end. The Paleozoic and Cenozoic dioramas were much better placed and kept with the times. Perhaps the problem here arose because the dinosaur hall is so short and not as detailed as the others. I have ranted before how much I hate it when museums over emphasize dinosaurs with little thought to everything else. So you think I would be jumping with joy I finally found a museum where the opposite is true. Nope! Everything deserves equal attention. And that goes for dinosaurs too. As long as one doesn’t over shadow the others, then I’m fine.

However, the Paleozoic and Cenozoic weren’t without their flaws either. The Permian, with the most advanced life of the Paleozoic and the most catastrophic extinction in earth’s history, was barely there. Just a Dimetrodon going after an Eryops. Seriously, you couldn’t get some casts of the other multitude of critters running around at that time? And the Cambrian seemed strangely absent too. Even just a mural would have helped to portray hands down the weirdest animals to ever inhabit this planet (seriously, look at the Cambrian fauna and try to come up with something weirder. It’s like Mother Nature was on acid when she came up with it!)

In the Cenozoic, the Paleocene gets a token mention in the middle of the Eocene. Wouldn’t it have been better served before? Perhaps as a contrast with the Cretaceous, to better illustrate plant and animal life before and after the K/Pg extinction? And the Pleistocene… is just a mammoth skull. Ok, it used to be, before they set up a little display about Snowmass Village. Such wonderful specimens from throughout the section and it ends on a whimper. Tsk tsk.

I’m the Pleistocene!

Another problem I spotted was this rhino:

A half skeleton- half flesh reconstruction of Menoceras

It’s one of those half model/half skeleton jobs which are always an interesting display technique. Except there is one flaw: it’s up against a wall! You have a wonderfully sculpted rhino and you hide it? This type of display only works when the visitor can see both sides! I did manage to see a little bit of that beautiful reconstruction. From a balcony. And with a telephoto lens:

A half skeleton- half flesh reconstruction of Menoceras

There was also this Bison latifrons sculpture at the end of the exhibit:

A wonderfully made sculpture of Bison latifrons.

I have discussed before how one scientist made a pretty good case that Bison latifrons did not just look like a modern bison with longer horns. He argued based on the size and shape of the horns, and trends seen in other bison, that it didn’t have a ruff. And it was more robust in it’s body plan. This was published back in the 1980s and seemed to have gone unnoticed by everyone. Perhaps the museum could rectify this if they ever make a diorama based on Snowmass. Yeah they would probably put a mastodon in there (because it was the most common animal from the site), but it would be so cool if they did a B. latifrons. No one I know of has ever done a life size reconstruction of this animal, so it would be most unique. It would be even more unique if they eschewed the cookie-cutter approach everyone else uses and base it on the actual scientific observations. Anyway, this sculpture was made by an artist to commemorate the discovery of Snowmass so he couldn’t have known. This is just a personal gripe.

By far the greatest strength of the exhibit is the dioramas . Not just because they are detailed and well put together. But because they are based on certain places. These aren’t generic “life in this time” displays. They are reconstructions of specific locations that the museum has collections from. And each diorama told you how much time had passed since the last one (a nice little detail to help visitors keep track of time and see how much has changed). The Cretaceous diorama was particularly cool:

Life and death play out in a Cretaceous creekbed near Marmarth, North Dakota, at the end of the Cretaceous

I like this reconstruction in particular because it’s actually based on what the plant fossils tell us. It isn’t just another copy of a cypress swamp, which seems to be what everyone thinks the late Cretaceous looked like. I’d say the only weak link among them was the “Between Two Worlds” diorama (based on fossils from the Devonian site of Beartooth Butte, Wyoming):

Life finds itself “between two worlds” at Beartooth Butte, Wyoming, 390 mya

It just doesn’t feel as complete as the others. It’s like they were making it and halfway through got distracted and forgot about it. It is stuffed into a little cramped spaced and doesn’t feel as detailed as the others. It feels like models in a case which would be bad on its own. But it is clearly supposed to be a reconstruction of a past world. and when the case makes up the environment, it just doesn’t have the same effect as the other ones. Compare that to the Ordovician and Eocene dioramas:

Life in Racine, Wisconsin during the Ordovician period, 425 mya

Primitive primates traverse the canopy of a tropical rain forest at Lost Cabin, Wyoming, 50 mya

So like I said, Prehistoric Journey is pretty average. Like most large museum displays, it has impressive collections but doesn’t do anything to really pull the visitor in and remind them that these were once living animals. It’s one saving grace is the dioramas. But during my time with the Denver folks last fall, I learned there is potential for something much greater. I heard the curator wants to make Denver the place for paleontology in the West. Very ambitious. Just like me! I tried hard to impress upon him that I could help make that happen. I told him about my paleontology hotspots and found out they are already working in three of them: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, San Juan Basin, and Bighorn Basin. It’s like we’re on the same page or something. At one point he mentioned the museum has enough in their collections to redo Prehistoric Journey. But I say with all the stuff they are finding now, with the stuff I could be finding them… they would be able to possibly double it.

All in all, I’d still recommend checking this out. If you’re not a stickler like I am and just want to see lots of fossils, then you’ll enjoy Prehistoric Journey. The lack of immersion and environment is at least compensated for by the quality and quantity of material on display. And especially those kickass dioramas! But who knows. Maybe one day this exhibit could realize it’s true potential.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! It has truly been forever. Well it’s that I have been so busy with WAVP, a trip to Florida, field work in New Mexico, Live Oak, and the one or two gigs I have managed to land. Plus my proof reader is busy overseeing an overhaul to his collections space. But I have some things I want to write about. And what shall it be?

I know, we can talk about that hubub that came out a month ago about T. rex having scales! Except what is there to talk about? The feather people trotted out their same talking points and said the study doesn’t change anything. Huh. I thought it was pretty cool that we now have hard evidence of integument in advanced tyrannosaurs and these people treat it like evidence of nothing. Well at least there was one leveled headed and reasonable reaction. So what do we talk about now? Well I guess there is this concept art of the new fossil hall the Smithsonian is putting together. Sure let’s do that.

I absolutely love concept art. Not just for the obvious juxtaposition it provides in comparing the initial idea to the finished product. I love it because even thought it employs many different styles and tools concept art feels like a style all its own. The renderings for the new “national fossil hall” are wonderful examples. They feel especially bright and lively. But what do they reveal about the new hall? What can we expect? What is the goal behind the design?

The bulk of the information comes from the blog Extinct Monsters. According to them, the new fossil will be arranged chronologically be progress backwards: starting from the relatively recent past and traveling back in time to eventually end when life first emerged. Climate change will play a central role in the narrative (this exhibit is funded by the Koch Bros. Coincidence? Let’s hope so). Sounds legit. But greater consideration reveals some troubling choices. The first is the overall design themselves:

Concept art of the Mesozoic section

Concept art of the Paleogene and Neogene section

Concept art of the Quaternary section

The museum seems to be taking that apparently popular ultra modernist approach. I have talked at length before how much I don’t like this aesthetic. It just feels like an update to the cabinet of curiosities where a bland and sterile setting makes it appear like these are just specimens to be gawked at. There are a few flourishes, like the T. rex eating a triceratops and some real cheap looking fake plants. Dioramas aren’t the only way to create an immersive environment. Lighting, color, architecture, ambiance, sound, and photos/murals can all help to bring the space to life. It appears the exhibit will have some mini dioramas in some weirdly designed cases (seriously, one paleontologist I showed these renderings to asked “What are those, washing machines?”).

Furthermore, they seem to be going with the usual focus on whole skeletons. This is another trend I rather dislike. Sure they are impressive and draw the crowds, but they can hinder an exhibit if relied too heavily on. For starters, it limits space. More importantly, it sends the wrong message to the visitors. Complete skeletons are pretty rare in the fossil record. Most fossils consist of isolated elements and fragments. This reality is lost on the public because so many exhibits only display whole skeletons.

This approach also fails to properly convey the diversity (in terms of species, forms, and types of life) of past life as not everything is preserved as well as others. T. rex is known from whole skeletons, but Pachycephalosaurus is only known from a few skulls. A museum may have a huge and diverse collection that is crucial to scientific research but people will never know that if only the most picturesque of specimens are displayed. Some isolated or fragmentary fossils could be much more important than the beautiful complete skeleton. And using the full range of the fossil record allows you to much better tell whatever story you are trying to tell. Be it response to change, evolutionary trends, pathologies, extinctions, or whatever, you can create much more informative and comprehensive displays if you go beyond just mounted skeletons.

The most perplexing decision is how they are executing their plan. According to Extinct monsters:

In comparison to the old exhibit, the new version will be influenced by a less-is-more design philosophy. While there will not be quite as many individual specimens on display, those that are included will be more visible and will be explored in more detail. This combined with the significant number of new specimens being added means that many old mainstays had to be cut from the roster.

I have two problems with this. The first is the whole “less is more” idea. Most museums use these types of renovations to expand the displays, to bring more of the collections into the public view. Museum collections are not static. They are constantly being added to as new specimens are discovered. This usually allows them to really flesh out their displays and do things they weren’t able to do before. The Smithsonian seems to be going in the opposite direction. Now “less is more” can work but only if it’s done right. Otherwise it’s a step down and can leave many gaps in the narrative you are trying to tell.

The other problem is just how much is being removed and being brought back. I did a crude survey of how much was on display before the halls were closed and what will be on display in the new one. I did this using old photographs and memory as well as the Smithsonian’s online collections database (you can actually get the list of what they intend to put on display using the search term “deep time”). Now I only did this with the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic eras. Life for most of the Paleozoic was small, with even the most advance forms at the end being considerably smaller than a lot of the animals that came after. This means their displays can be expanded without taking up too much extra space. The numbers for the other two eras are interesting and even disappointing.

Best I can figure, the old Mesozoic hall featured 38 vertebrate specimens. Twelve of these appear to not be returning. Twenty six are set to return. Overall, the new Mesozoic section will have 124 specimens of vertebrates and plants (with invertebrates likely adding many more). That translates to at least 98 new specimens. It looks like the Mesozoic is getting a total overhaul, with something vastly improved over the old incarnation.

Contrast this with the Cenozoic. Near as I can determine, the old hall displayed 137 specimens of all types (vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant). The new one will only have 107. The Mesozoic gets increased while the Cenozoic gets downsized. But it’s worse than that. The majority of new specimens will be plants and invertebrates. Most of the vertebrates (45 of the total 107) will be specimens from the old hall with a significant number being taken off view. This is like the new Cenozoic hall at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Most of the skeletal mounts were just recycled from the old hall. This made the new hall feel like just an updated version of the old one. The dinosaur hall felt new because while we saw a lot of species from the old one, most of them were represented by new specimens. The same appears to be happening with the Smithsonian (as many of the Mesozoic mounts are new specimens that weren’t seen in the old hall).

When we look at the overall floor plan, this gutting of the Cenozoic reveals a problem:

Concept art of the main section of the new fossil hall

The Mesozoic seems to take up most of the large space while the Cenozoic gets only about a third. Now people will predictably argue that dinosaurs need more space because they are bigger. Yes they are, and this reveals another problem with focusing so heavily on complete skeletons. But consider they story they are trying to tell: life adapting to a changing climate. Each period of the Mesozoic gets a sizable section. The Cenozoic appears to be divided into two sections: One for the Paleogene and Neogene as well as one for the Quaternary (with consists mostly of the Pleistocene epoch). But what about climate in those periods.

Dinosaurs had it easy. With a few exceptions here and there, the Mesozoic was warm and humid for its entire history. The Cenozoic, on the other hand, was a very turbulent time in terms of climate change. There is a reason the periods of the Cenozoic are divided into epochs which are usually focused on on their own (as opposed to just the three overarching periods). That is because life changed so much during this time because climate changed so much. It went from: sub tropical swamps and rain forests to a period of intense heat and dryness (the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), back to sub tropical rain forests, to sub tropical hard wood forests, to warm deciduous forests, to open grasslands, and finally to ice ages.

The Quaternary section seems to be as big as the space occupied by the preceding periods of the Cenozoic. That is bad. The so much happened during that time. There is more change in the ecosystems during just the Miocene than in the whole of the Mesozoic. Are they really trying to cram 64 million years of climatic, environmental, and evolutionary change into that one space? Fail. Of course this problem could be avoided if you focused more on individual specimens instead of just skeletons. So many more specimens, able to tell the story much better and in more detail, can fit into the room taken up by just a few whole skeletons. This also clashes with the “less is more” approach. The diversity of forms seen in life in response to the constantly changing world of the Cenozoic is staggering. That diversity can’t be represented by just a few skeletons of the most commonly found animals. How can you claim to tell a complex story when you are unnecessarily abridging so much of it? Extinct Monsters, can you make any sense of this?

Cuts occur for a variety of reasons, including eliminating redundancy, preserving specimens that were not faring well in the open-air exhibit space, and making specimens that have been behind glass for decades available to a new generation of researchers.

The second is understandable. But that is what casts are for. And with laser scanning and 3d printing, you can do it with specimens too fragile to cast the traditional way.

The third one isn’t as big an issue as it might seem. Museums like San Bernardino County (before it was destroyed), San Diego, and Los Angeles have found ways to display specimens while still leaving them accessible to researchers. Many of them feature cases and support armature that are easy to remove. Access to research is a legitimate concern but not one that can’t be overcome. If a specimen can’t be on display because it can’t be accessed by scientists then that is just bad exhibit design on your part.

The first one is just ridiculous. Why? Because like the access issue it’s only a problem if you design your exhibit poorly. For example, the old hall featured skeletons of the horses: Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, and Equus simplicidens. The new hall will have: Parahippus and Equss occidentalis. Yeah that shows the classic and extraordinary evolution of the horse. In response to changing environments caused by shifting climates no less (you know, the whole point of your exhibit). Why such the extreme culling?

Probably because of the focus on complete skeletons. You don’t need skeletons of every major step in horse evolution to tell the story effectively. It can be done with just their skulls and feet. That’s what most museums do. In fact that’s what the old hall did:

Exhibit of horse evolution (and even some other stuff) displayed in the old halls. From the website’s virtual tour (before the old halls closed)

Horses are one of the penultimate examples of change in response to climate. Truncating it to just a couple examples is like trying to convey the transition from sea to land with just a fully aquatic fish and a fully terrestrial reptile or with just Tiktaalik and an early amphibian. Again, the whole issue of redundancy and space can be solved if you went with more individual specimens instead of skeletons.

A good example of how the Smithsonian is shortchanging prehistory and themselves is the axing of the three Hagerman horses:

A trio of Hagerman horses in the old fossil halls

Ok three of the same animal is excessive (unless it was part of a specific scene being reconstructed). But the horses come from the Hagerman Fossil beds. In the old hall, a small section was dedicated to this well known locality. It had the horses, the skeletons of two peccaries, a skull of a giant river otter, and a muskrat jaw. All of it now gone. I mean, the Hagerman fossil Beds aren’t that important. It’s only billed as one of the best Pliocene sites in the world. “No other fossil beds preserve such varied land and aquatic species from the time period called the Pliocene Epoch”, according to the park map. The Smithsonian has the principle collection from this unique locality. Only makes sense to not feature it. Especially in an exhibit about changing climate and life adapting to it.

Another concerns fossil marine mammals. The Smithsonian claims to have the largest collection of fossil marine mammals in the world. Marine life in the Cenozoic has as much of a diverse and fascinating history as that of land animals. A great deal of museums don’t have them because they are found mostly on the coasts. With such a huge collection, the Smithsonian can put together a display like no other. Except they won’t. Just a seal and a penguin are coming back. The Los Angeles Museum says it has the largest collection of fossil marine mammals outside the Smithsonian. At least they actually made use of that fact when they did redid their Cenozoic hall. It’s actually kind of funny. The museum with the smaller collection has the larger, more in depth display. Good job Smithsonian!

And then there is this explanation for why the Stegomastodon is leaving:

First, there are already two big elephants on display: the mammoth and the mastodon. Elephants take up a lot of space, and a third proboscidean offers diminishing returns when compared to the amount of floor space it requires.

Well then here is a novel idea: keep the Stegomastodon and lose the mastodon. Just about every museum has a skeleton of the American mastodon. Not many have a Stegomastodon, let alone a skeleton of one. If you had to go solely on museum displays, you would think elephant evolution consisted of Gomphotherium, mammoths, and mastodons. And two of those are from the same time and place! If you wanted to compare mammoth and mastodons, do what everyone else does: have a case with tusks, teeth, and maybe a limb bone from each. You don’t need two skeletons. And wouldn’t two large elephant skeletons occupying the same space right next to each other be redundant? At least the Stegomastodon would be separated by time. And it’s from Arizona, not the usual Nebraska or Alaska as most major museum elephants. Yeah you also said so it can be accessible to researchers but we already discussed that (besides, just make a cast of it. That’s what you are doing with the Thescelosaurus). Stegomastodon was one of the truly unique specimens in the old fossil hall. But why try to be unique when you can just do the same.*

*(Hell when Denver Museum of Nature and Science eventually redoes Prehistoric Journey, they’ll have one of the most unique displays in North America. A lot of this is due to the diversity of localities and their associated species inherent in Joe Sertich’s Laramidia Project. And if they ever unleash me on the Cenozoic, they’ll have displays that go far the beyond the standard Wyoming (even that will be vastly different given the all the work they are doing there) and Nebraska.)

Folks, it may sound like I am being unfair to the Smithsonian. And I am for a good reason: it’s the Smithsonian! It’s the national museum! It’s one of the biggest and most prestigious museums in the world! And this is what they come up with? If this was just about any other museum, I would be stoked. That is because for most museums this would be a serious step up. But for the Smithsonian, it is a serious step down. They are the only museum I know of to shrink their display instead of expanding it. Sure it will take up the same space, but there will be less on display than before. You know, the complete opposite of what any other museum would do with a renovation like this.  But hey, “less is more”. And the fact that they are recycling so much from the old hall just adds to the underwhelming feeling this “new” hall is projecting. They are the Smithsonian. They should be able to display things no one else can. And yet they somehow came up with a plan to create an exhibit that actually steps backwards instead of forwards. I was thinking I’d have to try and save my money so I could fly to DC and see the new hall when it opens. But given how uninspired it looks, I think I can take my time and first visit places with much better fossil halls, like the New Burke and the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (who will be renovating their Cenozoic display for SVP next year). It is just so disappointing to see a place as esteemed as the Smithsonian create something so lackluster. Of course this is all based on concept art. The new hall doesn’t open until 2019. A lot could change in that time. I hope it does. Because I know they can do far better. They say “less is more”. But often times less just ends up being less.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

I had meant to do this sooner. In fact I meant to do it in real time during the event but the wi-fi at my crappy hole-in-the-wall motel didn’t work! And then stuff just kept piling up around here. But I was able to chip away at it enough during the week that I finally got it up. Let’s hope the two follow ups aren’t so tardy.

Last week the Western Science Center in Hemet, California host a workshop focused on mastodons. Why? Well the Western Science Center houses the collections found during the construction of Diamond Valley Lake. So many mastodons were found that the locality was nicknamed “Valley of the Mastodons”. In fact that is the title of their new exhibit, which this workshop was a lead up to.

However this workshop wasn’t simply a publicity stunt. Scientists who study mastodons and other ancient elephants came from all over the place to collect data for their research. The Western Science Center’s collections are a great asset to paleontology but not many people know about them. The workshop allowed scientists to make use of this marvelous collection. And what further sets it apart is the science wasn’t strictly behind the scenes. A lot of the work was done in the exhibit gallery in full view of the public. This allowed regular people to see firsthand how science is done and ask the scientists themselves questions about paleontology.

The first day centered on this concept. A mastodon known as Little Stevie has been on display at the center since it opened over 10 years ago. During that time his fossils (save for the skull, which was kept in the collections) have remained under heavy panes of glass that people regularly walk on. So for the first time since he was put on display, Little Stevie’s case was opened so several of his bones could be examined.

The glass is lifted. Let the science commence!

The hall was certainly jumping with all kinds of activity!

Also gracing us with their presence were my friends Kathleen Springer and Eric Scott, who took on the herculean task of excavating Diamond Valley. And designed the Western Science Center. Really everything was possible because of them.

It was but an isolated tooth. But Kathleen didn’t care. She loved it like it was her own child.

Scanning fossils was a big part of the workshop. This way we can still have a way to look at the specimen even though it is back behind glass. Bernard Means of the Virtual Curation Laboratory (@ Virgina Commonwealth University) seemed to use the conventional approach.

Dr. Bernard Means was busy laser scanning mastodon and bison bones.

Casts weren’t the only goodies Bernard was printing out. Little surfing mastodons, little winged mastodons, and little ground sloths. Screw Pokemon, we gotta catch all of these!

Chris Widga of the East Tennessee Museum of Natural History had a different method in mind: a seizure gun! No joke, a little gun that shot out bright rapid bursts of light. Apparently each flash is a picture. a computer program measures the distance the light had to travel to create a 3d map of the object being scanned. Really cool stuff (unless your epileptic, maybe)

Chris Widga scanning one of Little Stevie’s tusks.

The co-organizer of the workshop, Kathylan Smith, got in on the action as well:

Kathylan Smith taking measurements of Little Stevie’s femur and tusk

Another big part of the research going down was molding. A couple scientists were using a compound to make molds of certain on teeth and tusks. These will then be used to make casts that can be examined under a microscope. This reveals patterns of microwear, which can offer clues to diet and how a mastodon was using its tusks. Before the compound could be applied, they needed to use acetone to remove the protective glue on the fossil to access the original surface:

Jeremy Green and Brett Dooly prepping spots on one of Little Stevie’s tusks.

Molding compound setting on one of Little Stevie’s tusks.

Of course nothing having to do with the Western Science Center is complete without Max. Max is the name given to one of the specimens found and displayed. At 9% Max is far less complete than Little Stevie. But what we do have reveals Max to have been a big mastodon. at an estimated 10 feet at the shoulder he is the largest mastodon in the western U.S. (and far larger than many of the mastodons from California). He has become the mascot (or should I say “maxcot”?! I’ll slap myself upside the head) for the museum and is pretty much its face where the museum is promoted. How does a mastodon with a fragile fossil skull the size of a bumper car make public appearances? With a fluffy little avatar of course:

Max the Mastodon!

Ball of awesome travels all over to spread the good word of the Western Science Center. He has internal leg support, a bendable trunk, and fits easily into most shoulder bags:

How does one explain this to TSA?

He can even get caught in the occasional existential quandary:

Max ponders a cast of his own tooth.

And like the paleontologists who study him, Max likes to kick back at the end of the day and get hammered:

For a little guy Max sure can hold his booze!

And he is willing to do horrible selfies if you ask nicely:

Funny thing is: this is humiliating for him!

But all good things must come to an end. After a busy and productive day, the remains of Little Stevie had to go back into the case:

Moving a mastodon is not easy. Here it takes a curator, a canuk, and a science writer (Andrew McDonald, Grant Zazula, and Brian Switek) to pass the specimen to Brett.

Brett Dooley carefully lays the bones back into position.

The first day was a hit. It was great to watch the scientists… sciencing… and getting an up close look at a magnificent specimen without being separated by glass. But this was just the beginning. The next day brought the workshop into full swing with a mini symposium.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Welcome to day 2 of the Valley of the Mastodons at the Western Science Center. Lets check out the talks! (bear with me on the pictures. It was very dark and people moved a lot)

Kathleen Springer got us started with the geology of Diamond Valley. Some may find talk about rocks boring. But Kathleen brought a real energy to her talk that could make a lecture on the drying mechanics of paint sound exciting. While mastodons are getting all the press, it is important to know the geology of the sediments they were dug out of. A great start to the talks.

Kathleen Springer

Following up was the other celebrity (beside Max) of Diamond Valley: Eric Scott. Eric gave a talk not on mastodons but the other animals found alongside them. He then compared Diamond to other regional faunas (namely Rancho Le Brea, California, and Tule Springs, Nevada). Yeah i came for prehistoric elephants, but as someone interested in ecology I was most interested in exploring the different faunal compositions.

Eric Scott

Our esteemed and wonderful host Alton Dooley gave a talk on weird size of California mastodons. I plan on doing a post on this topic as it is something i have been ruminating on for years. Maybe I’ll write it after i get back from Canada.

Alton Dooley

Kathlyn Smith, our other esteemed and wonderful host, compared tusk morphology between east coast and west mastodons. Curiously, mastodons on the west coast don’t have lower tusks. Why this is has yet to be determined.

Kathlyn Smith

Brian Engh walked us through the process of creating the stunning mural seen in the Valley of the Mastodons exhibit.

Brian Engh

After a brief intermission, Michael Pasenko gave a talk comparing the scaphoid (one of the bones in the wrist) across extinct elephants.

Michael Pasenko

Stanley Tucci- I mean Grant Zazula, enlighened us on the mastodons of the far north. Turns out they are very rare up in the Yukona and Alaska. He also discussed a newley discovered mastodon from Alaska that is by far the most complete in the north. Also it has lower tusks like its contemporaries on the east coast.

Grant Zazula

Chris Widga gave an interesting talk about the new mastodont from the Gray Fossil Site (Tennessee). First it is a mastodont, not a gomphothere. Mastodonts are much rarer than gomphotheres in the fossil record which makes this find very important. And it isn’t just a tooth, jaw, or a few bones. They have the whole skull, lower jaw, tusks, neck, and forelimbs. And there are indications the rest may be there as well. Even if it isn’t, it’s already by far the most complete mastodont in North America. And it was big too. Current size estimates have it at 13 feet at the shoulder! Geez, i might have to move to Tennessee and volunteer at the Gray Fossil Site just so i can see this thing prep out!

Chris Widga

Gregory James Smith compared tooth microwear of extinct elephants, specifically those that were contemporary. Finding out their diets could help answer how they managed to coexist. (he mentioned some pygmy mammoths from the Channel Islands. Central Coast Fossils for the win!)

Gregory James Smith

Jeremy Green gave an impassioned talk on comparing dental microwear on mastodons from the northern and southern regions of the eastern US.

Jeremy Green

Wrapping things up was Bernard Means, who talked about his projects scanning and 3d printing fossils and archaeological artifacts. Apparently he scanned and digitized the world’s oldest ham. I have enough fossil casts. I want a 3d print out of that ham!

Bernard Means

After the talks all the science people got back to doing science stuff. Except Eric. The poor guy had to do time sheets:

I was able to tailgate one of the cool, important people back to the club house!

Of course knowing several of the scientists (including the one hosting the conference) meant i got to see loads of science in action:

Kathleen taking a sample from a skull. Was it burned? Is it just a mineral deposit? That’s what she seeks to answer.

Kathleen, Chris, and Jeremy chatting it up.

Seizure Gun, do your thing!

Kathlyn looks like she’s about to drink that tooth like it’s the Holy Grail

Greg and Grant examining mastodon teeth

Brian poses mightily with his mural

Brian whips up a sketch of a wee baby mastodon

I had met Brian at WAVP in Arizona. I had told him about the book i’m trying to get going and that maybe he could do the Mesozoic section. I dunno, that mastodon mural is real kick ass. I might have to ask him if he’d be willing to do the whole thing if i can’t get Mauricio Anton.

Jeremy and Greg prepping some teeth for molding

Greg applying Blue Man Group’s pudding to a mastodon tooth

Tune in to the final entry for the epic conclusion to The Valley of the Mastodons!

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

We have arrived to the thrid and final day of the Valley of the Mastodons workshop at the Western Science Center. What does it have in store? Read on!

The day started off when the glass case was removed from Max’s skull. A whole post could be done just on this guy, despite being only 9% complete. But being the best skull in the fauna meant he was a prime target for the visiting researchers. It will be interesting to see what secrets can be gleaned from this incredible specimen.

Jeremy Green getting Max’s tusk ready for molding

Greg Smith applying the molding agent to Max’s teeth

Max even got the seizure gun treatment:

With the glass off, Eric Scott spotted a potential pathology on Max’s upper right jaw. Mas has 2 injuries already so it’s not outside the realm of possibilities.

Right upper jaw of Max

After that all the important science people went to lunch at some winery. The glass was left off Max as the molding on his tusks was still setting. So i hung around and helped the volunteers make sure no one went near it. But once everyone got back things got hopping again. One thing i did was give the Center a present:

My old ebay collection

This is a collection of Paleozoic plants and invertebrates i had gotten off ebay many years ago. I  have long railed against the commercial sale of fossils so it should go without saying that this is something I’m not proud of. It was a time when i was desperately working towards an unattainable goal. I justified it by constantly reminding myself it was for the greater good. Well the reason i got them died a long time ago. So these fossils would just be sitting in my shed taking up space. Then i remembered Alton said at WAVP that the Center was starting to feel the need to diversify it’s collections.* So i asked him if they would like them. They are obviously useless for research since they have no field data. But they could still be used for education, outreach, and maybe even display if they need to. Alton said they’d love to have them. So I donated them to the Center. At least now they are somewhere where they can do some good. Alton already featured one of them for Fossil Friday on his blog.

Then it was back into the collections for science. In a break from workshop protocol, Eric focused his efforts on bison:

Eric showing Chris and Brian Engh a huge bison vertebra. The sheer size suggests it’s from the extinct giant bison, Bison latifrons.

Eric measures a horn core of the extinct giant bison, Bison latifrons

As we wrapped up in the collections, museum members and guests started arriving for the exhibit reception. And this party was hopping:

Eric peers into the depths of my soul

Alton gave a stirring speech before letting us all in

This is the single largest display of mastodons in history. Everything from isolated bones and teeth to partial skeletons are displayed. It quite impressive:

These are the fossils that started it all. These 7 fragments of mastodon bones were the first fossils found during the Diamond Valley project. No one would have guessed based on these unassuming chunks of bone that they’d uncover one of the biggest ice age sites in North America

Skull and tusks

Articulated vertebrae with some ribs (another jacket contained a tusk and more ribs from the same individual)

The partial skull, with some ribs and vertebrae of Little Stevie. Is that a pathology (maybe a healed break) on the rib across the top? (Side story: Alton commented on the odd tooth wear and said “Little Stevie was stupid”. I then suddenly got an image in my head of a googly-eyed mastodon running around yelling “STEVIE!” Brian, get on that!)

A display of tusks

A skull dubbed “The Old Man”

Mandible (whole lower jaw) backed by an associated (I think) upper jaw and tusk

Teeth from the youngest mastodon found in Diamond Valley

An innovative touch was white boards filled out by the visiting scientists about the research they were doing on the specimens. While those will accompany the exhibit for it’s run, the guests at the reception got to hear it straight from the scientists mouths:

Ashley Leger of Cogstone explaining mastodons to guests

The exhibit seemed to be going over great:

Grant Zazula trying out an interactive display

The event even featured a performance by the Center’s in-house barbershop quartet:

Don’t ask how i came up with it. Just another idea that spontaneously popped into my head due to my demented imagination…

This was quite the experience. It was something else to observe the scientists doing their research and talk to them. Of course, the demon, as usual, tried to ruin it. In the company of the professionals can be very intimidating, making me feel like a useless no body. Hell even Brian Engh, showing everyone his incredible mural. Silly ways to feel, for sure, but that’s what the demon does. It can twist the best of situations against you no matter how much you try to fight. But this type of thing (scientific research and explaining it to people) are what everyone tells me i should be doing. Whatever, these people work hard to do actual science. Maybe someday I’ll be important and relevant enough to give a talk or walk people through an exhibit. As opposed to being the king of amateur hour.

Minor efforts of my affliction aside, I am most grateful to Alton Dooley for organizing this event and inviting me to it. Big thanks to all the scientists and artists for putting up with me. Props to the Center staff for all their hard work getting the exhibit ready on time. And a thank you needs to go Victor De La Cruz, the maintenance technician, for opening up the cases (no easy feat). This was a unique experience and can’t wait for the next one: Valley of the Pocket Gophers!

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

It’s been far too long, hasn’t it? Well, between fieldwork, job hunting, and a trip to Canada, I just haven’t had time for the ol’ cyber rag. And I actually did get a job and have been working full time for the last couple months. Plus, I applied for a collections internship at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. So much on my plate! But people keep following my blog so I have returned to ramble some more.

Why be interested in the Cenozoic? Dinosaurs rule everything prehistoric. Movies, books, television, video games, and even museums. Interest and love in dinosaurs is at an all time peak. They are the biggest, scariest, and strangest things to have ever lived. There is nothing, it seems, that they can’t do. Look at the words of this recent article:

It was this environmental wound that allowed mammals to thrive in new ways, even setting the stage for our own ancestors. But if dinosaurs had continued to hold sway in the terrestrial realm, we never would have evolved. Our early primate forebears would have been shunted along different evolutionary routes we can only guess at.

 

There’s no reason to think that dinosaurs would have vanished and ceded the world to mammals if the extinction had been canceled. There were over 80million years between the time of Brontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, but it’s only been 66million years since the last of the non-avian dinosaurs disappeared. We could fit the entire age of mammals between those two famous dinosaurs with room to spare.

 

Non-avian dinosaurs had survived sweeping changes to climate, shifting continents, and the ticking turnover of species as evolution and extinction work simultaneously. Of course they would have survived to what we know as the present day.

 

A supersmart dinosaur wouldn’t resemble anything humanoid. If dinosaurs with a mental toolkit similar to ours ever evolved, they’d probably look little different from a crow.

 

Mass extinction or not, we’re still very much in the age of dinosaurs.

So if dinosaurs are so incredible, why study anything else? Well, there are many reasons. We’ll deal with that article later. Now, I want to tell you why I am (and why you should be) interested in the Cenozoic.

First off, it provides us with, by far, our strongest examples of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is when two animals separated by time and space develop similar traits in response to similar environments.  Dinosaurs followed similar body plans to one another, so similar that they never converged on one another. Stegosaurs never converged on sauropods. Tyrannosaurs never converged on carcharodontosaurs. Hadrosaurines never converged on Lambeosaurines. Almost every major family of of dinosaur lived on every continent. There was never any level of isolation that could separate groups of dinosaurs so much they had to imitate something else .

The dynamic world of the Cenozoic, with it’s complex geology, climate, and continental movement meant that animals could be cut off from each other. This led them down separate paths but often similar ones as well. For example, there were no giraffes in North America. The role of a long legged, long necked browser was vacant. So camels, like Aepycamelus and Megatylopus, evolved to fill the spot (hence why they are often referred to as “giraffe camels”). Conversely, dogs were exclusive to North America  for most of the Cenozoic. So, another group of animals developed similar traits (long legs for running and strong jaws for cracking bones) in their absence: hyenas. Far more varied then their modern cousins, some hyenas were remarkably dog like. And in South America, a dolphin (Odobenocetops) developed tusks and suction feeding like walruses did in the north Pacific.

But in the Cenozoic we find even more extreme cases. For example, here are the skulls of a wolf and a sabertooth cat:

Except those are not a wolf and sabertooth cat. They are the skulls of a marsupial and a sapprasodont (an extinct group of metatherians, the same group that includes marsupials. Sparassodonts were once thought to be true marsupials, but were recently found to be separate ). But if I showed them to the average person on the street, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. The marsupial wolf, called a thylacine, is from Australia and the sparassodont (Thylacosmilus, which means “pouched knife”, a reference to it’s former status as a marsupial. Things were so much easier when they were just marsupials. I didn’t have to go into lengthy explanations on what sparassodonts were!) is from South America. Both were cut off from the rest of the world, and so they evolved to mimic placental carnivores to a striking degree. Dinosaurs, as far as I can tell, have nothing even close to the kind of convergence achieved by mammals.

Another reason the Cenozoic is so fascinating is all the stories it tells. The constantly shifting climate and land created some of the greatest evolutionary narratives in earth’s history. The isolation of Australia, South America, and other large land masses allowed the evolution of bizarre forms seen nowhere else in the world. In Australia, marsupials were free of competition from placentals. They evolved into beasts like nothing seen before or since: wombat-like animals the size of rhinos, giant kangaroos, creatures that looked like a cross between a tapir and a ground sloth, and some of the largest birds that ever lived. In the last few million years, it was home to many large reptilian predators, including terrestrial crocodiles and the largest terrestrial lizard that ever lived (and one of my all time favorite prehistoric animals).

South America was no different. Cut off from the rest of the world until only 3–4 million years ago, its fauna was no less bizarre. Groups like perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs) and artiodactyls (bovids, sheep, deer, antelope, and other even toed hoofed mammals) were absent. So,now-extinct groups found nowhere else rose to rule the continent. Groups like notoungulates (who were recently found to share a common ancestor with perissodactyls), litopterns, xenarthrans (sloths and anteaters), and cingulates (armadillos as well as their extinct cousins, the glyptodonts) all reigned supreme. The carnivores were even stranger. With no placental carnivores to compete with, the archaic sparassodonts were able to fill myriad niches from small opossum-like forms to large cat-like forms. But they were not alone. Sharing the large carnivore guild was a family of large, flightless, carnivorous birds. South America also boasted some of the largest reptiles ever. If ever there was an evolutionary laboratory, Cenozoic South America was it.

Isolation wasn’t the only driver of the Cenozoic’s fascinating tales. The chaotic climatealso created countless enclaves of adaptation. During the late Eocene and through the Oligocene, the earth’s climate began to cool and dry. This caused tropical rainforests to give way to subtropical hardwood forests to open woodlands. It was thought that the first grasslands didn’t appear until around 25 million years ago. However, a 35 million year old fauna found in Chile challenged this. They found many animals with teeth adapted to eating grass and evidence of lots of grass. The higher altitude created an environment for grass to thrive, creating a grassland 10 million years before they would appear in the rest of the world.

Another remarkable story has been teased out of Tibet. The Tibetan Plateau (which includes the Himalayas, the tallest mountains on earth) controls the weather for most of Asia. Its harsh climate has earned it the nickname “The Third Pole”. Research into the geology of the plateau shows that this has been the case for a long time. During the  Pliocene, 2–5 million years ago, the world was warmer than today. But because of its altitude, the Tibetan Plateau was cold, living up to its nickname. Discoveries of fossils from this time period hint at a remarkable concept: that Tibet was the cradle of Ice Age megafauna. It is an idea that is gaining strength. The earliest species of big cat as well as the earliest species of woolly rhino have been found there. Genetic research shows that the closest relatives of American wild sheep live in Tibet. And the sister species (or closest relative) of American bison is the Tibetan yak. The picture that is emerging is that a frozen kingdom in a warm and sunny world led to the evolution of cold adapted megafauna. Then, as the ice ages cooled the rest of the world, they were able to leave the Tibetan Plateau and spread throughout the world. It’s a work in progress, but it is shaping up to be one of the most spectacular sagas of prehistory.

And sometimes both isolation and climate could create things most unexpected. And there might be no better case than New Zealand. Its temperate climate meant reptiles couldn’t grow very large. In fact there are no snakes, turtles, or crocodiles in New Zealand. Only geckos, skinks, and the ancient tuatara call the islands home. At almost two feet long, the tuatara is the largest of these. And being an archipelago (group of islands) meant only two ways for animals to get there: flying or rafting on floating mats of vegetation. This allowed birds to establish themselves before most other animals could, including mammals. Save for two species of bats, there are no native land mammals in New Zealand. Not even rodents, who managed to find their way across most of the globe, were absent here (before being introduced by humans). New Zealand was a land dominated by birds.

During the late Pleistocene and and most of the Holocene, the islands were home to a great diversity of bird life. With no large land predators, many lineages of birds became flightless, and others nested on the ground. Most ubiquitous were the moa, large and flightless ostrich-like birds. The 11 species of moa ranged from 3 feet tall and 40 pounds to 7 feet tall and 500 pounds. While the best known, they were only a part of this bizarre lost world. The adzebill, a large flightless rail, hunted for prey in the brush. The flightless New Zealand goose, the size of a small moa, was the largest goose in the world. The iconic kiwi probed the forest floor for food. An assortment of rails, parrots, waterfowl, and other small birds filled out the ecosystem. Although there were no land predators (save for the adzebill, which probably preyed on lizards, bats, and small birds), prehistoric New Zealand was hardly a carefree place. There were several birds of prey, and the king of them all was Haast’s eagle. With a 10 foot wingspan and talons the size of tiger claws, it was capable of taking down even the largest moa. Eyles’s harrier was the size of an eagle and could take prey far larger than any other harrier could (perhaps even the smallest species of moa). The laughing owl, which survived to the early 20^th century, dined on anything it could catch.

This is what made New Zealand unique. In a world dominated by mammals, it was a place where every megafaunal niche was filled by birds. Instead of giraffes, deer, and antelope, there were moa. Haast’s eagle and Eyles’s harrier filled the role occupied elsewhere by cats and dogs. The grazing niche, occupied in the rest of the world by bovids and sheep, was filled her by takahe and the New Zealand goose. Coyotes, foxes, and jackels are replaced here by the adzebill. Kiwis were essentially the shrews, hunting for invertebrates in the leaf litter. Every ecological role you could think of was taken by birds. As far as I can tell, nothing like this exists in the Mesozoic. There was no isolated land where mammals or crocodiles or even the birds of the time werethe dominant aspects of the fauna. Only in the Cenozoic do such incredible places exist.

Dinosaurs are just plain weird. They are like nothing alive today. That is pretty cool, but the Cenozoic can do one better. What draws me into the Cenozoic so much is how it takes what we think we know about the world and turns it on its head. For example, take the modern guinea pig or hamster. Sure, they’re cute and fluffy little rodents, but other than that nothing to get excited about. But take that guinea pig and blow it up to the size of a grizzly bear. Not so ordinary now, is it? During the Cenozoic,South America played host to a number of giant rodents, with the biggest weighing as much as a bull. And the opposite was true as well. Horses, camels, and even elephants, animals we normally think of as big, had small ancestors. Around 50 million years ago, the biggest horse was the size of a small dog. The earliest camels were smaller than a modern deer. And, extinct elephants living on islands in the Mediterranean were no taller than a goat.

But size was only the beginning. During the run of the Cenozoic, evolution experimented wildly with animals familiar to us and took them in unexpected directions. We think of rhinos as tropical animals because of where they live today. But during the ice ages, there was not one, but two, species of rhinos that lived in the frozen north of Eurasia. They both had thick coats of hair to keep them warm. And wear on horns shows that one species (Coelodonta, the classic woolly rhino) used its horn to sweep aside snow to reach the grass beneath it.

Today, alligators and crocodiles are restricted to watery habitats the world over, not able to venture far from the water’s edge. But this was not always the case during the Cenozoic. Australia and South America were both once inhabited by terrestrial crocodiles . Part of an extinct group called mekosuchines, these crocodiles had left the water behind to stalk their prey on land. They had flat, serrated teeth best suited to slicing than holding and crushing. Barinasuchus of the ancient Amazon had a skull as large as a tyrannosaur’s. And Quinkana was around to have encountered the first Australians!

Many species of ancient elephants had long lower jaws tipped with stout tusks, looking like they were crossbred with a front loader. The Cenozoic gave us an actual unicorn. Except it was a pig instead of a horse. Dogs, horses, camels, rhinos. All animals seen throughout the world actually originated in (and in some cases spent most of their history) in North America. And there are horn and antler arrangements so strange that you’d think they were created by Dr. Seuss. Dinosaurs may be weird in terms of absoluteness. But only the Cenozoic can take familiar faces and make them truly bizarre!

And maybe the most important reason to be interested in the Cenozoic: the changing climate. The dinosaurs had it easy. With few exceptions (Liaoning and the poles) the climate was mostly warm and wet. The Cenozoic, on the other hand, has been a roller coaster of climate change. Life had to adapt to constantly shifting climates. Most of these groups survived to the modern day. And considering we live in an unprecedented time of climate change, one could say that studying the Cenozoic is far more relevant to understanding our world and where it’s going.

The key word here would be more. But why worry about what is relevant? Why not care about all of prehistory equally? Why this sense that the past has to be ranked by whatever asinine criteria you can come up? Nature doesn’t have a sense of competition or care what is dominant or even interesting. So why does the Cenozoic lag so far behind in the public conscience?

I have a feeling it might have to do with those quotes I showed you earlier.

It was this environmental wound that allowed mammals to thrive in new ways, even setting the stage for our own ancestors. But if dinosaurs had continued to hold sway in the terrestrial realm, we never would have evolved. Our early primate forebears would have been shunted along different evolutionary routes we can only guess at.

That assumes dinosaurs could hold their position of dominance. We can’t guess what evolutionary paths early primates would have taken. But we don’t have to guess about how long dinosaurs would continue to rule the earth. We know for a fact they would have.

There’s no reason to think that dinosaurs would have vanished and ceded the world to mammals if the extinction had been canceled.

Maybe not immediately, but how do you know they never would have afterwards? As this whole post has shown, the Cenozoic has a very complicated climatic history. How do you know that dinosaurs would have survived the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? Or the ice ages? Would they have been able to cope with the spread and takeover of grasslands?  None of these could have created opportunities for mammals to take over? Mammals, with their complex dentition, couldn’t have ruled the grasslands while dinosaurs retreated to the forests? How do you know dinosaurs could have survived wild shifts in climate they never encountered?

What about the current debate about the K/Pg extinction? Some say it was all the asteroid (which you seem to be implying). Others say it just finished them off. The diversity of dinosaurs seems to dwindle at the end of the Cretaceous. In southern Alberta, we see this in action. 75 million years ago, there were nearly 30 species of dinosaurs. At the 70 million year mark, there were around 20 species. By 66 million years ago, there were only about 12 species. Some scientists blame this decline on the Deccan traps, massive volcanic eruptions in India that were going on during the Late Cretaceous. The debris spewed by these volcanoes into the atmosphere would have wreaked havoc on earth’s climate. How do you know that the dinosaurs wouldn’t have eventually died out? They seemed to be on  their way out anyway. Or are you suggesting that dinosaurs are just so great that they can only be killed by the greatest of calamities? And that if that calamity never happened their continued dominance is inevitable? There is a lot we don’t know here. For example, southern Alberta doesn’t speak for the rest of the world. Was this the trend global or was it just local? How can we say dinosaurs would have stayed the dominant group when we don’t even fully understand why they died out?

There were over 80m years between the time of Brontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, but it’s only been 66m years since the last of the non-avian dinosaurs disappeared. We could fit the entire age of mammals between those two famous dinosaurs with room to spare.

Oh really? According to you, a group’s age is achieved merely by being present. Since the first eutherian mammals appeared 160 million years ago, that would mean the age of mammals has lasted twice as long as the gap between brontosaurus and tyrannosaurs. So no, you can’t fit it between them “with room to spare”.

Non-avian dinosaurs had survived sweeping changes to climate…

If by “sweeping” you mean broad, then yes, they did. According to a couple of paleontologists and a paleobotanist I know, the changes were very drawn out and not as dramatic as what we see during the Cenozoic. The climate remained pretty stable throughout the Mesozoic. There were some changes to humidity and temperature, but nothing as chaotic as what the animals of the Cenozoic had to endure. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is thought to have lasted thousands of years, far faster than anything in the Mesozoic. There were 22 distinct ice ages during the Pleistocene epoch. A constant cycle of hot and cold that may have eventually done in the animals who had survived it for almost 2 million years. If the animals who were used to it could have been wiped out, then what reason is there to think the animals who never encountered anything close to it would have? All climates are not created equal. Just because something survived one climate does not mean they could survive another.

shifting continents…

You know who else survived shifting continents? The animals of the Cenozoic. What makes dinosaurs so special?

and the ticking turnover of species as evolution and extinction work simultaneously.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Faunal turnover, evolution, and extinction aren’t malevolent forces conspiring to wipe out life. They are natural processes. As animals migrate, evolve, and go extinct, faunal turnover happens. Ever since the earliest ecosystems faunal turnover has happened. From the smallest arthropods to the largest mammals and dinosaurs, everything has been subject to faunal turnover. Dinosaurs weren’t somehow singled out by it and survived because they are so highly advanced. They just went with it like all other animals have. That doesn’t somehow give them a unique ability to survive over everything else. The synapsids of the late Permian survived faunal turnover. Does that mean they would have continued to rule the planet if the Permain extinction hadn’t happened? If they did then your precious dinosaurs wouldn’t have evolved. Or would they have evolved anyway because they are the ultimate survivors (according to you anyway). Everything you have listed has been endured by every animal other than dinosaurs. Dinosaurs aren’t anything special by surviving them too.

Of course they would have survived to what we know as the present day.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they would still be the dominant force. If the constantly changing climate didn’t kill them off completely, then why think they wouldn’t be restricted to the tropics (if they survived that long)? Again, you assume they can survive anything like some turbocharged Bear Grills. We don’t even fully understand how they lived and how they interacted with the world they occupied. There is no way we can say with certainty they would have survived the world after.

A supersmart dinosaur wouldn’t resemble anything humanoid. If dinosaurs with a mental toolkit similar to ours ever evolved, they’d probably look little different to a crow.

Or they wouldn’t. They could look like the dinosaurs of old or something completely different. Just because birds are modern dinosaurs doesn’t mean they are the inevitable result. You never know, another group of dinosaurs could have developed intelligence. Elephants are nothing like primates and yet they show signs of intelligence. Hell, octopi are nothing like vertebrate life, and yet they are remarkably smart for invertebrates. The Hobbit (Homo floresiensis) is quite different from us and yet was intelligent. How do you know the evolution of birds during the Cenozoic couldn’t have been influenced by mammals? If dinosaurs survived the K/Pg extinction, modern birds probably wouldn’t have evolved either. They would be very different. There are no inevitabilities in evolution. Just like we can say a smart dinosaur wouldn’t look like us, we can’t say they would look like a crow.

Mass extinction or not, we’re still very much in the age of dinosaurs.

Are we now? So they don’t have to be the dominant life form, they just have to be present for it to be their “age”. As I mentioned earlier, this would mean the age of mammals began 160 million years ago by your logic. It has been suggested to me that it is still the age of dinosaurs because there are 10,000 extant species of birds versus 5,500 extant species of mammals. But if we follow this guy’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, we find we are not still living in the age of dinosaurs. There was never an age of dinosaurs. We are still living in what always has been the Age of Fish. There are currently 27,000 extant species of fish. That is more than dinosaurs and mammals, living and extinct, put together. And that doesn’t even count all the extinct fish who first showed up over 400 million years ago. That is longer than the age of dinosaurs and the age of mammals put together. Even if fish never came on to land (mudskippers and snakeheads would like a word with you), there was still never an age of dinosaurs. It was the age of insects. Insects appeared 350 million years ago and currently outnumber all vertebrate life by several magnitudes. Hell, there are an estimated 1,000,000 species of beetles alone. You can play this game all you want. You will never win.

So just what the hell is an age? What defines one? Why are we so fixated on what is dominant? As humans, we are fixated on the biggest and best. We are always making things into competitions in a futile bid make us and our opinions #1. There seems to be this infantile need to make the things we like the best and above everything else. “I like dinosaurs, so I must make everything about them and show why they are the greatest things in existance!”. But guess what: nature doesn’t give two shits. It doesn’t care about the best or the most awesome. Life lives by nature’s rules and what happens, happens. Arguing over what’s cool or boring or the most interesting will make not one iota of difference in the long run. So what’s even the point?

And yet you have people like the quoted writer hyping dinosaurs to ridiculous levels. It’s bad enough popular culture does it, but it’s another when the actual scientific community joins in. Suggesting dinosaurs would still be ruling the earth today like they are the ultimate lifeforms is not only stupid but diminishes all other life. We are the only known planet to have life. But we feel the need to rank it according to our arbitrary and meaningless standards, shunning anything that we don’t find “cool” enough. If we only focused on the most interesting stuff, we would be truly ignorant of life’s history. We need to learn to appreciate all life in all times. That little brachiopod may not be as big and flashy as a Triceratops. But it is twice as old as the oldest dinosaur. It survived far more time on the earth to arrive in the modern world. They are different strands in the web of life. Thinking one is somehow better than the other diminishes them both. Life is not a contest to see who is best (ok, it kinda is, but you get what I mean).

I laid out to you why I like the Cenozoic over everything else. But that doesn’t mean I hype it up or shit on other life. I still do like dinosaurs. My last two major field seasons were spent looking for dinosaurs. Went I went to Canada,I made a point to visit (and spent all day at) the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, even though it’s all about dinosaurs. And that internship I applied for, if I get it (and that’s a big if), would have me working with dinosaurs. As I pointed out in my Jurassic World review, I don’t have a problem with dinosaurs. It’s their fans I usually can’t stand. And I still appreciate life in the Paleozoic for its role in the history of life. We need to learn to appreciate all life. Because it happened and will continue to happen regardless of our opinions on it.

‘til next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Dinosaurs may seem cool on their face. But once you get into them they start heaping up their own kinds of problems. I usually tell people one of the reasons I stick with mammals is that dinosaur taxonomy is a complete freaking mess. It is always changing with families sunk and started all over the place. One relation may exist today, but it could be revised tomorrow. This is how science works, but hell if it aint hard to keep track of. But, some disputes over taxonomy can last longer than others. Especially when the evidence is scant. Here we are going to look at one of the most heated taxonomic debates since “Toroceratops” (in fact, it’s been around for 3 times as long).

In 1947 some fossil hunters discovered a skull in the Lance formation of southern eastern Montana. The skull was that of a theropod or meat eating dinosaur. It was placed in the always dubious taxon Aublysodon (dubious because it was based on teeth, which are not diagnostic in dinosaurs). It sat in the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History for the next several decades.

In 1989, Robert Bakker and Phil Currie examined the skull and used it as the basis of a new species: Nanotyrannus lancensis . Dubbed the “pygmy tyrant”, it demonstrated the presence of another large predator in the latest Cretaceous of North America (previously only Tyrannosaurus rex was known). It differed from T. rex in being much smaller with a more lightly built skull, more teeth, and other distinguishing features. The description stuck for a while before the back and forth began.

Cast of the holotype skull of Nanotyrannus lancensis. On display at the Raymond Alf Museum of Paleontology, Claremont, California.

Some didn’t think Nanotyrannus was a valid taxon. They thought it was nothing more than a juvenile T. rex. According to them all the features used to separate it are the result of ontogeny, not speciation. But with only the one skull and no definite juveniles of T. rex to speak of, the debate didn’t really go anywhere. Books and the like always listed the species as up in the air, with some thinking it was a separate species and others that it was just a juvenile T. rex. It wasn’t until 2001 that the debate really got started.

A crew from the little Burpee Museum of Natural History in Illinois was prospecting the Hell Creek Formation in eastern Montana. One of the crew members discovered a bone poking out of a hill. It led to the skull and partial skeleton of a young theropod. The find, named “Jane”, put the Burpee Museum on the map. It was hailed as the long sought-after juvenile T. rex. The specimen promised to answer not only questions about Tyrannosaurus growth but put the Nanotyrannus debate to rest. It was not meant to be.

Skeleton of Jane at the Burpee Museum, Rockford, Illinois. From Flickr user Amy Meredith.

Proponents of Nanotyrannus pointed out the features shared by Jane and the Cleveland skull as evidence that Jane was a Nanotyrannus. Species named from a single specimen are always in doubt unless the case is rock solid. A second specimen is usually needed to clear things up. Jane, they thought, was that second specimen. But the opposition pointed to her apparent immature nature (histology revealed she was 11 years old when she died) as proof that she was instead a juvenile T. rex. And that that fact sunk Nanotyrannus once and for all. But, science is ever fluid. All can change when new evidence is discovered.
A discovery was made not in the field but in the collections of a museum.

The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County had in the 60s and 70s hired a man named Harley Garbani to find dinosaurs for them. Over his decorated career he found many prized specimens for the museum, including a complete T. rex skull. He also found a partial skull known as the “Jordan Theropod” and a partial skull and skeleton of another theropod. These were first described as their own species . But research decades later found them to be different growth stages of T. rex. The Jordon Theropod was then the youngest T. rex known at an estimated 2 years old. The other was a teenager roughly the size of Jane. Though fragmentary, they offered clues into T. rex growth. They helped show that T. rex grew up fast and died young. But where did they fit into the Nanotyrannus debate?

The older T. rex specimen at the L.A. Museum is estimated to be 13 years old, 2 years older than Jane. Here are their skulls compared:

The skull of Jane compared to the L.A. Museum’s specimen.

Jane and the L.A. specimen seem pretty different. That would be a lot of change in just 2 years. Unfortunately there is a hitch: most of the L.A. skull is reconstructed. Here is the actual specimen:

Well that led nowhere. Now in 2013 I went to my very first meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Paleontologist Pete Larson made waves at that meeting with a poster about a specimen that could turn the debate. The specimen is a nearly complete tyrannosaur from the Hell Creek formation. Together with a nearly complete ceratopsian found right beside it, they came to be known as the “Montana Dueling Dinosaurs”; the tyrannosaur was nicknamed “Bloody Mary”. With pictures on his tablet and a cast of Bloody Mary’s arm, Larson made his case to any who would listen that this was in fact Nanotyrannus.

He argued not only the well established differences but also new ones revealed by the specimen. Using his cast he showed that Bloody Mary had completely different arm morphology than T. rex. The proportions are different, with Bloody Mary’s being larger, a differently shaped humerus, and a second phalanx on the end of it’s vestigial third finger. If you looked at the two arms side by side without knowing what the other was, you would think Bloody Mary was a different species.

Larson also argued that the neck proportions are different between the two. And then there is the matter of tooth count. He noted that Tarbosaurus (a close relative of T. rex. So close, in fact, that some consider it to be a species of Tyrannosaurus) doesn’t decrease it’s number of teeth as it grows. I wonder if this has been explored in any other tyrannosaurs for which we have different ages (like Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus). To top it off, Larson said Bloody Mary, a presumed Nanotyrannus, clades more with Gorgosaurus than T. rex. Personally, this is what was turning me to the Nanotyrannus side. Larson wasn’t just arguing for a different species. He was arguing for a different clade . Whether he is right or not may never be known with Bloody Mary’s fate up in the air (more on that later). But at least he was nice enough to upload his poster to the internet.

Comparison of Bloody Mary’s arm to that of the T. rex specimen known as Wyrex. Image by Peter Larson

Arm from a subadult T. rex at the University of Chicago.

Close up of the hand. Note lack of a second phalanx on the vestigial third finger.

At SVP in Dallas in 2015, one Thomas Carr gave a talk on how an analysis of Jane proved Nanotyrannus is sunk. He came off as rather arrogant, as if HIS research was going to settle the debate once and for all. However, the study itself is yet to be published (that I know of), and unless the transcript of that talk is made available we can’t discuss its merits much.

Age is another issue. Scientists have been able to cut into long bones (either limb or rib) to discern a dinosaur’s age. The whole of T. rex ontogeny is based on it. Now with no post cranial remains we cannot do this to the Cleveland skull. It has been done with Jane, giving us an age of 11. According to the growth studies, T. rex hit maturity around 20 years old (and that’s as far as most of them seemed to get). At that age they weighed between 5 and 6 tons. Nanotyrannus is thought to have been only 1 ton. Now in nature, large animals tend to live longer and thus reach maturity slower than smaller ones (not always, but generally). The age of Jane has always been used as evidence for her being a juvenile T. rex. Eleven years old puts her close to the middle of the T. rex growth curve. Eleven may seem young for a T. rex, but for all we know it could be near adulthood for Nanotyrannus. The age may not make the identification as many contend. We need more specimens if we are to ever sort this out.

Aside from the aforementioned specimens, the only other remains attributed to Nanotyrannus are shed teeth found in micro sites and associated with the remains of herbivores. One site produced thirty Nano teeth, which some have argued means they were pack hunters (since that’s more than any one individual can have at a time). Of course, this only shows multiple individuals visited the carcass; when each one did we don’t know. Dinosaur teeth can’t tell much about the animals themselves. So it would appear that Nanotyrannus is stuck being bickered over until the end of time.

That is, if only certain specimens ever made it to science. Remember Bloody Mary from earlier? Well she and the ceratopsian she was found with were excavated and prepared by a commercial outfit. The problem with commercial outfits, as I have detailed many, many times before, is that there is no guarantee the specimen will end up in a museum (so it goes when money is the primary concern). In 2014, the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs were put up for auction (with a reserve price of $9 million). The reserve price was not met and last I heard the specimens were wrapped up in a legal dispute. I had also heard through the rumor mill that a museum had asked them if they would be interested in selling them the Dueling Dinosaurs for $3 million. It obviously didn’t happen as any museum getting specimens like that would be all over the media. So who knows what will happen to them. Hopefully they will go to a museum where they belong. But fortunately (or unfortunately) Bloody Mary isn’t the only specimen that could help clear things up.

A model of the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs depicting how they were found. Bloody Mary is on the right.

Bloody Mary’s skull

There is one specimen described as being a juvenile T .rex that made headlines almost 10 years ago. The specimen was dubbed “Tinker” after the nickname of the guy who found it. It was found by a commercial collector in South Dakota in 1998. The problems arose because the specimen may have been illegally collected . I guess that got sorted out since there was talk of sending the specimen to auction. The story went dark and there wasn’t much information afterwards. The last I could find was he was being put up for sale in Abu Dahbi (in 2014). The guy said he wanted to put it in a museum there. No idea if that ever happened. Though at 28 feet long with a 34 inch skull, he’s really more of a sub-adult than a juvenile. Nonetheless, Tinker could have offered more information on T. rex growth that may never come to light.

According to this recent article, the natural history museum at the University of Kansas temporarily displayed what they are calling a juvenile T. rex. Paleontologists are quoted as saying it will help settle the Nanotyrannus debate. According to the article, the animal is believed to have been 15 feet long when alive. The skull measures 21 inches. So the specimen is ¾ the length of Jane with a comparably sized skull. Now here is the kicker: according to the article, they think this guy was only 4 years old. Jane, who is not much bigger than this specimen, is established to be 11 years old. So if Jane and this specimen are both T. rex, they had one awkward growth curve. They rush up to 15 feet by age 4, but then take 7 years to add only 5 feet of length. This would mean either our whole idea of T. rex ontogeny needs to be rewritten, or one of these animals isn’t T. rex. Now, I don’t know how the age was determined for the Kansans University specimen (the lone article didn’t say). That detail could change if scientists can study it as the article says. And that is if. According to the rumor mill, the specimen is privately owned and was simply on loan to the museum for display. Even if it can be studied, the results will likely not be accepted because others may not be able to access it.

Poking around the internet led me to this FossilForum thread about a juvenile T. rex nicknamed “Baby Bob”. Baby Bob was found by a commercial outfit and even made an appearance at the Tuscon Gem and Mineral Show. This Fossil Forum thread indicates that Baby Bob is in fact the specimen that was on display at the University of Kansas. The discoverers are adamant that they want to try and get it into a museum. But given the crapfests involving “Tinker” and the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Commercialists love to declare that they play a vital role in paleontology but considering all the cases they botched over the years they have a lot of goodwill to build before the paleo community will take them seriously. Fossils are priceless relics of the ancient earth, not cash cows. I mean, look how much potential their specimens have to solve one of the longest running debates in modern paleontology. Yet they can’t because their owners slap price tags on them, almost always out of the reach of museums. They say money isn’t the reason. But if that is the case, then why did the owners of the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs not take that museum’s offer? If that covered all the expenses and landed the specimens in a museum, shouldn’t they have done it in a heartbeat? Hell the guy who found them said he thought they were worth $15 million (remember, they were auctioned at $9 million). It’s greed plain and simple. If money is so important, then donate the specimen to a museum and make it a tax right write-off. Most museums are registered 501 non-profits so any donation is tax deductible (at least in theory). Everyone wins in that scenario. But because all these specimens remain in private hands, with no indication they could end up in museums (except the Kansas one, if the rumor is false and they do indeed own it), Nanotyrannus as a species may be doomed to reside in taxonomic purgatory for all eternity.

Skull of Baby Bob

Reconstructed skull of Baby Bob along with the original fossil material on display at the Tuscon Gem and Mineral Show.

Nanotyrannus has had a rough ride. And it aint gonna smooth out any time soon. Many are steadfast that it has a leg to stand on, and others are convinced it’s deader than disco. And, any and all saving graces are tangled in the greedy fingers of non-scientists. I have long hoped Nanotyrannus is valid, because then it would put another large predator in the Hell Creek ecosystem (There are valid arguments that “Dakotaraptor” is not valid). The large carnivore guild of Late Cretaceous North America is so goddamn boring. It’s just a tyrannosaur and that’s it (because dromaeosaurs most likely took small prey, oviraptosaurs took small prey at best and were more likely omnivorous, and ornithomimosaurs were omnivores at best. I could just be jaded because of the diverse carnivore guilds found in the Cenozoic). Nanotyrannus would inject some much needed diversity into one of the most well known and studied fossil localities on Earth. I pray those other specimens can make their way into the academic sphere. They seem like they can really resolve this conflict once and for all. They would finally give Nanotyrannus that much needed paddle.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Today is going to be a quicky. I have been working on a new post but then life happened. This includes having to replace my computer (eating up my tax return in the process). But i have also been busy with some paleontology stuff of my own which will get it’s own post in the future. But i wanted to make this short post to share an awesome bit of news with you.

I was contacted by the head of Feed Spots. He was contacting me to let me know that i made his list of the top 20 paleontology blogs to follow in 2018! How cool is that? Apparently he considers me on par with The Raymond Alf Museum and Waxing Paleontological. You can check out the list here.

Well i have to get back to all the crap i have going on right now.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

I have always had an interest in ancient elephants. Ever since I first laid eyes on the woolly mammoth at the Royal British Columbia Museum, they have always held a spell on me. It has only been in recent years that they have drawn me in as a research interest. Despite being a diverse and very successful group with a broad array of adaptations, not a lot of work has been done on them outside of naming new species and studying their Ice Age members. However, the first serious research question I ever came up* with involves our old friend the American mastodon.

*I say I came up with it, but I doubt I was the first to consider it.

Mastodons are big animals. Being relatives of elephants, that should be a given. They are invariably described as reaching 10 feet tall and weighing in excess of 5 tons. Like all prehistoric animals, these figures are based on the largest known specimens and fail to take variation into account (especially in museums, where mounted skeletons are rarely as big as the diagrams seen in books). Variation in size can be due to things like geography, diet, habitat, and even genetics. When I was growing up, my books said that mastodons were from the Midwest (places like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois). This fact didn’t mean much to me until my college years.

In 2007 I attended my first field trip  with the once great San Bernardino County Museum. We went to the newly opened Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology (now the Western Science Center), home to the fossils treasures uncovered during the construction of the Diamond Valley Lake reservoir. As the erudite Eric Scott explained the fossils to us, he explained that the museum’s unofficial mascot, Max, was a bit of a surprise. The first bone of Max found was his pelvis. According to Eric, it was so large they first thought it was a mammoth. It wasn’t until they uncovered his skull that they realized they had a mastodon. Say what?

The enormous skull of the mastodon Max, on display at the Western Science Center, Hemet, California.

You see, this confusion stem from the La Brea Tar Pits. At the time the best comparative material in the region (neigh California) was from Rancho La Brea. And, the mastodons there are runts by elephant standards. Just look at the female and her calf on display in the Page Museum:

The positively shrimpish mastodons of Rancho La Brea.

She is barely 6 feet at the shoulder, and the calf is the size of a pony. Sure, females are smaller than males, but that would mean the males probably didn’t exceed 7 feet at the shoulder (far below the 9 to 10 feet of the Midwestern specimens). So, it is no wonder that Max created such a stir. In fact, studies would later conclude that he is the largest mastodon in western North America, as large as the biggest individuals from the Midwest. And Max wasn’t alone. All the mastodons found in Diamond Valley were large. And the La Brea mastodons weren’t alone either. All mastodons in California outside of Diamond Valley were unusually small. What was going on? Why were the mastodons of Diamond Valley so much larger than in the rest of California? I had no idea. I’m not sure anyone else did. This information sat around in my mind for years until one day something just clicked.

The forelimb of a diminutive mastodon from San Diego County (formerly on display at the San Diego Natural History Museum). If it was flat on the floor and had it’s scapula, it wouldn’t reach 6 feet.

Skull from Santa Cruz county. Only half the size of the ones from Diamond Valley.

A smallish mastodon radius from Jerupa, Riverside County.

A mastodon found during construction of a community center, Laguna Hills, Orange County. A bit on the large side, which in this context means he was around 7 feet at the shoulder. Not bad, but still not as big as the mastodons in Diamond Valley or the Midwest.

Mastodon fossils found during construction of toll roads, Orange County. The femur is less than three feet long.

Bones of a mastodon found in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County. The size of the bones suggests an animal between 6 and 7 feet tall.

I have given up trying to figure out how my mind works. Something I see or hear could cause it to make the most strained and far reaching connections that seemingly come out of nowhere. My mind made one of these connections one day when I was randomly thinking about the size disparity between American mastodons. I remembered a small blurb from the intro section of a National Geographic issue. It was on the Burning Tree Mastodon (BTM), named after the golf course in Ohio where it was found. The Burning Tree Mastodon is touted as being one of, if not the, largest mastodon ever found in North America. BTM was not just notable for his size but also what was found with him. Amongst the bones was a wad of plant matter that scientists determined was preserved gut contents. The cold muck of the bog had preserved the BTM’s last meal. According to the article the gut contents consisted of water lilies, pond weed, and swamp grass. Why is this important to the mystery of size in American mastodons?

Cast of the Burning Tree Mastodon on display at the Cincinnati Museum Center, Ohio. By flickr user Chris.

The scientist quoted in the article said: “That is a very rich and nutritious diet. This guy was focusing on yummy stuff.” That’s when it hit me. Could diet be the key to why mastodons were so large in the Midwest and so small in California? It’s not unheard of. Coastal brown bears are bigger than grizzlies because the former eats more meat (thanks to huge salmon runs). The aquatic vegetation being described as “rich and nutritious” got me thinking. The Midwest, even today, is full of marshes, swamps, ponds, and rivers brimming with plants. California during the Ice Age had more water than today. Even the Mojave Desert was dotted with lakes and streams. But, it lacked the extensive wetlands seen in the Midwest. That is, except for one place: Diamond Valley. One mastodon, Little Stevie, was found in wetland deposits. Was this the key to the puzzle of mastodon size? It was starting to look that way.

Of course this is all just speculation on my part. Conducting actual research is another matter. How would one go about investigating this? For starters, we would need to examine the diet of the animals. One way to do this is with stable isotopes. This technique has been used to tell if an animal is a browser or a grazer. At the 2013 SVP, I spoke with a scientist who does isotope studies. She said she didn’t know if this technique could differentiate between terrestrial and aquatic vegetation (but she then said that is research to be done). What else could we do?

There is microwear analysis. In this process, casts are made of the surfaces of an animal’s teeth. The casts are then put under a scanning electron microscope. This allows us to see microscopic scratches on the surface of the surface of the tooth. Different diets leave different scratch patterns. By comparing these patterns to those of modern animals with known diets, we can infer the diet of the extinct animal. How would we tell terrestrial brush from aquatic plants? Same thing as before. Compare the patterns to those of modern animals with various diets—for instance, giraffes and deer for browsing, manatees for water plants, and moose and capybaras for a mix of the two. At least that’s the idea and I’m sticking with it (until I find out I shouldn’t).

Nothing in paleontology comes easy. The snippets of facts you see in exhibits and the long winded treatises you read in books are the end result of a lot of work. Gathering data and conducting studies can take years. Care must be taken to keep the process as pure as possible so as not to get misleading results. Because then you’d have to do it all over again, if you can (especially with destructive methods like isotope analysis). And it may lead to a totally different conclusion then what you were hypothesizing. Mastodon size differences are no different. This is a riddle that will require lots of hard work from numerous people to crack. I may or may not be one of them. My only hope is that will one day be solved.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

I have a brief moment of respite between field excursions so I’ll make this quick.

For years I have been wanting to publish a book on California’s fossil vertebrates. I feel there has never been a comprehensive source bringing all the information on California’s incredible prehistory into one place. The Golden State was once home to beardogs and sabercats; giant camels and pygmy mammoths; three-toed horses and hippo-like marine mammals; ground sloths and giant “toothed” seabirds; and killer sperm whales and and shovel-jawed elephants. And yet there are barely any books on the subject at all. As far as I can tell, there are only a couple gift shop books on Rancho la Brea and the Anza Borrego book. Hardly representative of all that California’s paleontology has to offer.

So I am to fix that. But I need your help. My book will be heavy on pictures and illustrations because I want to show the reader the fossils and creatures themselves. To do this, I’m going to need a good camera, other photography equipment (lighting, background, etc), and a new laptop to write and edit photos on. In all this stuff will run about $3500. And the great thing is once I have this stuff I’ll be able to use it for future books and even for my scientific research. This one act of generosity will go a long way.

So please donate to my book writing fund. Any amount would help me to reach my goal. I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide. The fossil vertebrates of California have an incredible story to tell. With your donation, you can help tell it with me.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Long time, eh? My job has be on a bit of a weird schedule which doesn’t leave me with much down time. That means I have to prioritize what I’m going to do with it, and unfortunately this blog sits low on the list. Field work takes up a good amount of my time (I’d share it with you, but the Denver Museum doesn’t allow it). I have also been busy working on my  book proposal, which has been slow going. I have a few posts I have been meaning to do for a long time, and after that I don’t know what I’ll do with it.

That whole fanboy incident four years ago still haunts me. Their words cut real deep (which is easy when you have my depression). It was naïve of me to think their response would be anything less. I forgot how horrible the internet can be and that social media brings out the worst in people. There are some things I regret about it. Like the whole thing with weapons (point went over their heads and just provided them ammunition). Or my crack on Brian Engh (have met him since then, nice guy. Though I did say in my follow up that his fake theropod did feel the most like Jurassic Park). But not the main tenant.

I stand by my argument that they were a bunch of fanboys. They seemed to think I was calling them fanboys for “supporting accurate reconstruction”. Not in the slightest. I said there are respectable ways to convey this opinion. They didn’t use these ways. No, instead they engaged in tribalism, name calling, and just all around toxic behavior. I didn’t think that’s how you “support accurate reconstruction”. They seemed to think that just because they were acting out over science that somehow meant they were justified in their behavior. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what you are fanboying over, be it science, religion, art, literature, or pop culture. If you act like a fanboy, I will call you a fanboy. End of story. When someone acts like a fascist, you call them a fascist. When someone acts like an asshole, you call them an asshole. When someone acts like a fanboy, you call them a fanboy.

Science is not an excuse to act like miserable douchenozzles. Science is my life, but never would I try to use it to deflect criticism. It clearly doesn’t automatically make you a better person based on what I encountered.  Suffice to say, it’s a side of the science community I never want to see again.

Well since then they seem to have been busy. Dinosaur hype and worship is as strong as ever. For example, an article was published in Cleveland 19 News about how Velociraptor was much different then what we think. However, the scientist being cited uttered this confounding statement:

“Although it’s not a gigantic killing dinosaur like in Jurassic Park the animal could have climbed you like a tree, and tore you apart from the top down,” Lee Hall said

That’s right, folks! Velociraptor wasn’t the vicious killing machine portrayed by Hollywood but it was totally the vicious killing machine portrayed by Hollywood! Now to be fair he could have just said that to try and keep people interested in paleontology (a difficult, never ending battle). But given how impressionable people are and accept anything from something resembling an expert, you might want to choose your words more carefully. Although, such a proclaimation about Velociraptor kinda renders this cartoon pointless, doesn’t it:

Seriously, people became apoplectic over dinosaurs not being portrayed as real animals. But then you have stuff like that.

Remember when I talked about how dromaeosaurs don’t live up to the hype? Well I got a couple people taking issue with them likely not being pack hunters. It’s like dinosaurs aren’t allowed to be anything less than the fiercest, nastiest, bestest things ever! Even when downgraded people have to get in a big fat “but still…” Bobcats are about the size of Velociraptor, have sharp claws, and fierce teeth in strong jaws. Why isn’t anyone talking about how it can “climb you like a tree, and tear you apart from the top down.”? Oh right, because it isn’t a dinosaur. It took modern animals thousands of years to establish their deadly reputations. Dinosaurs don’t have to do anything. They just have to be dinosaurs. So if you’re going to complain about dinosaurs not being portrayed as real animals, you might want to start doing that yourself first.

But when it comes to dinosaur fanboyism, there is nothing quite like the old “dinosaurs rule, everything else sucks” routine. We will start with the most blatant  example that I saw linked to on Facebook:

Seriously? Dinosaurs still rule over mammals because a chicken stole a mouse from a domestic house cat? And the guy never called it a chicken in the comments, he always referred to it as “the dinosaur”. Why is the go to for “feathered dinosaurs are scary/awesome” a chicken? No idea, but he stuck with it:

The cat showed the mouse whose boss. Then the dinosaur showed the mammal whose boss!

Someone rightly pointed out that the cat could no doubt kill the chicken if it wanted to. His response?

But the dinosaur would put up a fight!

Listen dude, it doesn’t matter how much of a fight you put up if you lose. Especially when your life is on the line. The guy is clearly getting off on this supposed role reversal. But let’s see how the “dinosaur” fares against things that actually kill for a living:

copyright Getty Images

Image from Chicken Digest.com

image belongs to Gallery user Linda Jones

copyright Alamy Stock Images

image belongs to Red Gate Farm

Don’t worry, I’m sure the “dinosaur” put up a fight. Photo from the Independent UK

A chicken wounded by a opossum. And they aren’t even serious predators. This chicken luckily survived thanks to medical attention from it’s owner. Image belongs to Backyard Chickens.com user willem82.

Oh yeah, dinosaurs “rule” over mammals alright. That’s why they are never preyed upon and killed by mammals. You know why chicken is used as an insult for someone who is cowardly? It’s because they will run when faced with an actual threat. They have no defense other than to run (though it must be pointed out they are hardly alone in this respect). So if you want people to respect feathered dinosaurs, stop using chickens as your example!

While not as eye-roll worthy, this next example (from a Facebook comment) is no less frustrating:

Cenozoic South America was awesome because for most of its history the top predators were giant maniraptorans.

So ancient South America isn’t fascinating because it was separated from the rest of the world for most of it’s history? Where groups of animals found nowhere else on earth paralleled more familiar creatures to an astonishing degree? And other groups considered primitive were able to thrive in the absence of their “superior” counterparts? Or how despite large predators rodents grew to enormous sizes over and over again? Where evolution of life and land took wild and unexpected turns, like steamy swamps and rainforests filled with giant reptiles or a grassland ecosystem that appeared 10 million years before it did in the rest of the world? No, apparently it’s only interesting because “dinosaurs were the top predators!”

But were they really? Despite the sensationalism often associated with terror birds (phorusrhacids to scientists), their designation as the (not “a’ but “the”) dominant predators is certainly up for debate. With two exceptions, there were never more than one or two terror birds in an ecosystem. According to Prevosti et al.2013, there were only 11 species since the Oligocene. Surely the almighty dinosaurs would dominate any time and any place they were in? They obviously didn’t yet once again mammals are being sacrificed on the altar of dinosaurs.

Because of its isolation, South America’s carnivorous mammals didn’t belong to any modern group (at least before the Great American Biotic Interchange during the Pliocene). They belonged to a completely different group called sparassodonts. These animals were once thought to be marsupials (which made them a lot easier to describe to people). But now they are believed to be a separate group within Metatheria (which includes marsupials). Despite being from a more primitive part of the mammal family tree, sparassodonts were a diverse and long-lived group. They range from small opposum-like animals to dog- and cat-like predators, to huge powerful forms resembling hyeanas or bears.

In any ecosystem, the diversity of sparassodonts always outnumbers that of the terror birds (save for those two exceptions mentioned earlier). Analysis suggests that the more dedicated carnivores of the group were powerful predators, with sharp teeth and strong jaws. Some even had the capacity to crush bone. Now, the biggest sparassodonts are before the Miocene, creating the impression that the terror birds edged them out as the landscape opened up (you’d think the new open habitat would favor terror bird’s cursorial mode of locomotion). But many Miocene and Pliocene taxa were still fairly big, weighing as much as a wolf, a couger, and even a jaguar. And that’s just the ones we have found. Not as much work has been done in South America compared to North America and Eurasia. Maybe there are more giant sparassodonts to be discovered?

Point is, terror birds, while apex predators, weren’t the dominant ones. I mean has anyone tried to figure out just how large a prey item could be taken by a terror bird? A great many of South America’s native mammals were quite hefty. Would the “flightless dinosaurs” have been able to  wrangle with any of them? That is something that needs to be sussed out. In the end, this is much like the “reptilian domination” of Plio-Pleistocene Australia: they weren’t dominant but rather part of a unique carnivore guild seen nowhere else on earth. I don’t wish to demean the terror birds. But when you diminish other animals by elevating certain ones (especially because they are dinosaurs), we are going to have words.

That was a seemingly innocuous comment from social media. But what happens when a whole article published by a reputable institution tries to further the hegomony of dinosaurs? Well, we got one such article from the Houston Museum of Natural Science. It was titled “Diatryma: The Gasp of Dinosaur Rule in North America”.

Was it inevitable that mammals would rule the world after the dinosaurs went extinct? The rise of mammals is often depicted as a pretty smooth transition, but in reality things were a little more complicated. In the wake of the end Cretaceous extinction birds, reptiles and mammals all began to split and diversify to exploit ecological niches left open after the dinosaurs were gone. It was a race to see who could fill more open spots on the landscape the quickest. So, in the Paleogene era, after the Cretaceous extinction, anything was possible and Diatryma is a good example of that.

Ok, admittedly that isn’t so bad. It describes the evolutionary chaos that life found itself in after the K/Pg extinction (as it does after every mass extinction).

Diatryma was a bird about 7 feet tall, with a massive head and beak. It live in North America during the Paleocene and Eocene Epochs of the Paleogene era, 56 – 45 million years ago.  Its fossils have  been discovered in New Jersey, New Mexico and Wyoming and possible Diatryma tracks have been discovered in Washington State. Plus, paleontologists now agree that Diatryma and Gastornis, discovered in Europe, are most likely the same species, thus extending the bird’s stomping grounds to Spain, France and Germany. Diatryma/Gastornis was a widely dispersed and very successful species during a time when mammals were just beginning to diversify and fill ecological niches left open by the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Again, nothing harmful. Just the facts about Gastornis (which seemsto be the taxonomy now, even though he keeps calling it “Diatryma”).

The Paleocene and Eocene are when the ancestors of whales, ungulates, primates and many other mammals that dominate the world today first show up in the fossil record.

Seriously, you’d think I was overreacting. But I can assure you that this I where any sense of normalcy ends. Get ready for the drooling praise.

Paleontologists often describe Diatryma as a nightmare from the past for these mammals, a holdover from the dark days when dinosaurs ruled the earth, but I see Diatryma as a dinosaur comeback. It was competing pretty successfully with early mammals for place in the environment.

If it was a comeback then it was a pretty weak one, given that mammals continued to diversify, increase in size, and fill more niches as time went on. The earliest Gastornis fossils are from Europe, which was an archipelago (group of islands) during the Paleocene. That means it evolved in isolation. It only dispersed after that time. As we will see, there is a connection between big birds and isolation. And it deflates your whole “comeback” idea.

And it wasn’t just Diatryma competing for bird dominance. There were large bird species in South America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia.

Yes there were. But if you look at all the places you mention, these large ground birds are the exception, not the rule. There is rarely more than one or two species in any ecosystem. The exceptions are New Zealand and Madagascar, isolated islands where mammals ether never made it (New Zealand) or contained only a few primitive groups. But even with Madagascar, birds didn’t rule the roost. They had to share space with hippos, tortoises, and a plethora of giant lemurs. Again, if this was supposed to be some “dinosaur comeback”, they didn’t do a very good job.

The infamous terror birds were the dominant predators in South America, where few large carnivorous mammals existed.

Patently false, as I have already demonstrated. And many of those predators could be considered large for mammals. Plus, they may not have been as big, but they still packed a punch. Several studies have shown that many metatherian predators had bites proportionately stronger then similar sized placentals. And if terror birds were the dominant predators, large mammalian predators would not have evolved. But they did, with the terror birds around. Let’s go down the list, shall we?

Plesiofelis schlosseri, 38.5kg (84.88lbs), mid-late Eocene

Armengiheringia auceta, 31.5kg (69.4lbs), mid Eocene

Armeniheringia cultrata, 24.85kg (54.8lbs), mid Eocene

Calistoe vincei, 23kg (50.7), mid Eocene

Paraborhyaena boliviana, 31.5kg (69.4 lbs), late Oligocene

Proborhyaena gigntea, 200kg (440.9lbs), late Oligocene

Pharsophorus lacerans, 27kg (59.5lbs), late Oligocene

Australohyaena antiquua, 67kg (147.7lbs), late Oligocene

Freszalaya hunteri, 31.8kg (70.1lbs), late Oligocene

Arctodictis munizi, 43.87kg (96.7lbs), early Miocene

Arctodictis sinclairi, 40kg (88.2lbs), early Miocene

Acrocyon sectorius, 22.48kg (49.6lbs), early Miocene

Borhyaena macrodonta, 32.97kg (88.1lbs), early Miocene

Borhyaena tuberata 36.4kg (80.2), early-mid Miocene

Prothylacinus patagonicus, 31.8kg (70.1lbs), early-mid Mocene

Dukecynus magnus, 45kg (99.2lbs), mid Miocene

Pseudolycopsis cabrerai, 19.2kg (42.3lbs), late Miocene

Thylacosmilus atrox, 117.4kg (258.8lbs), late Miocene-early Pliocene.

And these are just the ones found so far. Also most are known from few and fragmentary remains. There could be other, larger predators just waiting to be discovered.

Team dinosaur was going pretty strong and Diatryma was one of the larger players.

“Team dinosaur”? This is nature, not a sports league!

But now that we’ve discussed the perilous position of mammals at the time…

No you didn’t. You didn’t give any details. Nowhere did you say mammals were in a “perilous” position. You just said their transition after the K-Pg extinction was more complicated. Recently a bounty of fossils from Colorado shows that right after the K-Pg extinction mammals were already rebounding successfully. A few species of giant bird scattered across the globe does not mean mammals were in any kind of trouble. If you knew anything about the Paleocene you’d know that mammals were doing pretty good. By the time Gastornis appeared (56 million years ago), Mesonychids were already wolf sized; arctocyonids were sheep sized; pantodonts were bear sized; and the first bronotheres were cow sized! Mammals were already highly diverse by this time, with all kinds of different body plans and ecologies. They may not have been as impressive as what came before or after, but they most certainly were not in a “perilous position”.

…and placed Diatryma the right context, it’s time to reveal a potentially disappointing fact about Diatryma: it was most likely an herbivore.

I have a feeling this won’t affect your delusions, will it?

For a long time paleontologist have argued about whether Diatryma was a carnivore or not. The size of the bird, along with  its massive beak featuring attachments for large, immensely strong muscles suggested to many that this animal would ambush prey and break their necks with a powerful bite. That was always the dominant theory, but the hang up was that Diatryma lacked the hooked beak that modern birds of prey and even terror birds from the same time period possessed. They also lacked talons on their feet. For decades the carnivore status of Diatryma was questioned until finally in 2013 a study was published suggesting that the bird was most likely a plant eater. The study looked at the calcium isotope composition of preserved Gastornis (i.e. European version of Diatryma) fossils. Basically the calcium isotopic composition of bone becomes lighter the higher on the food chain you get. Levels found in Gastornis are similar to fossilized animals that are known to be herbivores. Additional studies of the levels of carbon 13 preserved in Gastornis fossils and also anatomical studies of the bird’s beak structure also suggest an herbivorous diet.

So it wasn’t the nightmarish predator we thought it was. So what? Science is about what is true, not what we want it to be. Right? Right?

Whether or not Diatryma was an herbivore, the big bird serves as a great example of how narrowly we mammals won our dominance of earth.

No, it doesn’t! One species spread across the northern hemisphere does not mean mammals “narrowly won”. Before Gastornis went extinct, mammals had already achieved a great deal of diversity, occupying a plethora of niches and attaining their largest size yet. Hell, when Gastornis appeared mammals already had a commanding presence on Earth.

For 200 million years our ancestors had been getting stepped on by dinosaurs and just when we thought it was safe…

That is a myth, one that needs to die pronto. The last 25 years has seen the discovery of scores of Mesozoic mammals that show they were not the disadvantaged pipsqueaks people think they were. They evolved diggers, swimmers, and even flyers. There were even a couple of sizeable species that preyed on baby dinosaurs. A primitive offshoot of the mammalian line grew to the size of an elephant at a time when most dinosaurs were small. One study shows that two of the three great radiations in mammal evolution happened during the Mesozoic. They remained on the sidelines, yes, but in terms of evolution they were every bit as successful as dinosaurs or as birds are today. You might know that if you pulled your head out of the dinosaur’s ass.

…team dino…

There’s that “team” crap again.

…pushed back with their numerous giant bird species that not only ate some of our ancestors, but also competed with our herbivorous ancestors for food.

And what a wussie push it was. Again, in most ecosystems on earth throughout the Cenozoic, rarely were there ever more than one or two species of giant bird around. Most of the large animal fauna was composed of mammals. The only place where they made up all of the large animal fauna was places like New Zealand, Hawaii, and other islands because of their isolation. They were dominant because they lived where mammals couldn’t (or didn’t) get to. And given that mammals outnumbered birds immensely in most ecosystems in terms of megafauna, they must have offered some pretty weak competition.

In the end, mammals gained the upper hand on land and now cling to the title of most successful animal group. But their success lies mostly in the fact that the largest animals in most environments are mammals. As far as sheer numbers are concerned, birds numerically outnumber mammals.

Ok, so which is it? Does size or diversity/numbers define who is “ruling the earth”? You just spent an entire article arguing that large birds meant dinosaurs were challenging mammals for domination. But then you say that birds outnumber them, implying they are the dominant ones. Way to move the goal posts. So no matter what, you’ll just change the definition to ensure that birds- sorry, dinosaurs- always come out on top? Just wow.

So did Diatryma really represent a Cretaceous relic in the age of mammals, or did it and other large bird species roaming the earth millions of years ago represent an incursion from a group that was already taming the frontier of the sky, and almost took the land as well?

And then mammals conquered that frontier as well. And for the last time, they did not almost take the land. The fact that mammals proliferated and diversified through time suggests birds failed to compete with them on the ground. Dear god, this was hard to sit through. It makes nature out to be some kind of contest where no matter what dinosaurs “win”. Nature has a great deal of competition, yes, but nothing resembling our concept of it. Like what this guy is bloviating here. Dear god, this was the most fawning bit of dino drivel I have ever read.

See, whenever I complain about people putting down mammals or other “dinosaurs rule, mammals drool” shit, I always get told “They’re just joking, they respect all aspects of paleontology”. But that’s always the excuse, isn’t it? Say something stupid or offensive and when someone takes issue with it just spout “I’m just joking”. What about the author of that article? Was he joking? Sounded pretty serious to me. What about when I said “mammals rule” on Facebook and some responded “but only for the last 66 million years”? His follow up made him sound pretty serious too. And when does it stop being a joke? At what point does it become so ingrained in the discourse that it’s hard to find funny (like I ever did in the first place)? People are impressionable. How are they supposed to know when shit like that article are “just joking”? I don’t shit on dinosaurs. I don’t give people shit for liking them. I give them shit for saying stupid things about them but not for just liking them. “Just joking” is a lame excuse used to cover one’s ass when they misspoke. And it’s hard to find it funny when the majority of society seems to agree.

You people make it really hard to like dinosaurs. Despite all appearances, I don’t hate them. I don’t like them as much as mammals but I still have an interest in them. I am deeply passionate about fossils, and they are fossils, so I am passionate about them too. I’m the kind of guy where hype ruins something for me. If you go on and on about how great something is then i am less likely to like or take an interest in it. Especially when you make it into a stupid competition.

Here is a fun fact. I don’t refer to the Cenozoic as the “age of mammals”. Even though mammals are the dominant group, reptiles and birds still did pretty good for themselves and produced many outstanding members of their respective kinds. But when you call birds dinosaurs (I know they are) it grates on my nerves. I think birds are pretty cool on their own. There are so many different species with almost as many marvelous adaptations that make the world a more fascinating place. But apparently none of that means anything unless it’s pointed out to you a hundred million times that they are modern day dinosaurs. Listening to these people you’d think that was their crowning evolutionary achievement. And ultimately it just makes things about dinosaurs again.

Not everything has to be about dinosaurs. There is already a perception that prehistory revolves around dinosaurs. I’ve heard people call mammoth and sloth skeletons dinosaurs. Places that deal with Cenozoic fossils, like the La Brea Tar Pits and Anza Borrego, constantly have to answer people asking “where are the dinosaurs?” Dinosaurs are the center of anything having to do with the distant past, from movies and video games to books and museum displays. They don’t need any help. They don’t need to be the focus of everything.

Or is that just part of being on “team dino” ? Your team is the best there ever was, and it is your mission to make everyone their fans. Nature isn’t some demented contest over whose team is better. It is a vastly complex system of interconnected phenomena where trends ebb and flow and twist and turn due to a variety of factors. Even when one thing seems better, it may not be elsewhere. And everything is at the mercy of the universe.

People often say mammals got lucky because if the asteroid didn’t hit 66 mya then dinosaurs would continue to rule the earth and mammals would never take over. I hope those people realize that by that logic, dinosaurs are lucky that all those pseudosuchians, protomammals, and labrynthodont amphibians went extinct at the end of the Triassic. If not then the “age of dinosaurs” would have been extremely different. Or was “team dino’s” ascent to world domination inevitable? But the end-Cretaceous asteroid isn’t a sure thing. What about the Deccan Traps in India? You know, the gigantic volcanic eruptions that many scientists think was already grinding things into extinction and the asteroid just finished it off. If the asteroid hadn’t hit, you think this would still be a planet of dinosaurs? You can’t say for certain, even if some people think they can.

The fossil record tells the most incredible story ever: the story of life on earth. Whether it’s the largest dinosaur or the smallest invertebrate, every part is vital to that story. Trying to focus everything on just one chapter, just one cast of characters, does that story a disservice and does nothing but insult its legacy. What these people are doing is taking a breathtaking and beautiful drama and turning it into a sports bar during Monday Night Football. It achieves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. What is even the point?

So there you have it, folks. What happens when people forget what science is all about or even how it functions. If we are to help people understand prehistory and get them interested in it the whole “vs” paradigm needs to be waylaid. People are impressionable and credulous. They rely on us to get the story straight. And they usually can’t tell when you’re “just joking”. Try to tell them how the world really was. Not the half-baked gladiatorial death match you want it to be.

Till next time!

Hey there everypeoples. 

Yet another entry after a long gap. Usual excuse: busy with work which usually leaves me worn out. And frankly, blogging has kinda lost its fulfillment. I dunno, maybe once I start my job in Texas I’ll have stuff to actually post instead of inane ramblings. Anyway, onto business. 

Many people seem to think I hate dinosaurs. I don’t. Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, dinosaurs are just animals. They have no agency of they own. They exist according to the laws that govern all other life on our planet. No,I don’t hate dinosaurs. I hate their fans. 

I hate how they are a bunch of simping fanboys. I hate how they think prehistory begins and ends with dinosaurs. I hate how they aren’t content with dinosaur’s complete domination of paleontology, and so shit on other aspects of the fossil record. I hate how they always try to excuse that shitting on with “it’s just a joke” (right, because jokes can’t color people’s perception).  

I also hate their enablers in the media. I hate how it has made people think that dinosaurs are the only focus of paleontology. I hate that their quest for ratings means they only focus on excess and superlatives (the biggest, scariest, weirdest, etc), which in turn makes people care only for excess and superlatives. I hate how the media latches onto every little mundane dinosaur discovery, while other finds have to struggle just to get noticed. I hate how the media’s conditioning of people makes me question whether I should even try writing a book about California’s fossil record (because it contains very few dinosaurs, which seems to be all people care about).  

In short, I hate the people surrounding dinosaurs. But I do not hate the dinosaurs themselves. And even though people have ensured I can never have more than a casual interest in them, I can understand and appreciate their place in the history of life. In fact, I might even try doing a little field work of my own in the Mesozoic. But it is for a very specific and unique idea. Not because I think dinosaurs are SO CEWL and THE BESTEST THING EVAR!!!!! Not because I have finally accepted them as the only fossils worth attention. No, I might still do some genuine work on dinosaurs because of how they fit into what I think was the most interesting episode of their story: provincialism. 

I have said before that the reason I am more interested in the Cenozoic than the Mesozoic is because of all the fascinating things going on during that time. Constantly changing climates, geology, and geography caused twists and turns in evolution that had never been seen before. The Mesozoic, to me, is just boring by comparison. Really the only thing comparable is the endemism in the Hateg Basin. During the Cretaceous it was an archipelago (group of islands), so you had deviations from the norm, like dwarf dinosaurs and a giraffe-sized flying reptile as a top predator. But even that can’t hold a candle to the Cenozoic. However, the emerging idea of dinosaur provincialism is another matter. 

For those of you not in the know, the idea of dinosaur provincialism posits that dinosaur faunas differed from each other in a north-south pattern. Specifically,this includes the dinosaurs, other animals, and their ecosystems in North America during the Late Cretaceous period. Around 80 million years ago, North America was divided in two by a shallow seaway. The eastern continent was called Applachia and the western Laramidia. We don’t know much about Appalachia, but the rocks of Laramidia are abundant and productive. They tell us that something different was going on in the “lost continent”. 

However, it did take a while for us to notice. During much of the 20^th century, dinosaurs in the west were collected without much thought to how they were related to each other, or how they differed. The idea of was first proposed to describe slightly different dinosaur faunas in the latest Cretaceous (68-66 mya, known as the late Maastrichtian). Mainly, scientists observed that the fauna in the north (Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and southern Canada) consisted of Tyrannosaurus rex, Triceratops, and the duckbill Edmontosaurus. But in the south, (Utah, New Mexico, and Texas) the fauna consists mainly of the sauropod Alamosaurus, the horned dinosaur Torosaurus, and a species of Tyrannosaurus (whether it’s T. rex or not is yet to be determined). Provincialism wouldn’t really catch on until more was found in older rocks, specifically around 75 mya (time known as the Campanian). There had been differences in the faunas found in Alberta, Montana, and New Mexico, but they weren’t readily apparent because the fragmentary fossils of the south were just referred to northern species. 

In the early 2000s, paleontologists began to intensely prospect the Kaipaowits formation of south-central Utah. Not only were the rocks of the right age (76 mya), but they were extremely productive. So productive that after only 20 years it already rivals the legendary Dinosaur Park formation of Alberta (which is contemporary with the Kaiparowits). The dinosaurs coming out were not just new species, but species utterly different from what had been found before. Species found there and nowhere else. This brought back the idea of provincialism with a vengeance. 

Fossils from other parts of Laramidia were reassessed, and many were found to be distinct enough to be their own species. That is when the pattern began to emerge that different species were only found in specific areas. Some are more provincial than others. So far the duckbills (hadrosaurs in science-speak) show the least degree of provincialism. Parasaurolophus and Gryposaurus span from Alberta to Utah and New Mexico; Kritosaurus ranges from New Mexico to Texas. Tyrannosaurs are mildly provincial, with some overlap (but that overlap seems to follow the north-south divide). Ceratopsians, the horned dinosaurs, are the most provincial. So far every region boasts its own species of ceratopsians, with virtually no overlap. 

Why is this the case? What was causing this division of faunas? What barriers existed that permitted such high levels of endemism? That is one of the great mysteries driving the investigation of provincialism. And as we delve deeper, the more questions arise. For example, Gryposaurus monumentensis from Utah (Kaiprowits Formation) has an extremely robust skull, not just for Gryposaurus but of duckbills in general. It is so robust that when it was officially published it was described as being “The Arnold Schwarzenegger of duckbills”. This robust skull was due to heavy muscles associated with chewing. Basically, it evolved to be an eating machine.  

Another duckbill from Texas is even more deviant. It’s upper jaw curves sharply downward, so much so that it was named Angulomasticator, which means “bent chewer”. Both of these duckbills are found in the south. Why did the southern duckbills develop such extreme feeding adaptations? Were plants in southern Laramidia tougher than in the north? Were plants not as nutrient rich, thus they needed ways to process vast quantities of vegetation? Did these feeding adaptations contribute to duckbill’s larger size in the south? (Oh yeah, judging from these social media posts hadrosaurs in southern Laramidia got bigger than the already sizable ones in the north).

The tyrannosaurs present another puzzle. In northern Laramidia, in the Dinosaur Park formation of Alberta, there were two species of tyrannosaur: Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus. So far this is unique in Lamidia, where every other section has just one species. Was it a matter of living space? After the Interior Seaway dried up there was much more landmass, and this increased landmass had two species of tyrannosaur: Tyrannosaurus rex and Nanotyrannus lancensis (yeah, I still consider Nanotyrannus a separate species, mainly because I’m not convinced we understand histology as well as some people think we do). Was available space the reason for higher diversity of tyrannosaurs in the north? Or were there other factors? 

The ceratopsians have their own diversity issue. For a long time, it was thought that the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta boasted the greatest diversity of ceratopsians in the world. To date eight species have been named from the unit. However, once paleontologists began factoring in biostratigraphy this diversity shriveled. It was discovered that there were no more than twoor three species living together at a time throughout the formation. This was more in line with what we saw in the rest of Laramidia. At least until the Kaiparowits Formation entered the picture. 

The Kaiparowits Formation has had tight stratigraphic control since serious work on it began. Most fossils come from the middle member, and most species of been found throughout, suggesting the fauna was pretty stable. To date, 3 species of ceratopsians of been named from the Kaiparowits: Utahceratops, Kosmoceratops, and Nasutoceratops. This already gives the Kaiparowits the record for highest ceratopsian diversity. Except if the IDs on these specimens are to be believed, then the Kaiparowits would have an unprecedented 4 or 5 species of ceratopsians living together. 

Why was the diversity so high? It’s especially weird when you consider the San Juan Basin of New Mexcico. Barely over 200 miles away, rocks of the same age as the Kaiparowits have produced only one species of ceratopsian (yes, there are Navajoceratops and Terminocavus, but those are based on fragmentary remains so we don’t know if they are just variations or species of Pentaceratops. Even if they are valid, they are separated stratigraphically, which would mean there was still only one species at a time). It’s the same with the Two Medicine Formation in Montana and the Aguja Formation in Texas. Is this due to some environmental factors? Or is it simply collection bias? After all, not as much work has been done in the other formations. But, there is clearly something going on in the Kaiparowits that made it very favorable to ceratopsians. We need to find more in the rest of Laramidia to answer this question and others. 

Now, I have laid out the scientific reasons why dinosaur provincialism is important. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t admit to also having a personal one. As I grew up and learned more about the fossil record, my main focus shifted to mammals and the Cenozoic era. But I still maintained an interest in dinosaurs (though the fanboys and media have made that appreciation difficult at times). At first I had only known about Alberta and the Dinosaur Park Formation. this was no accident, since it was the most thoroughly searched and studied. But then I began to learn about the different dinosaurs (or not so different, since fossils were at first just referred to northern taxa) of New Mexico and Texas. I have always been drawn to what is different and outside the mainstream. So, these different faunas were right up my alley. I even thought of one day looking for dinosaurs in New Mexico and Texas. 

When the idea of dinosaur provincialism began to pick up steam, I was ensnared. Back when I had delusions of starting my own museum, I had wanted to create a provincial collection. Regional museums hold significant collections from their own immediately relevant areas. But there wasn’t any single collection in an institution covering the scope of dinosaurs in Laramidia. I had designs of making that a reality. Of course those designs never came to pass. But four years ago I started volunteering with the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Their dinosaur curator, Joe Sertich, heads up the Laramidia Project, an ambitious research and collecting program exploring Laramidia during the Late Cretaceous. They have been collecting in Utah and New Mexico, with eyes on Colorado and Texas. 

 Sertich and the Denver Museum are by far the closest anyone has come to realizing my vision of a provincial dinosaur collection. However, they’re mainly focused on the south. I feel to really get an idea for Laramidia and provincialism ( and round out their already amazing collection) they could use some stuff from the north. I have told people that the Two Medicine Formation is the only thing I would actually go to Montana for. Mainly, because it ties in to dinosaur provincialism (plus I’m a sucker for all those gnarly centrosaurines). And the guy who I’m going to go work for in Texas says he knows someone who works that formation and so might be able to get me in. If true, then I could get the Denver Museum some of those sweet northern Laramidian dinosaurs.  

Now, trying to initiate fieldwork myself would no doubt be a daunting task. I’ve never considered myself leadership material. Managing a group of people would certainly be challenging for one with my less than steller people skills. There is all the planning involved including a crapload of logistics. I don’t know how to get funding of any kind. “In over my head” would probably be an understatement. But I’d try anyway. Not just for the museum who gave me my big break. But because I think provincialism is that important.  

The work on Laramidia is only just beginning. So much so it’s still in the “naming new species” phase. There is so much to uncover. The main attraction is the slice of time around 75 million years ago. But there are rocks from before and after that. We need it all to understand how Laramidia came to be and where it went after that “golden period”. The individual formations have enough to keep researchers occupied but they need to be considered in relation to each other. I’m already doing my part (hopefully can do more). Again, this is easily the most interesting and dynamic thing going on in the world of dinosaurs. It’s not about how big and scary and awesome they are. It’s not just exploring the basics like what they ate or how they grew. It is about their world and how they lived in it. And if it can get a mammal obsessed person like me to dig into it (pun not intended), then it’s certainly worth exploring. 

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

Today is going to be a quicky. I have been working on a new post but then life happened. This includes having to replace my computer (eating up my tax return in the process). But i have also been busy with some paleontology stuff of my own which will get it’s own post in the future. But i wanted to make this short post to share an awesome bit of news with you.

I was contacted by the head of Feed Spots. He was contacting me to let me know that i made his list of the top 20 paleontology blogs to follow in 2018! How cool is that? Apparently he considers me on par with The Raymond Alf Museum and Waxing Paleontological. You can check out the list here.

Well i have to get back to all the crap i have going on right now.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

I have always had an interest in ancient elephants. Ever since I first laid eyes on the woolly mammoth at the Royal British Columbia Museum, they have always held a spell on me. It has only been in recent years that they have drawn me in as a research interest. Despite being a diverse and very successful group with a broad array of adaptations, not a lot of work has been done on them outside of naming new species and studying their Ice Age members. However, the first serious research question I ever came up* with involves our old friend the American mastodon.

*I say I came up with it, but I doubt I was the first to consider it.

Mastodons are big animals. Being relatives of elephants, that should be a given. They are invariably described as reaching 10 feet tall and weighing in excess of 5 tons. Like all prehistoric animals, these figures are based on the largest known specimens and fail to take variation into account (especially in museums, where mounted skeletons are rarely as big as the diagrams seen in books). Variation in size can be due to things like geography, diet, habitat, and even genetics. When I was growing up, my books said that mastodons were from the Midwest (places like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois). This fact didn’t mean much to me until my college years.

In 2007 I attended my first field trip  with the once great San Bernardino County Museum. We went to the newly opened Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology (now the Western Science Center), home to the fossils treasures uncovered during the construction of the Diamond Valley Lake reservoir. As the erudite Eric Scott explained the fossils to us, he explained that the museum’s unofficial mascot, Max, was a bit of a surprise. The first bone of Max found was his pelvis. According to Eric, it was so large they first thought it was a mammoth. It wasn’t until they uncovered his skull that they realized they had a mastodon. Say what?

The enormous skull of the mastodon Max, on display at the Western Science Center, Hemet, California.

You see, this confusion stem from the La Brea Tar Pits. At the time the best comparative material in the region (neigh California) was from Rancho La Brea. And, the mastodons there are runts by elephant standards. Just look at the female and her calf on display in the Page Museum:

The positively shrimpish mastodons of Rancho La Brea.

She is barely 6 feet at the shoulder, and the calf is the size of a pony. Sure, females are smaller than males, but that would mean the males probably didn’t exceed 7 feet at the shoulder (far below the 9 to 10 feet of the Midwestern specimens). So, it is no wonder that Max created such a stir. In fact, studies would later conclude that he is the largest mastodon in western North America, as large as the biggest individuals from the Midwest. And Max wasn’t alone. All the mastodons found in Diamond Valley were large. And the La Brea mastodons weren’t alone either. All mastodons in California outside of Diamond Valley were unusually small. What was going on? Why were the mastodons of Diamond Valley so much larger than in the rest of California? I had no idea. I’m not sure anyone else did. This information sat around in my mind for years until one day something just clicked.

The forelimb of a diminutive mastodon from San Diego County (formerly on display at the San Diego Natural History Museum). If it was flat on the floor and had it’s scapula, it wouldn’t reach 6 feet.

Skull from Santa Cruz county. Only half the size of the ones from Diamond Valley.

A smallish mastodon radius from Jerupa, Riverside County.

A mastodon found during construction of a community center, Laguna Hills, Orange County. A bit on the large side, which in this context means he was around 7 feet at the shoulder. Not bad, but still not as big as the mastodons in Diamond Valley or the Midwest.

Mastodon fossils found during construction of toll roads, Orange County. The femur is less than three feet long.

Bones of a mastodon found in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County. The size of the bones suggests an animal between 6 and 7 feet tall.

I have given up trying to figure out how my mind works. Something I see or hear could cause it to make the most strained and far reaching connections that seemingly come out of nowhere. My mind made one of these connections one day when I was randomly thinking about the size disparity between American mastodons. I remembered a small blurb from the intro section of a National Geographic issue. It was on the Burning Tree Mastodon (BTM), named after the golf course in Ohio where it was found. The Burning Tree Mastodon is touted as being one of, if not the, largest mastodon ever found in North America. BTM was not just notable for his size but also what was found with him. Amongst the bones was a wad of plant matter that scientists determined was preserved gut contents. The cold muck of the bog had preserved the BTM’s last meal. According to the article the gut contents consisted of water lilies, pond weed, and swamp grass. Why is this important to the mystery of size in American mastodons?

Cast of the Burning Tree Mastodon on display at the Cincinnati Museum Center, Ohio. By flickr user Chris.

The scientist quoted in the article said: “That is a very rich and nutritious diet. This guy was focusing on yummy stuff.” That’s when it hit me. Could diet be the key to why mastodons were so large in the Midwest and so small in California? It’s not unheard of. Coastal brown bears are bigger than grizzlies because the former eats more meat (thanks to huge salmon runs). The aquatic vegetation being described as “rich and nutritious” got me thinking. The Midwest, even today, is full of marshes, swamps, ponds, and rivers brimming with plants. California during the Ice Age had more water than today. Even the Mojave Desert was dotted with lakes and streams. But, it lacked the extensive wetlands seen in the Midwest. That is, except for one place: Diamond Valley. One mastodon, Little Stevie, was found in wetland deposits. Was this the key to the puzzle of mastodon size? It was starting to look that way.

Of course this is all just speculation on my part. Conducting actual research is another matter. How would one go about investigating this? For starters, we would need to examine the diet of the animals. One way to do this is with stable isotopes. This technique has been used to tell if an animal is a browser or a grazer. At the 2013 SVP, I spoke with a scientist who does isotope studies. She said she didn’t know if this technique could differentiate between terrestrial and aquatic vegetation (but she then said that is research to be done). What else could we do?

There is microwear analysis. In this process, casts are made of the surfaces of an animal’s teeth. The casts are then put under a scanning electron microscope. This allows us to see microscopic scratches on the surface of the surface of the tooth. Different diets leave different scratch patterns. By comparing these patterns to those of modern animals with known diets, we can infer the diet of the extinct animal. How would we tell terrestrial brush from aquatic plants? Same thing as before. Compare the patterns to those of modern animals with various diets—for instance, giraffes and deer for browsing, manatees for water plants, and moose and capybaras for a mix of the two. At least that’s the idea and I’m sticking with it (until I find out I shouldn’t).

Nothing in paleontology comes easy. The snippets of facts you see in exhibits and the long winded treatises you read in books are the end result of a lot of work. Gathering data and conducting studies can take years. Care must be taken to keep the process as pure as possible so as not to get misleading results. Because then you’d have to do it all over again, if you can (especially with destructive methods like isotope analysis). And it may lead to a totally different conclusion then what you were hypothesizing. Mastodon size differences are no different. This is a riddle that will require lots of hard work from numerous people to crack. I may or may not be one of them. My only hope is that will one day be solved.

Till next time!

Hey there every peoples!

I have a brief moment of respite between field excursions so I’ll make this quick.

For years I have been wanting to publish a book on California’s fossil vertebrates. I feel there has never been a comprehensive source bringing all the information on California’s incredible prehistory into one place. The Golden State was once home to beardogs and sabercats; giant camels and pygmy mammoths; three-toed horses and hippo-like marine mammals; ground sloths and giant “toothed” seabirds; and killer sperm whales and and shovel-jawed elephants. And yet there are barely any books on the subject at all. As far as I can tell, there are only a couple gift shop books on Rancho la Brea and the Anza Borrego book. Hardly representative of all that California’s paleontology has to offer.

So I am to fix that. But I need your help. My book will be heavy on pictures and illustrations because I want to show the reader the fossils and creatures themselves. To do this, I’m going to need a good camera, other photography equipment (lighting, background, etc), and a new laptop to write and edit photos on. In all this stuff will run about $3500. And the great thing is once I have this stuff I’ll be able to use it for future books and even for my scientific research. This one act of generosity will go a long way.

So please donate to my book writing fund. Any amount would help me to reach my goal. I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide. The fossil vertebrates of California have an incredible story to tell. With your donation, you can help tell it with me.

Till next time!