Last week I took a very brief trip to Germany to do a round of several museums and collect some data for various projects I am working on. As well as catching up with some old friends (human and fossil) I got to see some new ones (human and fossil). I’ve been filling in the pterosaurs over on Pterosaur.net (including this guy which is an absolute must-see) but here I thought it would be best to bring back Sciurumimus. This little theropod did make an appearance on here when first described, but now I have a couple of pictures of my own (the specimen is currently on display in the Solnhofen Museum) it seemed time to bring it back. So here’s a couple of additional images of this outstanding little theropod.
Archive Page 2
I’ve just returned from a brief trip to Germany taking in the Jura Museum, Solnhofen Museum and a quick run up to the Senckenberg in Frankfurt. I was poking around with pterosaurs, birds and dinosaurs and while actually Archaeopteryx didn’t feature in the agenda, I did of course catch up with a few things as it were. As a result, the ever growing Archaeopteryx archive can now be filled in a little as there were some awkward gaps and problems and while still not perfect, I do now have things much better covered than before.
First off, some replacement images for the ‘chicken wing’ specimen in Solnhofen. My previous photos were all out of focus but these should be rather better.
Next we have a cast of the Haarlem specimen from the Jura Museum, and this is backed by a cast from the Senckenberg below. Neither is ideal, I’d still love to see and shoot the original, but between them they have some good coverage of the specimen.
Finally, here is a series of photos of casts of the lost Maxberg specimen – again from both Jura (first) and Senckenberg. Neither the Maxberg or Haarlem have featured on here before and so while still only covered by casts, really does flesh out the archive rather well.
Tags: books, Dinosaurs
I don’t think the Golden books were ever quite as big in the UK as they were in the U.S., but we certainly had them over here and I do recall coming across the now classic Golden Book of Dinosaurs as a child. As with many such books it was well illustrated with many pictures and relatively little text, and it certainly had appeal – almost everyone I know who has mentioned it has warm memories of the book.
It is then a tough act to follow, even in the modern age where there are huge numbers of competing titles and this is the route taken by Bob Bakker and Luis Rey. To pay tribute to the old, but make it modern and contemporary, and also keep it ‘competitive’ is no easy task, but I think they have done admirably. The text is crisp and simple and easy to read and is written in a manner that I am absolutely sure will appeal to a great many children with some evocative ideas and explanations. What is also nice is that it doesn’t shay away in places from a little technical language or complex ideas (like fenestra in skulls to separate mammals from reptiles) that help go beyond the mere basics.
There are some annoyances though. Yes, excitement and interesting hypotheses can help draw people in and especially when aimed at a young audience it can be difficult to make things clear and simple but also keep them accurate, but there are places where the text leans on minority or untested hypotheses (sauropods battling with their necks and whip-cracking tails) and some irritating and unnecessary terminology (Bakker’s awful predilection for calling pterosaurs “dactyls”).
The art however is very Luis Rey. I know not everyone likes his style, and if not, well this won’t be for you. But for those who do, it’s a typically wonderful mix of the dramatic, bold and bright with good anatomical details and getting in plenty of feathers and the like in all the right places. There are updated versions of older pictures (like the brooding oviraptorosaur) and plenty of new ones, not least the cover set to mimic the original book.
Overall though this book is aimed at children and needs to be judged with that in mind. With that forefront the book is great – I’m sure young children will devour it and it will generate both interest and understanding of dinosaurs. As a way to excite those who are already keen or draw in those who have yet to experience dinosaurs I am sure this will do a great job and that’s exactly something I can’t say for too many kids books on dinosaurs. Great job guys.
Tags: archaeopteryx, bird, evolution
Continuing my collection / database of Archaeopteryx images, it’s time to increase it a little further. Last week I helped out at the Natural History Museum’s ‘open evening’ called “Science Uncovered”. I was there basically to be a scientist for people to talk to, but there were whole stands from other universities with research connected to the NHM and of course a raft of curators, researchers and other staff bringing the behind-the-scences stuff to the front of house. One special had been laid on that really drew the crowds – the 11th Archaeopteryx specimen.
Although it has appeared on here before, this is the first time I had seen it and was able to take some notes of features and indeed get a few photos. The lighting was absolutely nightmarish, but between tons of photos and a bit of tweaking of balance levels I have produced at least a few that are not too terrible, though at not very high resolution and mostly taken at a pretty low angle. Enjoy (as far as you can).
Just a quick alert for some interested people. Bit short notice I know but just a month from now there is a Jehol-Wealden conference in Southampton, including a fieldtrip to the Isle of Wight. I’m sure it will be of interest to dinosaur researchers and dinophiles in the UK and likely beyond so is worth taking a look at. Here’s the link.
Tags: art, Darwin, Dinosaurs, palaeoart
Well it’s been quite a while but this was never forgotten, so I’m delighted to get the palaeoart interviews rumbling to life again by bringing you a one on one with Scott Hartman, most famous for his dinosaur skeletals but also well into the more ‘traditional’ branches of life reconstructions. There’s plenty on his website and DeviantArt pages, but Scott has also been good enough to share some new and upcoming stuff too. As ever, everything is copyright to Scott so play nice and no sharing without asking him first, it’s his work not mine.
How long have you been an artist?
I’m afraid I don’t have a straightforward answer to that – while I drew a bit growing up I never really kept up with it. For a long time I approached technical illustration as a tool rather than art; even my life reconstructions were originally little more than a way to show off anatomy for quite a while. I guess the transition probably occurred when I started to do artwork regularly to help supply the Wyoming Dinosaur Center with imagery for displays; since I was doing “arty” things on a regular basis I started to learn new techniques, began to think more about composition, lighting, etc. So in terms of when I felt I had personally become an artist then it’s been a decade or so.
How long have you been producing palaeoart?
Based on my previous answer I have to say that it’s been for longer than I’ve been an artist! The first paleoart pieces I produced that were shown in art shows was back in 1995, but they were…well, let’s just say I still had much to learn. The first skeletal reconstructions I produced that I would consider sufficiently professional so as to stand on their own was 1997, while the first life reconstructions that I would still want to take responsibility for probably date to around 2001-2002.
What first got you interested in dinosaurs and art?
I have always been interested in dinosaurs – some of my earliest memories include having the Little Golden Book of Dinosaurs read to me (often several times a day). I guess from there I never really grew up. Art, on the other hand, was really just a re-occuring fancy until my work with dinosaurs demanded I take it more seriously, and from there it has grown into its own interest rather later than I imagine occurs from other artists. I expect this put me at something of a disadvantage compared to the many talented young artists I see out there that dedicate far more time to honing their craft, but luckily I’ve play a bit of catch-up later in life.
What is your favourite piece of palaeo art that you have produced?
I guess it would be Dawn Fisher (above), which depicts Unenlagia fishing in the early morning hours. It’s not really a complicated painting, but it’s one of the few pieces where I truly approached it as a compositional piece rather than a technical reconstruction, and lo and behold it turned out with the tone and feel that I had originally envisioned. I have a few others pieces that I’ve also been working on from an “art-first” perspective, but alas they are also more complex and I haven’t had time to finish them (so far!).
Who is your favourite palaeoartist or piece of palaeoart?
There are just so many ways to take (and answer) who my favorite paleoartist is – my favorite as a person? My favorite in terms of technique? In terms of accuracy? I’ve done this long enough to have several paleoartists that I am lucky enough to enjoy as friends, while the internet has also allowed for an even larger influx of new talent to be seen that perhaps would have been missed in previous decades. All of which sounds like I’m wussing out really. I guess if I had to pick one name it would be David Krentz, as I’ve always found his artwork delightful and he’s been a fantastic coworker on a myriad of different projects, from education to film and TV. My favorite piece of paleoart requires no such beating around the bush; it’s Mike Trcic’s Daspletosaurus sculpture that he did back when he was working on the original Jurassic Park dinosaurs. I’m sure a lot of it was timing (I originally laid eyes on it at my first SVP way back in Seattle), that it was one of the first paleo sculptures I’d seen in person, and the way it encapsulated much of the paleoart revolution up until then, but no other piece has made such a strong visceral impression on me. I’m just sad I didn’t have the means to pick one up back when they were available.
What is your favourite dinosaur / archosaur?
I always have a soft-spot for the animals I’ve spent time working with, including Archaeopteryx, Supersaurus, Camarasaurus, and Medusaceratops. I’m also pretty darn fascinated with all things archosaurian in the Triassic (and even the synapsids, but this clearly is neither the time nor place to talk about those one-window wannabees).
Is there any animal you would like to paint but have not?
All of them? I really love coming up with new visions of prehistoric life, but there aren’t enough hours in the day for me to get it done. And I’m about to have a lot less free time this fall.
What do you think is the most important part of good palaeoart?
Obviously good technique is important, but I feel that what makes paleoart fascinating is that it’s always in a state of tension between what constrains an artist (data and plausibility) and the freedom to follow his or her imagination. Being able to navigate that tension to produce something that is simultaneously data-driven yet fresh and imaginative is the intangible “it” that the best paleoart has in my view.
Tags: art, book review, insects
A few weeks ago I got an invitation for a copy of something akin to a graphic novel on insects that I could review. The invitation was by the author, Mozchops, and although I really had no idea what it was, but it looked superb so of course I said yes. When it arrived I started devouring it avidly, but then got interrupted and it’s been sat next to my bed for weeks glowering at me and reminding me of the fact that I was enjoying it and hadn’t finished it, let alone reviewed it. So this evening I sat down and went through the rest.
The whole thing is beautifully illustrated and is done (as far as I can tell) digitally, but with a flourish that looks a lot more like real painting than most. While largely bright and colourful, there’s some wonderfully dark images (and tone) in places that provides a superb contrast and there is also a great mix of huge closeups right the way through to vast landscapes.
The whole thing is narrated by some sparse text which is all in rhyming couplets. There is, as far as I can tell, no real story, it’s more a set of little scenes or settings with various animals going about their business – feeding, growing, mating, killing. At this point I should mention that it is all set in a slightly offset world. It’s familiar, but clearly not quite the world we know – you’ll recognise termites, centipedes, stalk-eyed flies, caterpillars, beetles and plenty of others but they are all fictional extensions of what we are used to giving it a fantasy twist.
I do have to confess that frankly I have pretty much no understanding of what the book is about, assuming it is actually supposed to be specifically about anything at all. That may have been the author’s intent, it may be my ignorance. What it does do though, is make you think – the art is beautiful and presents perhaps more an impression of how we think of the insects and various terrestrial invertebrates illustrated as opposed to their ‘real’ appearance.
Did I ‘get’ this book? Quite possibly not.
Do I like it? I’m genuinely not sure.
Is it unique and quite beautiful? Certainly.
Tags: Dinosaurs, ourtreach, Science Communication
So once more I’ve been doing outreachy stuff that’s not just the Musings and so want to spread the word on the off-chance that some of my readers will want still more Hone-generated ramblings.
First off, The Lost Worlds over at the Guardian still keeps on going and I’m still posting material there regularly. However, they have just updated their name and so any old links may no longer work and so you’ll be wanting to use this link now and update any you have on your own blogs etc.
Second, I recently did an interview for the Jersey Boys Hunts Dinosaurs site, talking about my research and the advice for students and young researchers hoping to break into palaeo.
Finally, I recently sat down the people from Faculti Media. This is an interesting new concept where they create short videos of researchers talking about their work to provide a platform for outreach. It was great fun to do (but tricky, although edited, it was close to being live with only a couple of takes at the thing) and I think it offers a new approach with nice little bite-sized chunks of science explained by the researchers. In my case, it was on sexual selection and socio-sexual signaling in dinosaurs and it’s come out quite well, (though clearly the camera was focused on the background, not me, whoops!).
Tags: biology, crowdsourcing, dinosaur, evolution, tails
Regular readers should be familiar with my 2012 paper on the lengths of tails in non-avian dinosaurs (those who you who missed it, for shame! can catch up with my post here). In this I looked at the general lack of complete tails in the fossil record, but also showed that tail length varies considerably in dinosaurs, and thus should not be included in length estimates or mass estimates derived from length.Collecting data for the paper I scoured a number of museum collections, went through as much of the dinosaur literature as I felt able, and also contacted numerous researchers and curators to ask for any ideas and things I might have missed or undescribed specimens hidden in basements and drawers. Many people were generous with their time and knowledge and by the end of it, I was really pleased with what I had in terms of a dataset.
Almost inevitably though, without hours of publication and my blog post on the subject, people started contacting me with new leads. Many were things I had looked at and decided were not complete, but some were things I had missed and represented additional data. Great though this was, there was not a lot I could do with even a handful of new data – the paper was done. However, inspired I did dive back into the literature and had another look and did find a few more and as you may have guessed, have now got as far as I, or rather we, can. This time out I’m collaborating with Scott Persons (who has been doing a lot of his own tails stuff) and a mathematically inclined colleague Steve Le Comber.
Scott and I have pooled our resources and have now found nearly 50 dinosaur specimens with complete tails, though we have this time out also been including specimens with ‘nearly’ complete tails. Obviously subjective, but we’re working on that.
Anyway, we’re appealing for more data. If you are aware of a dinosaur that has a truly complete (every single caudal vert, down to the last nub) tail, that’s not on the list, then do please let us know. If you know of something that’s near complete (maybe just a tip missing, or a couple in the middle or similar) do also let us know. Please be as specific as possible – “I think I saw a hadrosaur with a good tail in the AMNH” isn’t going to win you any prizes or get us anywhere, and we have at this point checked out a lot of material. On that note, all we can really offer is a mention in the acknowledgements for good leads that yield datapoints, and this may also include some limited measure of gratitude, or even a pint at the next conference where you catch us. Maybe.
Here are the lists of what we have to date.
|Jeholosaurus||IVPP V 12529|
|Scutellosaurus||MNA PI. 175|
|Dyoplosaurus||Arbour et al., 2009|
|Tethyshadros||Dalla Vecchia, 2009|
|Edmontosaurus||Lull and Wright, 1942|
|Hadrosauridae indet||TMP 1998.58.01|
|Psittacosaurus||IVPP V 120888|
|Gallimimus||Osmólska et al., 1972|
|Caudipteryx||IVPP V 12430|
|Nomingia||Barsbold et al., 2000|
|Microraptor||IVPP V 13352|
|Mei||Xu and Norell, 2004|
|Jinfengopteryx||CAGS IG 040801|
|Epidexipteryx||IVPP V 15471|
|Protoceratops||Fastovsky et al. 2012|
|Protoceratops||Fastovsky et al. 2012|
|Leaellynasaura||Herne pers comm|
|Microraptor||Li et al 2012|
|Sinusonasus||Xu & Wang 2004|
|Spinophorosaurus||Remes et al 2009|
Near complete tails:
|Epidendrosaurus||IVPP V 12653|
|Corythosaurus||Lull & Wright, AMNH 5240|
|Anatosaurus||Lull & Wright 8399|
|Anatosaurus||lull & wright|
|Tianyuraptor||Zheng et al 2009|
|Juravenator||Chiappe & Goehlich, 2010|
|Sciurumimus||Rauhut et al 2012|
|Psittacosaurus sinensis||IVPP V 738|
|Sinocalliopteryx||Ji et al 3007|
|Sinosauropteryx||Currie & Chen 2001|
Any other suggestions (specimens or papers), please do add them to the comments below. All help is most gratefully received.
Tags: ceratopsian, dinosaur, ornithischian
Well the new ceratopsian Nasutoceratops has been named and the paper is out. If you want to read a bit about it, I have a post up over on the Guardian here. Since that’s already written, I wanted to do something a bit different here and thanks to Mark Loewen, I’ve been supplied with a series of nice images and art of the beastie and it’d be a shame not to use them here.
All in all some beautiful stuff, but I had no room for it on the Lost Worlds, so I’m pleased to get it up somewhere. Thanks to the team for sharing and great stuff from all the artists.
Tags: Dinosaurs, fossils, outreach, Science Communication
As part of my travel to Canada for the Project Daspletosaurus work, I attended the Fossil Collections and Preparation Symposium hosted at the Tyrrell. Obviously I’m not much of a preparator, but after getting through the mammoth Gorgosaurus prep stuff with Darren Tanke, there was obvious scope to talk about sci comms in general and what we’d done with the field of preparation specifically and how me might go about improving that. All of the talks were recorded and have now gone up on line. There’s some cool stuff like removing old consolidants or microvertebrate screening, so hunt around on the Tyrrell’s YouTube channel, so it’s well worth having a look around, there were a ton of talks.
Tags: Dinosaurs, evolution, palaeontology, sexual selection
Those with an interest in dinosaur cranial crests and exaggerated structures (which should really be everyone since they turn up in pretty much every major lineage one way or the other) will probably be aware of the exchanges going on in the literature over these features. Although myself and colleagues have been advocating that sexual selection (and or socio-sexual signaling: the two can be hard to separate) is a likely strong candidate as the prime driver for many of these features, others have been advocating that this is not the case and instead the answer lies in species recognition. The latest to delve into this area is a paper I’ve done with Darren Naish and is the first time we’ve addressed this issue directly. While we have written or contributed to a number of efforts looking at support for sexual selection in dinosaurs, this is the first time we have tackled the other side of the problem.
The paper originally started as a long section that was included in our paper on mutual sexual selection with Innes Cuthill, but as we were later forced to cut down the length of the submission, this was a section that was relatively easy to prune as tangential to the main issue. However, we felt it needed saying and with new data coming out and the discussion ramping up, we revived and revised the work and it is now out. (Well, it has been in press and available for a while but is now properly out).
This is an important area for discussion – after all, the horns, crests, frills, plates, bosses and the rest (not least feathers) are key features and adaptations in various dinosaur lineages and trying to work out how they might have been used and what this means for evolutionary drivers and patterns is going to be a major issue. It’s hard to really understand stegosaurs or ceratopsians say if you can’t say that much with confidence about their ‘bonus’ features. While obviously each clade, or even each genus / species probably needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis when it comes to detailed analyses, some gross patterns can be seen or at least discussed. In the case of species recognition, is it even an actual ‘thing’ when it comes to exaggerated structures, and if it is, how is it supposed to work. The hypothesis has enjoyed some support in the literature for some unusual dinosaur features so it’s well worth examining.
Species recognition (in the context of exaggerated structures) for those who don’t know, is the idea that individuals of a species use these features to help them recognise cospecifics with to ensure they mate with the right species, or to maintain herd coherence. In short, carry round a key feature and you should be able to make it easier to stay in touch with the right animals and avoid the wrong ones. Various lines have been put forward to support this idea (in general and specifically towards dinosaurs) but we feel that none of them actually stack up and some have some serious problems.
First off is a pretty big issue – to our knowledge there is no evidence of any living species using some form of crest or exaggerated structure for species recognition. Individuals of species do recognise each other (not a big shock) but actually things like antlers or casques don’t seem to form part of the pattern that conspsecifics recognise. This may not be a big shock, after all, you can recognise a species by the overall appearance (size, shape, colour), their smell or specific sounds they make, behaviour, and other features. On top of this, some species are very varied in appearance for the big features (antlers of deer look very different as they grow, and are different between males and females and between juveniles and adults etc.) so relying on one feature is a bad idea at best, and a plastic one an especially bad call.
Plus of course, you often get closely related taxa that are sympatric. Is some big set of horns going to help you correctly identify conspecifics if there are half a dozen similarly-looking species also in the area? Look at things like African antelope and gazelle, or more extreme examples like tyrant flycatchers. We have trouble telling them apart sometimes based on their morphology, yet they seem to have no trouble. If this is so critical to dinosaurs, why to the iguanodonts seem relatively free of crests, but the hadrosaurs go nuts with them? And why are they all so similar in general form between species when they are supposed to help separate them out? Surely they should be divergent, not all similar in appearance. And why do we see things like Wuerhosaurus or Spinosaurus running around with all this weight to make sure they don’t mate with the wrong species when there are no other members of their clade to get confused with?
In some cases we see both issues coming together. If we look at the various small protoceratopsians of China / Mongolia, we see disagreement between researchers as to how many species (or genera) there may be. What is notable however, is that the characters being used to separate them out don’t typically involve the frill or bosses of the skull, and where they do, may be things that are not externally visible (e.g. the width of the media bar in the frill). In short – if there are multiple species here, the frills are apparently similar enough that we can’t separate them and so are unlikely to be part of the identity concept of the animals. If however, there is only one species present, then we are back to the paradox of a large frill being carried around but with no other species that could confound any signals.
On top of that, is it really worth it? After all, while you do want to stay in touch and make sure you mate with the right species, bolting on a good few kilos of bone to your head, and then the extra muscle to support it, and then lugging that around for your entire life is a lot of effort. When you can probably already identify conspecifics by their colour, patterns, scent and calls (of simply because nothing else like them at all is on the same continent) surely these would experience strong negative selective pressures if they didn’t have any other support.
Furthermore, how would such features ever evolve? If the populations / species were allopatric then we return to the situation of them not having another group to get confused with and crests are unnecessary for recognition. If they were sympatric though, how would this work? Pretty much the definition of a natural biological population is one that is breeding within itself, but here we’d have to have a population diverging because some don’t recognise each other as conspecifics even though we would expect, pretty much by definition, there not to be too much difference in structure shape between them (e.g. a tiny crest vs no crest). Now some animals might prefer each other, but that’s mate choice, not recognition, and there would have to be enough individuals for this to work – one mutant with a crest when no one else has one is not going to start forming a new species, and if there were a bunch of the with the new crest they’d also have to identify each other as different and avoid mating or hanging around with the others. So how would a large feature that’s for correct recognition allow a population to split in this way? To us at least it appears most unlikely to occur at all, let alone repeatedly.
In addition to this, there is rampant hybridization of closely related species in the natural world (and indeed in captivity). Even extravagantly ornamented species like pheasants with numerous adornments and bright colours and patterns hybridise regularly – clearly no matter how extreme the cue, at least some animals regularly have problems with them or are indiscriminate, but either way they are not that effective.
While some data like the apparent rapid growth of structures late in ontogeny has been used to support the idea that they are characteristics involved in socio-sexual signaling, it’s also a problem for the herd coherency part of the model. After all, lots of juvenile dinosaurs are known from aggregations suggesting they spent a lot of time together, even when the adults did not appear to. If these features were key, we’d expect juveniles to have them, and adult perhaps to shun them when they were no longer needed, but instead the opposite is true. In general the herd coherency argument is a bit odd anyway, again you have lots of ways of identifying and keeping in touch with conspecifics and some are clearly better than visual aids. Scent can have a temporal component, and vocalizations can be interactive beyond line of sight (especially useful in forests, or when things are behind you, or you are foraging and looking down etc.). No matter how big they are, visual structures are not always going to be that useful, even if they are unique.
In the increasingly infamous issue of Torosaurus and Triceratops, if these animals are truly conspecific then for a start we are back to the issue of ‘lone’ taxa (I don’t think Leptoceratops is going to be much of an issue here) and the pointlessness of crests where none are needed. On the other hand, this is also potentially a problem for the mate recognition idea. We know that at least some dinosaurs were sexually mature before they were osteologically mature and this could be the case for these animals too. If so, then the alleged transformation between one morph and the other would create confusion – both the Triceratops morph and the Torosaurus morph (or indeed anything in between) would be viable mates.
In short, we really have no clear evidence for species recognition in any living species, and that alone should make it unlikely to have been a key player across dinosaurs for the whole Mesozoic. Such structures would be costly, and yet not necessarily do the job it is supposed to with other signals being cheaper and just as effective, or more effective in many circumstances. It’s not clear why it should be so important for some clades and not other similar forms (iguanodotids vs hadrosaurs for example) and is clearly either redundant for some taxa, or would not actually reduce confusion. Nor is it clear quite how this would evolve in the first place, or why it would be sustained, and hybridization suggests that crests alone would not even prevent incorrect matings. Put this all together and we feel that there really is no good support for the idea of crests and other structures being primarily used in species recognition. They did of course likely have an effect – it would be odd if Stegosaurus or Corythosaurus didn’t use their respective features as part of how they identified one another. But that does not make them the prime, or only, driving force of all these different features in all these different lineages.
There was a fashion in dinosaur palaeo to write off any odd structure as simply sexual selection and leave it there. This was rightly railed against, but what was often criticised was the fact that sexual selection seemed undiagnosable in the fossil record and so the problem was that it was untestable rather than the fact that such throwaway remarks devoid of context or explanation do little for the subject. Now we are in the odd position where rarely you see very similar comments (in terms of their style) about species recognition popping up in the literature about exaggerated structures despite the lack of support for it, and the now (well, we think), strong cases made for sexual selection, or at least it’s assessment. Although previously the case for sexual selection was pretty weak, it is at least an extremely common phenomenon in living taxa and with obvious powerful effects on anatomy and behaviour. Species recognition has not yet even been shown (in relation to exaggerated structures) in any living clade, and while offhand one-line explanations are not the way to go, it seems odd that one has been replaced with the other.