• Aetogate: DCA results. The response.

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    I thought about giving this post a name referencing the Walls of Jericho, but I thought nah.

    So, as I mentioned earlier, the DCA results have been announced today. Once again I feel the need to send some respect to ABQ journalist John Fleck for keeping the public aware of what is going on, and making the results of the inquiry available to everyone in the pdf. Mr. Fleck has promised an in depth interview with Lucas and co in tomorrow’s journal. It should be worth reading.

    Okay, so what about the review?

    Well, as expected, Dr. Lucas and co. were found innocent of all charges. What can I say, when one fixes the race, it makes it really easy to predict the winner.

    Let’s take a look at what exactly went on at this “inquiry.” For folks who wish to play along at home, feel free to keep a copy of the pdf open, while I go through it. Who knows, there might be a test afterwards.

    For starters, the whole thing feels “bass ackwards” due to the way Mr. Fleck put the pdf together. All the minutes of what went on are at the end of the pdf, rather than the beginning. No matter though, the meat of the matter is probably the first 23 pages anyway. These contain the official written words of Spencer Lucas. Prior to this, Lucas had been stubbornly silent on the whole matter (something that has done little to help his innocence).

    Lucas gives a rundown of the allegations brought about him by Jeff Martz and Bill Parker, including a point – counter point take on what Martz and Parker actually said.

    So what does he have to say?

    For starters (page 3), Lucas insists that the NMMNHS bulletin adheres to the review process that is used in other museum bulletins such as the AMNH bulletin. As I alluded to in a previous post, I sincerely hope this isn’t true.

    Dr. Lucas devotes the first 17 pages (74%) of his review to handling Bill Parker’s claim of plagiarism/claim jumping. Throughout it all Lucas insists that he, nor anyone else at the NMMNHS had any knowledge of Parker’s intent to publish a new name for this aetosaur.

    A large chunk of this point counter-point was very nit-picky. Lucas points out errors in Parker’s publication dates. Then Dr. Lucas proceeds to give a long “he said, she said” run-through of Parker’s story vs. his.

    As I’m writing / reading through this again, something strange just caught my eye:

    [page 4]
    In his letter, Parker goes on to give the several reasons why he found Lucas’ comments disturbing based entirely on what he says was discussed during their conversation, which again, is not accurate. Nonetheless, we will continue to discuss Parker’s observations in detail:

    Um, who the hell is we? According to Mr. Fleck, the first 23 pages of this response were Spencer Lucas’ written responses to these allegations. Yet throughout the point by point, Lucas continuously refers to himself in the third person. He also often uses “we” a lot in any “active tense” situations. I’m thinking that this was less a personal written response, and more likely a collaborative effort between Lucas and others. Add that to the long delay between accusation and actual public response, and this almost starts to have a whiff of conspiracy to it.

    Then again, it could just as well be some form of apophenia. Besides, I hate conspiracies, so let’s just leave that alone for now.

    On page 4 Lucas gives some rather interesting, and potentially damming information about Bill Parker’s visit to the NMMNHS in the spring of 2003. Namely, he apparently didn’t. At least there are apparently no known records of his visit there. As this is an important date in the entire scenario, it would be good if the validity of the time line could be better grounded.

    Of course Lucas could have had Parker’s record expunged in order to create this whole….no, no. Bad conspiracy theory! Go way!

    On page 5 Lucas states that Parker had not had contact with anyone at the museum regarding the whole Desmatosuchus naming issue. Yet it is now common knowledge in this case that Parker’s main contact at the museum was Andy Heckert. There’s no need to play dumb (as Lucas goes on to state that he knew about Heckert’s involvement with Parker).

    Further down, Lucas states that no one had ever seen Parker’s Masters thesis, save for possibly Andy Heckert. Dr. Heckert’s testimony is sorely lacking from this entire review. Given how much seems to ride on Heckert’s involvement with Parker, it would have been nice if the DCA had gone to the trouble of getting him to partake in the review. Hell, they had Adrian Hunt give testimonial by telephone. Surely they could have done the same with Heckert.

    Page 6 continues the rundown with Lucas stating that he had did not read the abstract by Parker in JVP, despite have subscribed to it. His retort to Parker’s allegation seems somewhat unbelievable.

    Parker infers that because Lucas, Hunt and Spielmann subscribe to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology they must have read his abstract (2003). Assuming that indeed Lucas, Hunt and Spielmann read the abstract, Parker’s abstract simply “notes” that Desmatosuchus chamaensis represented a new genus. There is no indication in Parker’s abstract that he planned to give it a new name.

    The incredulity comes from the statement from Lucas that he wouldn’t have been drawn to anything regarding Triassic vertebrates. Especially if it involved aetosaurs; given that Lucas and co were studying aetosaurs at the time. Had Parker had been writing on turtles, this excuse might have sounded better, but as it currently stands, no way.

    Also, for those playing the home game, I suggest keeping an eye on how many times Dr. Lucas brings up the excuse that though they knew Parker considered this aetosaur specimen to be a new genus, they insist that Parker gave no indication of naming it. Trust me, it will be important soon.

    The next two pages (7 and 8) seem to involve Dr. Lucas repeatedly shifting the blame onto Andrew Heckert, in regards to why the material in question was still referred to as D.chamaensis. Nowhere throughout this time period does Lucas state that he disagreed with Heckert’s views on the aetosaur material. It is also here that we start seeing counter allegations being planted. Namely that they did not expect Bill Parker to publish on material that was known to be under study at the NMMNHS.

    On the bottom of page 8 (#14), Lucas asks why Parker had never disclosed the publication of his forthcoming paper during their many moments of contact with each other. I don’t have an answer to this one, but I would like to hear Bill Parker’s take on Lucas’ view of this situation.

    Point # 17 (page 9) is interesting as Lucas once again mentions that though they knew Bill Parker doubted the validity of the aetosaur material being a member of D.chamaensis, they had no idea that he was going to be giving it a new name.

    That’s the 5th time this has been brought up; by the way. Think about that for a moment. Lucas had mentioned 5 separate times where he had known that Bill Parker had reasons to doubt this particular aetosaur material. That’s a lot of time to spend on a single aetosaur species. Maybe it’s just me, but I would have certainly asked Parker whether or not he had any intent to give a new name to the species, given how often he seemed to talk about it.

    Lucas does apologize for not being more clear about publication rights for folks visiting to see specimens.

    Page 11 continues Lucas’ insistence that he, nor any of his colleagues, had any prior knowledge of Parker’s upcoming paper. It does bring up the fact that there were 6 people that the paper had to get through before publication. Lucas insists that none of them knew about Parker’s paper, else they would have mentioned something. That both Jerry Harris and one other person on the team offered their apologies to Parker shortly after the paper was published, would suggest otherwise though.

    Page 12 brings us to the summary of all of Parker’s allegations against Lucas. This summary quickly turns into a counter-allegation from Lucas. In it, he states that he believed that Parker had personally kept this information from him and his colleagues, in an attempt to publish something out from Lucas and co.

    So now Lucas is the victim in all this? His claims that Parker should not have tried to do this, as it is customary not to publish on work that is currently under study, or at least to ask permission from the curator/collections manager, seems to fly in the face of a separate case of Lucas doing this with a Polish specimen (see here). It helps that Lucas is not on trial for that case.

    The appendix (pages 13-17) offers up an interesting take on Parker’s case. Lucas presents evidence that Parker had visited the museum and took pictures of specimens without the knowledge of the staff. How true any of this allegation is remains to be seen, but it sounds an awful lot like what Lucas himself was claimed to have done in Poland. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    Page 18 starts Lucas’ response to Jeff Martz assertion of plagiarism. It starts off with Lucas questioning the involvement of Matt Wedel and Mike Taylor in this whole mess. I’m not sure why. Is it now against to rules to seek outside help?

    On the bright side, Lucas handles Martz case much better, and insists it was all a grand misunderstanding. There’s not much I can say about this section. The biggest point of contention (I could have said: bone, but I refrained) is a figure that Martz insists was from his thesis, but Lucas insists was from a different publication (Heckert et al, 1996). Lucas attached a comparison of the two figures, but it was not included in the pdf. I would be very interested in seeing how all three of these figures compare to one another.

    Short of that, Lucas apologizes for not properly citing Martz work properly, and even suggested adding an addendum to a future publication of the bulletin, mentioning this.

    Page 23 gives a brief list of suggested improvement to the NMMNHS bulletin. All of them seem like very good ideas that I hope will be implemented as soon as possible.

    The rest of the pdf details the minutes from the actual inquiry.

    Page 32 and parts of 33, contain Norman Silberling’s statements regarding the whole matter, and what his conclusions were. Given what Silberling has said in the past(pdf), I see no need to go over it again.

    The remainder of page 33 has the other outside reviewer, Orin Anderson, giving his take on the matter. Anderson doesn’t focus much on the plagiarism accusations, and instead states that actions should be done to reform the way the NMMNHS bulletin is published. Overall, Anderson seems to have taken a fairly objective approach; at least with that matter.

    From there, Adrian Hunt gets interviewed. It is at this point that I ask folks to take a moment and gets some fresh air. There is a large amount of ass kissing in this section. All three folks who were brought up to discuss the matter, offered a disturbing amount of praise to Dr. Lucas before giving their views. This was supposed to be an inquiry folks; not a retirement ceremony.

    Much of Hunt and Silberling’s statements echoed what Lucas had already said, so there is not really much more to add here.

    There we go. So what came out of all this mess?

    Well, Lucas does insist on instating a new publishing policy for the bulletin, that would better reflect that of other journals (page 37). Other than that, what I read today bore an eery resemblance to a Fox News “hard hitting” interview with George Bush, or Dick Cheney.

    Will there be outrage at this?

    There already is. Now that we have official results, I don’t expect the heat to die down around the NMMNHS anytime soon.

    However, I think it is less likely that we will see much more of a response from the DCA, or any other bureaucratic agency in NM, regarding this matter. As far as they are concerned, they threw us a bone. They put on a show so as to shut us up. They are done with this whole mess and will move on.

    Probably the most apt statement from this entire inquiry, would be that of Orin Anderson:

    Anderson believes that resolution to these allegations being considered today should be found within the scientific community, not within administration.

    The ball’s in our court again. What are we going to do with it?


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • 30 days end.

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    Well here it is, March 3rd already. I must admit I am shocked with how quickly the time has flown. I’m even more shocked that throughout it all, I had less than a week’s worth of “meh” posts. I’m also proud to say that barring one close call (due to coming in late from watching the hilarious movie: Be Kind Rewind), I was able to hit my daily deadlines with no trouble.

    I guess this blogging stuff isn’t as hard as I thought. 🙂

    Though the pressure to put out something new-daily, is now gone, I don’t intend to slack off. I probably won’t have something new everyday, but I will be keeping my eyes on the news, and when I come across a story that I think is worth following, I’ll let everyone know here. I also have a few rants built up that I’ve been itching to get out, so writer’s block no longer seems to be a problem.

    Still this isn’t how I intended to end my 30 day challenge. As I reported two week ago, today was the day the Aetogate results were to be announced. Yet here it is almost 5 PM PST, and we’re still waiting to hear back from the NM Dept of Cultural Affairs. It looks like this might stretch into tomorrow.

    Till then, I and much of the VP community will be waiting with baited breath.

    Thanks for reading.

    More to come.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • New paper on the strangest pterosaur ever.

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    Ooh, I’m coming in under the wire this time (see the time stamp).

    So when someone talks about pterosaurs, or flying reptiles, you probably think of something like one of these:

    PteranodonRhamphorhynchus

    Pteranodon and Rhamphorhynchus. The two archetypes of pop culture pterosaurs.
    Former image from here. Latter image by Charlie McGrady.

     

    Few folks would normally think of this as a normal pterosaur:

    Pterodaustro

    Pterodaustro guinazui (pic culled from Wikipedian artist: Arthur Weasley).

     

    Its name was Pterodaustro guinazui, and unlike other pterosaurs, which fed on fish, insects, or other types of meat, P. guinazui was a filter feeder. It has commonly been compared to a Mesozoic flamingo (thus resulting in more than a fair share of flamingo like drawings). It sifted microorganisms from the waters that it lived near. Unlike today’s modern flamingo (Phoenicopterus), Pterodaustro could filter feed without dipping its head upside down. As far as pterosaurs go, it was certainly one of (if not) the strangest species to have come from this group.As is typical with the weird ones, though they are celebrated for their uniqueness; that is about all that is known about them.

    Well, no more:

    Chinsamy, A., Codorni?, L., Chiappe, L. 2008. Developmental growth patterns of the filter-feeder pterosaur, Pterodaustro guinazui. Biology Letters. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0004 (online: first cite)

    Abstract
    Life-history parameters of pterosaurs such as growth and ontogenetic development represent an enigma. This aspect of pterosaur biology has remained perplexing because few pterosaur taxa are represented by complete ontogenetic series. Of these, Pterodaustro is unique in that besides being represented by hundreds of individuals with wing spans ranging from 0.3 to 2.5m, it includes an embryo within an egg. Here we present a comprehensive osteohistological assessment of multiple skeletal elements of a range of ontogenetic sizes of Pterodaustro, and we provide unparalleled insight into its growth dynamics. We show that, upon hatching, Pterodaustro juveniles grew rapidly for approximately 2 years until they reached approximately 53% of their mature body size, whereupon they attained sexual maturity. Thereafter, growth continued for at least another 3–4 years at comparatively slower rates until larger adult body sizes were attained. Our analysis further provides definitive evidence that Pterodaustro had a determinate growth strategy.

    Pterodaustro skull

    Pterodaustro guinazui skull (photo from: http://www.pterosaurier.de)

     

    I have yet to read the full paper, but from what it says here, it would appear that the filter feeding lifestyle took its toll on P. guinazui, as its growth rate was remarkably slow. As this is the first time a growth series has been done on a pterosaur, it probably shouldn’t be assumed that this growth was typical of all pterosaurs (which would have had diets that were much higher in protein, thus aiding growth). Still the results are definitely interesting. Plus any new bits of info on the world’s strangest pterosaur, is a good thing in my book.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • Tuataras do it faster than anyone else.

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    Oh yeah, that’s right. You know what I mean.

    This is what we call: subtext

    They evolve…at the molecular level.

    From: Trends in Genetics

    Hay, J., Subramanian, S., Millar, C.D., Mohandesan, E., Lambert, D.M. Rapid molecular evolution in a living fossil. Trends in Genetics
    Vol. 24 (3): 106-109

    Abstract
    The tuatara of New Zealand is a unique reptile that coexisted with dinosaurs and has changed little morphologically from its Cretaceous relatives. Tuatara have very slow metabolic and growth rates, long generation times and slow rates of reproduction. This suggests that the species is likely to exhibit a very slow rate of molecular evolution. Our analysis of ancient and modern tuatara DNA shows that, surprisingly, tuatara have the highest rate of molecular change recorded in vertebrates. Our work also suggests that rates of neutral molecular and phenotypic evolution are decoupled.

    Okay, so what does all that mean? It’s been well established that creatures evolve at rates proportional to their generation times. Animals that have a higher generational turn over, show higher rates of evolution. It’s a simple numbers game. The more offspring one has, the more chances for there to be a beneficial mutation. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction, the faster natural selection can act on these mutations.

    Hence why elephants are not exactly evolutionary racehorses, while insects rule the world. 🙂

    It’s been thought that evolution at the molecular level should mirror what we see on the phenotypic, or morphological level. It makes sense logically. There has to be some connection between molecular evolution and phenotypic evolution. We know that the former gives rise to the latter.

    So if one has a creature that has a short fossil history, or a particularly diverse one, then it suggests it is a fast evolver. Therefore one would expect to see speedy evolution on the molecular level too. This is one of the latest lines of evidence for automatic endothermy (i.e. warm-bloodedness) in dinosaurs and other fossil critters (don’t ask how we have molecular evidence for extinct animals. I just don’t know).

    This latest discovery throws a whole wrench into that mode of thinking. Tuataras (Sphenodon) are one of the slowest animals on the planet. They take a long time to reach sexual maturity (11-13 years). They are commonly referred to as living fossils (though, that really isn’t right). They are the last critter that one would expect to be an evolutionary Speedy Gonzalez.

    Yet, according to the work by Hay et al, that is exactly what has been discovered. Tuataras edge out all other animals studied so far. The closest any other creature comes, is the Ad?lie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) of Antarctica. Yet as the graph below shows:

    Tuatara evolution rate

    Tuataras are still significantly faster at their molecular evolution. So then, what does this mean regarding molecular evolution rates vs. morphological ones?

    That’s a good question. The argument of molecular phylogeny vs. morphology, is already a heated one. Morphologists scoff at molecular systematists, while the molecular systematists think morphological phylogeny is pointless since it’s all DNA based anyway. It doesn’t help that molecular data has repeatedly come up with results that fly in the face of morphological based orthodoxy.

    For example:

    Morphologically, tuataras are the sister group to squamates.

    Molecularally, tuataras have been found to nest with crocodiles and birds, in at least one study.

    Molecular systematists have found the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelli) to nest with the true gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), while morphologists have consistently found T.schlegelli) to be a convergent animal more closely related to true crocodiles. This has resulted in heated back and forth arguments

    Turtles, whose ancestry is still very nebulous, have been found to be anywhere from the base of the diapsid family tree (making them ancestral to all extant reptiles), to offshoots of pareiasaurs, which would place them as offshoots from the main reptile line (basically throwing another 30-50 million years on their divergence from other reptiles).

    Molecular systematics, on the other hand, has found turtles to nest with archosaurs (crocs and birds). A few times (beware: PDF bomb), despite the lack of morphological correlates.

    And then there was just weird stuff during the early days of molecular studies, that didn’t help with its validity problem.

    So both camps are already very skeptical of the other’s findings.

    Now this study suggests that rates of molecular evolution have no relation to morphological rates. Among other things, this seems to make the whole “molecular clock” idea even less tenuous.

    It should be interesting to see what repercussions come from this study.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Sphenodontians Uncategorized and tagged

  • A Tribute to Alex

    Posted on by Jura 2 Comments

    This was something that I had meant to mention on my site for months now. In fact, I meant to write about it the day it was announced. It’s in regards to Alex, the African grey parrot.


    Alex and Dr. Pepperberg

    Dr. Irene Pepperberg and Alex

    Maybe I should be writing it: A.L.Ex. The name given to him was an acronym for: Avian Learning Experiment.

    Alex was the pet/research subject/friend of Dr. Irene Pepperberg. He and Dr. Pepperberg made headlines time and time again for Alex’s remarkable vocabulary.

    Alex could say over 150 words. That, in itself, is neat, but not noteworthy. What made things noteworthy was that Alex actually understood these words. Most parrots are taught words by their owners for the sheer novelty of it. The birds don’t really understand the meaning behind what they are saying, and the owners don’t really care about teaching them. Dr. Pepperberg and Alex showed that this need not be the case.

    Alex was taught the meanings behind words. This was done in a manner similar (though exaggerated) to how children learn the meanings behind words. Dr. Pepperberg and an associate would enact scenarios where the word in question would be used.

    For example:

    A research assistant knocks on the door. Dr. Pepperberg answers the door and says: “Hello Arlene” (or whomever). Then she would say: “Hello Irene.” After several reenactments, the Dr. would then go to Alex and say: “Hello Alex.” By going through this process, Alex was able to associate the words he was saying, with the actions being performed.

    Being a smart cookie, once Alex caught on to this, his vocabulary was able to increase substantially. Dr. Pepperberg did other studies. She showed that Alex could count to four (hmm, doesn’t that sound familiar), could distinguish the constitution of various objects (plastic, wood, wool, etc.), and could tell which items were larger than others. Towards the end of his life, Alex was even being taught to associate the written form of English words, to the spoken version. Alex’s accomplishments were astounding.

    So, too, was his criticism. Anytime a scientist shows animals acting like people, others are ready to pounce on the anthropomorphic idea in an attempt to discredit it. This is all fine. After all, science is nothing without a healthy dose of skepticism. Sometimes, though, I feel that the critics tend to take their assumptions a little too far. An infamous example of this was found with the horse Clever Hans. The horse’s owner insisted that Hans could count and do arithmetic. People from far and wide would come to test the horse’s skills. All were astounded at the remarkable prowess of this equine to calculate their math problems. All, that is, except for psychologist Oskar Pfungst. Through a series of tests he discovered that Hans was not actually doing any math at all, but was instead reading the subtle cues of the questioner. If the questioner was expecting a certain answer, then Hans would get the math right. If Hans could not see the questioner, or the questioner did not know the answer themselves, then Hans would keep stomping till the cows came home.

    Clever Hans

    One of Clever Hans’ performances

    The results were unequivocal. Hans was not a math genius. This was fine, and totally agreeable. The expression from there that the animal was not intelligent at all, was where I draw the line. There was obviously a degree of mental work involved. The horse knew its name, and was able to read subtle body language that no one, not even the psychologists who did the study, could see. That’s damned impressive.

    But I digress…

    So there were all these criticisms that Alex was just doing an even more complex “Clever Hans effect.” Yet, despite criticisms of the results, no one ever showed that Alex was faking it. In fact, Alex showed continual improvements throughout his life. His use of human words to express what he saw around him was amazing.

    More amazing, was how Alex would use his words to express his own feelings.

    When Alex was tired of testing, he would say: “Wanna go back,” (in reference to his cage)

    If the researcher was getting annoyed, Alex would say: “I’m sorry.”

    Alex learned not only the names of objects that he was being tested on, but he also learned the words for all the rewards he would get. When Alex would get something right, he would then have to say what prize he wanted to have.

    For instance, if he wanted a nut, he would say: “Want nut.”

    If it was a banana then he would say: “Want banana.”

    Throughout Alex’s thirty years of study, Dr. Pepperberg never once referred to what he was doing as language. She was always reticent of placing that symbol on Alex. This is understandable. Alex did learn to speak human words, but he had yet to learn syntax. That is to say, he couldn’t yet combine words for use in other situations other than their specific descriptions.

    But he got awfully close. In one instance, Alex was presented with an apple. Alex had not learned the word apple at the time, so he came up with his own word for it. He called it a “banery.” Alex knew “cherry” and he knew “banana.” The result was the portmanteau: banery. This was not the only time he coined neologisms. Presented with the same scenario, only this time involving an almond, Alex called it: “cork nut.” Other neologisms of Alex included: “rock corn” (unpopped corn kernels), “pah-corn” (popcorn) and “grey nut” (sunflower seeds). For these last group of words, researchers would, essentially, reward Alex with food that came closest to the words he was uttering. If Alex liked the food, it would become part of his normal rewards, and he would retain the word. If he didn’t like it (e.g. “rock nut” for a Brazil nut that Alex couldn’t open, and didn’t eat even after receiving help), then he would not use the word and it would leave his vocabulary.

    Alex and something

    Alex doesn’t understand silly straws either.

    Alex was amazing. Unfortunately Alex is no longer with us. Last September, Alex suffered an apparent heart attack and died in his sleep. He died at 31 years old; nineteen years short of the average lifespan for African grey parrots. Veterinary checkups two weeks before had found nothing suspicious, or at risk with Alex. His death came as a complete shock.

    Though gone, Alex’s accomplishments will live on in scientific knowledge. Alex was one of the trailblazers for animal intelligence, and the concept of animal consciousness. He was bought at a local pet store. There was nothing special about him when he was acquired. His unremarkable origin helped to show that Alex’s abilities and his potential could be found in all African grey parrots. Dr. Pepperberg laid the groundwork for studies of animal intellect and consciousness in other species. If an African grey parrot can learn all this, could a macaw? How about a raven? Suddenly the term “bird brain” was no longer a derogatory one.

    One of the most important things that Alex did for this field, was that he gave us ample proof that there is more going on inside a non-human mind than we are often willing to give credit. Much like Helen Keller, once Alex learned to talk, his personality and uniqueness became very apparent. Alex raised very pertinent questions about the use of animals in laboratory experiments, and the ethical ramifications that it brings up. Same for the slaughtering of animals for human consumption*.

    Alex will be missed by all whose lives his work has touched. I only wish I could have written this earlier.

    I’ll end this with the last words that Dr. Pepperberg (the last one to see Alex) heard Alex utter:

    “She recalls the bird said: ‘You be good. I love you.’ She responded, ‘I love you, too.’ The bird said, ‘You’ll be in tomorrow,’ and she responded, ‘Yes, I’ll be in tomorrow.'”

    ~Jura

    *Now don’t go thinking I’m about to join PETA. I’m an avid carnivore with no plans on quitting anytime soon. That said, I do believe it is important to kill things in a more humane way than we have been doing.


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • New study finds that numbers are inherent to humans…and…

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    I came across this study today from The New Yorker.

    It’s a long (for the internet) read, so I’ll only do a few verbatim copies here. The gist of the study, by French scientist Stanislas Dehaene, is that the concept of integers (1,2,3 etc) is something that is hard wired in our brains. We have a natural ability to do rudimentary addition, and we can tell when one number is larger than another. Well, as long as the gap is large enough.

    According to the article:

    If you are asked to choose which of a pair of Arabic numerals?4 and 7, say?stands for the bigger number, you respond ?seven? in a split second, and one might think that any two digits could be compared in the same very brief period of time. Yet in Dehaene?s experiments, while subjects answered quickly and accurately when the digits were far apart, like 2 and 9, they slowed down when the digits were closer together, like 5 and 6. Performance also got worse as the digits grew larger: 2 and 3 were much easier to compare than 7 and 8. When Dehaene tested some of the best mathematics students at the ?cole Normale, the students were amazed to find themselves slowing down and making errors when asked whether 8 or 9 was the larger number.

    …

    Dehaene conjectured that, when we see numerals or hear number words, our brains automatically map them onto a number line that grows increasingly fuzzy above 3 or 4. He found that no amount of training can change this. ?It is a basic structural property of how our brains represent number, not just a lack of facility,? he told me.

    This is fascinating. Especially the discovery of a “hard wired” number line (which goes right to left, apparently. See the article), which works really well up to about 4. The fascination comes not from the discovery of this in humans, but the fact that this degree of rudimentary math has been found in a wide variety of animals. The most recent being fish.

    In that study, scientist found mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) females were able to count up to four (right at the end of the number line). Also, like in human studies, the fish were able to tell which group of fish was larger, as long as the discrepancy was big enough (approximately 2:1).

    Keeping with the theme of my site, the most famous example of reptilian counting would be that of varanids. Studies on the white throated monitor (Varanus albigularis), found that they can reliably count to six (King & Greene, 1999).

    So it seems that the concept of math is so important that it has been hard wired in our genes for at least 400 million years.

    Think about that the next time you ignore a mathematical equation.

    Also, give the article a read through. It is very intriguing. It’s the closest that psychology has ever come to being a hard science, and the ramifications for education cannot be understated.

    ~Jura


    King, D. & Green, B. 1999. Goannas: The Biology of Varanid Lizards. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 0-86840-456-X, p. 43.


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • NOVA and the factor

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    So as I mentioned a few days ago, NOVA had a special on Microraptor gui. Today the show was available for viewing online. After seeing it I must echo the sentiment of others who have watched it. This was not a good documentary at all. The most interesting part was the wind tunnel tests with the various foot positions. The whole “debate” between Larry Martin and the rest of the paleontological community need not have taken place.

    Then there was the life portrayals. My god, that has got to have been the worst modeling I have ever seen. CGI couldn’t have been that expensive, as they did use it during the show. I mean, even a half-assed CG attempt would have been better than what they gave us.

    Overall: a bust. Sorry NOVA. This time it was a failure.

    In other news, Utah paleontologist, Dr. Terry Gates, was featured on Bill O’Reilly last night (available here). It was basically a fluff piece. O’Reilly had Dr. Gates on to discuss some generic dinosaur information, and that’s it. The premise was whether or not global warming wiped out the dinosaurs. O’Reilly didn’t really push that angle though. Instead he opted to send a bunch of softballs to Dr. Gates, who in turn humoured O’Reilly by stating things like: if people were to go back to the Mesozoic, then we would be on the dinner menu of Tyrannosaurus rex. The funniest part of the segment would be when Fox News decided to run pictures of the Walking with Dinosaurs pterosaurs, when they were talking about dinosaurs evolving into birds.

    Overall: okay. It was more than I expected to get from a Fox News story. I don’t even think O’Reilly ever cut Dr. Gates’ mic.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized

  • Scientists discover a huge pliosaur

    Posted on by Jura 3 Comments

    Pliosaur picture

    Just announced today on the BBC news website, scientists have unearthed the remains of a giant plesiosaur from the Arctic island of Svalbard.Coming in at 15 meters (50ft), it ranks as one of the largest known specimens of ancient marine reptile. Since there are other plesiosaur and mosasaur specimens that are known to approach 50ft in length, I’m assuming the reason that this species is given the term “monster” is because of its overall size. No species name has been given yet. Judging from past plesiosaur behemoths, I’m thinking that it might be Liopleurodon. Folks who saw the BBC series: Walking with Dinosaurs, might remember the Liopleurodon in one of the episodes. That one was a whopping 21m (70ft) in length. So, to date, it is still an unrealistic size.That said, there sure were a lot of giant marine reptiles swimming around the Mesozoic seas.

    It is interesting to note that there has yet to be a fossilized sea animal (or any animal) that approaches the monstrous blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in terms of overall size (giant jellyfish [Cyanea capillata] grow longer, but have nowhere near the mass). Off the top of my head, the largest prehistoric fish was the Jurassic giant: Leedsichthys problematicus, which has had length estimates very close to blue whales (~30m, or 98ft). There was one ichthyosaur that exceeded “the monster” in length, but might have fallen “short” in terms of overall mass (Shonisaurus sikanniensis). All in all, B.musculus stands alone in terms of oceanic giants. What was imposing this size limit on all the Pre-Tertiary marine fauna? One possibility that I’ve heard tossed about (and the only one that I happen to think is on the right track) is that the reason for the size of blue whales, is due to the prevalence of krill (order: Euphausiacea).

    Leedsichthys
    Liopleurodon swims by Leedsichthys; weighing its options.

    Krill are way down at the near bottom of the food chain. They eat plankton and are, in turn, eaten by a huge chunk of the marine ecosystem. Krill are global in their distribution, and their biomass is astronomical (500 million tonnes, according to Wikipedia). So why is this important?Well, if we look back at all the large marine reptiles, or most of the large prehistoric marine vertebrates; all of them were large predators. “The Monster,” Kronosaurus, Liopleurodon and most of the others, all had a taste for meat. The problem with this, is that a large meat eater requires lots of meat in order to survive. This imposes a size limit right away. Either a large marine animal is going to eat shoals and shoals of small fish (which may reproduce rapidly, but probably not rapidly enough to maintain a viable population of large carnivorous marine vertebrates), or it is going to eat any large animal that it can take down. If shoals of fish can’t maintain a viable population of marine behemoths, then anything bigger will certainly not. Large marine animals with big appetites, need something that can take the hit and keep on going.Krill and plankton provide the only real option for giant marine animals. And it just so happens that we are currently living in a time period where most of the oceans are temperate.This is important. Temperate waters mean that there is a section of ocean that is very cold and a section that is warm. This results in upwelling, or the pushing of nutrients from the bottom of the sea, up to the top where it can be used by other life forms (namely: plankton, squid and krill) to make energy. The importance of thermohaline circulation for all of this cannot be discounted either. Both result in the necessary conveyor belt like mixing of oceanic nutrients.

    So more nutrients results in greater biomass of krill, which allows for the evolution of large marine animals beyond the 15 meter / 30 tonne mark. Today that niche happens to be filled by mammals. Why?

    Is there something special about their physiology that allows only them to grow to this size?

    No…not really. Most likely, mammals just so happened to be big enough at the right moment in time.

    If Antarctica, or Australia had moved closer to the South Pole and iced over, then we would have had a thermohaline circulation in the Mesozoic, and most likely, giant planktivorous marine reptiles. It didn’t so the best we got was the smaller, yet equally impressive: Leedsichthys problematicus. Incidentally, it probably was a planktivore; though it probably relied on the less productive tropical plankton spawns (not much choice, given the time period).

    Nevertheless, these were all truly awesome animals. I look forward to seeing what else these Arctic islands are going to give up.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged

  • _Microraptor gui_ to be featured in tomorrow night’s NOVA.

    Posted on by Jura Comment

    Microraptor gui

    Tomorrow night on PBS (Tuesday, 26 Feb. Check local listings), NOVA will be doing a special on the “four winged dinosaur” Microraptor gui.Microraptor was a dromaeosaur (think Velociraptor or Deinonychus) that was discovered back in 2000. It was part of the infamous “Archaeoraptor” fiasco, in which Chinese collectors had tried to pull a fast one on paleontologists by selling a chimeric fossil that was part bird and part dinosaur. Though the truth was eventually sussed out, it didn’t come fast enough. National Geographic had jumped the gun on the find, touting it as the perfect transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. When the truth came out, NG had egg on their face and the creationist camp had more artillery in their cannons.

    Now eight years later we have a far more interesting story to accompany M.gui Not only was it the smallest dinosaur known (~0.5 to 0.7 meters, or a little under 3ft in length for the imperial crowd), but it had wings…

    on all its limbs.

    That’s right, it was a four winged animal. A creature that sounds more at home in an old Greek myth rather than reality. Yet it was real. How neat is that?

    So now we know of its existence, the next most obvious question is: How did it fly?

    Okay, for some the question might be: could it fly?

    Given the anterior wing proportions, and the fact that, well, it had a lot of wings, I find it hard to believe that Microraptor wasn’t flying. How it did so is the real kicker. Yeah, it might sound like an easy answer. “Why, it just splayed all four limbs out.” Okay, but did it flap all four limbs? Were the lower limbs used for balance, while the upper limbs did all the work? Could Microraptor have splayed its hindlimbs at all?

    As a dinosaur, it seems very unlikely. Dinosaurs achieved their infamous erect stances, partly by locking their femora (upper leg bone) into their acetabula (hip sockets). This made for a very stable stance, but one that was not very forgiving when it came to lateral excursions. To date, no dinosaur, and no dinosaur descendant (i.e. no birds) could/can splay their femora.

    So was Microraptor the exception that proves the rule? Judging from the NOVA trailer, there is at least one team that thinks so. Will they be proven right? We’ll just have to tune in tomorrow to find out.

    For folks (like myself) who don’t have access to the broadcast, the show will be available for streaming the day after on the official site. Make sure to check it out.

    ~Jura


    This entry was posted in Dinosaurs Uncategorized and tagged