Wednesday, April 30, 2008
R.I.P. W.P.F.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A Nagging Thought
How come there are no modern reptiles with giant freaking sails? If the huge vertebral sails of Dimetrodon, Edaphosaurus, and various other critters through the millenia were strictly for absorbing heat, then why don't you see more examples in both the fossil and extent zoological record of sails? As it stands, sails are relatively rare. Off the top of my head:Of those animals, two are virtually sister taxa, one might not actually have sails, and the last two have interesting sail shapes. Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus have wimpy rounded neural spines, while all of the archosaurs on the list (save Amargasaurus) have flat (side to side) but wide (front to back) neural spines. Surely there's a reason for these differences.
But that's not even the point. If sails evolved to soak up heat, why didn't they evolve several times? Isn't it more parsimonious (as they say) to conclude that sails have a display function first, and a heat-soaking function second?
Bah--I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
Thanks to fellow NWR colleague Aaron Kaluszka for teaching me the HTML tags for bullet points. Now I feel smarter!
Two steps closer to SVP...
I used miles to get the ticket, which resulted in the crappy flight schedule. Airlines have a way of screwing you out of your airline miles. That is, use your miles and get a horrible selection of flights. Otherwise, the ticket costs like $780. I was going to stop over in Chicago, rent a car, and drive to Milwaukee to visit my grandparents, but there's just no way that can happen now. :-(
BUT, it's good to have the ticket bought and the hotel room reserved. Now I just have to register for the conference and I should be golden! And I'm not going to worry about renting a car. I'm only there for a few days, and the conference IS downtown. I'm sure I can walk anywhere I need to. Almost more than the conference itself, I'm excited to meet my fellow paleobloggers!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Mario Kart Wii = Win
Got up at 9:30 a.m. this morning and ran to Microplay to pick up my copy of Mario Kart Wii. I'm a huge fan of the series, rubberband A.I. and cheap item tactics aside. Mario Kart Wii adds two new features to the series: the Wii Wheel and functioning online play. I apologize for the terrible picture above--I haven't showered since Friday. Notice the Penny Arcade T-shirt and Nintendo zip-up. I'm in gaming mode today.
The core gameplay of Mario Kart Wii is more similar to the SNES and N64 games than to the Double Dash mutation on the GC. In typical Nintendo fashion, many course designs have been dredged from the franchise's former permutations. You'll get new stuff like the Coconut Mall, and old timers like Ghost Valley. Having just recently played in a Double Dash tournament, it was a little odd to see GC tracks in this Wii game. And since I routinely play Mario Kart DS, seeing some of those courses in true 3D is interesting and fun.
The Wii Wheel, which is bundled with the game (at no additional cost--*phew*) is, for all intents and purposes, an unnecessary peripheral. Mario Kart Wii is played with the Wii Remote turned to its side, NES-style, and if you've already played Excite Truck and/or Nitrobike, then you can, by all means, go without the Wii Wheel. Except that, honestly, the Wii Wheel adds a whole new level of immersion to the experience! The Wii Wheel feels natural and comfortable. It's certainly not huge, and the Wii Remote fits snuggly within. Should you dare to gape at the first picture again, you'll notice the giant B button on the right. That button is merely a shell which connects to the Remote's B button and allows a comfortable way to press the button while driving.
Mario Kart Wii can be played with the Wii Remote by itself or with a Nunchuck, with the Classic Controller, and with a GameCube controller, but I really have to recommend the Wii Wheel. The game was really tailored to this unique accessory, and within the first few races you'll have the control down pat. The only time the Wii Wheel screws me up is when I'm doing multiple quick drifts--the wheel will sometimes make me drift in the opposite direction of where I want to go, but I probably just haven't worked out my own kinks.
The online settup is a dream. Unlike the awful, bug-ridden pile of crap that is Super Smash Bros. Brawl's online mode, Mario Kart's actually works. You can send an invitation to somebody in your Wii's address book, and once they respond, you two can play together! Simple as that! You can also partake in worldwide tournaments and battles. Players even have "gamerscores" which go up or down depending on how well you do in these online matches.
I really can't recommend this game much higher. The usual Mario Kart complaints are still here (Blue Shells, rubberband A.I.), but the Wii Wheel and the sweet online action really make me forget about 'em. If you have a Wii, this is a great game to go with it!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Dracospartus hallos
The newest living dragon to be described is Dracospartus hallos (Krause, 2003). Aside from Chasmodracos, it is the only bipedal dragon. Heavily armored and heavy-set, Dracospartus is small but flightless. While standing, the creature is only seven feet tall, but is also fifteen feet long when measured from nose to tail-tip. Its wingspan is a mere sixteen feet, so while unable to sustain flight, they are large enough to help the dragon hunt. Dracospartus is green, with yellow armor scales running down its chest, belly, and the underside of its tail. Most of its body, and especially the shoulder and back, are covered with largish bony scales. In rare form for a dragon, all of the limbs (including the wings) have four fingers (or toes). Each kneecap is covered in small spines. The shoulders, too, are decorated with somewhat larger black spines. Dracospartus has an odd head. The proximal half of the mandible is covered in spines, and a giant horn rises from the animal's nose. Another horn rises from between the eyes, and yet another from just behind the skull. The two latter horns are connected by a piece of thick skin, which connects further down the neck. Dracospartus can open its mouth almost 90 degrees. The wings are fairly immobile, and the outer finger is covered in thick scales. Bright yellow stripes run down the cheiropatagium. The wings cannot spread very wide, but the wing shoulders are very strong, and Dracospartus is able to complete a strong wing-stroke, even though it cannot get off the ground properly.
Dracospartus is a hunter of ungulates, although it is not above consuming small reptiles. The dragon chases its prey on two legs, but when within leaping distance, it leaps forward and begins flapping its wings, which results in a slightly longer jump. The dragon essentially "falls" on its prey, whereupon a crushing bite will kill its quarry. Dracospartus is a loner, and Krause wrote that in the two weeks he observed the creatures, he never saw two interact. The overabundance of armor plating on the dragon is a mystery. There do not seem to be any other dragons or wyverns in the area. Krause suggested that when individuals do interact, such meetings may not be friendly, and that these creatures developed their armored hide to protect themselves in intraspecific battles!
The dragons seem to enjoy sunning themselves in the morning hours. They will come out from whatever cave or forested area they live in and find a high, sunny spot for several hours and just sit, silently, on the ground, with their wings outstretched. Although they are quite heavy, Krause found many dragons in trees, and they had apparently climbed to their perches. The long fingers and laterally-oriented glenoids probably help in climbing.
Given that Dracospartus is such a recent find, its taxonomy is relatively unexplored. In his description, Krause gave the creature its own family, the Dracolympidae (fitting, considering its home), and suggested that Spinodracos was a basal member of that family based on he short spines erupting from the shoulder region, the shape of the lower jaw, and presence of extensive armor plating. Aside from Fletcher (2004), there have been no serious challenges to this hypothesis.
References:
Krause, P. (2003). A heavily-armored Greek dragon. European Journal of Draconology 104(2): 308-329.
Fletch, F. R. (2004). A re-evaluation of the Eudracocidae. Draconium 45(4): 455-461.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Is this publishable in some form?
I think it's a great post in need of some edits and further information, and it's one of the only things I've ever written which I feel is strong enough for potential publication. Thoughts?
Wowee wowee whoa wow!
Here's the short version: In 1971, scientists transplanted just five pairs of a kind of lizard (lets call them Reds) from Pod Kapiste (an island) to a neighboring island (Pod Mrcaru). Mrcaru already had its own species of lizard (Blues). Then, the Croation War erupted, and the islands were abandoned for some 36 years. In 2004, tourists were allowed back toe Kapiste and Mrcaru, so the scientists returned, eager to see whether the ten original lizards populated the island or simply vanished. During the human war, a lizard war apparently also broke out, and the Reds completely eradicated the Blues. The Reds, however, were now stuck on an island of lush vegetation--and they were insectivores. What to do?
Well, within just 30 generations (give or take), the Reds developed stronger, wider skulls (for eating plants), shorter legs, and "cecal valves," unique muscular chambers in the intestine which closed off further movement down the tube and allows the plant material to ferment, thus allowing the lizards to digest the tough plant material. The cecal valves are entirely novel structures, not present in the Red's Kapiste ancestors.
What's more, the easy access to food resulted in a drop in the Red's aggressive behavior and a population boom. And don't worry--genetic tests have confirmed that the Reds are decended from their Kapiste ancestors...this isn't some new lizard floating across the sea.
So the bottom line is that in just 36 years, these once insectivorous, aggressive lizards have become herbivorous, gut-fermenting, passive lizards. In just 36 years!
That shows two important things: Evolution by natural selection works, and it works quickly. No Designer necessary! If anybody has a copy of the paper (thanks for the open access, PNAS!), please send it my way!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Felimimus paradoxus
Leedy may have considered Feradracos to be "the strangest dragon ever discovered," but that title would be inhereted by a new species almost a century later. Felimimus paradoxus (Camp & Bello, 1991) is a small, flightless cat mimic from Alps, sharing territory with Spinodracos and the large wyvern Jugoceras. The cat dragon is just six feet long, with long limbs and a long, low-slung body. Bony black spines run down the back, rising to their highest point above the hips and shrinking along the tail. Felimimus has a short neck and a small, boxy skull. It is the only living dragon with external ears, giving it unusually keen hearing compared to its flighted cousins. The cat dragon is mostly orange and black, with grey lower limbs and a similarly grey underbelly.
The most extreme adaptation of Felimimus, however, has nothing to do with its feline profile. Rather, its wings have become tools used in predation. The wing-arms are quite long, but the fingers are very short and only loosely connected by the cheiropatagium. The first wing-finger (or "thumb" in many dragons) has become an enormous, bony skewer which the dragon uses to repeatedly stab its prey into submission. Young dragons, however, do not possess the giant skewer, and it only begins to develop once they leave their parents.
Cat dragons hunt sheep and small vertebrates among their rocky, mountainous homes. They tend to live in small family groups including a male, female, and up to three junveniles. The adults do most of the hunting by stalking prey in a very cat-like manner. They keep their bodies extremely low to the ground, using quick, deliberate forward movements to move ahead. Once a prey item has been chosen, the dragons gallop forward, chasing the surprised prey (usually a sheep) until it is within leaping distance. The dragon jumps, grabs the prey by the hindquarters, and begins forcefully stabbing the body with its skewers. Unless the dragon's grip is lost, the prey quickly succumbs. Among mated pairs, one dragon will attempt to force the prey into the path of the other dragon. Although the dragons are hunters, they prefer to scavenge, and can usually be seen within a safe distance of a fresh kill by Jugoceras or Spinodracos. The cat dragons know better than to challenge one of these large winged reptiles, and wait until the killer has had its fill before moving in.
Despite its size, Felimimus is a burrower, and will dig holes in the ground or rocks as a home for itself and its family. Family groups will stay in the same burrow until it is raided by another group or until the pups have grown and moved on. Fights between rival males will occasionally break out, but not often. In general, individual families are tolerant of the presence of others. Felimimus pairs have been known to hunt and kill juvenile Jugoceras, although they seem to stay away from Spinodracos pups.
Predictably, the taxonomic status of Felimimus is puzzling. Phelps & Nash (2004) found similarities in the limb proportions and braincase to Rugodracos, and although they suggested a recent common ancestry, most workers have considered these similarities to be convergences. The extreme modification of Felimimus' skeleton make pinpointing its origins difficult. No fossil forms are known, and genetic tests have not been performed. It is currently placed in its own family (Felimimidae, Irwin 1996).
References:
Camp, B. & Bello, C. (1991). Felimimus paradoxus, a new dragon which converges on modern cats. Draconium 32(2): 236-257.
Phelps, F. & Nash, D. (2004). Phylogenetic re-evaluation of the bizarre cat mimic dragon, Felimimus paradoxus. In Dragons of the World (Carpenter, ed.). Prince Rupert Press: 89-111.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Cryodracos pilopeda
The "frost dragon," described by Troy in 1934, is the most wide-ranging dragon on the planet, known from Russia, the Yukon, and Greenland. It is an enormous flightless dragon, reaching lengths of fifty feet or more. Troy characterized it as a "slow-moving behemouth of the Arctic, the last relic of an age where giants moved across the Earth." This dragon is light blue with a dark blue band along the back. The vertebral spines which run from the shoulderblades to the tail are white. The creature's horse-like head is capped by a large, caudally-directed horn. Additionally, a thick fin erupts from the back of the neck, and the tail ends in a laterally-flattened section reminicent of the marine dragons. Cryodracos' feet are huge and four-toed (as are its forefeet). The animal is an obligate quadruped, and as Troy noted, it is a slow-moving one. The wings have shrunken to mere stubs above the forelimb shoulder and consist of mere struts of bone. However, the wings support a unique remnant of the wing surface--Cryodracos sports two high-rising "wing fins," one above each shoulder. Clearly derived from the wing surface, these immobile structures are more prominent in males than females.
Most interestingly, all four legs are covered in thick hair from the elbow or knee joint downwards, and the fur covers the feet entirely except for the claws, which stick out beyond it. Such an adaptation is not surprising in an Arctic animal, but it is unique among dragons. The chest is equipped with hypertrophied armor scales. The animal's mandible is strange in that two tusks erupt from its distal end and may be modified incisors. The dragons use their tusks to dig through the snow to find vegetation. Cryodracos is herbivorous, which may explain its large size (Carpenter, 2006).
Norman (1984) noted that the dragon will use its flattened tail to "dig" a hole for sleeping in. Cryodracos curls its head toward its fur-covered feet, and Norman wrote that the massive dragons looked like cats when asleep: "While surely a behavioral adaptation for dealing with the cold Arctic nights, one cannot help but laugh at the juxtaposition of a monsterous dragon adopting the same posture upon bedding down for the night as my wife's tabby cat." He noticed that from a distance, the only way one could distinguish a sleeping dragon from any other snow birm was the presence of wing fins, which, being immobile, rose from the top of the slumbering beast. Thankfully, the dragons do not have to deal with freezing temperatures all year long. During the summer months, the beasts shed most of their fur and become more active. The disparate small groups which roamed alone during the winter months will all gather into larger "local" herds during the summer. The dragons gorge themselves on fresh blooms and grass during the spring and summer, which is also when mating occurs.
Carlsbad (1988) has documented the animal's breeding behavior from courtship to birth. Males will court females by throwing their heads around, snorting, and swinging their tails back and forth, all to some imaginary internal rhythm. Willing females will lower their heads and go into what Carlsbad described "the bow pose adopted by playful dogs." Uninterested females, however, will ignore the male's advances entirely or, in some cases, will actually charge the male. The latter seems to occur most often between young males and older females. Conception can take up to fifteen minutes, and males who have mated with a female defend her from interlopers for the remainder of the breeding season. This is not to say that males are monogomous--they rarely choose the same female during successive breeding seasons. Females actually retain their eggs through the next winter, then lay the egg in the spring. Eggs hatch almost immediately, and the pup is self-sufficient right out of the egg.
Carlsbad suggested that two forces were at work to ensure the success of babies in an egg-laying Arctic animal. First, he noted the elongated development of the egg, in which the pup was essentially protected through its first winter, but the timing of development was such that as soon as the egg was laid, it hatched. This allowed the baby all spring and summer to grow. The second force is the species' superprecociality, in which babies are born entirely capable of finding food and defending themselves after leaving the egg. Pups have almost-completely ossified skeletons and all of their teeth. Adult females lay between ten and fifteen eggs. Pups grow very quickly, and after a hatchling length of fourteen inches, they reach about six feet by the time winter approaches. Growth virtually stops during the winter, and many pups do not survive their first winter. A full clutch of fifteen pups will usually be reduced to four or five survivers by winter's end, although the remaining pups will usually have no trouble surviving their next winter. The dragons grow about six feet a year, and their growth stops when they reach about fifty feet. The oldest dead dragon known was 57.
Originally described based on the Russian species, Cryodracos has been variously assigned to different species or different subspecies of the same species once the Canadian and Greenlandic populations were discovered. Modern draconologists have settled on two subspecies of C. pilopeda: C. pilopeda canadensis for the Canadian and Greenlandic animals, and C. pilopeda caspia for the Russian population. Initial midochondrial comparisons have supported such a grouping (Lance, 2003). The animal's larger relationships are uncertain. Cryodracos is generally regarded as having an Asian origin, crossing the Berring Straight during the last ice age and expanding into Canada and Greenland. Two fossil specimens of a large quadrupedal dragon called Ambulodracos (Crank, 2000) are known from the Paleocene deposits of France, but whether that form is directly ancestral to Cryodracos cannot be stated with certainty. If the two are related, that would make Cryodracos' lineage one of the most ancient among living dragons. Irwin (1996) suggested that Cryodracos' ancestors may have been similar to Sinuospondylus.
References:
Troy, R. (1934). The Arctic dragon, Cryodracos pilopeda. There be Dragons 18: 823-856.
Carpenter, K. (2006). Biggest of the big: a critical re-evaluation of the mega-sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus Cope, 1878. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36: 131-137.
Carlsbad, C. E. (1988). The mating and breeding habits of Cryodracos pilopeda. Canadian Journal of Science & Research 43(2): 345-387.
Lance, B. (2003). Initial genetic testing supports subspecies split of Cryodracos pilopeda into two distinct populations. Natura Historia 412: 889-894.
Crank, E. R. (2000). A large new fossil dragon from the Paleocene of France. European Journal of Draconology 101(4): 512-518.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
I Has An Ideea!
There's a trading card maker online. It's part of the Flickr system, and I've tinkered with it in order to brainstorm my own Silent Hill card game. It's fun and easy, although I wish there were more text options (like shrinking the font). At any rate, I had an idea last night to make myself into a trading card. I'm not fond of the picture, but it's the only one I had at my fingertips this morning! I think it'd be funny to make a series of cards based on my fellow bloggers (hint, hint). If you would like your own silly trading card, send me a picture of yourself and I'll get right to it.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Feradracos octopodus
When Leedy first described the corpse of this "feral dragon" in 1898," he must not have known what to make of it. The type specimen had two heads and an extra pair of small, two-fingered arms. Aside from even these peculiarities, Feradracos was an exceedingly strange beast. Its most atrophied wings have six fingers, two of which form "fingers" which are not hindered by the patagium. The dragon's large, gaping mouth is filled with procumbent teeth which seem too large for the space allowed, and the skull is decorated by all manner of spines and protuberances. The shoulders and knees are covered in bony armor plates, and a single row of small but tightly-packed "bristle" spines runs down the back. The short hindlimbs are functionally tridactyl, while the main forelimbs have four fingers, including a slightly offset thumb. Feradracos is an ugly grey color with yellow spots running down either side of the neck and body. The patagium is light grey with black patches. In all, Leedy described the beast as being "unsettling." Luckily, the dragon is quite small, reaching about ten feet long, with a wingspan of about eighteen feet. It is completely flightless, and Leedy noted that the wings have virtually no practical use.
We now know that Leedy's type is not diagnostic of the genus. It appears that he stumbled across a pathologic specimen which somehow survived to adulthood with a bifuricated cervical series, misshapen wings, and an additional pair of arms. In fact, specimens described since Leedy's initial publication have confirmed that, while the dragon may still be described as "unsettling," it is nowhere near as strange as previously thought.
Virtually all known specimens have a single head, although Burke (1955) noted that several animals did have bifuricated cervical series, suggesting that a "double head" is unusually prevelant in this species. The unusual fourth pair of limbs, which unfortunately led to the creature's species name, have never been seen outside of Leedy's type. The type's wings were also unique in having six digits. In every other known specimen, the wing consists of five digits, and all are integrated into the wing surface. The wings are still quite small, however, and Feradracos remains flightless. One interesting aspect of Feradracos' anatomy which Leedy did not mention is the bifurication of the last few caudal vertebrae. Like Megalodracos, Feradracos has a pair of "fingers" at the end of its tail, although their use is not clear.
Although Feradracos' range overlaps that of Eowyvern, the two have never been seen together. The more impressive armament of the former suggests that the two animals go after very different prey. Feradracos is a lowland predator, and has been seen stalking antelope as well as slower moving animals including wildbeast. Feradracos appears to be a perpetual loner, and two animals have never been sighted together. Because of this, their mating habits and group dynamics are sadly unknown. What's more, juvenile animals have likewise never been seen. Given the taxon's rarity, Morgan (1992) suggested that Feradracos is on the verge of extinction, perhaps pushed to the brink by some genetic disease resulting in the mishapen individuals described by Leedy and others. Webb (1995) suggested that a basic malfunction in the HOX genes of Feradracos is what causes so many abnormalities, and that the species' outlook may be grim as a result. "The distinct lack of sightings of juvenile animals, in addition to the species' already-rare occurances," she wrote, "indicates that Feradracos is on its last legs as a viable taxon."
Irwin (1996) theorized that Feradracos and Megalodracos may be sister taxa, given the shared bifuricated tails, cranial horns, and limb construction. The two may have split during the Miocene, with Megalodracos' ancestors heading north, while Feradracos' ancestors flew south. If true, Feradracos would be another member of the ever-expanding Eudracocidae. Genetic tests are not currently planned, although efforts are underway to preserve the species in zoos. There, undesirable traits could be bred out over the course of several generations, and Feradracos could be re-established. This would also give draconologists a rare opportunity to study it in depth.
Leedy, J. A. (1898). The strangest dragon ever discovered. Royal Journal of Natural Sciences 99(2): 199-245.
Burke, C. (1955). Abnormalities in Feradracos may be more common than previously thought. Science Notes 32: 102-107.
Morgan, P. C. (1992). Feradracos' future. Brevia (September): 22-28.
Webb, S. (1995). A potential genetic basis for the downfall of Feradracos. European Journal of Draconology 86(3): 356-360.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Dimorphodon...again!
Much better than the maiden attempt, if I do say so myself. I'm always amazed at how big pterosaur heads are relative to the body, even in a basal form like Dimorphodon. One curiosity about this particular animal is how short the wings are compared to other pterosaurs of similar size. Mark Witton has suggested that perhaps the pelican pterosaur was not as eager to fly as his cousins, a contention he further backs up by noting that its bones are much denser than other pterosaurs. I tell ya, this art show is starting to fill up with pterosaurs. First Nyctosaurus, then Dimorphodon, and Raven is restoring Tupandactylus!
*phew* After drawing pterosaurs for so long, it'll be nice to start my next critter: Simosuchus!
The Skull that Zach Built
Friday, April 18, 2008
Spinodracos dysonii
Commonly known as the "porcupine dragon," Spinodracos dysonii (Owen, 1987) was unknown by science for decades, overshadowed by its contemporary, Jugoceras horriblus. While on expedition to the Alps to track the range of that wyvern, Owen was surprised to discover a new species of dragon, and it became the new focus of his study. Spinodracos reaches lengths of 22 feet, and its wingspan can reach 50. It is a deep purple color, with black spots along the body. Spinodracos is named for its most obvious feature(s): the multitude of small and large bony spines which dot its body. Of most prominence are those along the back and down the center of the chest. Clusters of spikes can be seen on the shoulders and thighs. The head is subrectangular, and displays impressive caudally-directed cranial horns. The tail is thick and fairly stiff, and each lateral side has another row of small spines running down it. The body is slender, but the limbs are surprisingly robust--especially the hindlimbs. The neck is fairly short and not very flexible. The dentition is crocodile-like in that the upper and lower teeth interlock and are not hidden behind any kind of "lip" or rim. The dragon also has a noticeable underbite.
The dragon lives at higher elevations than the wyvern, although the prey of both is similar: rock-loving ungulates. Goats make up enormous portions of the wyvern's diet, but Spinodracos is more of a generalist, going after just about anything large enough to satisfy its appetite. Like Megalodracos, Spinodracos is a glider, and rarely flaps its enormous wings. It is unable to take off from a standing position, so the dragon will often crawl up an incline and leap forth, taking flight by virtue of gravity. The animal is just as able to capture lunch on the ground as on the wing, and Spinodracos' cat-like hunting skills have taken down many a goat. Although their paths rarely cross, Spinodracos and Jugoceras are known to fight viciously when one is provoked. These battles usually take place on the ground, where both animals are more adequately equipped to deal damage to the other. Unfortunately for Spinodracos, the winner is often determined by the wyvern's ability to spit fireballs. Aside from that unique ability, the two are fairly evenly matched when it comes to physical combat, and fights will often end in the death or mortal injury of one animal.
Interestingly, Spinodracos and Jugoceras also share their habitat with Felimimus paradoxus (Camp & Bello, 1991), the cat-mimic dragon. However, Felimimus does not often conflict with either the larger dragon or the wyvern, as it is much smaller, totally flightless, and tends to scavenge. Family groups of Felimimus can often be seen cleaning the carcass of a recent Spinodracos or Jugoceras kill.
Because it is such a recent discovery, the breeding habits of Spinodracos are poorly known. Galton (1994) observed what he thought were two juvenile dragons roaming the skies together. He noted that the small dragons were a much lighter, creamy color than adults, and their spines had not yet come in to the extent seen in older animals. Galton hypothesized that juveniles, perhaps from the same litter, traveled together in order to better survive encounters with aggressive adults and wyverns. Over the course of several days, Galton witnessed the pair kill three prey items cooperatively. "This is something," he wrote, "which you never see adult animals do. Adults are unquestionably solitary." Galton further observed that adult dragons, while solitary generally, are not aggressive toward one another (unless a fresh kill is involved) and in some cases seem to enjoy the company. Locals have told stories of small Spinodracos "swarms" mobbing large Jugoceras individuals, seemingly with the purpose of driving the wyvern away from a kill, but such a phenomenon has not been observed by any natural historians, and it cannot be confirmed at this time.
Irwin (1996) did not include Spinodracos dysonii in his phylogenetic analysis of the Draconia, citing a lack of good skeletal or anatomical description of the animal. In his description of Dracospartus hallos, Krause (2003) suggested that Spinodracos and the Spartan dragon may belong to the same monophyletic clade, which he named the Dracolympidae ("dragons of Olympus"). He cited the unique arrangement of armor plating on both animals, structure of the mandible, and the prevelance of spikes around the body. He suggested that Spinodracos is the more basal taxon, given that Dracospatrus is almost entirely flightless--a derived trait. Without any good alternative, most workers have accepted Krause's hypothesis, although Fletch (2004) suggested that Spinodracos may be the most derived member of the Eudracocidae. However, as a completely skeletal and anatomical description of Spinodracos has yet to be published, neither hypothesis can be adequately tested at this time.
References:
Owen, S. R. (1987). A new dragon from the Alps which co-habituates with the giant wyvern Jugoceras horriblus. Natura Historia 396: 345-362.
Camp, B. & Bello, C. (1991). Felimimus paradoxus, a new dragon which converges on modern cats. Draconium 32(2): 236-257.
Galton, R. (1994). New observations on Spinodracos dysonii. Science Notes 71: 577-583.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Krause, P. (2003). A heavily-armored Greek dragon. European Journal of Draconology 104(2): 308-329.
Fletch, F. R. (2004). A re-evaluation of the Eudracocidae. Draconium 45(4): 455-461.
Whoa.
What do you think, dear readers? Simplistic, I know, but I intend to add an awesome new piece of art to the title banner.
Also, Amanda, I lost my links. I added them back, plus some new ones, but if your blog or website was once linked from mine and no longer is, please let me know!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Chasmodracos bentoni
Described by Clarke in 1934, Chasmodracos bentoni has proven to be one of the most unique dragons alive today. Found along the coastal areas of southern Europe from France to Italy, Chasmodracos is a cave-dweller, and while not a swimmer by any means, the dragon is often seen wading in the salt water, looking for food or collectibles. The dragon is mostly yellowish-brown, with darker stripes here and there. L-shaped spines run down the animal's neck, back, and tail. These spines are often connected by a thin dermal membrane. The ridiculously long tail is prehensile and features larger spines which are always connected by a skin membrane. Clarke called them "fins" and likened them to the fins of Palusodracos, although a close relationship between the two is unlikely. Chasmodracos stands erect, bipedally, on large four-toed feet. It's body is wide at the ribcage and narrows toward the hips. The forelimbs are short, and end in tridactyl hands. The hands are not especially good at grasping objects, which may explain the prehensile tail (Morris & Bay, 1953). The animal's head sits on a sinuous neck and is relatively small and flat-topped, with bony "eyebrow" horns and small, laterally-directed eyes. The wings are small but wide, and while it doesn't take to the air often, Chasmodracos is capable of short bursts of flight. Like Eudracos lacerta, the first phalanx is unconnected to the cheiropatagia and retains an enlarged, hook-like claw. This is a small dragon--merely nine feet long, with a 16-foot wingspan.
Chasmodracos is extremely unusual in its feeding and collecting behaviors. Each dragon keeps a separate cave, although mated pairs may share one, should it be large enough. Dragons decorate their caverns with floatsome and jetsome that they find while looking for food, and they often carry their findings with their tails. They especially like shiny objects or brightly-colored stones, but really, all kinds of junk are fair game for Chasmodracos. Caves have been found with pieces of shipwreck, clothing, bottles, and bones in them. These trinkets seem to mark the dragon's territory, although they don't seem to have anything to do with courtship. Wilkes (1987) noted that many dragons will swap out new items for older ones once their lairs become too full. "Exactly how the dragons determine that their caverns are 'at capacity' is unknown," he wrote, "and furthermore seems to differ from individual to individual." Wilkes also found some dragons with extremely narrow interests. One cave he found held nothing but large pieces of wood, while another cave was filled with with seaweed and dead corals.
Chasmodracos does most of its beach-combing while looking for its favorite food--soft-bodied things like octopi, starfish, and sea cucumbers. It will also eat crabs, but to do so the dragon must take its crustacean prey back land and smash its body against a rock to kill it and break the shell. The dragons do not care for leathery starfish. Octopi present a challenge to the dragons as they are slippery and can fit through tight spaces. They often escape a dragon's grasp until the reptile snatches the octopus up in its mouth and punctures the mantle. Chasmodracos will also opportunistically go after fish, although it success rate seems rare. Juvenile dragons have proportionatelly larger wings than their parents, and take to the skies more often. Their range is wider, and they will hunt terrestrial prey (Booth, 2000). Around the age of two, however, the dragons begin losing the ability and will to fly, and will begin actively searching for a cave to live in.
Mooney (1962) suggested that the ancestors of Chasmodracos were active arial predators who were pushed to coastline environments by human expansion or pressure from other inland dragon groups like Eudracos. Further, he noted that the smaller wings of adults suggested that Chasmodracos was in the process of becoming secondarily flightless. He wondered whether, in another million years, Chasmodracos would go the way of Argos and become a seagoing dragon. "Every marine vertebrate started out on the coastline," he wrote, "and Chasmodracos may be indicative of how dragons initially invaded the sea." This hypothesis has been upheld by Irwin & Jones (1978), Irwin (1996), and Larter (2005). Taxonomically, Chasmodracos has traditionally been allied with, but not within, the Eudracocidae. Irwin & Jones suggested that the wing structure, manus and pes morphology, and caudal vertebrae were similar to Eudracos, although they noted that the sinuous overall build, small head, and L-shaped back spines were probably plesiomorphic features for a larger group, which they called Eudracomorpha. Irwin (1996) would later write that while Chasmodracos lacked many derived features which link Eudracos and Megalodracos in the Eudracocidae, there was still evidence to suggest a close relationship. Specifically, Irwin noted that juvenile animals behave and look more similar to European dragons than adults do.
Despite its passing similarities to the Eudracocidae, Chasmodracos is placed in its own family, the Chasmodracocidae. Fossils for the genus are completely unknown, but preliminary genetic comparisons (Milnar, 1998) uphold a recent divergence between Chasmodracos and the Eudracocidae.
References:
Clarke, E. (1934). On a new cave-dwelling dragon from Spain. European Journal of Draconology 24(2): 145-171.
Morris & Bay (1953). Further observations on Clarke's Chasmodracos bensoni. Draconium 16(1): 56-64.
Wilkes, J. B. (1987). Beach-combing dragons. Draconium 28(4): 502-509.
Booth, J. W. (2000). Hunting behaviors of juvenile Chasmodracos differ from that of adults. Science Notes 77: 402-408.
Mooney, B. D. (1962). Does wing structure simplification lead to flightlessness? European Journal of Draconology 52(3): 368-381.
Irwin, B. E. & Jones, D. (1978). Monophyly of the Draconia. Draconium 19(1): 25-59.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Larter, P. (2005). Water-loving tetrapods: why do we return to the sea? Studies in Zoology 120(2): 237-268.
Milnar, H. O. (1998). Molecular evidence for recent divergence between Eudracos and Megalodracos. Natura Historia 405: 1117-1126.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Rugodracos arborealis
One of the many oddities of the Draconia is that for every flighted species you find, there is at least one flightless, or near-flightless, species. Mooney (1962) hypothesized that once dragons reach a certain size, weight restrictions kick in, and flightlessness in inevitable. He was puzzled, however, by Megalodracos, a beast almost as large as Sinuospondylus and fully capable of flight. Still, Mooney suggested that the basalmost dragons were small and evolved flight as a means of prey capture or escape from predators. As their size increased, many dragons abandoned a flighted way of life, content in being the apex predators (or herbivores) in their environments and no longer needing to fly. As flight capability decreased, the wing structure simplified. Mooney referenced Tauropesa, Sinuospondylus, Chasmodracos, and Rugodracos as evidence of this path to flightlessness.
Rugodracos arborealis, the "arboreal dragon king," is an southeast Asian dragon, generally found in Vietnam, which is flightless in the proper sense, but uses its narrow wings to briefly glide from tree to tree. At fifteen feet long, Rugodracos isn't as large as one would suspect to be flightless, but its unique lifestyle may provide a different motivation. The dragon was described in 1973 by Brizby after an expedition into the jungles to observe the aquatic habits of constrictors. He took the animal's cranial frill to be a crown, and named it king of the dragons. Indeed, Rugodracos' frill is unique among dragons, and brings to mind ceratopsian dinosaurs like Triceratops and Centrosaurus. The frill doesn't seem to have a practical purpose, and males have squared-off frills more ornamented with smaller horns and scutes than females, who have a more rounded frill. Like ceratopsian dinosaurs, the frill is made up of the parietal and squamosal bones, although there are fenestrae, like those of ceratopsians.
A large nasal horn core erupts from the nasal bones on males. The head is roughly triangular in males, and both sexes develop a rostral bone and predentary for use in clipping off vegetation. In general, Rugodracos is a slow-moving, gentle animal, and fights between rival males are extremely rare--in general, scores are settled via extended threat displays.
Rugodracos' body is uniquely adapted for climbing. Its arms and legs and long and muscular, and both the hand and foot are equiped with an offset first phalanx for grasping branches. The tail is not inherently prehensile, but does supply some leverage while moving through the canopy. The body is long, and large irregularly-placed spines run down the back from the neck to the end of the tail. Rugodracos' wings are long but spindly, featuring little mobility between the joints. The patagium is similarly narrow, and the portion that would usually run from the back of the fourth finger to the body only reaches midway down the humerus. In general, Rugodracos keeps its wings lying against the body, but uses the wings in threat displays extensively. Male and female dragons are green with lighter underbellies and yellowish patagia. Males, however, have bright orange splots running down each side of their bodies and along the cheiropatagia.
Brizby noted that the dragons seem very lazy, spending most of their days sitting on branches and sleeping. He also noted that younger dragons, who seemed to have not yet "grown into" their wings, used their narrow airfoils to glide from branches to a neighboring tree trunk. He never noted adults to do this, however. "At a certain age," Brizby wrote, "gliding is entirely replaced by display behavior." He theorized that a similar phenomenon had occurred during Sinuospondylus' loss of flight, although he did note that the monster's great size and vegetarian diet probably played important roles as well. Rugodracos similarly prefer leafy greens, although individuals will snatch up small vertebrates including mammals and birds when such prey accidentally comes within striking distance of the dragon. Juvenile dragons did not often hunt, but seemed excited by it, and would often pursue prey once it was close enough to them. Adults, however, seemed to prefer a more lethargic, passive existance (Sampson, 1992). Although the two dragons generally live in the same kind of environement, Rugodracos and Palusodracos do not seem to co-habituate.
Sampson compared the animals to chameleons and sloths, noting that even when approached by humans, the dragons would, at the most, bob their heads before moving away. Most would simply stand their ground and continue munching on leaves. Given their passivity, Sampson wondered how their numbers had not been demolished by local hunting practices, and this is still unknown. During a trip to Vietnam in 2001, draconologist Richard Henderson asked why dragon was not on the menu of a local restaurant, to which he was informed that dragon meat is "poisonous." A person sitting at a table next to him reportedly told him that killing a king dragon is "bad luck." Whether the venomosity of king dragon flesh is superstition or fact has not been investigated. Henderson is currently living in a small camp in Rugodracos territory with the goal of writing a detailed monograph of the creature's habits upon his return.
Taxonomically, Rugodracos may, bizarrely, share a recent ancestry with Felimimus paradoxus. Both genera show similar limb proportions and some braincase similarities (Phelps & Nash, 2004). Fossils of Rugodracos or related animals are unknown, although given its preferred habitat (swampy jungles), the chances of fossilization are ridiculously low. Decomposition in such environments happens extremely quickly, and the brackish swampbeds, though rife with organic material, are no friend to taphonomic processes. Irwin & Jones (1978) found Harenadracos tridactylus to nest, at least distantly, with Rugodracos based on limb anatomy and the shared rostral bone.
References:
Brizby, G. (1973). A new tree-dwelling dragon from North Vietnam. Draconium 40(2): 246-269.
Mooney, B. D. (1962). Does wing structure simplification lead to flightlessness? European Journal of Draconology 52(3): 368-381.
Sampson, B. (1992). Comments on Brizby's Rugodracos aborealis. Brevia (March): 46-48.
Phelps, F. & Nash, D. (2004). Phylogenetic re-evaluation of the bizarre cat mimic dragon, Felimimus paradoxus. In Dragons of the World (Carpenter, ed.). Prince Rupert Press: 89-111.
Irwin, B. E. & Jones, D. (1978). Monophyly of the Draconia. Draconium 19(1): 25-59.
Coming up: Chasmodracos bentoni, one of the few facultatively bipedal dragons!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Paleo Reading List
Casual Readers
de Panafieu, J. & Gries, P. (2007). Evolution. Seven Stories Press: New York, NY
This enormous black tome contains picture and beautiful picture of skeletons. Nothing but animal skeletons, from rattlesnakes to bears, king crabs to coelocanths. The point of the book is simple, and underlies all of taxonomy: we're all the same. Aardvarks have the same bones that humans do, and frogs and snakes! This book is a testament (a gorgeous one) to that wonderful sameness. And while it's sort of pricey ($65), it's well worth the price of admission. It's also a great resource for artists!
Currie, P. J. & Tropea, M. (2000). Dinosaur Imagery. Academic Press: San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boston, London, Sydney, Tokyo.
For the paleo-artists among you, this book is Mecca. It features nothing but (mostly) dinosaur art in various forms of media, with commentary by various paleontologists! It is, if nothing else, a great place to see different interpretations of our favorite beasties.
Bakker, R. T. (1986). The Dinosaur Heresies. Zebra Books, Kensington Publishing Corp.: United States of America.No longer the most accurate or "go-to" book for paleo, Bakker's tome managed to almost single-handedly spur the modern Dinosaur Renaissance. His ideas were well beyond the contemporary notions of dinosaurs as failed, cold-blooded stupids with no living decendants. A lot of the ideas presented in the book (like a trunk-nosed sauropod) are questionable, but in a way, it probably required that much movin' and shakin' to get people thinking about dinosaurs in a new way. I'm not sure if Heresies is still in print, but it's an entertaining read and historically important.
Psihoyos, L & Knoebber, J. (1994). Hunting Dinosaurs. Random House, Inc.: New York & Canada.
My well-worn copy of Hunting Dinosaurs still gets a lot of playtime even today. Knoebber's wonderful photos combined with Psihoyos' tall tales brings a great appreciation for the people who dig up the bones. This book is not so much about dinosaurs as the people who love dinosaurs. All the bigwigs in the field are interviewed, with wonderful photos of fossilized bones to go along with them. Most of the books on this list are about the extinct beasties, but this book is important in that is profiles the science behind those beasties.
Holtz, Jr., T. R. & Rey, L. V. (2007). Dinosaurs. Random House Children's Books: United States of America.
This is the "go-to" book for dinosaurs. Dr. Holtz is a wonderful writer, and even though his audience is the pre-teen set, he does not talk down to them, the result of which is an intelligent and thoughtful discussion about dinosaur evolution, the various groups, and have taxonomy works. It's not a primer for kids, either, as people of all ages (including me) can enjoy it. It's one of my favorite books. While I don't always agree with Luis Rey's technicolor reconstructions, he brings something new and dynamic to the table, which I appreciate. I cannot adequately describe how wonderful this book is.
Dixon, D. (2006). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Lorez Books: London.
Actually, the publication information is a little nebulous, but the author and title should be all you need. This is kind of a quick reference tool for younger readers, but there is a lot of valuable information here for more serious paleo writers, too. For example, each prehistoric creature profiled within is flanked by its range, who it was named by and when, and species name(s). Most books of this kind only give the genus, and you almost never get the description date. This book is basically a list of prehistoric reptiles (mostly dinosaurs) with short descriptions and accompanying illustrations. The pictures range from questionable (Sordes) to awesome (Rugops). My edition is hardcover, but a softcover version is now available, usually at a bargain price where I've seen it.
Norell, M. (2005). Unearthing the Dragon. PI Press: New York, NY.
Like Hunting Dinosaurs, Norell's book is more about the people in paleo than the paleo itself. What makes this short read special is that you learn about digging in a foreign country (China) and the cultural challenges it entails. The photographs, by Mick Ellison, are lovely and help to get across both the cultural chasms and similarities of digging for dinosaurs in China. Norell also writes at length about the phenomenal feathered dinosaurs coming out of China and how our views of even the Dinosaur Renaissance are changing.
Gee, H. & Rey, L. V. (2003). A Field Guide to Dinosaurs. Quarto Inc.: United States.
This tongue-in-cheek book is a hypothetical field guide to living dinosaurs. The paintings and sketches will blow your mind, and some of the musings about dinosaur lifestyles (Eotyrannus depends on a certain bacteria from Hypsilophodon to fully mature) are interesting if not a little far-fetched. While the text doesn't always agree with the paleontology, the illustrations are beautiful and well worth a look.Paul, G. S. (editor). (2000). The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs. St. Martin's Press: New York, NY.
This book is an edited volume of Scientific American articles about dinosaurs collected over the years. All of the articles are very accessible, and Paul's illustrations are second to none. It's a bit outdated now, but the sections on dinosaur art and Thomas Holtz's essay on dinosaur taxonomy are fantastic. There are a number of discussions on the feeding habits of Tyrannosaurus rex as well. It might be hard to find now, but it's worthwhile read.For the Enthusiast
Dodson, P. (1996). The Horned Dinosaurs. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.
You'd be surprised how up-to-date this book is. The recent mess of new ceratopsid taxa have not in any way blunted this book's effectiveness. Dodson reviews the Ceratopsia in a very readable way, although the book's terminology can be a bit technical at times, so casual readers should beware. It is still, however, the best book yet written on any single group of dinosaurs aside from the next book on this list. Aside from talking about the animals themselves, Dodson regails readers with entertaining stories regarding the history of the fossils. Even clocking in at just under 300 pages, The Horned Dinosaurs is a short and educational read.Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon & Schuster Inc.: New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo.
This book is out of print and hard to find, but you'd be amazed how much Paul got right. I am recommending this book first and foremost for its illustrations--Greg Paul is a god in the world of paleo art. And he's restoring his theropods with feathers...in 1988! Before its time in many ways, one reads Predatory Dinosaurs now and wonders how people didn't see all this 20 years ago. Paul produced a sequel--Dinosaurs of the Air, but it is a far more technical volume (although it's still on this list).Ellis, R. (2003). Sea Dragons: Predators of the Prehistoric Oceans. University Press of Kansas: United States of America.
If you like marine reptiles (plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc.), this book is for you. It's the equivalent of Dr. Holtz's book--Sea Dragons goes through the different groups, talking about their specialties, discovery, and history. Every major Mesozoic marine reptile is profiled, although I wish that some of the more obscure groups (like placodonts) were included in a more detailed fashion. Ellis goes to lengths to show the diversity of each group, and I commend him for it. It's too easy to think of an "ichthyosaur" and leave it at Opthalmosaurus, but there were all kinds of strangeness in the Mesozoic oceans.
Unwin, D. M. (2006). The Pterosaurs from Deep Time. Pi Press: United States of America.
This is an invaluable book for those interested in pterosaurs. I would compare it to Dodson's Horned Dinosaurs in that it takes this particular group of reptiles and summarizes everything we currently (as of '06) know about them. We're talking taxonomy, metabolism, basic anatomy, growth rates...the whole nine yards. The pictures within are wonderful and illustrate the broad diversity of a group so often characterized a fish-eating bats. Pterosaurs is written in a lively, popular nonfiction tone, so nonspecialists can easily keep pace with the material.
Wellnhofer, P. (1996). Prehistoric Flying Reptiles. Salamander Books Ltd.: UK
My copy of this book is a special Barnes & Noble edition--the original version is much older. Prehistoric Flying Reptiles is in many ways a prequel (both temporally and practically) to Unwin's newer summary. I recommend this book for John Sibbick's exquisite illustrations, and Wellnhofer goes into some detail regarding what we knew about pterosaurs through the early 90's. Some of the material is outdated now, but the illustrations are the best available for pterosaur reconstructions, and many points made by Wellnhofer are still valid today. If you can find a copy of this book, pick it up!
For the Specialist
Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (2004). The Dinosauria 2nd Edition. University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA.
An absolute essential reference and educational tool for those who love dinosaurs, The Dinosauria is a summary of everything we currently know (as of '04) about everybody's favorite large-bodied Mesozoic archosaurs. Each chapter is written by a different author, and the book is the definitive body of work on the Dinosauria (hence, the title of the book).
Paul, G. S. (2002). Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore & London.
In his sequel to Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, Paul more fully realizes a topic he only touched on that previous work, namely, that maniraptor theropods may be secondarily flightless post-Archaeopteryx birds. The combination of beautiful illustrations and hard-to-deny logic present a good case, although the ever-changing fossil record has downplayed Paul's thesis somewhat. Dinosaurs of the Air is, if nothing else, a wonderful example of how theories are founded and presented.
Agusti, J. & Anton, M. (2002). Mammoths, Sabertooths, and Hominids. Columbia University Press: New York, NY
Turner, A. & Anton, M. (2004). Evolving Eden. Columbia University Press: New York, NY
These books are for the mammal lovers. Agusti and Turner discuss in great detail the evolution of European and African mammal groups, usually up to the present day. Eden is the better of the two books in this respect, as it goes into the climate and geography of Africa moreso than Mammoths discusses European habitats. Both books are wonderful thanks to Mauricio Anton's beautiful illustrations. Hardly a page goes by where my mind is not blown by one of his detailed, realistic portrayals.
Carpenter, K (editor). (2001). The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis.
Carpenter, K. (editor). (2007). Horns and Beaks. Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis.
Tidwell, V. & Carpenter, K. (editors). (2005). Thunder Lizards. Indiana Univeristy Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis.
Curry Rogers, K. A. & Wilson, J. A. (editors). (2005). The Sauropods. University of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles & London
Carpenter, K. (editor). (2005). The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis.
Currie, P. J., Koppelhus, E. B., Shuger, M. A. & Wright, J. L. (2004). Feathered Dragons. University of Indiana Press: Bloomington & Indianapolis.
These books are for the real paleo freaks. Collections of scientific papers all, your knowledge of the subject matter must be hardwired. Despite the knowledge barrier, all are enjoyable books (with the exception of Horns & Beaks, which seems like an afterthought), and they all present important new ideas about their subjects. Each tome runs roughtly $50, so you've gotta want it, and you won't find these books in most libraries. However, for those as interested in paleo as me, they're not to be missed.
Harenadracos tridactylus
Gerald Fines caught wind of a Middle Eastern "dune dragon" in the 1940's, and his subsequent investigation would conclude with the description of a unique new species of dragon, Harenadracos tridactylus. This large, fearsome dragon was (and continues to be) the terror of the skies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. The beasts are usually found around the Persian Gulf, where food is not as scarce. However, they will invade human colonies and town from time to time and go hunting for larger game. Harenadracos is a strange dragon in many ways, not the least of which is its bizarre wing structure. More like a pterosaur than a dragon, Harenadracos' wing is made up of only three fingers, and only one of them (the third) supports the cheiropatagium. The other two are free of the wing membrane and retain a grasping function. Whether this arrangement is basal or derived is unknown at this time. The wing is further strengthened by a thick rod of fiberous tissue--akin to the actinofibrillae in pterosaurs--originating from the wrist. This rod of tissue is tough and inflexible, and serves to enlarge the cheiropatagium.
The body is long and serpentine, with surprisingly long limbs. The dragon is generally black with brilliant red stripes on the cheiropatagium as well as along the body. The underbelly is white, the neck is bluish-purple, and the head is red. The creature's neck is covered in strange elongate "wattles," the purpose of which is unknown. Both sexes have these wattles. They may function as display devices, however: Grinham (1971) witnessed two dragons displaying to each other, and both shook their necks vigorously, sending the wattles flying in all directions. Although their structure is not known (corpses for this species have not been described), Grinham hypothesized that they were made up of dead scale tisuse, as the wattles sounded like "somebody shaking a rainstick" when the animals shook their necks. Harenadracos measures about sixteen feet from head to tail, with a thirty-six foot wingspan.
The head is also unusual for a dragon. Triangular and dorsoventrally flattened, the animal's bite is not especially strong, but it tears its meat apart with the help of a small rostral bone which caps the premaxillaries. Heranadracos' sense of smell is negligable, but its eyesight is very keen. The animal gets its name from its strange habit of lying on sand dunes, its wings spread. Locals cautioned not to approach a dune dragon while in this position, but it was not until 1980, when Ranch and his team ignored such a warning, that the purpose of this behavior came to light. Having sighted a lying dragon with his binoculars, Ranch and a team of graduate students began making their way across the desert sands toward their quarry. When they had reached a distance of about two hundred feet, the dragon took flight with frightening speed and made a beeline for his group. One of the graduate students was snatched up in the dragon's fearsome talons. Ranch later remarked that, to his horror, he found himself caught up in the sight, intruiged by the dragon's method of prey capture. Finding its struggling prey too heavy to efficiently carry off, the dragon sank all of its claws deep into the victim (probably killing him instantly), and then flung the body some fifty feet away. Ranch said that there was an audible "thump" as the corpse hit the sands, and the dragon was seconds behind it. Ranch and his remaining students ran for the hills, averting their eyes from the carnage behind them.
Oddly for a dragon, Harenadracos tridactylus is not usually seen in the air, but rather seems to prefer getting around on foot. It seems quite happy to wander quadrapedally around the coastline of the Persian Gulf and even among the dunes. Although not especially aggressive, dune dragons are best not trifled with. Younger dragons are more curious of humans than adults, and may approach from a distance. In most cases, the young dragon simply wants to know what you are, and once it has sniffed and licked you, will usually wander off. It is wise not to run away or act aggressively toward the dragon, as its mood can quickly change!
Given its bizarre wing anatomy, Harenadracos' taxonomic status is problematic. It is the sole member of its own family, the Harenadracocidae. A single fossil wing finger from the Pliocene of Mongolia shows similarities to the wing finger of Harenadracos (Wilder, 2004), but tells us nothing of the creature's ancestry. It could even belong to the same genus, or be from an five-fingered dragon. If we remove the wings from Harenadracos, it is usually recovered as a close relative of Rugodracos arborealis (Irwin & Jones, 1978). Exactly why Harenadracos modified its wings so heavily is a matter of some debate, although Mooney (1962) believes that the dune dragon is in the process of becoming secondarily flightless.
References:
Fines, G. A. (1947). A description of the Iranian "dune dragon." Draconium 11(3): 314-337.
Grinham, F. (1971). Display tactics among Draconia. European Journal of Draconology 71(4): 522-575.
Wilder, J. (2004). A potential dragon wing finger from the Gobi Desert. Natura Historia 411: 349-453.
Irwin, B. E. & Jones, D. (1978). Monophyly of the Draconia. Draconium 19(1): 25-59.
Mooney, B. D. (1962). Does wing structure simplification lead to flightlessness? European Journal of Draconology 52(3): 368-381.
Coming up: Rugodracos aborealis, a ceratopsian dragon from the jungles of Asia!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Tauropesa ungulatus
This abarrant dragon was named in 1938 by West, given its own family, and has been puzzled over ever since. Tauropesa ungulatus is so unique among living dragons, and so unknown among fossil forms, that its exact place in the Draconia is constantly being revised. The African beast is rust-colored with black patches here and there. The forelimbs are tiny and virtually useless; West compared them to the forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus rex. An armor "breastplate" covers the chest, and the long, thick neck is topped with wide bony scales with dorsal protuberances. The legs are unique among dragons--the thigh and metatarsus are subequal in length, while the shins are short. The feet, however, are where the most changes have occurred. Rather than clawed toes, Tauropesa has two large hooves, and two small dewclaws hang limbly behind them, much like the vestigal toes of a pig or moose. The creature stands in a horizontal posture, with the front half held higher than the tail. It is fully bipedal.
The tail is long, sinuous, and devoid of any armor. The wings are not fit for flight--they seem to be composed almost entirely of wing-fingers, though the discovery of a Tauropesa skeleton (Mooney, 1960) would reveal that the wing humerus and radius/ulna are present but reduced to mere nubbings upon which the wing-hands rotate. Indeed, despite not being able to fly, Tauropesa uses its wings in a number of ways--for display, for gathering heat, for cooling off, for shading youngsters, and for shielding kills from competition. The head is fairly small, but powerfully built. It is squared-off like most dragons, and comes equipped with fleshy nostrils. The jaws are capable of crushing bone, which aids in Tauropesa's scavenging lifestyle. Its eyes are set far forward on the skull, with a small degree of binocular vision. A large curved horn erupts from each side of the head and swings forward, giving the dragon its name and a unique appearance.
Tauropesa ungulatus reaches a maximum length of 15 feet and weighs almost a ton. Despite its size, the bull dragon is extremely fast on its feet and has no problem chasing down game should it be unable to find carrion--its main source of food. The enormous nose of Tauropesa seems to have evolved for tracking down rotting meat, and once it arrives at its destination, the dragon uses a number of threat displays to scare away interlopers. Older, larger dragons will attack other scavengers outright. West suggested that the strange, ugly appearance of Tauropesa had to do with intimidation, which may be the case.
However, contrary to this thinking, Tauropesa is one of the few living dragons to display radical sexual dimorphism. Females are almost half the size of males, do not develop bull horns, and tend to be a brownish color rather than red. As juveniles, males and females look similar, but upon reaching sexual maturity, the males develop their horns and hit a growth spurt. This differentiation may actually confirm West's belief that Tauropesa evolved its strange appearance to frighten off rival scavengers, as new understandings of Tauropesa's family life come to light.
Very recently, Westminster & Abby (2002) discovered that Tauropesa lives in small family groups consisting of a mated pair and as many as three juveniles. The bulls do most of the hunting and finding of carrion while the cow defends the juveniles while her mate is away. Usually, the group travels together, and many times both parents will work together in bringing down smaller game (such as antelopes or monitor lizards). Regardless of who makes the kill, the juveniles are allowed to feed before the parents. Juveniles stay with their parents for two years before going off on their own and finding mates. During this time, the sub-adult males begin to develop their horns and will spar with other males for the attention of wandering females. Generally, Westminster & Abby found that this "walkabout" period lasts between two and three years, and males may "date" several potential females over the course of that time before settling on one.
Mated bulls will not tolerate bachelors in their territory, and will aggressively defend their families. These exchanges do not usually involve physical violence--the mated bull will roar and use his wings as a threat display, to which the younger male usually concedes. Fights will break out from time to time, although these battles are almost always fatal to the subadult. Africa is also one of the few places where a dragon lives almost side-by-side with a wyvern. Tauropesa occupies the notherwestern portion of Africa, while Eowyvern dorsetti ranges the lower half of the continent. Although their paths cross rarely, Brimley (1953) noted that the bull dragon seems unconcerned by the presence of Eowyvern, unless the latter is feasting on a carcass that Tauropesa intends to overtake. Being smaller and without significant armament, Eowyvern always backs down from a confrontation with Tauropesa.
The taxonomy of Tauropesa has provided an endless amount of theorizing and argument since its discovery. West placed it in its own family, the Taurodracocidae, but did not elucidate on its relationships with other dragons. And for almost two decades, that's precisely where draconologists were happy to let the matter stand. A fossil form from Chad, however, named Tauroceras warbler (Larson, 1957), shows the diagnostic bull horns of Tauropesa with a large median crest and semi-functional wings. That is to say, while still flightless, Tauroceras had normally-proportioned wings. Unfortunately, the legs were not preserved, so science can say nothing of the creature's pedal anatomy. To Larson, the wing proportions were similar to those of the European dragons, although he did not that, aside from the wings, Taurceras looked nothing like Eudracos or Megalodracos. Von Clause (1972) suggested that Tauropesa belonged to a basal branch of the Draconia, and therefore its immediate relationships would not be obvious. Only fossil forms, he said, would help illuminate its origins.
Irwin & Jones (1978) agreed with Von Clause, noting that, "in fact, the Taurodracocidae may exist near, or at, the base of Draconia as we currently understand it." Irwin (1996) did not change this hypothesis significantly, but did note that "a new specimen of Tauroceras warbler may improve our understanding of this family's murky ancestry." As of this writing, no new specimens have not been described.
References:
West, A. (1938). Tauropesa ungulatus, a new North African dragon. Draconium 2(1): 14-34.
Mooney, B. D. (1960). The skeletal structure of Tauropesa's wing. European Journal of Draconology 50(4): 502-517.
Westminster, A. & Abbey, W. (2002). Field observations of Tauropesa ungulatus. Natura Historia 409: 456-505.
Brimley, W. (1953). Co-occurance of Eowyvern and Tauropesa. Brevia (June): 34-37.
Larson, S. (1957). A Miocene relative of Tauropesa ungulatus. European Journal of Draconology 57(1): 43-56.
Von Clause, P. A. (1972). The Fossil Record of Dragons and Wyverns. Royal Society Press: London.
Irwin, B. E. & Jones, D. (1978). Monophyly of the Draconia. Draconium 19(1): 25-59.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Coming up: Harenadracos tridactylus, terror of the Middle Eastern skies!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Argos argos
At least one lineage of the Draconia became adapted to a fully marine existence. Argos argos, a large Pacific sea serpent, is representative of that group. Butler had two dead specimens on hand when he described the beast, in 1879. Both were males, although female specimens were described in later years (Butler, 1893). Argos averages about twenty feet long, and males tend to be significantly more robust than females. The wings have developed into muscular flippers, although the thumb still retains a hypertrophied claw. Surprisingly, the hindlimbs are nearly mirror images, structurally, as the wings, having themselves been transformed into flippers, minus the claw. The forelimbs are thin and end in three fingered hands. These atrophied limbs are used for holding on to mates and prey.
The body is laterally compressed, but retains a fairly circular cross-section. The tail, however, is more noticably flattened. Rather than scales, Argos argos' body is covered by overlapping "sections" of lightweight bony armor rings. These rings are loosely connected by skin and muscular tissue, giving the creature's movement through the water a unique look. The creature's cervical and dorsal neural spines are elongated, but not connected by any fin or epidermal structure. The skull is unique in having many caudally-directed bony protuberances, including a large "trident" above the eyes. Like the body behind it, the head is laterally compressed, and the mouth features many large, interlocking fangs. The mandible is distally downturned, giving the dragon a look of perpetual unhappiness.
Most interestingly, however, Argos argos has developed a "fishing lure" similar to those of angler fish. Its function remains the same: the dragon dangles the bioluminecent bulb in front of its gaping jaw, and when a curious fish comes to investigate, it snapped up. Argos argos shares the same waters as Lemiscusaurus enigmatus, but the two operate in very different depths and have radically different feeding styles. While Lemiscusaurus lives in the epipelagic zone, Argos is usually seen in the mesopelagic and occasionally the upper bathypelagic zones. Like all air-breathers, however, Argos must occasionally come up for air, which is when it is commonly seen. Further, it does not seem adverse to staying in the epipelagic zome for short periods, snapping up any fish it can opportunistically catch while there. Stevens (1947) remarked that the sea serpents appeared "lethargic" while in the upper oceanic zone.
In its native mesopelagic zone, however, Argos is an aggressive creature that has been known to attack both manned and unmanned submersibles. The males are violently territorial, and are thought to lord over a harem of between four and six females. Sadly, their mating habits are unknown given the expense of submersible observation.
In their review of draconian phylogeny, Irwin & Jones (1978) suggested that Palusodracos may share a common ancestor with Argos, citing the general pattern of cranial ornamentation, laterally flattened body, and wings which aided in marine transportation. They named this group Pacificodraconia," although by 1996, Irwin had abandoned such monophyly after a new fossil form related to Palusodracos (Protopaluso, Arnold 1988) suggested that the swamp dragon was closer to the European dragons than to Argos. Although Irwin still suspected some connection because of the unique cranial horns, he hypothesized that the marine adaptations of Palusodracos and Argos arose independantly as they converged on an aquatic existence.
References:
Butler, J. A. (1879). A large aquatic sea serpent from the Pacific Ocean. Royal Journal of the Natural Sciences 80(2): 212-243.
Butler, J. A. (1893). On the discovery of an additional specimen of Argos argos. Royal Journal of the Natural Sciences 94(1): 68-75.
Stevens, C. A. (1947). Observations on Argos argos. Science Notes 24: 560-563.
Irwin, B. E. & Jones, D. (1978). Monophyly of the Draconia. Draconium 19(1): 25-59.
Irwin, B. (1996). A revised phylogeny of the extent Draconia. In A Brief History of Draconology (Suet & Svenson, eds.). Prince Rupert Press: 56-73.
Coming up: Taurodracos ungulatus, a bizarre flightless African dragon!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Oh Em Gee!!!
Well THIS is depressing...
People say to me, "your drawings are fantastic! I can't draw a stick figure!"
Comparing my work to Tracy's is, at best, humbling. Ms. Butler, I can't draw a stick figure.
Also, have you seen Raven's Tupandactylus sketches? This woman's tinkerings are better than my full-fledged attempts. There are times when I question my own artistic talents, and this is one of those times.
I know, I know, keep at it. Chin up. Pratice, practice, practice. But clearly, my heart isn't in it these days.
*sigh*
Palusodracos wellsi
Palusodracos wellsi, otherwise known as the "swamp dragon," lives in Thailand and is one of the most fearsome known dragons. Although known by the locals for probably centuries, it was only introduced to science in 1924 by Arthur Cabbert. The swamp dragon is a large one--adult males can reach fifteen feet. Its scales are mottled green, but its spines are light orange and its "fins" are a bluish-green color. A large nasal horn is present just above the external nares, and the skull is framed by four caudally-directed bony spines. The skull is not so much triangular as flattened, and the creature has a short but very powerful neck. Palusodracos has developed several fins across its body, including a central vertebral fin, two fins along the backs of the lower arms, two more along the back of the metatarus, and the largest fin, which surrounds the laterally flattened tail. Cabbert believed that all of these fins, save the vertebral one, aided in the swamp dragon's aquatic activities, but this does not appear to be the case.
The dragon sways through the way in a crocodilian way, using its large tail as the main propulsive force. The legs and arms remain at the creature's sides, and the atrophied wings provide depth adjustment. They are held out to the sides in the water, just as they would be in the air, and are surprisingly capable of directing the body while submerged. When grounded, the swamp dragon either folds up its wings or holds them erect. The wing fingers have been reduced to splints of bone, and cartiliginous spines erupt from the wing's forearm, elbow, and upper arm to lend support to the "wing fin."
Cabbert noted that male swamp dragons are extremely aggressive, and will attack with the slightest provocation. "Luckily," he noted, "the beasts are heavy and slower than crocodilians of similar length, at least on land." While nobody has ever weighed an individual swamp dragon, Cabbert suggested a weight for large males of between 700 and 800 pounds. The scattered bones of dead dragons were often covered with jagged bite marks. Cabbert believed violent cannibalism to be the culprit, but it could just as easily be that the dragons were consuming an already-dead carcass. A second expedition to swamp dragon territory came in 1956, when a team led by Harold Jennings traveled to Thailand. During the month-long trek, four men were killed by swamp dragons, two others injured, and one went mad. Although he never published a formal account of his travels, Jennings would later recall that the swamp dragon was "the most dangerous predator to walk this Earth," and that Cabbert's description of the animal's sloth was "more personal luck than hard fact."
Jennings spoke of swamp dragons moving like torpedos through the water, and if an attack could not be made on shore, the beasts were more than happy to give chase on land. "Our only solice," he lamented, "was that the monsters lumbered like a bear on land, and if our party zig-zagged and broke apart, our pursuer would give up out of frustration." Jennings said that in addition to seeking aquatic prey, the dragons often took to land in search of larger game. It was with "sickening" regularity that his team came across human remains associated with dragon feeding grounds. No further expeditions have been carried out since, either by Jennings or anyone else.
Thus, our knowledge of the swamp dragon's behavior is extremely limited. The animal's taxonomy is without question, however. Cabbert placed it in its own family, the Palusodraconidae, and later workers would wonder if Palusodracos didn't have some connection with Argos argos, the "sea serpent" of the Pacific Ocean.
References:
Cabbert, A. (1924). A new semi-marine dragon from Thailand. European Journal of Draconology 14(2): 109-136.
Jennings, H., various interviews over the years in newspaper and television media.
Coming up: Argos argos, a benthic dragon which learned a lesson or two from the angler fish!
Posts
