Remember when certain games or franchises were exclusive to certain platforms? Like Metal Gear Solid 4: you'll never see it on the Xbox 360, or Mario being synonymous with Nintendo. Well, a new, horrifying chapter in the exclusivity wars has just begun. Now companies offering DLC for software on one, but not the other, console. Example: Tomb Raider: Underworld is on both the Xbox 360 and PS3. This month, 360 players will be able to download an expansion pack called "Under the Ashes" which will include about five hours of new content and a whole bunch of new costumes for Lara. Awesome, right? Here's where things get crappy: PS3 owners are missing out. The DLC is exclusive to the 360 version of the game. And that's not the only story like this. Fallout 3 is doing the same kind of thing. PC and 360 gamers are getting brand new additions to the Wasteland while PS3 owners get the shaft.
Meanwhile, Ubisoft realizes that gamers don't like being jerked around like this, and is offering a Prince of Persia expansion pack (tomorrow!) for both the 360 and PS3. I'm mad because I have a PS3, Underworld, and Fallout 3, and I'm totally missing out on awesome DLC because Crystal Dynamics and Bethesda were happy to accept a big fat check from Microsoft and snuff half their install bases.
You all remember Brachytrachelopan, right? 'Twas the dicraeosaurid sauropod who tried to be a stegosaur? Well, today a new stegosauropod was published, but this time it's the opposite situation: a stegosaur trying to pose as a sauropod! Miragaia longicollum is known from pretty much front half of the skeleton, most of the pelvis, and bits of the skull. It is from Portugal, and joins Dacentrurus as the continent's best-known stegosaurs. In fact, the two animals share enough features that they are united in a monophyletic Dacentrurinae, which itself forms a sister group to Stegosaurus itself. But what really makes Miragaia awesome is that it has 17 cervical vertebrae.
Most sauropods have been 12 and 15 cervicals. Sauropods, people.
However, Miragaia is not an enormous stegosaur--it is smaller than Stegosaurus, and would have outdone its cousin's upward reach by only a little, so niche partitioning alone doesn't really explain Miragaia's long neck. Instead, the authors suggest that, like the modern giraffe and some sauropod dinosaurs (maybe), Miragaia's long neck may have been a sexual selection character. I guess all the plates and spikes just weren't doing the trick!
Perhaps best of all, the paper is available to all takers (for now). Get it while the gittin's good! Also, I apologize for the hideous drawing above. I spent no time on it.
A few of my Alaskan readers may have read this book at some point in their lives. It was published in 1988, and it's a kid's book about Alaska's prehistoric wildlife. Unfortunately, in 1988, there wasn't a whole lot of Mesozoic material known, so the author and illustrator were almost making it up as they went along. Such memorable creatures as "Hadrosaur" and Ceratops are contained within its pages, as Troodon, the only animal get a formal genus. So I want to update this book, write a spiritual sequel of sorts (and illustrate it) including all the dinosaurs (and other Mesozoic critters) currently known in Alaska. For the uninformed, this list includes:
The second book has a clearer focus: it's all about ceratopsians! This book would follow a very strict format: On the left page would be the vital stats and a description of the genus illustrated on the facing (right) page. Because my goal is to compare the horned dinosaurs throughout their evolution, it would a portrait similar to the quickly-sketched one above (Triceratops horridus). I've got a pretty good potential species list, too. Let me know if I should add anybody:
Yinlong downsi, Psittacosaurus mongolensis, P. sibiricus, Liaoceratops yanzigouensis, Protoceratops andrewski, Leptoceratops gracilis, Montanoceratops cerorhynchos, Zuniceratops christopheri, Albertoceratops nesmoi, "Octoceratops" (assuming it's ever published), Centrosaurus apertus, C. brinkmani, Styracosaurus albertensis, Einiosaurus procurvicornis, Achelousaurus horneri, Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai, Anchiceratops ornatus, Arrhinoceratops brachyops, Ajungaceratops mariscalensis, Chasmosaurus belli, Pentaceratops sternbergi, Torosaurus utahensis, Nedoceratops hatcheri, Triceratops horridus.
Am I leaving anybody out? I also want to include growth series for those taxa with known growth series.
So those are my ideas. Comments? Questions?
Despite my enthusiasm lately for horned dinosaurs, I have certainly not turned a blind eye to the rest of the field of dinosaurology. Martinez & Alcober just published an incredibly important new critter, Panphagia protos, from the Ischigualasto Formation in Argentina. You might know it better as the "Valley of the Moon" where Sereno unearthed Eoraptor and Herrerasaurus back in the early 90's. That particular formation seems to be a hotbed of dinosaur evolution. While the taxonomic status of Eoraptor and Herrerasaurus swings between basal saurischians and basal theropods, the identity of little Panphagia is pretty obvious--it's the basalmost sauropodomorph known. This makes it even more primitive than Saturnalia tupiniquim, which is all kinds of awesome.
Now, take a look at that skeleton. Go ahead, give it a click. Now, pull out that old paper on Eoraptor lunensis (Sereno, et al., 1993) because the Intertubes don't have a decent skeletal of the little bugger. Anyway, compare the two. Bask in their similarities. While you're up, grab any of the following Herrerasaurus papers: Sereno & Novas, 1993; Novas, 1994; Sereno, 1993; Sereno & Novas, 1992. Because, again, Google Image Search fails. And just for the hell of it, look at this guy! Click the picture for a larger image, of course. Anyway, check that awesomeness out: they're all amazingly similar.
This is all to be expected, of course. As Martinez & Alcober note, the most primitive dinosaurs are all going to look pretty much alike. But what's really interesting to me is that Panphagia looks a whole lot like Eoraptor. The authors are also impressed by these similarities. Apparently the two taxa share some interesting features, including lanceolate teeth, enlarged external nares, a mandibular joint well below the tooth row, and many others. Additionally, a few "theropod" features present in Eoraptor are shared by Panphagia like hollow limb bones.
So what's all this mean? Among other things, it means that the phylogenetic position of Eoraptor is even more muddled. More importantly, the shared characters of Eoraptor and Panphagia imply that such features are plesiomorphic for Saurischia. But seriously, Panphagia is an incredibly important fossil that demonstrates what characters changed first in the Sauropodomorpha, when Saurischia probably split (Middle Triassic, perhaps?), that the first dinosaurs and their immediate ancestors were probably omnivores, and that the Dinosauria may have originated in Argentina! Seriously, Panphagia protos is a sort of saurischian Archaeopteryx, and that's just too cool.
References (clip 'n' save!):
Martinez, R. N. & Alcober, O. A. (2009). A basal sauropodmorph (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Triassic, Carnian) and the early evolution of Sauropodomorpha. PLoS ONE 4(2).
Novas, F. E. (1993). New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. JVP 13(4): 400-423.
Sereno, P. C. & Novas, F. E. (1992). The complete skull and skeleton of an early dinosaur. Nature 258: 1137-1140.
Sereno, P. C., Forster, C. A., Rogers, R. R. & Monetta, A. M. (1993). Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of the Dinosauria. Nature 361: 64-66.
Sereno, P. C. (1993). The pectoral girdle and forelimb of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. JVP 13(4): 425-450.
Sereno, P. C. (1993). The skull and neck of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. JVP 13(4): 451-476.
Well kids, 200 years ago, Charles Darwin was born. He revolutionizes not just biological sciences, but science in general with his Theory of Natural Selection, which is not "just a theory" as "just as much a theory as the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory." In other words, it's accepted as fact. Now, Darwin didn't have access to the wealth of knowledge we do today. He didn't have genetics to back him up, for example, but he certainly laid the foundation for the modern synthesis. I'm actually more excited for my buddy Matt Celeskey, whose art appears on a new book, The Paleontology of New Mexico. Run over to the Hairy Museum of Natural History and congratulate the man! Can't say I'm not a little jealous! :-D
The artist is Vlad Konstantinov (must...avoid...They Might Be Giants...reference) and this is a really incredible piece of work. This is what the tyrannosaur in Walking with Dinosaurs should have looked like. Clearly, we have the technology! He used a variety of software: 3Ds Max, ZBrush, Photoshop, Vray, and Brazil r/s. I don't know what any of that means, but it clearly works. Congratulations to Vlad, and I hope to see more of his work someday.
Ever since I got my PS3, my Wii has sat virtually unused next to my TV. Oh sure, I regularly play Wii Fit, RE4, and my virtual console games, but not with the same zest that I've since sunk into most of my PS3 library (can't stop playing...Bioshock). All that changes tomorrow, though, with House of the Dead: Overkill, a follow-up to the excellent House of the Dead 2 & 3 Return. But while the latter disk merely compiled ports of previous efforts, Overkill is an entirely original game built for the Wii. Virtually nothing has changed in terms of gameplay, of course: Overkill will still be a rail shooter with co-op. However, it's clear that Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles provided some inspiration, as Overkill will let players buy new guns and upgrade existing ones.
Gotta feel sorry for the male of the genus--it's forever stuck with a female moniker, which is the reason I'm not a huge fan of the name Maiacetus. I understand why Gingerich, et al. (2009) named it that--one specimen is a pregnant female with a near-term fetus preserved--but when you think about it, any mammalian fossil could potentially be preserved in such a state. Heck, Maiasaura was named on the idea that the mother duckbills must have taken care of their babies after hatching. If anything, Maiasaura is based on circumstantial evidence, which makes its name even more inappropriate. But what if they had found a pregnant brontothere, would they name it Maiatherium? If it had been a pregnant hominid, would they call it Maiapithecus? These are tough questions. Gingerich, et al. basically gave their whale a redundant name. It's a "good mother whale." Well, name me a whale that isn't.
Anyway, what makes Maiacetus so awesome is that it tells us a lot about archaeocetid whales. This is the group that includes Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon. They all have hindlimbs, but the later members, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, have vestigal hindlimbs and pelves which are not connected to the spinal column. Earlier members, like Rodhocetus and Maiacetus, have fully functioning hindlimbs with large pelves that connect to the spinal column.
This picture, which is helpfully labeled, is taken from Not Exactly Rocket Science. But it shows quite clearly the female (who died on her back) and the baby (in blue). The baby's teeth are colored brown, and show that adult molars were already present in the baby. That means that the baby is near-term and it is highly precocial, like modern whales. That is, the baby can pretty well take care of itself right out of the womb. The alternative is altricial, which would be more like baby primates. But wait--there's more! The near-term fetus is facing the birth canal, suggesting babies were pushed out head-first. That would mean a land-lubbing birth for the mother.
This has interesting implications. First, you should know that modern whales of course give birth at sea. Because of that, their young are born tail-first. This allows the baby to breathe while being pushed out of the mother. It also places the baby roughly parallel to the mother, so when it starts swimming (right away), it is right next to mommy, which is advantageous for a lot of reasons. Anyway, giving birth at sea probably has a lot to do with being able to come up on land or not. Later members of the Archaeoceti, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, are both too bulky and lack the hindlimbs necessary to come ashore, so they must have given birth at sea. But just a few million years earlier, Maiacetus was giving birth on land. So the transition must have happened pretty quickly. And that transition was probably easier because of the precocial infants!
Aside from the pregnant female, the authors describe a nearly complete male skeleton. It is 12% larger than the female and its canines are 20% longer. Gingerich, et al. suggest that such a size gap is comparable to modern marine mammals that do not engage in fierce territorial and harem mating systems. However, this also suggests that Maiacetus and its relatives were not gathering in large groups as modern harem-based marine mammals do (like elephant seals). This may mean that the environments where early whales "grew up" lacked such stable structures.
Posts
All Comments
