Tracy Responds

Hey, remember that critique I did on Ford & Martin's semi-aquatic Psittacosaurus paper awhile back? Seriously, just scroll down if you haven't seen it. Tracy was good enough to write a rebuttal, but it was too long to be in that post's comments, so I offered to post it as a separate post. I'm rather star-struck that he bothered to write a rebuttal at all, actually! Ah, people do read my humble blog! At any rate, here's how this is going down: Tracy basically wrote a response to me, point-by-point, referencing specific sections of my post. I'm going to reproduce that here, then add MY OWN commentary after each of his points in a different color. So, to be clear, his stuff is in black, mine is in...uh...red. So here we go! The next words you read will be from the pen of Tracy Ford.

First off I have to say that I am the principle writer, not Martin. If anyone has a problem understanding it, it rests on my shoulders, not Larry’s. I’m going to quote Ricky from I love Lucy: “Lucy, you have some ‘splaining to do.”

I won’t go into how the idea for the article came about, for that you can see the recent issue of Prehistoric Times. The editor/peer reviewer didn’t think it was relevant. In fact several things I wanted to put in the article he told me to take out (including some illustrations). I will be addressing Zach’s comments with a Z for Zach and a TLF for me.

Z) Ford, T. L. & Martin, L. D. (2010). A Semi-Aquatic Life Habit for Psittacosaurus.

TLF) Hey, somebody read the article!

Of course I did! It was lovely, really. Despite what I considered shortfalls, I did enjoy it.

Z) The fact that Larry Martin's name was attached to the paper instantly sent multiple red flags up in my mind. His moniker is the kind of warning label one usually associates with "Dougal Dixon" and "Alan Fedducia" (who, I'm told, can't even get ornithology right). Still, I tried to repress my angst and read on, determined to see this theory through. Larry can't get bird origins right to save his life, but maybe he's on the ball when it comes to ceratopsians. Maybe they'll make a slam-dunk case.

TLF) I like Larry. I’ve known him for a few decades now and he’s always been on the up and up with me and he’s the kind of person who will tell you how it is, and will correct anything that he’s said before.

I would hope so. He seems pretty dead-set on this whole BAND thing, but that's another post for another day. I should launch into a giant argument about rhetoric, inductive reasoning, and Aristotle's concept of ethos, but that's yet another post for another day (I am schooled in the art of rhetorical argument, after all).

Z) Readers, they do not.

TLF) Hopefully I can rectify that.

Avast, ye!

Z) The authors draw on six features of Psittacosaurus to make the case for a semi-aquatic lifestyle.

TLF) Yes, but Zach neglects to comment that even though we site 6 reasons, we aren’t the first to comment on an aquatic life style for Psittacosaurus, which is important. Rozhdestvensky (1955), Suslov, 1983, Currie (pers.com. 1997), and Averianov et al. (pers. com. 2006). This will become important as I continue to comment on his comments.

I should mention here that, when writing the original post, I did not cite the Ford & Martin's citations, mainly because I'm incredibly lazy, but also because I believe that if you cite an authors' work in the affirmative, you are basically advocating that position. Therefore, their position becomes your position, too. Just sayin'.

Z) First thing's first, though: I should point out that a modern analogue doesn't really exist, and the authors don't point to one. They never say something like, "Psittacosaurs were Mesozoic hippos!" or "Psittacosaurus lived like a crocodile!"

TLF) AH, DUHH!!! They don’t look like hippos or crocodiles. And we do compare them to beaver-like lifestyle, so this statement is false.

I'm gonna stick to my guns here. Psittacosaurus exists as a sort of mash-up of various semi-aquatic vertebrates in the paper, and even the final beaver analogue is more a comparison of its choice of environment than behavior.

Z) No, instead, their vision of everyone's favorite parrot lizard is a polytomy of various semi (or fully) aquatic modern animals as the authors struggle to come up with "semi-aquatic" reasons for Psittacosaurus' anatomy. Let's dive right in, shall we?

TLF) Again, we aren’t the first.

That's not an argument. Bad Tracy! Argumentum ad...uh...something! Something Greek.

Z) The first point the authors make is that Psittacosaurus is often found lying on its belly, hindlimbs akimbo in a "sprawling" position, and sometimes hyperflexed. This is apparently evidence of a semi-aquatic lifestyle. That seems like a non-starter to me, though. I can name plenty of modern animals with sprawling limbs that are NOT semi-aquatic, and even some fossil animals with sprawling limbs that have never been considered semi-aquatic. It's also worth noting that many modern semi-aquatic animals have parasagittal postures. The authors also do a poor job of explaining how an offset femur head (which Psittacosaurus apparently has) equals semi-aquatic lifestyle. They suggest it has something to do with a "swimmer's kick," because from what I gather, no animal can swim without splaying its hindlimbs and using a scissor, or breast-stroke, kick. Frogs do, after all. Crocodiles don't (they swim with their tail). Birds don't. Mammals don't. But one branch of Lissamphibia does.

TLF) Ah, this is totally mine. Now I take it he accepts the resting life pose that I propose then? Good, but I’d like to say that I’ve seen several different dinosaurs that have been found in a resting pose. Not just dromaeosaurs, and psittacosaurs, Coelophysis, other theropods, ornithischians, and even sauropods! Yes, there are several modern animals that sprawl. But 98% of dinosaurs couldn’t--they physically could not. And if I’m saying that they do (I’ll be using me from now on since I did write it), then I have to explain why they could.

Ah, I see. Other dinosaurs are found in resting postures that are NOT sprawling (like Mei or Saurornitholestes or Coelophysis), so the fact that Psittacosaurus is found in a sprawling posture is reason for pause. I agree!

Z) So, according to Ford & Martin, the animal most closely resembling the alleged swimming mode of Psittacosaurus is a non-amniote. Real good. It's not the only amphibian analogue the authors will make.

TLF) Not sure I understand this statement.

The language of the paper makes it sound like you're suggesting a swimming kick that's analogous to a frog, with splayed limbs making a scissor kick. If that's not actually the point you're trying to make, it's poorly worded in the paper itself.

Z) The femur thing is also inconsistent because in Figure 23.3 of their paper (on page 332), they show a rousing series of genasaur femora. The first two are psittacosaurs. Figure A (P. xinjiangensis) does seem to have an offset femur head. Figure B (P. sibiricus) really doesn't. Figure F (P. xinjiangensis) is a picture of P. xinjiangensis' femur abducted to a comical degree, without any consideration for muscle and cartilage. It's worth noting that plenty of non-aquatic animals with parasagittal hindlimbs have somewhat offset femur heads. I have a sheep femur with an offset head. Tyrannosaurus rex has a somewhat offset head. Animals with truly sprawling postures have very offset femur heads. No living animal can move between a completely sprawling and completely parasagittal posture. But I guess Psittacosaurus could.

TLF) Ah, I couldn’t illustrate a lot of femur heads and did the few I could. Dinosaurs for the most part could not sprawl, like I said before. The femur would not allow it. Dozens of Psittacosaurs have been found in a sprawling position. If it is a life position like I purposes then I have to explain why they could. I’ve heard the argument that there’re muscles, tendons, whatever but we do not know for the most part whether or not the muscles would allow it without having a living animal. Maybe they could (which I believe) and maybe they couldn’t. But for argument sake, I say they could. Now an offset femur would allow a broader range of movement. Since the top of the femur has a cartilgouse cap, I contend the femur could be moved even more into the acetabulum, as can be seen in figure 23.3 (F). Crocodiles walk in a sprawling and completely parasagittal posture. Ever see a crocodile run? So yes, animals do.

A little YouTube research shows that when crocodiles are walking quickly, they still rotate the shoulders and femurs out and around. At no point are the legs directly underneath the body. When they "gallop," it's a different motion: the hind limbs act in unison, pushing the body up and forward, and the fall is caught by the forelimbs, which also act in unison. Still not parasagittal, though. In order for Psittacosaurus to fully sprawl its hindlimbs, we're talking about essentially a cartilage cap that would separate the bone of the femur from the acetabulum...right?

Z) Let's move on the foot. The authors suggest that the foot was broad, and that large attachment scars existed on the shafts of metatarsals 1-4, suggesting that the foot was used for "more than just walking."

TLF) This is Rozhdestvensky (1955), he said this and I followed it. The phalanges and unguals are dorosal/ventrally flattened, making the foot ‘wider/flatter’ than any other dinosaur.

I know, I just didn't have the energy to flip through the citations index. I seem to recall hadrosaurs and ankylosaurs having pretty flattened unguals. Do Psittacosaurus' unguals have lateral "shelves" that would suggest webbing as in modern otters and beavers?

Z) Perhaps running, or jumping, or simply being active.

TLF) Ok, but I can’t see it jumping.

I can't see it swimming. :-P

Z) Where, exactly, can I find a rubrik telling me how much muscle is required for walking, and how much is excessive? Strong feet do not necessarily equal a "swimming kick."

TLF) Actually it was Sereno (1987) who said the foot had more muscle attachment, meaning a stronger ‘foot’ stroke. And I can see how this would work for a strong swimming stroke.

Yeah, but even that's an ambiguous statement. "Foot stroke," I mean. I'm betting that Sereno took it to mean a powerful push-off step, but...eh. It's just vague language. That's not your fault, and you're certainly free to interpret that however you want, I just wish...Sereno used more precise terms there.

Z) Also, again I say, very few habitually semi-aquatic animals use a scissor kick. Frogs use that same motion for jumping. Maybe Psittacosaurus was also an excellent leaper, and all that padding and muscle was used for shock absorbtion.

TLF) Are you serious? What morphology of the animal leads to this?

I was being facetious. I admit that it's hard to tell sometimes.

Z) Also, you don't need a lot of muscle in the foot itself for swimming. You need a lot of muscle in the part of the leg that provides propulsion--the thigh. Look at moose. Moose are perfectly capable swimmers (go figure). They have hooves. But they do have enormous thigh muscles.

TLF) So are Elephants.

You mean elephants are good swimmers? Sure, but my point is that, ultimately, if a moose can swim across Turnagain Arm, foot morphology is not the biggest factor what it comes to being a good swimmer--a powerful thigh muscle is. How powerful was Psittacosaurus' thigh?

Z) How about the forelimb? According to the authors, Psittacosaurus couldn't pronate or supinate, so the palms faced medially, sort of like theropods.

TLF) This is Senter (2007).

I know it is. I've read most of his "arm bone ranges of motion" papers. They're quite good, though I do have some problems with them--just because specific joint has a certain range of motion does not mean that the living animal could access such a range. Look at your elbow or knee, for example. The osteological range of motion is greater than the living range because soft tissue gets in the way. If anything, his maximum ranges of motion are too forgiving! But the main point here--that Psittacosaurus' arms had a similar range of motion to theropods--is quite valid.

Z) It had a tiny little hand with three main digits and a vestigal Digit IV. The proportions of the fingers bring to mind basal theropods Eoraptor and Herrerasaurus, but shorter and stockier and probably stiffer. Ford & Martin suggest that the fingers were webbed, and that flexion of the first digit (which is very small) may have folded the web during the return stroke. So now we're talking about a doggy-paddle. A very bad doggy-paddle, because the palms face medially. Not even frogs doggy-paddle. So you've got a frog kick combined with a horrible forelimb doggy-paddle.

TLF) I never said doggy-paddle! Read Senter (2007) and the movement of the forelimb in basal neoceratopsians and tell me what you think the forelimbs were for. Chinnery, Sereno said they were able to walk on the forelimbs and bring food to their mouths. Senter (2007) showed that they could do neither. But his research does make for a beautiful swimming stroke.

Well, a doggy-paddle is what you get when the forelimbs are moved through the water in an arc parallel to the body. I doubt the thumb was big enough or strong enough to facilitate any kind of propulsive catch on the return stroke. If Psittacosaurus wanted to use its forelimbs to swim, it would've had to wave them to the side of the body like plesiosaurs or use an ineffective doggy paddle. Now, if it really did have sea turtle flippers, it might be able to pull of that first one...

Z) And then, the best part: "...the manus of psittacosaurs may have been held together by thickened skin (e.g., sea turtles)."

TLF) Again, Rozhdestvensky (1955), said not only the pes but the manus unguals and phalanges were dorsally flattened. Why not have a webbed hand. Oh, and by the way it was also Rozhdestvensky (1955) who said the hind feet may have been webbed.

I'm really just making fun of the choice of example. I immediately got a Mock Turtle vibe. A "mit" of skin, like a duckbill, is very different from a sea turtle's flipper. Gotta admit, it's a funny image!

Z) They even handily show a picture of a sea turtle's FLIPPER on page 334, compared to a psittacosaur paw. They look NOTHING ALIKE. Their other examples look even less like Psittacosaurus: a whale, a sea lion, and a penguin. Did you guys even look at your other figures?

TLF) Yes, the manus in Psittacosaurus is more of an inverted sea turtle’s flipper.

I mean...com'on, that's being kind. I'd also like to note here that all the animals in the example are fully marine. Wouldn't a better analogue be an otter or a freshwater turtle?

Z) Furthermore, the authors muse that the limited range of motion of the forelimb could not be used for digging or food gathering, so they must have been used for swimming. Interestingly, they cite a study by Phil Senter who played around with psittacosaur limbs to figure this out. He's come to similar conclusions about dromaeosaur arms, so maybe dromaeosaurs used their feathered arms for swimming, too and that, below all those feathers was a meat-encased flipper. So now we've got an animal who uses a frog kick and a doggy-paddle with sea turtle FLIPPERS

TLF) What, you don’t agree with Senter’s psittacosaur arm movements? But you’re okay with his dromaeosaur? What other conclusion can you come up with for the psittacosaur arm movement? They couldn’t walk on their forelegs or gather foot to their beak. You have a problem with this, talk to Senter.

No, I'm saying that if you label psittacosaurs as being semi-aquatic because of its range of motion in the arms, you COULD say the same about dromaeosaurs, but that would be silly in raptors, because they have big feathers on their arms. I have no idea why psittacosaurs would have arm movements similar to dromaeosaurs (apart from the shoulder), but I don't know if you can pin psittacosaurs as being semi-aquatic when dromaeosaurs clearly weren't, but they have the same range of motion in the (non-shoulder) arms.

Z) Now, they do raise interesting point: many psittacosaur specimens are found with gastroliths. Why use gastroliths for breaking down food when you're already doing that with your teeth self-sharpening, leaf-slicing teeth? Perhaps the gastroliths were used for ballast, as they are in crocodiles. It is unusual that Psittacosaurus used gastroliths--the only other dinosaurs with gastroliths (to my knowledge) are sauropods and ornithomimids, neither of whom chewed their food, so gastroliths would help with digestion in this case. It's also possible that Psittacosaurus ate a wide variety of foodstuffs, some of which were not sufficiently broken down by chewing alone, and so needed further gastrolith processing. They could have also been used to achieve negative bouyancy while submerged.

TLF) Did you actually read the article? Did you miss the part where I said it was Phil Currie who came up with this? No, I guess you forgot that. In fact I contacted Phil just to make sure. He said the teeth are sharp enough that they didn’t need gastroliths and HE is the one who said they used them for ballast. Have a problem with that, take it up with Phil.

I...have no response. I'm just saying that there are other explainations for gastroliths in Psittacosaurus. Sinraptor and Caudipteryx have gastroliths, too. I can see their use in the oviraptoroid, but Sinraptor? Go figure.

Z) Next, we move to the tail. The authors consider the tail to be ""long"" (their word is actually in quotes, as if admitting that, no, it's not really all that long). They also argue that the tail is quite deep. It is not. Hadrosaur tails are deep. Stegosaur tails are deep. Psittacosaur tails are not. The authors similarly note: "The neural spines are proportionately tall in all species and are particularly tall in P. sinensis. In P. mongoliensis and P. sinensis distal neural spines are flattened side-to-side, and fan-shaped.... Thus the tail may have been laterally compressed, which would help in swimming as in some modern lizards.... (or crocodiles)" Help me out here, folks: what's the ossified tendon situation in psittacosaurs? I'm not sure myself. But here's what I do know: it's just as likely that Psittacosaurus used its tail for swimming as any other dinosaur with a tail unhindered by ossified tendons.

TLF) Ossified tendons are over rated and I did an article (or at least I think I did) for Prehistoric Times. Tendons don’t stiffen they strengthen. Ok, you’ve made my argument then. Yes, Hadrosaur tails are deep which is why they were thought they swam, and maybe they did.

But if they were ossified, isn't there a risk of breakage? As for duckbills, they're not considered semi-aquatic. If anything, they just happened to be good swimmers. My point is that if hadrosaurs and stegosaurs are not considered semi-aquatic with tails like those, how can you say it about Psittacosaurus' pretty average caudal series?

Z) This is after spending the previous paragraph comparing the tail to that of a crocodile. So, just so we're all keeping track, we've got a frog-kicking, flipper-handed doggy-paddler with the deep tail of a crocodile but the compressed tail of a lizard. Clearly, Psittacosaurus was the ultimate semi-aquatic vertebrate.

TLF) Yep.

But some of those swimming modes are contradictory and wouldn't have evolved in concert with each-other!

Z) What about the nose and orbit? They are "dorsally high" and favorably compared to those of crocodilians, hippos, and capybaras.

TLF) And the problem? I did this kick-ass illustrations of different Psittacosaur skulls and compared it to a Capybara but the editor took it out due to space. Also some Psittacosaurs have a more foreword facing orbits than Tyrannosaurus rex! Reminds me of a dicynodont.

Brother, you have post those skulls on Facebook. I must see! I've noticed the dicynodont resemblence before, especially in the bulky-headed guys like P. sinensis.

Z) What about the skin? It's thick...and strong! So it probably strengthened the limbs and tail for swimming. You need thick skin to swim! Just ask any amphibian! Or lizard! Or semi-aquatic mammal like the capybara! You know what kinds of animals DO have thick skin? Fully aquatic animals. Ichthyosaurs and whales.

TLF) And you know Psittacosaurs didn’t have thick skin?

I'm saying that thick skin doesn't really scream "semi-aquatic." It may scream "fully aquatic" or "semi-aquatic in very cold waters," but otters and martins and muskrats and capybaras and beavers don't have particularly thick skin. They have insulation. Some more than others.

Z) My big long bristle rant.

TLF) This is something that I will admit is a stretch (maybe). The reason why the whole article came to place is explained in the PT article.

I look forward to reading that. I agree that you agree that the bristle-fin thing is a bit odd.

Z) Finally, the authors suggest that psittacosaurs "may have fed in lakes or rivers, perhaps crawling in the mud in search of aquatic plants...

TLF) This is Suslov. Did you really read the article?

My gripe here is with the choice of verbage. "Crawling" makes it sound like an herbivorous protorosaur or something.

Z) However, a variety of forelimb to hindlimb relative lengths suggest that some psittacosaurs were likely more terrestrial than others...." Nice save, guys.

TLF) What, I’m wrong? Did you check that cool figure of the different Psittacosaurs? Oh, right, I was wrong and they have the same limb lengths.

Not at all, your illustration is top-notch! I just felt like it was a cop-out statement.

Z) Their final comparison is with a beaver, who I guess lives in the same kind of environment that psittacosaurs are found.

TLF) Hey, I thought you said we didn’t compare them to a living animal?

The comparison was more in terms of choice of environment.

Z) So here we have a frog-kicking, flipper-handed doggy-paddler with the tail of both a crocodile and a lizard, the skin of an ichthyosaur, the tail of a salamander, and the environmental preference of a beaver. No other animal has evolved so many different, sometimes contradictory, strategies for semi-aquatic life. Psittacosaurus really wanted to get it right. Clearly, had its reign not been cut short at the end of the Mesozoic, we might well see this creature swimming the post-Cretaceous seas.

TLF) Nice, I like it. The Editor took out my illustration of this, that sucks!

Was it similar? Can we agree that the fin looks a little wonky?

Look, all kidding aside, the problem(s) with Ford & Martin's idea is that almost every argument they make is an example of false conclusion. This is the same kind of argument you see Horner making in regards to Tyrannosaurus rex being a scavenger. "It's got tiny little arm" does NOT mean it had to, therefore, be a scavenger. Plenty of hunting animals don't use their arms to hunt. "It couldn't run fast" does NOT mean it had to scavenge because it's prey was running slower than it was. By the same token, having dorsally high eyes does NOT mean you spend a lot of time underwater. Crocodiles and hippos actually have somewhat telescopic eyes (that is, the eyes are above the skull table). This is not the case in Psittacosaurus, and in fact the eyes of many dinosaurs are proportionately as high or higher on the skull than Psittacosaurus.

TLF) Then why the high eyes and nose? You don’t need telescoping eyes for a swimming animal.

Well, no, but my point is that Psittacosaurus' orbits aren't any higher than in many clearly-terrestrial theropods, or some sauropods. There are a few dinosaurs with proportionately higher orbits that haven't been accused of a semi-aquatic lifestyle.

Z) Broad feet does not necessarily imply a semi-aquatic lifestyle, either. Plenty of animals without broad feet swim (dogs, hippos, moose) and plenty of dinosaurs had strong, broad feet and are not thought of as semi-aquatic (tyrannosaurs, duckbills, ankylosaurs).

TLF) Again you have a problem with the feet see Rozhdevensky. No other, NO OTHER dinosaur has the dorsally flattened unguals and phalanges, NONE! Hadrosaurs and Ankylosaurs have broad phalanges but not fattened ones.

Awright, I'll roll with it.

Z) *rants about Larry Martin*

TLF) I did not think that was funny. You have no idea on how much time I’ve spent, read, researched, etc on this. You neglected to state that there were several other paleontologist who came up with this idea and made it look like it was us and that we are idiots.

I totally understand and apologize. Just out of curiosity, why put Larry's name on the paper at all? This could've been all you, man! Whether I think it's wrong or not, just getting published is pretty pimp.

TLF) You also didn’t mention the article that said large ceratopsians may have been semi aquatic. Description of a Complete and Fully Articulated Chasmosaurine Postcranium Previously Assigned to Anchiceratops (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) JORDAN C. MALLON AND ROBERT HOLMES, P 189-202.

No, I did see that paper. I'm not really against the idea, but the thrust of the argument comes from paleoenvironmental association. I wouldn't say that ceratopsids exhibit any really convincing habitually semi-aquatic features. Waders, maybe, but hippo-like waders? Color me skeptical.

Z) Anyway, my opinion is that it's a poorly-researched bit of speculation on the part of the authors, and is nowhere NEAR a slam-dunk. Just my opinion, of course. Maybe you readers out there in Readerland have something different to say about it.

TLF) What, you forgot to mention the part about them being found more in a lacustrine environment then Aeolian. Must believe that part!

See above. :-)

Thanks for Tracy for providing this well-thought and well-written response to my rambling critique! You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir, though we may still get in a fist-fight someday about that whole BCF thing. I shall endeavor to make your acquaintance at SVP, perhaps in Vegas? Now, I demand you post your rejected Psittacosaurus pictures on Facebook or some similar website.

Toroceratops

We’ve been hearing rumbling of this paper for awhile now, but it became big news at SVP last year (in Bristol, England, a place I’ll never go back to): Jack Horner and John Scannella proposed a very radical taxonomic synonymy: Torosaurus, that famous long-frilled chasmosaurine, is actually just a very old Triceratops. This isn’t the first time Horner & Co. have applied ontogenetic lumping. Just last year, Horner & Goodwin suggested that Dracorex and Stygimoloch represent teenage and subadult stages, respectively, of Pachycephalosaurus. The paper has been met with mixed support, but this new effort has really split the community. This all seems to be an effort by Horner to show that the Maastrichtian period of the Cretaceous was a barren wasteland, taxonomically speaking, for the dinosaurs, and that diversity was in the crapper well before that giant meteor wiped the last few stragglers out.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you really can convincingly show that only one pachycephalosaur, one ceratopsid, one duckbill, and one tyrannosaur existed at the close of the Cretaceous, then yeah, the future looks grim for the Hell Creek dinosaur community. But that can be a tough pill to swallow. Any beefs I have with the Pachycephalosaurus paper have been addressed in an earlier post, so I won’t go too far into detail here. Mainly, I think the authors did a great job is showing that Dracorex is a teenager, Stygimoloch is a subadult, and Pachycephlosaurus is an old man. Those facts alone do not suggest synonymy. A larger sample size, more complete material, and better knowledge of the ontogenetic development of other pachycephalosaurs is necessary to make any kind of truly informed decision about the growth and development of a single poorly-represented genus.

Anyway, let’s talk about Triceratops and Torosaurus. The former is an extremely well-known, well-represented chasmosaurine ceratopsid from all over North America at the close of the Cretaceous. Torosaurus is known from the same deposits, but is extremely rare. Two species are tentatively known: T. latus and T. utahensis. The latter species was originally regarded as a species of Arrhinocertops by Gilmore, and, in fact, Horner & Scannella suggest that original classification may well bear out.

The authors based most of their claim on a paper from a few years ago by Horner & Goodwin which proposes an ontogenetic series for Triceratops. Key features of this growth series are the changing orientation of the brow horns and the eventual blunting and reabsorption of the epiparietals. The Horner & Goodwin paper details five distinct growth stages, though I do wonder about individual variation. Do all teenage Triceratops have slightly recurved brow horns? Would the brow horns really change orientation from basically straight as a baby to recurved as a teenager to forward-pointing as an adult? It just seems like a stretch. I’m all for horn growth, but I also know, from studies on centrosaurine ontogeny and bone beds, that ceratopsian exhibit a large degree of individual variation. Horner & Goodwin even acknowledge this when discussing Triceratops’ epiparietals, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

The point is that Torosaurus represents a sixth distinct growth stage, wherein the frill changes shape considerably—from wave-shaped in cross section to basically billboard-shaped and elongate, with squared-off upper corners instead of a nice round shape. Additionally, two large fenestrae appear as parietal bone is reabsorbed. Only as a full-grown adult does Triceratops come to resemble most of its chasmosaurine relatives. Apparently this all happens very quickly during the animal’s life, and there are no “in-between” specimens, although Horner & Scannella suggest that the oft-neglected Nedoceratops (Diceratops), with its incipient parietal fenestrae, may represent just such a “transitional” form.

The authors are quick to point out that the structure of the frill is the only skeletal feature that separates Triceratops from Torosaurus, but even this isn’t actually evidence for synonymy. If that’s your only justification for lumping two ceratopsids together, you may as well toss the entire Chasmosaurinae (except maybe Chasmosaurus) under one genus. It’s been repeatedly demonstrated that the parietal bone is the single most important bone in the ceratopsid body for providing taxonomic identification. Arrhinoceratops, Anchiceratops, Torosaurus, Mojoceratops, and Ajugaceratops all look pretty much the same beyond the parietal, although that last genus does have distinct brow horns. If anything, history has shown the safe bet—when it comes to horned dinosaurs—has been to split rather than lump.

Scott Sampson agonized over the decision to place Einiosaurus and Achelousaurus in different genera, since their parietals are so similar, or take Einiosaurus out of Styracosaurus in the first place, which is where it had informally sat for so long. Just recently, another “species” of Styracosaurus has been renamed as Rubeosaurus ovatus. A critical part of each of these decisions has been that the structure of the parietal bone. In Einosaurus and Achelousaurus, Scott eventually came to conclusion that, based on the fact that the former had a big hooked nasal horn while the latter had a roughened pachyrhinosaurine boss was enough to separate them at the generic level, although he briefly toyed with the idea that they merely represented sexual dimorphs of each other! This is how much the parietal bone means in ceratopsid taxonomy!

So, stating heroically that the structure of the frill is the only thing separating Triceratops from Torosaurus, as if that means something, is superfluous and misleading because you could say the same about any two other chasmosaurines or any two centrosaurines. It’s a good thing those two subfamilies differ in more than just parietal anatomy or we’d all be screwed.

Horner & Scannella also point out that Triceratops skulls are ridiculously common, and in fact so many are known that a convincing growth series has been established for the genus. By contrast, Torosaurus is amazingly rare, but it is known from the same time and places that one finds Triceratops. They take this to mean that Torosaurus must represent a very aged Triceratops, but that living such a long and fruitful life must have been a miracle given the rarity of that genus vs. the dozens of Triceratops specimens. I have problems with this for two reasons. First, just because an animal is uncommon doesn’t mean it doesn’t actually exist (taxonomically speaking). Nobody is accusing Bagaceratops or Udanoceratops to be a juvenile or full adult of Protoceratops, even though they’re ridiculously rare by comparison. I’m actually surprised Horner hasn’t tried synonymizing the two species of Protoceratops. Anyway, it’s entirely possible that Torosaurus preferred different environments than Triceratops, which would make sense if they’re going to avoid direct competition, and that environment might not be prone to fossilization. I’ve heard it argued that ceratopsids have such a great fossil record because they liked near-shore environments that increase their chances of being fossilized. Surely they didn’t all live the exact same lifestyle, and it’s possible that Torosaurus habitually lived in a different area than Triceratops. It’s also not fair to say that “no juveniles of this genus exist, therefore this genus must not exist.” I can name dozens of dinosaurs that aren’t known from juvenile forms, yet their validity is not doubted!

The second reason is that I doubt Triceratops would put a ton of effort into suddenly expanding its frill when death occurred so close to that period. As the authors acknowledge, Torosaurus skulls are very rare, yet juvenile, subadult, and adult Triceratops skulls are unbelievably common. Why would “old adult” Triceratops (Torosaurus) be so poorly represented? Horner & Scannella suggest that the mortality rate was higher among non-Torosaurus-stage Triceratops, but I have a hard time believing that. Such a strange survival separation isn’t seen in other ceratopsids—why would it be any different for Triceratops? That is to say, other ceratopsids have pretty equal survival rates, no matter what their growth stage. Triceratops doesn’t?


While the authors focus on Torosaurus latus, one may wonder about how they rectify Torosaurus utahensis. They question how many specimens of T. utahensis are diagnosable to the genus level, and even if it is valid, they throw up their hands and say that it’s a southern species of Triceratops, a different genus, or Arrhinoceratops—which it was originally referred to. Time will tell, I suppose, although Hunt & Lehman (2008) have stated that T. latus and T. utahensis are nearly indistinguishable, and in fact can only be discriminated based on the structure of the squamosal/parietal suture. Is Triceratops also present in Utah? I’m not sure, myself, but it might say something about Toroceratops.

Let’s talk about ontogeny. Horner & Scannella posit that Triceratops retains a paedomorphic condition of a solid frill well into adulthood, but what is the basis of determining that a solid frill is a juvenile trait? In centrosaurines, even the youngest animals have small parietal fenestrae. What about chasmosaurines? Are juvenile and subadult animals known chasmosaurines? Certainly, that Ajugaceratops bonebed can shed some light on this, but I haven’t read much on it. Apart from that concern, Horner & Scannella make a good case for the possible development of fenestrae in Triceratops over time. They discuss several specimens that have thin or sunken areas of the parietal where the bone is uniquely textured. I think this is good positive evidence that actually does make a correlation between Triceratops and Torosaurus. An alternate explanation is that they are actually describing juveniles or subadults of Torosaurus! Despite pointing out a lot of Triceratops skulls that have thinning areas of the parietal, the authors do not or cannot show a “transitional” frill, where the parietal fenestrae is present, but very small, and surrounded by thinning bone and a rim. If the bone was reabsorbed (as it must have been), it would have been reabsorbed from the inside out, so skulls should exist that have circular thinning sections with a small perforation at their center.

Next, the authors discuss squamosal elongation in Triceratops. A series of squamosal bones are shown: almost all of them are recognizably Triceratops: L-shaped. Figure I is interpreted as being from Triceratops, but it looks very similar to figures J and K, which are labeled Torosaurus. The authors are trying to show a purported growth series, but to my eye, the Triceratops squamosals are very obviously different from the Torosaurus squamosals. Worse, a line graph showing squamosal elongation is shown (Figure 4). Triceratops subadults and “young adults” cluster around the center, as expected, but the Torosaurus individuals fall way to the right of everything else. There are no Triceratops or Torosaurus specimens straddling the gap between the two genera. It’s very obvious that Torosaurus squamosals are very different than Triceratops. Plus, one Torosaurus squamosal (ANSP 15192) sits above the cluster of Triceratops squamosals. It’s recognizably Torosaurus but is similar in length to subadult and “young adult” Triceratops? To my mind, that means Torosaurus is fundamentally different than Triceratops at a similar age.

The authors also discuss epiparietal and episquamosal morphology. In the Horner & Goodwin Triceratops paper, the authors observe that Triceratops’ epiparietals and episquamosals become incorporated into the edge of the frill over time, and that older adults no longer have spiky frill edges, but more scalloped edges where the epiparietals and episquamosals are tab-like and rounded. In every known specimen of Torosaurus where epiparietals and episquamosals are preserved, they are also heavily absorbed. However, there are some key differences. Whereas the epiparietals and episquamosals of adult Triceratops are tab-like and rounded, those of Torosaurus are elongate and somewhat flattened, with distinct squared-off edges instead of rounded edges. Did the episquamosals and epiparietals elongate along with the frill bones? I doubt it. Their distinct morphology really does seem distinct.

Torosaurus specimen ANSP 15192 is particularly interesting because it appears to represent a subadult Torosaurus: its nasal horn morphology pertains to an early growth stage based on Horner & Goodwin’s Triceratops paper, and its frill is not as long as MOR 1122 or YPM 1831, yet it still has parietal fenestrae. Of course, Horner & Scannella recognize the analogy with Triceratops but ignore the nasal horn morphology: “No ‘Torosaurus’ specimen has posteriorly curving postorbital horn cores, which would be indicative of immaturity.” However, ANSP 15192’s postorbitals do conform very well to figure (d) of that paper—what you might call a young adult. And guess what? That’s where its squamosal sits on Figure 4 of Horner & Scannella’s paper. In that same growth stage (d), the epiparietals and episquamosals of Triceratops are starting to fuse and become rounded.

I’d talk about the bone histeology of the frill, as that’s one of the more interesting aspects of the paper, but I don’t know enough about bone histeology to do so intelligently.

Horner also seems married to the idea that the dinosaurs were dwindling in diversity at the end of the Cretaceous, and he’s been whining that paleontologists have been overstating the diversity of the Hell Creek Formation for years. That very well may be, but his solution is to synonymize everything that comes out of the ground. Look at what we used to have: Nanotyrannus, Tyrannosaurus, Dracorex, Stygimoloch, Pachycephalosaurus, Triceratops, and Torosaurus. Diceratops has always been questionable. Now we might just have Tyrannosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, and Triceratops. I’m not against that idea, I’m just saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While the idea that Torosaurus represents the “silverback” stage in Triceratops’ lifecycle may hold merit for future study, I don’t think that Horner & Scannella proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Discuss!

EDIT: Can I stop pressing Control-I now?

Awesome New Bishoujo Figures

I've got a figure review coming up. Several, actually. But I just saw on Tomopop that Kotobukiya is coming out with a bunch more Bishoujo girls, this time from DC. You can check them all out HERE. Notice that the only new ones they have on-hand are Emma Frost (kinda cool), all their different versions of Phoenix (awesome) and Supergirl (eh). I'm most excited about Catwoman and Black Cat, but it looks like the former, at least, isn't coming out until 2011. I guess that'll give me some time to save my pennies, anyway.

Semi-Aquatic Psittacosaurs

As I've been reading on Facebook, many of you readers have not received your copy of the excellent, though largely mythical, New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs, a book that has been promised since those mighty creatures went extinct, but has been delayed an abnormal--and some might say hilarious--number of times. It was just published last month, and I recently got my copy. As I paged through its crisp, volumous contents, I stopped when I hit a particular paper that intrigued me.

Ford, T. L. & Martin, L. D. (2010). A Semi-Aquatic Life Habit for Psittacosaurus.

The fact that Larry Martin's name was attached to the paper instantly sent multiple red flags up in my mind. His moniker is the kind of warning label one usually associates with "Dougal Dixon" and "Alan Fedducia" (who, I'm told, can't even get ornithology right). Still, I tried to repress my angst and read on, determined to see this theory through. Larry can't get bird origins right to save his life, but maybe he's on the ball when it comes to ceratopsians. Maybe they'll make a slam-dunk case.

Readers, they do not.

The authors draw on six features of Psittacosaurus to make the case for a semi-aquatic lifestyle. First thing's first, though: I should point out that a modern analogue doesn't really exist, and the authors don't point to one. They never say something like, "Psittacosaurs were Mesozoic hippos!" or "Psittacosaurus lived like a crocodile!" No, instead, their vision of everyone's favorite parrot lizard is a polytomy of various semi (or fully) aquatic modern animals as the authors struggle to come up with "semi-aquatic" reasons for Psittacosaurus' anatomy. Let's dive right in, shall we?

The first point the authors make is that Psittacosaurus is often found lying on its belly, hindlimbs akimbo in a "sprawling" position, and sometimes hyperflexed. This is apparently evidence of a semi-aquatic lifestyle. That seems like a non-starter to me, though. I can name plenty of modern animals with sprawling limbs that are NOT semi-aquatic, and even some fossil animals with sprawling limbs that have never been considered semi-aquatic. It's also worth noting that many modern semi-aquatic animals have parasagittal postures. The authors also do a poor job of explaining how an offset femur head (which Psittacosaurus apparently has) equals semi-aquatic lifestyle. They suggest it has something to do with a "swimmer's kick," because from what I gather, no animal can swim without splaying its hindlimbs and using a scissor, or breast-stroke, kick. Frogs do, after all. Crocodiles don't (they swim with their tail). Birds don't. Mammals don't. But one branch of Lissamphibia does.

So, according to Ford & Martin, the animal most closely resembling the alleged swimming mode of Psittacosaurus is a non-amniote. Real good. It's not the only amphibian analogue the authors will make.

The femur thing is also inconsistent because in Figure 23.3 of their paper (on page 332), they show a rousing series of genasaur femora. The first two are psittacosaurs. Figure A (P. xinjiangensis) does seem to have an offset femur head. Figure B (P. sibiricus) really doesn't. Figure F (P. xinjiangensis) is a picture of P. xinjiangensis' femur abducted to a comical degree, without any consideration for muscle and cartilage. It's worth noting that plenty of non-aquatic animals with parasagittal hindlimbs have somewhat offset femur heads. I have a sheep femur with an offset head. Tyrannosaurus rex has a somewhat offset head. Animals with truly sprawling postures have very offset femur heads. No living animal can move between a completely sprawling and completely parasagittal posture. But I guess Psittacosaurus could.

Let's move on the foot. The authors suggest that the foot was broad, and that large attachment scars existed on the shafts of metatarsals 1-4, suggesting that the foot was used for "more than just walking." Perhaps running, or jumping, or simply being active. Where, exactly, can I find a rubrik telling me how much muscle is required for walking, and how much is excessive? Strong feet do not necessarily equal a "swimming kick." Also, again I say, very few habitually semi-aquatic animals use a scissor kick. Frogs use that same motion for jumping. Maybe Psittacosaurus was also an excellent leaper, and all that padding and muscle was used for shock absorbtion. Also, you don't need a lot of muscle in the foot itself for swimming. You need a lot of muscle in the part of the leg that provides propulsion--the thigh. Look at moose. Moose are perfectly capable swimmers (go figure). They have hooves. But they do have enormous thigh muscles.

How about the forelimb? According to the authors, Psittacosaurus couldn't pronate or supinate, so the palms faced medially, sort of like theropods. It had a tiny little hand with three main digits and a vestigal Digit IV. The proportions of the fingers bring to mind basal theropods Eoraptor and Herrerasaurus, but shorter and stockier and probably stiffer. Ford & Martin suggest that the fingers were webbed, and that flexion of the first digit (which is very small) may have folded the web during the return stroke. So now we're talking about a doggy-paddle. A very bad doggy-paddle, because the palms face medially. Not even frogs doggy-paddle. So you've got a frog kick combined with a horrible forelimb doggy-paddle.

And then, the best part: "...the manus of psittacosaurs may have been held together by thickened skin (e.g., sea turtles)."

They even handily show a picture of a sea turtle's FLIPPER on page 334, compared to a psittacosaur paw. They look NOTHING ALIKE. Their other examples look even less like Psittacosaurus: a whale, a sea lion, and a penguin. Did you guys even look at your other figures? Furthermore, the authors muse that the limited range of motion of the forelimb could not be used for digging or food gathering, so they must have been used for swimming. Interestingly, they cite a study by Phil Senter who played around with psittacosaur limbs to figure this out. He's come to similar conclusions about dromaeosaur arms, so maybe dromaeosaurs used their feathered arms for swimming, too and that, below all those feathers was a meat-encased flipper.
So now we've got an animal who uses a frog kick and a doggy-paddle with sea turtle FLIPPERS.

Now, they do raise interesting point: many psittacosaur specimens are found with gastroliths. Why use gastroliths for breaking down food when you're already doing that with your teeth self-sharpening, leaf-slicing teeth? Perhaps the gastroliths were used for ballast, as they are in crocodiles. It is unusual that Psittacosaurus used gastroliths--the only other dinosaurs with gastroliths (to my knowledge) are sauropods and ornithomimids, neither of whom chewed their food, so gastroliths would help with digestion in this case. It's also possible that Psittacosaurus ate a wide variety of foodstuffs, some of which were not sufficiently broken down by chewing alone, and so needed further gastrolith processing. They could have also been used to achieve negative bouyancy while submerged.

Next, we move to the tail. The authors consider the tail to be ""long"" (their word is actually in quotes, as if admitting that, no, it's not really all that long). They also argue that the tail is quite deep. It is not. Hadrosaur tails are deep. Stegosaur tails are deep. Psittacosaur tails are not. The authors similarly note: "The neural spines are proportionately tall in all species and are particularly tall in P. sinensis. In P. mongoliensis and P. sinensis distal neural spines are flattened side-to-side, and fan-shaped.... Thus the tail may have been laterally compressed, which would help in swimming as in some modern lizards.... (or crocodiles)" Help me out here, folks: what's the ossified tendon situation in psittacosaurs? I'm not sure myself. But here's what I do know: it's just as likely that Psittacosaurus used its tail for swimming as any other dinosaur with a tail unhindered by ossified tendons.

This is after spending the previous paragraph comparing the tail to that of a crocodile. So, just so we're all keeping track, we've got a frog-kicking, flipper-handed doggy-paddler with the deep tail of a crocodile but the compressed tail of a lizard. Clearly, Psittacosaurus was the ultimate semi-aquatic vertebrate.

What about the nose and orbit? They are "dorsally high" and favorably compared to those of crocodilians, hippos, and capybaras. What about the skin? It's thick...and strong! So it probably strengthened the limbs and tail for swimming. You need thick skin to swim! Just ask any amphibian! Or lizard! Or semi-aquatic mammal like the capybara! You know what kinds of animals DO have thick skin? Fully aquatic animals. Ichthyosaurs and whales.

Finally, we get to the mean 'n' potatos: the one anatomical structure of Psittacosaurus I hoped they'd comment on: the tail bristles. Famously known from one Chinese specimen (SMF R 4970), the bristles have been compared to the Stage 1 protofeathers of coelurosaur theropods and porcupine quills. They seemingly adorn only the front half of the tail. There are about 100 long, gently curving quills that are deeply attached in the skin. The usual suggestion is that they were used for defense or display. Ford & Martin take it to the next level:

"We suggest that these bristles may have supported a caudal fin that was somewhat analogous to the caudal fin in modern amphibians, such as the Hellbender...the Mexican axolotl, salamanders, and tadpoles... In contrast to the flexible collagenous tails of amphibians, however, the realtively large size of psittacosaurs may have selected for a stiffer structure in order to support the large tail and enable its use in swimming."


So, instead of just doing what every OTHER amniote with a sail does (elongate the neural spines...even Platyhystrix figured that one out), Psittacosaurus had to do its own thing, evolving a complicated quill-like integument that was prone to bending, then covering those quills (which were packed together, not in a nice neat line down the spine) with a thick dermal fin. What, no ventral tail-sail? The amphibian analogy only goes so far, huh? But Psittacosaurus was only willing to go halfway--only halfway down the tail, and didn't bother to evolve solid quills--just hollow tubes. No wonder it went extinct! Lazy fuckin' dinosaur.

Finally, the authors suggest that psittacosaurs "may have fed in lakes or rivers, perhaps crawling in the mud in search of aquatic plants...However, a variety of forelimb to hindlimb relative lengths suggest that some psittacosaurs were likely more terrestrial than others...." Nice save, guys. Their final comparison is with a beaver, who I guess lives in the same kind of environment that psittacosaurs are found.


So here we have a frog-kicking, flipper-handed doggy-paddler with the tail of both a crocodile and a lizard, the skin of an ichthyosaur, the tail of a salamander, and the environmental preference of a beaver. No other animal has evolved so many different, sometimes contradictory, strategies for semi-aquatic life. Psittacosaurus really wanted to get it right. Clearly, had its reign not been cut short at the end of the Mesozoic, we might well see this creature swimming the post-Cretaceous seas:

Look, all kidding aside, the problem(s) with Ford & Martin's idea is that almost every argument they make is an example of false conclusion. This is the same kind of argument you see Horner making in regards to Tyrannosaurus rex being a scavenger. "It's got tiny little arm" does NOT mean it had to, therefore, be a scavenger. Plenty of hunting animals don't use their arms to hunt. "It couldn't run fast" does NOT mean it had to scavenge because it's prey was running slower than it was. By the same token, having dorsally high eyes does NOT mean you spend a lot of time underwater. Crocodiles and hippos actually have somewhat telescopic eyes (that is, the eyes are above the skull table). This is not the case in Psittacosaurus, and in fact the eyes of many dinosaurs are proportionately as high or higher on the skull than Psittacosaurus. Broad feet does not necessarily imply a semi-aquatic lifestyle, either. Plenty of animals without broad feet swim (dogs, hippos, moose) and plenty of dinosaurs had strong, broad feet and are not thought of as semi-aquatic (tyrannosaurs, duckbills, ankylosaurs).

The cynic in me thinks that the impetus for this paper went something like this:

Martin: "God, oh god, they can't be protofeathers! Maybe they...uh...supported some kind of skin-like structure. Like a fin! Yes, a fin! That would mean Psittacosaurus has to be semi-aquatic or something. That'll never fly. Or will it...?"

Ford: "Hey, it's got broad feet. Maybe they were webbed?"

Martin: "Look! Ancient studies on the creature support that speculation! Let's go with it!"

Just to be clear, I'm suggesting (half-jokingly) that this paper exists because Larry Martin is so hellbent to disprove the dino-bird connection. If Psittacosaurus' quills are actually structural supports for an amphibian tail, then there's no WAY they could be homologous with protofeathers, so maybe actual protofeathers are...collagen fibers after all? I don't know where to go with this. In the end, this paper just doesn't pass muster. It's a real shame that it's side-by-side with Nick Longrich's much better-researched paper about potential nocturnality and burrowing habits for Protoceratops. The man makes a good case through actual comparisons. In fact, the pedal anatomy of Psittacosaurus is a lot closer to Protoceratops than Castor, so I wouldn't be surprised if Psittacosaurus were a burrower, too. That lifestyle would ALSO explain the taxon's bad habit of being constantly buried.

Anyway, my opinion is that it's a poorly-researched bit of speculation on the part of the authors, and is nowhere NEAR a slam-dunk. Just my opinion, of course. Maybe you readers out there in Readerland have something different to say about it. I'll be moving on to the Horner & Scannella Toroceratops paper next...they actually make a pretty convincing case.

Upcoming Posts

You folks might think I've been lazy in not posting. That is entirely true! However, I'm also "prepping" several posts, which includes drawing a lot of pictures. Here's a preview, of sorts, of the posts I have in the pipeline:

1. An Informal Critique of the "Semi-Aquatic Psittacosaurus" Theory: this post will focus on the paper by Ford & Martin in the new New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs book. It will include lot of illustrations, so it's taking awhile.

2. Torocertops: No, it's not another new ceratopsian. Rather, it's going to be a discussion of the very recent paper by Scannella & Horner which posits that Torosaurus represents a very old growth stage of Triceratops. Apparently trikes never stop growing. Once I read and digest the paper and do some illustrations, you can look forward to a critique.

3. Another figure review: I hope you guys aren't sick of the figure reviews, because I've got a lot more figures to...um...review. The next one will be my very first girl, the one who got me into the hobby in the first place. She's near and dear to my heart, but her paint isn't aging well.

That's what you can look forward to in the next two weeks or so!

Gigantic Diversification

2010 has been the Year of the Ceratopsian, certainly, but the lion's share of new named taxa have belonged to the Ceratopsidae--the large-bodied horned dinosaurs. Just for funsies, I'm going to list all the species known in 1995, then list all the species named since then. I think you'll see a massive increase in ceratopsid diversity. Ready? HERE WE GO! I've marked species of uncertain validity with a question-mark.

As of 1995:

Chasmosaurinae

Chasmosaurus belli
Chasmosaurus russelli
"Chasmosaurus mariscalensis"
Pentaceratops sternbergi
Anchiceratops ornatus
Arrhinoceratops brachyops
"Diceratops" hatcheri (?)
Torosaurus latus
Torosaurus utahensis
Triceratops horridus
Triceratops prorsus

Centrosaurinae

Centrosaurus apertus
Styracosaurus albertensis
"Styracosaurus" ovatus
Einiosaurus procurvicornis
Achelousaurus horneri
"Monoclonius flexus"
"Monoclonius nasicornis"
Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis
Avaceratops lammersi
"Brachyceratops montanensis"

Since 1995, as of this date:

Chasmosaurinae
Agujaceratops mariscalensis
Chasmosaurus irvinensis
Coahuilaceratops magnacuerna
Eotriceratops xerinsularis
Medusaceratops lokki
Mojoceratops perifania
Ojoceratops fowleri
Tatankaceratops sacrisonorum

Centrosaurinae
Pachyrhinosaurus lakusai
Albertaceratops nesmoi
Centrosaurus brinkmani
Diabloceratops eatoni
Rubeosaurus ovatus
Sinoceratops zhuchengensis

Am I forgetting anyone? Even though we've actually lost a few species, and sometimes even genera, since 1995 (Monoclonius, Brachyceratops), and a few have been renamed (Agujaceratops, Rubeosaurus), the Ceratopsidae has, overall, exploded in diversity. Currently, there are 24 more-or-less valid genera (I'm lookin' at you, Nedoceratops) containing a whopping 30 species, unless I'm missing anybody, in which case there are actually MORE. And we're not done yet. There are several yet-to-be-published taxa that I'm personally aware of, and I'm sure my more informed colleagues know of even more. And the year is only half over. A lot more publishing can happen between now and 2011. Let's hope that 2010 continues to deliver more delicious horned dinosaur goodness!

Zach's Figure Reviews: Tifa Lockhart

I don't remember much about Final Fantasy VII other than Cloud is intolerably annoying, Sephiroth is legitimately awesome, and Aerith's death scene is overrated. I wasn't really into RPGs back then, and I'm still not really into RPGs today, although I have half a mind to buy Dragon Quest IX because I actually liked Dragon Quest VIII a lot before I got sick of it, and my buddy Neal Ronaghan highly recommends it, and I trust Neal when it comes to games. We record a podcast together with fellow NWR newshound Andy Goergen...you know, if you're interested. Where was I? Oh, right, FFVII. The other thing I remember is Tifa Lockart, the drop-dead gorgeous bartender and resistance leader of the party.


Tifa is a strong, sexy character with a traditional anime design without going too overboard. I really like this statue (cold-cast resin) because it's detailed but feels very simple at the same time. This is also the first of many "gaming girls" I'll feature in these reviews. She's decked out in her traditional FFVII uniform (thank Cthulhu) because this figure was produced before that awful Advent Children movie was made, or perhaps even conceptualized. This figure is very smooth--there's almost no texture work aside from her boots and gloves.


But the texture and detail work that is present is pretty nice: the loose belt, glove pegs, and suspender straps are all impressively sculpted. The creases in her mini-skirt are nice, as are the stretch-marks on her tank top. Our girl could probably stand to wear a bra, yes? But I really like how basic everything is, even the color scheme: black, white, browns, and a skin tone. Tifa's gloves are about the same color as her eyes, and her hair is somewhere between her eyes and black.


Here's a side-view. Her hair is quite extensive and also nicely detailed. The points of the ponytail are surprisingly sharp! I've never been all that sure why Tifa wears suspenders at all if she's just going to shove them aside so that they frame her giant...ohhhhh. Her breasts certainly look larger in lateral view, don't they? In stark contrast to the shelf on her chest, Tifa is entirely lacking in the backside department. Hey, I don't sculpt 'em.


Aaaand here's the other side. Better look at her "thumbs-up" hand, and the interesting elbowpad on her left arm. I am not at all sure what that's for. Note the good-sized rim on her glove and the earing in her ear. "Hey," I hear you asking, "she's a good looker 'n' all, but how does she manage to stand? Is she just standing on the table?" Good question, nameless reader who might or might not exist! Let's investigate.


In fact, Ms. Lockhart is affixed to her impressively weighty base via foot-peg. This gives her absolute freedom to rotate on the base itself, though it's pretty darn clear where the "front" is (see her giant nametag?). I just realized that this is a somewhat gratuitous photograph. Luckily, Tifa's sculptor aired on the side of modesty and painted on some panties. Notice, too, the creases and ties in her boots. Spared no expense, I tell you! I actually dislike the nametag. I think it's kind of ugly, and people who buy this statue already know who it IS.


In case you were wondering who the publisher is, it's printed on the bottom of the base. It's Kotobukiya, my favorite figure manufacturer. That will become apparent as I review more figures (though it's largely coincidental--they just happen to manufacture the figures I tend to like). Just FYI, the base is easily heavier than Tifa herself, which is great, but it's not like her pose is dynamic or off-the-wall and would lead to imbalance.


Here's a good front shot. Her eyes are (I think) expressive, and convey a different emotion than her oft-reproduced character art from the game. She's a bit more reserved here, not quite so determined. The coloration on her gloves is also apparent. More hair detail, too. It's a very good figure--very detailed, true to the character, and simplistic. I bought her on eBay several years ago for under $40. I just did a quick check and this statue is selling for $100 now. I'm glad I got in when I did! She is "out-of-print," so she'd be tough to find any other way. I highly recommend her, though, for those of you who like gaming girls generally or Final Fantasy in particular. On her base, Tifa stands 8" tall.

Smashing, Baby!

Mojoceratops, International Chasmosaurine of Mystery

Nick Longrich describes a new chasmosaurine ceratopsid in the new issue of the Journal of Paleontology: Mojoceratops. It's name means exactly what you think it does, and Nick thought the name up over pints in a pub. Brilliant. It's about time somebody invoked soul when it comes to naming ceratopsids, what with their billboard frills and fancy horns.

Congrats to Nick, and I absolutely LOVE his illustration. I actually love Nick's dinosaur pictures generally. They're almost-but-not-quite cartoonish: they get the point across, but they have character. Don't know about the snow, though. Was it snowing in southern Alberta during the Late Cretaceous?

2010 really is the Year of the Ceratopsian.