When Pigs Fly Returns

All Your Boss Are Belong to Us

2012-01-01T13:40:00.000-08:00

If you ask me (you did, didn’t you?), it’s well past the time for a new blog post. Additionally, it’s been far too long since I wrote about my favorite group of dinosaurs: the ceratopsids. This is supposed to be a paleontology-focused blog, after all. You may recall previous series on horns
‘n’ spikes (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), my back-and-forth with Tracy Ford (Part 1, Part 2), and my love-it-or-hate-it critique of the “Toroceratops” hypothesis (Part 1 and Part 2) (I think I’m off Denver Fowler’s Christmas card list). Let’s do something different this time: let’s just talk about the animals. So consider this post to be the beginning of series of posts about my favorite ceratopsids, period. We’ll start with my second-favorite: Pachyrhinosaurus.

The partial, holotype skull of Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis was discovered in 1946 and named four years later by the great Charles Sternberg. He dug up a big ol’ skull that was missing the frill and rostral, and some other bits of skull from different individuals, in Alberta’s Scabby Butte formation. So different was this “thick-nosed lizard” than its horned colleagues (seeing as it lacked a horn) that Sternberg erected a new subfamily, the Pachyrhinosaurinae, to be held to the same taxonomic level as the Centrosaurinae and the Ceratopsinae (Chasmosaurinae). His life restoration, shown below, looks something like a Protoceratops with a drink coaster on its nose. More material was discovered at the nearby Little Bow River Formation, and Wann Langston, Jr. unearthed a second good skull Pachyrhinosaurus from Scabby Butte in 1955.

Langston continued working on the genus through the 1970’s, and determined that it was a member of the well-established Centrosaurinae, or short-frilled ceratopsids. Though to this day, no complete frills exist for the species, the 1955 skull does preserve some proximal aspects of the frill, and an associated bit of the parietal’s outer rim. During the 1970’s, somebody (anybody out there know?) suggested that the characteristic, though bizarre, nasal boss that defined Pachyrhinosaurus actually represented the base of a massive, broken-off nasal horn. The idea actually gained some traction, and in fact a DinoRiders toy of a particularly well-endowed Pachyrhinosaurus was produced and released to an unsuspecting public. However, the hypothesis was quickly overridden by the unfortunate fact that no Pachyrhinosaurus skulls had anything taller than a big, molar-shaped boss (and besides, the recently-described Rubeosaurus ovatus fulfilled the “giant nasal horn” dream quite nicely).

The morphology of the boss became especially clear in 1972, when Alberta school teacher Al Lakusta stumbled across a massive Pachyrhinosaurus bonebed in that province’s Pipestone Creek Formation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals died there most likely due to an unfortunate river crossing. Plenty of skull material and postcranial remains gave paleontologists previously unthinkable clarity into the morphology and, importantly, ontogeny of this hornless horned dinosaur. Decades of work were put into the bonebed and, in 2008, Currie, Langston, Jr., and Tanke published the results: a new species of Pachyrhinosaurus called P. lakustai, named after the bonebed’s discoverer.

Apart from their temporal separation, P. lakustai is distinct from P. canadensis in a number of ways. The shape and structure of the nasal boss, and that boss’ relationship to the postorbital bosses, differs considerably. While P. canadensis has a molar-shaped boss that rises more or less vertically from its base, P. lakustai has a more rounded boss that tips in back and rises up from before ending in a “spout” (in some individuals) that overhangs the rostral comb. The nasal boss is clearly separated from the postorbital bosses, even in old individuals, whereas in P. canadensis, the three bosses come together late in life. As in most horned dinosaurs, however, the most telling differences are in the frill. Aside from the significant differences in P3 morphology, P. lakustai differs from P. canadensis in having a large “unicorn horn” growing from the parietal bar. This does not occur in all individuals and could be a sign of age or sex.

The growth of Pachyrhinosaurus is also bizarre. Juveniles start life with a narrow, though proportionately large, nasal horn, and small postorbital horns. As they grow, the postorbital horns are reabsorbed and the nasal horn’s base elongates (back-to-front). It assumes a pyramidal shape; then the weird stuff starts. In every other ceratopsid with a nasal horn, the horn grows more or less vertically. In Pachyrhinosaurus, that pyramidal horn grows laterally, its base becoming wider and its upper surface becoming rugose and honeycombed. With age, the boss’ structure changes further—in some individuals, it becomes concave as bone continues to be reabsorbed and remodeled. While the overall form of the parietal’s outer rim remained consistent in each example of that bone, a surprising amount of individual variation is present.

While the authors state that almost every bone in the skeleton is represented, they do not provide a description of the post-crania (I can only assume that’s being saved for a later publication). I assume it’s similar to other related centrosaurines for whom relatively complete post-crania are known (Centrosaurus comes to mind). Of course, that old generalization may not be valid—-among the chasmosaurines, Anchiceratops has very different proportions from big bruisers like Triceratops.

Wonderful illustration of our new Alaskan species by Karen Carr.

As it turns out, Pachyrhinosaurus is not restricted to Alberta. No, sir, this ceratopsid lived all the way up on the North Slope of Alaska. A nice, but obliquely crushed, skull was discovered up there and provisionally described for Fiorillo in 2010’s big ceratopsid volume published by Indiana University Press. There’s actually a lot more unprepared material, just sitting in field jackets, and I can’t wait for that stuff to be described. Anyway, after extensive preparation, the holotype skull was written up and awaits publication in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica (where you can read the in-press draft). The authors of that paper have given this species a distinct name: Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum. It is the northern-most ceratopsid in the world, and also the youngest occurrence of the genus.

It differs from its more southerly cousins in not too many ways. In fact, it looks kind of like P. lakustai, but, again, it's the structure of the parietal that makes this guy different. The two P3 spikes are there, but this species expresses P1 spikes that grow down and overhang the parietal fenestrae, similar to the situation in Centrosaurus apertus and Centrosaurus brinkmani. This big guy would have lived in some cold temperatures in the winter--it probably got down below freezing for a few months a year, and believe it or not, the North Slope of Alaska was further north than it is today back in the Late Cretaceous, so that means even longer periods of darkness.

Exactly how Pachyrhinosaurus and its neighboring frozen north dinosaurs survived in these extreme conditions is unknown, but it certainly speaks to their hardy nature. Living alongside our boy here was a large form of Troodon formosus, good old Dromaeosaurus, Edmontosaurus, and one or possibly two tyrannosaurs--one of which was Albertasaurus.

UPDATE: I actually wrote this post a week ago, but only now found the motivation to post it. I may actually add to it later, including references. So look for that!

Merry Christmas! Still not dead!

2011-12-26T10:58:00.000-08:00

Can you believe I haven't blogged since September? And even that was just to check in.

I'm changing things on this blog. Haven't decided exactly how yet, but I do intend to start blogging more regularly. I've actually got three blog posts in the "editing" stage and I want to put them up fairly quickly, after the new year. My health is more or less back to the normal. I've still got a PICCline in, but it's kind of my new routine now. My only excuse is not having any motivation at all to be creative--that might be caused by the abscess back in May (no joke). I don't really draw anymore either. It's wierd, and annoying, and a little worrying.

I'm also forcing people to register. That blows, I know. Would comment moderation be better? Let me know. I'm so tired of getting spam comments. I'm going to go through all my posts at some point and wipe out all the spam.

I might also just start a brand-new blog and let this one fester away. I'm so far behind in the literature it's stunning, but I need to catch up, and I need to write about this stuff. For me, for you, for my own sanity.

What are your thoughts, dear readers? If anyone even checks this blog anymore, that is. And I don't blame you if you don't!

The Summer of Illness Continues

2011-09-17T17:46:00.000-07:00

Well, when last we spoke, I had just gotten my 3rd PICCline out, but was feeling like I had the flu or something. So I went back to the doctor just to be safe.

Now I have a 4th PICCline. I've had it for almost a month now, and that's after another week in the hospital. These infections have been cropping up pretty continuously, and it's partially because I have a brand-new bug to contend with: Mycobacteria abscessus, which actually moved in and set up shop while I was recovering from my brain abscess. So, I guess that's...ironic?

M. abscessus is pretty tough to treat, not because it's actually tough to treat, but because so few drugs actively kill it. I'm on a drug called Cefoxitin, which is in the same family as one of my Pseudomonas drugs, Cephtazadine. I'm also going on a new antibiotic pill. My diabetes came back (though it'll probably go away again) and I have a new inhalent to start. Luckily, it only takes three to four minutes to do, so...that ain't bad.

The bad news is that it takes potentially years to kill off all the M. abscessus, so after this PICCline has to be pulled, I'm getting a port, like cancer patients have. Yippee. So that's where I'm at. I haven't done any drawing, or writing, or really even game-playing. Well, that's not fair. I did but and am enjoying Bloodrayne: Betrayal for PSN because it's just so pretty, but it's ghoulishly difficult.

More substantial posts will come in time. Consider this lengthy summer my sick leave from the blog. LOL

Progress Report, and Art!

2011-08-22T15:40:00.000-07:00

Look, kids! I'm not dead!

I got my third IV out on the 1st, started back on my normal med routine, and BAM, two weeks later and I'm already developing symptoms associated with another lung infection. I'm going into the doctor tomorrow. Hopefully it'll be nothing but a cold, but I just never know anymore. Follow me on Twitter (@zmiller1902) for updates.

But now is not the time for worry--now is the time for showing off horrible sketches! I'm again working on my "Life on Leather Wings" story. I've got a lot of the storyline worked out and the three main characters well-defined. This is a prelim sketch of one of them--Angol Fear (name taken shamelessly from the Soul Calibur IV character), one of Heaven's Vanguard. She and her squad of Angels is in charge of hunting and killing soul-harvesting Succubi. She is young and brash, but determined and gets the job done. She and Lily have a tenuous truce: Angol won't go after Lily as long as Lily continues harvesting souls that are already Inferno-bound. But the second Lily goes over that line, Angol's coming after her.

I'm having a difficult time imagining the armor for Heaven's Vanguard and Angol in particular. I want it to be imposing but breathable. I don't want Angol to have a helmet, either. But her silhouette is different from Lily (or Gwendolyn): Angol's widest point is just below hips, at the top of her thighs. She has short blonde hair and, of course, those big Angel wings. This is the only drawing I've done in the last month that I've considered good enough to keep, but I'm glad I'm getting back in the groove, slow though it may be.

Ignore the "LeBouf" scribble. I forgot to erase it, and I was trying to figure out if The Beef's name really meant "the beef." Turns out it doesn't--what a shame!

Now then. To lunch!

Seriously, a Month?!

2011-07-22T18:44:00.000-07:00

Seriously, it's been over a month.

I never thought I’d make it to the point where I was blogging once a freaking month. Believe me, I’ve considered blogging in the last four weeks, but I was never really motivated to. There was no paleo story that got me revved up, no gaming news that made me sweat, and here’s the other thing: I haven’t really drawn anything in just as long. So we begin today with a consideration that When Pigs Fly Returns might close up shop soon. Maybe it’s the aftermath of the brain infection, but I am just NOT feeling the writing bug anymore. I assume you have to work at it; drawing, too, but right now there is nothing I’d rather do less than sit down and type out something about Stegosaurus. I spent two weeks—I’m not kidding—writing and re-writing my Wonder Woman figure review over at Dirty Little Figures.

It’s a struggle. My question is whether this disinterest in the creative process is a REAL aftereffect of the brain injury, or merely a temporary setback that will edge its way back into my cranium? I really hope it’s the latter.

Second thing I want to talk about today is my progress. I am off all abscess-specific medications now, though the medications I am on also treat any lingering residuals of the abscess infection. Remember back in March when I had that respiratory infection and ended up with a PICCline IV that only lasted two weeks? Then a few weeks later I was in the ICU with a different PICCline in my (other) arm and that lasted well over a month? Well, funny story: while I was recovering from the abscess, the respiratory infection actually came raging back, faster than before, and now I’m on a third PICCline (in the original arm) that we’re treating with the same antibiotics as we did in March. Hopefully this won’t last more than two weeks, although I’m kind of hoping for three—maybe we didn’t totally kill it off in March/April.

But I definitely needed a re-do. My appetite had fallen off a cliff, I was slowly losing weight, my energy level was just above “lazy sea lion,” and best of all, my lung function tests were declining every week. So getting another IV was certainly A Good Thing. Best of all, the first respiratory infection and the brain abscess made me meet my Out of Pocket Maximum, so assuming there are no insurance kerfuffles (of course there will be), this one is basically free!

So that’s where I’m at. Now I’m going to force myself back into drawing so that I start getting back into the creative groove. My focus? I’m going back to mythological pin-ups. Remember way back when I did the Silk Succubus? That’s the well I’m going back to. I’d had many others planned, including a Harpy, Gorgon, and Siren. I just have to re-learn how to draw…

Yes, it's a Raccoon

2011-06-19T13:20:00.000-07:00

It took me awhile to figure out what this guy is. After I got back from the hospital, my assistant, Ashlee, gave me a mystery skull that her parents (in California) sent to her. They found this skull on their property, and I cleaned it up as best I could. There's still some dirt and dried skin on the mandibular symphysis. The ascending processes of the dentary are broken off, and all of the teeth are cracked in half. But hey, free skull! Can you ID it? I was tipped off by a friend much smarter than me to consult the dental formula, so that's what I suggest.

It is not a large animal. The skull is a whopping 4.5" long.

A little more dried skin that I'm afraid to pull off lest I break the bone. It's really on there.

Here's the lower jaw. Notice that it has the same dental formula as the skull!

RAWR! Actually, this animal wasn't a carnivore. I mean, it will eat meat if presented with meat. But it'll eat just about anything else, too. The wife tells me it's considered something of a pest. What is it, folks?

Another Health Scare

2011-06-12T10:32:00.000-07:00

If you scroll down the page a bit, you may recall that I had a PICC line IV in March and part of April to clear up a respiratory infection that'd been nagging me ever since SVP in Bristol. That lasted two weeks and really wasn't all bad.

But then something else happened!

But on May 16th, I developed a nasty headache...what you might call a migraine headache. I actually wasn't super-worried about it. When I was a teenager, I got migraines on an annual basis. The problem is this one wasn't going away. It lasted three days, and in fact the pain became so intense that the wife and I went to a clinic to get it checked out on day 2. They told me (at first) that it was a migraine and gave me some pills and sent me home to rest with the caveat that if it was still bothering me that night, I should go back for a re-check. Which I did. At that point, I was told I had a meio-facial headache. The doctor gave me a deep-tissue massage to my neck and scalp, and they pumped me full of fluids via IV (saying I was dehydrated, which would make the pain worse). Indeed, I felt a little better after that.

But that night? I couldn't sleep because the pain ratched up to about a 9. It felt like my brain was being stabbed every time my heart beat. We actually went back to the clinic the next morning and they forwarded us to the ER. At that point, I pretty much lost consciousness.

You all might have heard this story already if you've been following me on Twitter (@zmiller1902) or on Facebook, but a few of you readers probably aren't (you should!) so I'll go over the quick 'n' dirty version here. The ER doctors gave me a head CT scan which showed an abnormality, so they also did an MRI, which showed a blotch on my brain. Then they did a lumbar punction (spinal tap) which I'm super-happy not to have been awake for. My spinal fluid was cloudy--it should be clear--and that MRI made the neurosurgeon jump up and take notice. The man, Dr. Marshall Tolbert, was working on a gunshot victim but when he saw my test results he put that guy on ice and rolled me into the OR.

He installed a tube (maybe a "port") in my skull underneath my scalp. This tube could be used for three things: monitoring my endocranial pressure, draining spinal fluid, and (if need be) delivering antibiotics directly to my brain. I had a brain abscess, which basically means that some bacteria was sneezed onto my blood-brain barrier and slowly ate away at it until it was sitting directly on my brain. If any more time had passed before I got into the OR, there's a good chance the infection could have penetrated the brain tissue itself--and then I would've been royally screwed. A total-brain infection could have killed me or left me with lasting disabilities. Neither thing happened, so I'm extremely grateful to Dr. Tolbert and the nursing staff at Providence.

At any rate, I was pretty out of it for about two days. When I finally did get back to consciousness, I was lying in an ICU room with a tube in my head, a few temporary IV's in my arms, and lots of wires on my chest, monitoring my vitals. There was also a...uh...catheter in my down there parts. If I recall, that was taken out first. People came to visit me during those missing two days but I don't remember them. I don't remember my nurses from those two days, either. I guess my head was pretty messed up, too (superficially).

I spent seven days in the ICU, during which time they figured out that the bacteria to blame was simple Streptococcus, which lives in all of our mouths and sinuses. So my advice is to not sneeze! I was hooked up to another PICC IV and was given a powerful antibiotic called Miropenim, which attacked not just the Strep but also the Pseudomonis in my lungs. Unfortunately, it also killed my gut bacteria, so I became a raw sewage plant. Eventually my spinal fluid cleared up enough that Dr. Tolbert felt comfortable removing the tube, and at that point I was wheeled up to a lower-intensity ward. I went home two days later.

There are some lasting effects. I'm on a steroid to kep my brain from expanding. The steroid has been tough, especially at higher doses. It affects my mood and energy level, but I'm tapering off it now, and the one good side-effect is that it makes me hungry all the time. That's been great, because I lost 15 pounds at the hospital! It also really screwed up my body chemistry, so I had diabetes for about two weeks. I'm coming off that, too (insulin suuuucks). I lost a lot of leg muscle because you can't move in the ICU. It's still surprisingly hard to go down slopes and stairs. I feel like my knees give out more easily. I also haven't come off the PICC yet, and I probably won't until early July at the earliest. At least we change the antibiotic to simple penacillin, which doesn't kill my gut bacteria. Finally, I have a lot of scars and bruises that I'm unusually self-conscious about.

But I'm back at work and going to a lot of follow-up appointments to make sure I'm recovering at a good clip. It's strange to think I almost, or at least could have died in the hospital. This has certainly been a wild ride, but I'm getting back to normal now. Posting should resume before long! If I can find it, I have a small dog skull to show you all, and a whale vertebrae!

Lynx & Black-Tailed Deer

2011-05-14T16:40:00.000-07:00

I've been gone for awhile. I spent a weekend in Kodiak, but I've been home, just not online. But I have been working on a project: skullifying an animal head. Here's the progress so far. Let's see if you can guess what it is. I'll give hints along the way!

A friend at work gave me the skinned head of a [blank] that he had trapped. He wanted to see what I could do with it. Having already, years ago, did nice skullifications on wolf, deer, and pig heads, I was eager to try my hand at the hobby once more. This is where I'm at. The boiling...the stench...I'm glad it's over.

Obviously, it's an Alaskan animal. Not very big skull, though. There are some structures towards the back of the skull here in ventral view that are dead giveaways.

Big goddamn fangs!

Here's the mandible. Again, big fangs and very reduced dentition. This critter wasn't doing a lot of chewing, but plenty of cutting and slashing. I would not want to be caught in a room with this bugger.

Here's a dorsal view of the mandible, if that helps (probably not).

While in Kodiak last weekend, I found this beauty sitting by the road. At one point, one half was lying in the ground (you'll see) as it was covered in dirt and moss. I've managed to pick most of it off. It's in really gorgeous condition, though.

I know what it is. Do any of you? Again, obviously, Alaskan.

"Why the long face?"

This is the mossy side. It's greener than the other half, but otherwise in the same condition.

As you can see, the only broken bone is the right "prong" process that points downward at the back of the skull. These prongs are helpful in keeping the skull standing up, so with one missing it tends to tip over.

Can't complain too much, though--it's not every day you find a really well-preserved skull just sitting by the side of the road. After the lynx is done (gotta get the brains and sinus tissue out), I've got a big mallard duck in my freezer ready for plucking, skinning, and skeletizing!

Say Hello to "Dirty Little Figures!"

2011-04-24T18:36:00.000-07:00

It's the name of my new Wordpress blog. Wordpress, I'm finding, is about a million times more flexible than Blogger, so I love it. This new blog will be specifically dealing with figure reviews and photo essays and, where I find it compelling, figure-related news.

Go check it out! And it won't just be girls anyway (I'd quickly run out of subject matter). I intend to have photo essays about my dragons and dinosaurs, Ninja Turtles and gaming figures too.

Dirty Little Figures

And don't worry--I'm not going to abandon this blog by any means. I just never felt comfortable using it for my figure reviews.

"Coming Soon"

2011-04-23T16:59:00.001-07:00

Here's another "Coming Soon" post.

Someday soon, perhaps as early as tomorrow, I'm going to set up a sister blog that only covers my figure reviews, and I'm going to re-review all the girls I've already covered, but with better photographs (and largely similar text). The first new review will be Velvet up there. The text isn't done, but the pictures are. Haven't decided on the name yet, but keep an eye out. Most of my writing time has been devoted to Nintendo World Report. I did two articles this week and a third is on the way. Haven't had much time for drawing, unfortunately. I did do a nice sketch of Raphael (the Ninja Turtle) as an old, retired barkeep, though. I should...post that here.

I'm also going to re-color that Velafrons (below) and submit it to the Art Evolved! duckbill gallery. I'm long overdue to get back in the Art Evolved scene. As one of the original members, I feel guilty about falling completely off the map. My eternal excuse: life gets in the way. But expect some more sketches here before too long, including of newly-discovered Daemonosaurus, a toothy horror from New Mexico.

Velafrons coahuilensis & IV Status

2011-04-11T19:00:00.001-07:00

My wife didn't make a color copy of this, but here it is! I draw this for a friend. It was between Velafrons and Coahuiluaceratops and the decision was made by asking her whether she liked Duckie or Sara more in "Land Before Time." I'm also starting a new paleo-artist internet meme:

"No Greg Paul skeletals were referenced for the production of this illustration."

Also, I had the I.V. taken out today. Only two weeks! I'm back to full power. I'll post a picture of my mangled arm later. It's actually not mangled at all. There's a large scab over the hole in my arm and that's about it. Whatever. Velafrons!

Charles Knight Rises From Grave; Pays Tribue to his Master

2011-04-05T20:12:00.000-07:00

Charles R. Knight, history’s second-most influential paleo-artist, rose from his grave in Manhattan today and shambled toward Maryland to pay respect to Gregory S. Paul, recently named the Greatest Paleo-Artist of All Time by an intergalactic committee. Though undead, Knight seemed in good spirits as he dragged his rotting carcass south along the east coast. “I had always thought that I influenced him,” said Knight of Paul, “but it turns out this whole time he was influencing me through some kind of chronological wormhole thought interface that I don’t understand completely.”

Greg Paul recently attacked every working and amateur paleoartist in the world on the Dinosaur Mailing List, essentially calling them parasites who should bow down to him and rely only on his measured, hand-drawn skeletons as reference material while not being careful not to be influenced or inspired by his art. “When I look back at some of my dinosaur restorations, especially things like Leaping Laelaps, it’s hard not to see the GSP influence,” mused Knight while chewing thoughtfully on some poor guy’s brain. “Is this guy a creationist? His frontal lobe is all squishy.” Paul could not be reached for comment, but Metatron did give a press release regarding the event. “It’s about goddamn time,” he said, his angelic voice booming triumphantly.

Metatron shook hands with Knight’s fetid corpse, which instantly turned to ash, vaporized by the awesome holy light emanating from the Voice of Paul. Knight’s ashes swirling helplessly away from the podium, Metatron continued. “Mr. Paul wishes to thank Mr. Knight for making the trip to Maryland and we wish him all the best. We intend to have Mr. Knight’s Allosaurus Feeding on Diplodocus removed from the American Museum of Natural History and replaced by Mr. Paul’s classic and far more accurate Allosaurus fragilis Skeleton in Mid-Stride in Lateral View.”

After the press conference, Metatron ascended back to Heaven and many thought they could see a crazed, paranoid old man peeking out from the closed drapes on the second floor of Mr. Paul’s house. Witnesses also claimed to see a great many cats living in or about the premises. Scott Elyard, a noted Alaskan paleo-artist, added some scope to Mr. Paul’s attacks. “He seems to be irritated that people are using his skeletal drawings as reference material, but then goes out of his way to say that nobody should bother doing their own photographs or measurements because they won’t be nearly as good as his. He’s right, of course.” Where this leads him in his own art, Elyard merely stated, “I’ve given up dinosaurs. Nobody’s as good as His Pauliness, so I’m going into plants instead.”

In addition to his illustrations, Greg Paul is also known for his unique views on dinosaur taxonomy. His recent tome, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, completely revised the taxonomy of the ceratopsids, or horned dinosaurs. Where once paleontologists recognized more than half-a-dozen centrosaurine genera, Paul whittled that number down to just one: Centrosaurus. “Well, of course it makes perfect sense,” said Dr. Darren Tanke of the Royal Tyrell Museum of Natural History. “The differences between, say, Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus are so minor that the average non-specialist would think they were the same animal at first glance.” Asked to elucidate this point, Dr. Tanke continued: “Styracosaurus has a large horn on its nose, but Pachyrhinosaurus doesn’t. Styracosaurus has six elongate spikes on its frill, and Pachyrhinosaurus doesn’t—it only has two short spikes. One species of Pachyrhinosaurus has a sort of unicorn horn in the center of its frill, but Styracosaurus doesn’t. Additionally, Pachyrhinosaurus is almost twice as large as Styracosaurus. So it’s easy to see how the two could be mistaken for one another.”

Greg Paul lives in the Republic of Paulonia in Maryland.

Do Not Adjust Your Internets

2011-04-02T15:31:00.000-07:00

Yep, that's me, sportin' a brand-new I.V. After unsuccessfully fighting off a nasty respiratory infection with oral antibiotics for a year and a half, the doc said it's time to just kill it with chemotherapy-strength I.V. antibiotics. Today marks my first full week with my new friend. My arm is connected via medical tubing to a small rectangular pump which shoots me full of one kind of medication three times a day, and another kind of medication once a day. I assume I'll be on this for two full weeks, maybe three depending on how tolerant my arm is of having a tube in it. But I haven't missed any work and I'm definately improving, health-wise. So don't worry, kids, I won't be dead tomorrow. I should be posting some Xenopermian stuff later tonight or tomorrow. Hovasaur vs. baby Walrodont = CARNAGE!

Ooh! Piece o' Arty

2011-03-19T13:01:00.001-07:00

Here's an unusually short-bodied ornithomimosaur that I drew last night while Scott, Raven, and I all lambasted a certain egomaniacal paleoartist and had a good laugh while doing so.

Adrianne Palicki Plays Wonder Woman on TV

2011-03-18T18:21:00.000-07:00

Remember that Wonder Woman TV show I talked about awhile ago? For reasons I'm simply unsure of, the show was greenlit--it's still written by David E. Kelley--and Ms. Palicki here was cast as the titluar character. I can't decide if this looks good or looks like a Halloween costume. I think I'm okay with it, but the latex and blue pants seem odd. Adrianne looks unnaturally pushed-up, too. I'm just not sure about this show. Another aspect of it (the show) will be that Diana runs some big corporation that makes...toys?

I just...I just don't know.

Sketches & Scribbles

2011-03-05T16:58:00.000-08:00

Scott sat me down and demanded that I draw something last night, so I did. And I came up with some pretty nice stuff. Above is a cute lil' diplodocid. It might not be the most accurate dinosaur, but that wasn't the point. I was just trying to give the animal some character.

And here's a cute little stegosaur, with massive parascapular spines. Maybe it's Gigantspinosaurus (awful name). I really like this drawing, especially the legs. Notice that the hands are like a sauropod--a new paper by Phil Senter suggests that stegosaurs and ankylosaurs had tubular feets.

And here's another version of Cthulhu. I'll get there eventually. I gave it too many appendages here.

I'm gonna keep up with this cartoony dinosaur thing. I like 'em.

Gettin' Better (IMHO)

2011-02-25T19:35:00.000-08:00

This is a quick sketch I did (then added "flair" with a red pen) for my friend Dan Hill in early January (?) as something to remember Alaska by before he moved to Florida. You may remember Dan by his alter-ego, The Penetrator, a superhero who gives crime the shaft. We'll all miss him--Dan was a genuinely nice, smart guy and NONE of us blame him for leaving this cold, dark icebox of a state. Good luck down there, Dan! Try not to get eaten by an alligator.

Now then. My boy forgot to take this picture with him which is...hmmm. Marcus kept it all this time, though, so when I remembered drawing it, I wanted to scan it and post it here. There are some things I like about the picture, and others not so much. Time for some good old fashioned naval-gazing!

Things to Like

First of all, for a sketch that I only spent maybe 45 minutes on, this ain't half bad considering my usual output. I like the costume change. I've struggled to figure out what this girl's gonna wear on her upper body that will accomodate her big ol' bat wings. This is one possibility: it's basically a bikini with a skirt. For added support, one could envision Lily modifying the costume to include an elastic strap that originates at the back of the neck loop and clips onto her skirt. This would help hold the top...up? I'm still worried about her costume. Anyway. I like the face, but not necessarily the hairstyle. I like that I forced myself to draw Lily with smaller breasts. As you may recall, Lily was originally based on Shannon Stewart's Playboy centerfold (that's not a link to the centerfold). This is not to say that Mrs. Stewart has giant breasts or anything, but I don't think this particular picture would have benefitted from oversized mammaries.

I like the little accessories I used to spice up the piece: the bracelets and shoes, the modified belt. I can see all of these things becoming permanent additions to Lily's evolving uniform. The wings are alright too--not too big to dominate the picture, but not small enough to not be believable. I think I struck a good balance. They're certainly smaller than in the original treatment.

What's Not to Like

Most egregiously, Lily has here been Bruce Timm-ified. I have incredible respect for Bruce Timm and I wish I could draw like him, but this is not really what Lily's supposed to look like. Lily is more toward the Frank Cho end of the picture plane. I feel like I copped out here, but this is the art style I "default" to when I feel like I'm in a time crunch. As for the piece itself, the hair is pretty terrible and doesn't do her forehead any favors. The left art curves too much towards the waist. One of the goals for this character is that she uses her wings like you'd use your arms, so she can be holding something with her arms and gesture with her wings. This pose is supposed to be something like "Hey! Look at me!" Unfortunately, her posture and facial expression contradict that enthusiasm.

But again, for 45 minutes without a reference? Could be a lot worse. I'm currently digging J. Scott Campbell's art, so you might see some crude attempts to ape his style in the coming days...involving dinosaurs. Dinosaurs! Yeah, that's what this blog's supposed to be about, right?

Zach's Figure Reviews: Brandy Carter

2011-02-20T13:27:00.000-08:00

Brandy Carter is one of the main characters in my favorite (now defunct) comic strip: Liberty Meadows. Written and drawn by Frank Cho, Liberty Meadows is funny and sweet, and Cho's art is beyond excellent. The man's seen a glut of Marvel work recently, but I hope he gets back to Brandy & Co. soon, as I miss them terribly. I've been in love with Brandy since the day I laid eyes on her back in college. I was a convert to Cho's website, which was at that time a message board, and I remember being excited about the announcement that a statue of Brandy was being sculpted by...Clayburn Moore, I want to say. Every once and awhile, he would post WIP pictures, and they were amazing. When the product finally launched, it was way too expensive for my puny wallet (like $250).

So imagine my surprise when, several years later in downtown Seattle, I discovered Brandy in a comic shop called Zanadu, sitting on a high shelf, for $180 bucks. I asked the shopkeep to take 'er down and open 'er up so I could see what I was getting myself into. Brandy was, as always, gorgeous. I probably should've thought about it (we weren't exactly rich back then), but I didn't, and I was rung up right there. The fella didn't even charge me sales tax 'cause I'm from Anchorage, where they don't have sale's tax. The rest of the day was spent lugging my luggage and Brandy through downtown Seattle, and even back to PAX Prime (the first and last time I went) because check-out time at my hotel was 11 a.m. and my bus to the airport didn't leave until, like, 3 p.m. So that wasn't terribly fun.

So I eventually got to the airport with my luggage, coat, and Brandy in tow. I told the woman at the gate that I can't check her because she's fragile, and she didn't have a problem with it (phew). I had a whole row to myself on the flight back (remember those days?) and I put Brandy on the seat next to me. Eventually I was told she had to go up in the overhead bin, but I was happy to see that she was snuggly secure between two other bags. I got her home and was almost immediately assaulted by my wife, who wanted to know what the hell I bought with the credit card in some store called Zanadu for $180. I proudly showed her Brandy and she immediately understood, though was still not super-happy with the price tag.

I took Brandy out of the box and was sad to see two flaws pop out: the butterfly on Brandy's middle finger had broken off, and Oscar's tail was cracked and bent. Luckily, some super glue fixed the butterfly and I just bent Oscar's tail back to where it was supposed to be. Brandy is just incredible--definately my favorite figure, although the term "statue" is better here, since she appears to be resin. The detailing on the base is particularly impressive. With its colors and woodland features, it lends a certain atmosphere to the scene, which I love.

Oscar and Truman are running along in front of Brandy. I really like the detailing on the fallen log, which has fungi growing on it. The mushrooms are a nice touch, too. I actually don't love Truman's sculpt, because you can see the seams along his shoulders. Brandy is also walking wholly on her tip-toes--on both feet--which looks uncomfortable. It's a little too exaggerated, almost as if she's wearing invisible high-heels.

The butterfly is nice touch, and surprisingly detailed. I like to think I flawlessly reattached it to her finger. Brandy's fingers are nicely sculpted, too, and include nicely-painted nails. What is clear upon close inspection is that Brandy appears to have been painted by hand. Wherever colors starkly change, for example the line separating her hair from her forehead, there is some color blur or overlap. You don't see this with my other figures. While many might view that as an irritation, I get a "home-grown" feeling from it. Somebody really put a lot of work into this girl, and it shows--flaws and all.

One of the really interesting things about Brandy that I don't see on my other figures is the paint scheme. Especially on her dress, there are often two or three tones of a given color, which I assume adds to the...shading effects? It's not really clear, but it's shockingly well done and consistent throughout. Similarly, her skin tones differ in different areas. Brandy's black hair is about 70% black and 30% dark blue--black-haired characters in comics often have blue highlights in their hair so that it's not just a flat color. It looks a little strange in 3D, but hey.

Aside from the Marvel Girls, Brandy here is the only figure (statue) that my wife approves of, because she's "the most realistic." I concur for the most part, although her torso is shockingly short and nobody with breasts that big wanders around on their tip-toes without a bra. Brandy's rack is pretty central to the entire piece, actually: her top is flying open, her nipples are apparent, and her unrestrained breasts are assuming their natural, sidewinder positions. This is just fine for me, but it's something The Missus would usually object to. I should just be thankful she doesn't!

Aside from Truman's arm seam, the only thing that kind of bothers me about Brandy is her face, which is totally unemotive. She doesn't look particularly happy, sad, excited, or bored. She HAS a face, and it's a beautiful face with a great pain job on her lips and eyes, but...what's going through Ms. Carter's head? She seems to be primarily concerned with not tripping over anything while on her tip-toes and simultaneous remaining still enough so that the butterfly doesn't flutter away. It's funny because the smallest alteration--maybe a smile on one side of her lips--could totally change the mood of the piece. From this angle, you can see not just the nice detail of her buttons and creases on the dress, but also the button slits on the other side of the dress. As I've said in reviews past, I really treasure little details like that.

At a tad over 12" high, Brandy is my largest figure by a good margin. She occupies a central position among my girls for that reason. Here she is standing next to Odin Sphere's Velvet for an idea of her size. Brandy received a limited release...I want to say only 1500 figures were produced, a figure verified by this eBay post. Our girl retails for about the same price I bought her for, minus shipping, which is surprising given her rarity. Brandy is a gorgeous, wonderfully-sculpted figure who I absolutely adore. I highly recommend her if you manage to stumble across her somewhere. If nothing else, go buy some back issues of Liberty Meadows, which is a real hoot.

Next on the docket: Velvet!

Postscripto: We got a new camera. It's a Sony Cyber-Shot and I like it a lot, but it needs a screen protector for the massive viewing viewing window the back. The thing boasts 14.1 megapixels, which is a significant leap forward from the old camera's 4.0 megapixels. I am still experimenting with where, exactly, to take pictures of my figures. Lighting is the main concern. I'll work it out.

Look out! He's got a Plasma Cutter!

2011-02-18T18:57:00.000-08:00

I got the Collector's Edition of Dead Space 2, which, by the way is one of the best games I've played in a long time. This box set came with a small replica (fully functional, as you can see) of Isaac Clark's ever-useful Plasma Cutter, with which our hero dismembers his Necromorph enemies with ease.

So where've I been lately? The answer is "work," where I've become so swamped that the company helpfully hired me an assistant. So between my usual job, training her, and double-checking her work, it's been...busy. On the other hand, I just bought an Xbox 360 from my brother yesterday, so I may yet enjoy the happiness that is Super Meat Boy. I haven't been too caught up on paleo papers, unfortunately. When something big comes down the pipe, like two new iguanodonts or something (that was last year), I try to find time to read it. I haven't drawn anything worthwhile in what seems like forever.

I'll get back on the ball eventually. At least it's lighter now during the day, and that light lasts much longer. Two recommendations before I go: Dead Space 2 (obviously) and "Danger Girl: The Deluxe Edition" published by IDW. It's a nice hardcover collection of that old 90's "Danger Girl" comic drawn by J. Scott Campbell. Really fantastic stuff, very bombastic and lighthearted and action-packed. More to come, I promise!

A Severe Lack of Focus

2011-01-18T21:56:00.000-08:00

Winter gets tougher for me every year we live up here. While my mother and wife suffer from varying degrees of SAD (seasonal affective disorder), I just flat become inspired, unable to find the time or effort to passionately engage in just about anything. My paleo research has flatlined--I can't be bothered to keep up on the literature like I know I should. My art has suffered tremendously due to just not practicing (I drew a fairly disgusting little Eodromaeus yesterday; it is not fit for print), and I can't even decide what video game I want to play. Almost nothing is drawing me in.

Two weekends ago, I did become mildly obsessed with a new puzzle (1000 pieces) and completed the whole thing in a big block of time on Sunday, but that was clearly a fluke. The wife is out right now with a friend, and I could be gaming it up or drawing to my heart's content, but neither prospect tickles my fancy. Add to this bout of vapidity an increasingly-stressful job and a longer med routine, and the season's really starting to wear on me.

Hopefully it's just a phase. But it does explain why I've been quiet lately. I leave you with a newish hobby of mine: using Perler beads to create old NES character sprites. From left to right, we have Mario, a Parakoopa, and Mega Man.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Kokoro (Venus on the Beach)

2011-01-16T15:41:00.001-08:00

I've finally gotten around to snapping a bunch of pictures of Kokoro, who is one of my favorite figures. I bought Kokoro on my birthday in 2009 (I think) from Amazon. She was on sale at the time for what I considered a reasonable $70. As it turns out, a quick Amazon search today shows a price of $180, so I'm happy I got her when I did. Kokoro was also my first cast-off figure and I learned some good lessons thanks to her. Like Kasumi, Kokoro is from the "Venus on the Beach" line from Kotobukiya. I assume both her swimsuits are taken from Dead or Alive Xtreme 2, but since I haven't played it, I wouldn't know. For reasons we'll get into in a minute, I keep Kokoro's alternate, cast-off outfit off.

Definately one of my sexier figures, Kokoro has a sinuous, curvy body from virtually every angle. She looks like she's at a photo shoot (which is appropriate here). The umbrella you see is fully-functional and slides out of her hand. Unlike Kasumi, who shows detachment lines at almost every joint, Kokoro's entire sculpt is smooth and free of jarring breakage points. I like her base, too.

The sandy texture is especially nice, and the floatsom thrown in add some detail. I wish the water was a little higher on the base, though, and she had more interaction with it. One of the things I absolutely adore about this sculpture is the level of detail in the feet and hands. You can make out individual muscle groups in her palm, and creases in the finger joints. The bottoms of her feet have clearly-defined arches, and Kokoro has pominant ankle bones. It's just lovely.

You can really see the underside of the unbrella here, as well as the one cast-off seam on Kokoro's body: her head. We'll get to that soon. That umbrella is pretty cool--see the little wire pin? You can press down on that to make the umbrella collapse.

The detailing on her bikini is pretty amazing, too. Not only is the color scheme nice, but you can see little creases at the center of each side where the loop runs through the fabric. Wonderful detail! The little beads that join the necktie are appreciated, too. And look at all that skeletal and muscular definition! Shoulders, clavicles, stomach and neck, all lovingly sculpted with actual human musculoskeletal anatomy in mind. You rarely see this in a pin-up sculpture. It's also worth mentioning that the bikini is tightly taught against Kokoro's breasts, creating a deformation along the sides (this is especially apparant on her left breast, above).

I maintain that Kokoro does not have an oversized chest. Well, okay, compared to her in-game character model, she does. However, for this figure? Proportionately, I'm okay with it. Remember that they're being pulled up and together by her bikini. I think her face is wonderful here. She's not looking at you--she's got a far-off look in her eyes, which are wonderfully painted. Apart from Velvet (who we'll get to), Kokoro probably has the best eyes of any of my girls. I like her lipstick and size of her nose--both much better than Kasumi. You can also see one of this figure's only flaws from this picture: her hairtie has some smudged paint, and that's not from the cast-off process. Also, real quick, look at this girl's hands.

Alright, let's get down to the cast-off story. Like I said before, Kokoro was my first cast-off figure. Thank Cthulhu she was so basic. You literally just pop her head off (as shown above), pop the necktie off, uncork the ties on her bikini bottom, and snap or wrap the pieces seen below onto her person. Then you put her head back on, put the ties back in, and voila--she's a new girl.

Unfortunately, this costume is dull. It doesn't look like something you'd ever wear to the beach--it looks like one of Lara Croft's alternate costumes from some long-lost Tomb Raider game. The unsightly seems in the costume, on both the top and bottom, subtract from its appeal, too. But what's the worst thing about this cast-off costume? I'll tell you in the next paragraph.

It scratches paint. See that wedge in the middle of the bottom's back half? You have to somehow cram that between poor Kokoro's legs before the two halves can slot together. It's a problem because it's not flexible, so the hard edges of that wedge run against Kokoro's thighs and, unfortunately, scratch up her skin. That's not a problem on her top, but her top does have it's own set of problems. Kokoro is made of pretty soft material, and every time (every time) I uncork her head, then put it back on, the process becomes a little easier. There's a little less resistance every time I do it. This makes me extremely worried, so I don't do it anymore. Remember how I said that I just keep Kasumi in the one bikini and never switch to the other one? This is why. I learned important lessons about cast-off figures from Kokoro. Now she almost never gets her alternate costume on.

Since they're from the same line, I display Kokoro and Kasumi pretty close together. I kind of wish that all the Venus figures were sculpted to fit in a similar environment so that, at the end of the day, you could put them all in some kind of hazy diorama. But I doubt there's a pool five feet from the ocean, so it doesn't really work here. Also, gawd, look at that breakage point on Kasumi's thigh. It's just unsightly, and another reason I kind of disuade myself from buying cast-off figures. I do like that both girls are to the same scale (as they should be) and both have pretty awesome accessories/bases. A lot of loving attention went into both sculpts--something that I, as the buyer, really effing appreciate.

Like I said at the top of the post, Kokoro is absolutely one of my favorite figures. I was able to get her for a great price, the detailing is mind-blowing, her expression is priceless, and it's just a high-quality sculpture all around. She's probably "out of print" at this point, but if you can find her, maybe online or in a comic shop for under $100, I highly recommend picking her up. Just be sure to decide which costume you like, then commit to it. She's about 7" tall, excluding the umbrella-ella-ella and came in a box so nice that I was reluctant to get rid of it.

I should mention here that Kokoro was purchased largely thanks to the excellent photo essay/review of Tier over at Tentacle Armada. I'm a huge fan of his site and his photography (it's about a million goddamn times better than mine) and his reviews give me enormous insights into whether I'll want to buy a figure or not. So a big shout-out to Tier!

Let's hear votes for the next review: Velvet from Odin Sphere or Tamaki Kousaka from 2Heart?

New Yard of Bones

2011-01-05T21:19:00.000-08:00

It's the first Boneyard of 2011, kids. Let's make it a GOOD one. I'm honored to once again host this most esteemed paleoblog carnival, which has been taken up by everyone's favorite chasmosaurine lover, David Orr. In fact, let's start things off over at his humble blog: Our man has an interview with the originator of the Boneyard, published author, and dear colleague, Brian Switek! Dave also has a particular fascination (as do I) with old or interesting dinosaur art: Check it out and thank him later. Perhaps best of all, though, Dave's recently been featured as a guest blogger on Scientific American's website. The topic? How to name a dinosaur.

Albertonykus, of the Raptormaniacs blog, has put together an entertaining series of comics called A Christmas Caudipteryx. Makes me wish I was still drawing comics...keep it up, man! You've got the skillz.

Tony Martin, of The Great Cretaceous Walk blog brings us the answer to a question not many of us ask ourselves, but is probably important in the long run: Why Dinosaurs Matter. It's a great post, and it's good to get an ichnologist's point of view.

Remember Traumador the Tyrannosaur? Looks like he's taking a new direction for the new year. Oh, don't change, Traumador! We love you as you are! For more on the changes, check out Craig Dylke's blog for more information.

The big news this week has been Titanoceratops, a still unpublished "new" ceratopsid that might actually be Pentaceratops. Lots of people have been covering this, including myself, Dave, and Brian. Andrew Farke has voiced some concerns over this rather of electronically-named dinosaurs, a concern Bill Parker shares.

Have you been watching, over on Archosaur Musings, as Tyrrell's Darren Tanke takes us through the preparation of a Gorgosaurus skull and skeleton? It's fascinating stuff, and it goes quicker than I thought. Dave has also been making a good habit of posting excellent photos of pterosaur fossils. Among my favorites: Scaphognathus and Pterodactylus.

Over at Superceras, David Tana discusses the recent description of the incredible strange but cool Simosuchus and weighs in on the irritations surrounding the buzzterm "living fossil." I'm shocked this little croc isn't getting more blogosphere coverage. You're all aware of it, right? It's like nothing you've ever seen, seriously.

Over at History of Geology, David Bressan (too many Davids in this Boneyard) discusses the ichnofacies of the Bletterbach section. Like me, you may be wondering what the eff the "Bletterbach" section is. Well, I learned by clicking that link. I highly recommend you do, as well!

Head over to the relatively new home of Laelaps to get the skinny on giant goddamn storks and my favorite marsupial carnivore, Thylacosmilus. In a similar vein to the stork story, Ed Yong introduces us to Xenicibis, a bird that could have knocked you out...with its club-shaped hand.

Darren Naish regails us with tales of recent stegosaur controversies in an epic two-part post. More to come, I'm sure. At least...I hope! Stegosaurs don't get nearly enough coverage in the blogosphere or in the literature. Like David, Darren also got some time on the Scientific American blog, touting the virtues of Iguanadon taxonomy. Check out the three part series here, here, and here. Really great stuff! On a related note (sort of), if you've ever wanted to see the holotype of "Ultrosauros," your dreams can now come true thanks to SV-POW!

Head over to the Dinosaur Toy Blog to ogle with delight at Favorite Co. desktop model of Triceratops--I must have it! They also review a Bullyland version of one my favorite sauropods, Spinophorosaurus. Too bad it's such a horrible sculpt!

Good ol' Trauamador has some celebrity encounters to share from this last year: personal hero of mine Phil Currie, Dinosaur Train conductor Scott Sampson, the always amazing William Stout and Brian Cooley, and finally comic creator Ryan North.

On the Art Evolved side of things, look for the new Elephants gallery coming soon. Craig's got a preview up at his website, and the always reliable Peter Bond is showing off his work, too. Did you know I'M a member of Art Evolved too? I know, I was just as surprised as you are. I can't help but feel bad that I don't contribute more. Ah, life, you always manage to get in the damn way.

That's it for now. I'll have my own post up tomorrow. It's late and I'm beat. Thanks to everyone who submitted, and thanks to David Orr for helping me out with this edition. Happy reading, everyone!

2010: It was a bipolar year

2011-01-01T17:38:00.001-08:00

Well, 2010 is over and done. I accomplished some things, missed out on others, had some bad points, but some good stuff too. Let's run some of it down.

The year started badly: I'd been layed off from my previous job and January 1st was my first day of unemployment. I spent almost two months without work, but I managed to find gainful employment at a trust & estate firm in downtown Anchorage. The work schedule was pretty tough, the hours were longer, and the pay was a bit of a downgrade. However, I persevered. Three months into that job, I got a call from the people at my current job asking if I wanted to work there. It was not an easy decision, but I eventually said yes. I'm still there now, and I'm loving it.

My friend Erik got married around the same time, and I visited Wisconson for the wedding. It was great fun, and I was able to catch up with my relatives, too. Unfortunately, my four geckos (three leopard, one frog-eyed) began getting sick and dying around this time. By summer's end, all of them would succumb to a nasty, bizarre infection that the vet had NO idea what was. The house remains reptile-free to this day. My next ectotherm will be a small tortoise (someday...).

I didn't attend any conferences this year, but I had fun at home. My wife went to visit Kansas and my family hiked out to Rabbit Lake--where Gina and I were married--for the first time in a few years. I continue to write for Nintendo World Report, and started doing a bi-weekly podcast called the NWR Newscast. Check it out if you haven't already. I also became more serious about figure-collecting. I toned down the buying of DVD's in exchange. That's okay--I have Netflix Instant.

Many times this year I was faced with the threat of IV antibiotics, which is never fun. My doctor suspects I picked up a bug in London last year and it's been haunting me ever since. After three separate treatments with oral antibiotics and a new inhaled medication, we finally managed to get it under control. I'm bumping up against 10 years without an IV, which is a stunning achievement. However, it's clear that I have to be more militant about my health than I ever have been, so 2011 will have to see some changes to my routine. This will probably involve swimming.

It was a good year for gaming. Dragon Quest IX, Picross 3D, God of War 3, Darksiders, Pokemon HeartGold/SoulSilver, Shantae: Risky's Revenge, and Bioshock 2 rocked my world. There were disappointments, too: Kirby's Epic Yarn failed to achieve much beyond being pretty, and Metroid: Other M, a game I'd been excited about since its initial announcement, ended up being pretty sub-par. I actually didn't play much on the Wii that got my blood boiling. I wasn't able to play Super Mario Galaxy 2, but I really enjoyed Trauma Team.

Lots of good paleo news in 2010, especially if you're a ceratopsid fan. My new favorite member of that group, Kosmoceratops, was named not long ago. The oft-delayed ceratopsian volume from Indiana University Press finally saw the light of day and did not disappoint.

Then just last month my friend Nelson got married, too (in town, thank Cthulhu). Lots of weddings in 2010. And from what I hear, my brother-in-law is getting married in January 2011!

The Missus and I just got back from a 10-day trip to Kauai, which was wonderful. Certainly the most fun I've had in that state (and I've been there several times), and I wish we were still there. It's cold and dark in Alaska, but Hawaii is warm and light. There are fewer people. There are beaches and things to poke in tidepools. Alaska is great four, maybe five months a year. The rest of the time it's pretty depressing.

Here's to an awesome 2011!

First "New" Ceratopsid of 2011

2010-12-31T19:04:00.000-08:00

The journal Cretaceous Research published an "accepted manuscript" by Nick Longrich in which he suggests that the McLargeHuge Pentaceratops specimen shown above (OMNH 10165) actually belongs to a separate genus, Titanoceratops, and that said genus is the earliest reprentative of the Triceratopsini, an end-Cretaceous group of giant chasmosaurine ceratopsids comprised of Eotriceratops and "Toroceratops."* Among other issues, Bill Parker has voiced his concern over the practice of journals posting unpublished manuscripts on their websites, a sentiment I share.

I'm going to hold off on my critique until Titanoceratops is actually published, but I'm a little iffy about the lines of evidence brought up in the manuscript. I had a few of the same problems with Mojoceratops, but I certainly wouldn't mind if the Austin Powers dinosaur remained viable, if only for it's awesome name. One positive is that the original skull of OMNH 10165 is lacking most of the frill--the reconstruction above is largely extrapolated. So, you know...there's that.

Godspeed, Titanoceratops. It looks like 2011 may be shaping up to be another good year for horned dinosaurs, valid or otherwise.

*Still waiting to see how this turns out. So sue me.

New Year Boneyard

2010-12-31T18:57:00.001-08:00

Hey, kids, it's almost 2011. You know what that means, don'tcha? NEW BONEYARD! The last episode was hosted over at David Bressan's History of Geology, and if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. After you're done, may I suggest writing up a paleo-related blog and sending me the link (or post it in the comments)? The Boneyard 2.5 returns to my humble blog next week, on January 4th. So get those prehistoric posts written, 'cause the theme may well be "the last gasp of 2010!"

New Wonder Woman

2010-12-21T19:37:00.000-08:00

The Ame-Comi line has been pretty dead to me since the original Wonder Woman sculpt launched (which I bought). The rest of them have been too severely anime-inspired or just look stupid. Also, I thought the series had gone dark since Kotobukiya announced they'd started doing DC sculpts for their Boushijo line (which I fucking adore). Well, turns out Ame-Comi ain't quite done yet. They just announced two new figures--Wonder Woman (from the future or something) and Big Barda. I'm not crazy about the Big Barda sculpt, specifically her head, but Wonder Woman looks like of awesome. I've said this before, but I love it when artists mess with her traditional uniform. This is certainly different, but it's cool and futuristic and armor-clad. I like it.

Unfortunately, these things don't launch until August, so the company has plenty of time to cock up the final design before then.

Art on Vacation

2010-12-18T18:21:00.000-08:00

You readers might have picked up on this since I haven't been posting lately, but since I started my new job, I've become creatively bankrupt, and I'm really not sure why. I haven't been motivated to sit down and freaking draw something. Well, I'm finally easing back into the art groove here in Hawaii. Have I become inspired? No, not really. I think I just needed a vacation. Here are the two pictures I've drawn down here that I'm actually happy with--a first in several months.

This started out as an attempt to draw Lily (from "Life on Leather Wings") but I decided not to force it and just draw a pretty girl. The entire thing is from a reference photo of Polish model Ewa Sonnet (so sue me), but the face and clothes are my own design. I think it came out well, and it's shown me the value of drawing directly from reference photos (GO FIGURE).

By contrast, I did NOT use a reference photo for this girl. Now, this IS for "Life on Leather Wings." This certainly isn't a final design--I was just messing with armor at this point, but this drawing will serve as the foundation for the Paradiso counterpart of the succubi. These angels head down to the Earthrealm and hunt down incubi and succubi. The plan is to have most of these soldiers (they don't have names yet) ignore Lily, since she goes after already-corrupted prey, but one female soldier has some kind of personal vendetta that I haven't figure out yet against Lily and she'll be one of the core villains in the story.

Here's a better picture. Things I like: the earings (perhaps they denote rank?), the tattoo on the forehead (it's a placeholder design), guantlets, and the spaulders. The breastplate and multiple straps will probably go. By the way, these are photographs because I'm in HAWAII and don't have a scanner.

Guest Post & Status of Self

2010-12-16T20:45:00.000-08:00

Hey. I'm in Hawaii, specifically the island of Kauai. So suck on that! Check my Facebook page for daily pictoral updates. Yesterday (our first day here), a sea turtle crawled up on the beach we were on and just took a nap. I got like a foot away from it. 'Twas enjoyable.

Also, I did a guest post for The Fossil Freakshow. Check it out! It's about ceratopsid squamosals! I think it's awesome.

Whoo! And yes, that's me in the picture.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Marvel Girls

2010-12-09T21:36:00.000-08:00

Like I've said before, Kotobukiya produces my favorite figures, including my most recent acquisition (Tamaki Kousaka) who will be reviewed later. I was going to review all three of these girls separately, but then I realized that they're all by the same sculptor, they're all about the same size, and they're all Marvel girls. From left to right, we have Rogue, Black Widow, and Phoenix. All three have at least two varients--Phoenix has three. I love 'em all. They go wonderfully together. The figure line is Marvel Bishoujo ("pretty girl") and while three other figures have been released under this line (Scarlett Witch, Psylocke, and Emma Frost), I don't really like their sculpts. Kotobukiya recently got the DC license, and are soon releasing two DC characters, Catwoman and Wonder Woman, which I'll have to get. Anyway, let's get down to bizz-nezz.

First we have Black Widow, an assassin for S.H.I.E.L.D. and recently portrayed by a disappointing deflated Scarlett Johanssen in the otherwise excellent Iron Man 2. I love the angles of this figure. Her head is turned toward her bent, crossed arm, her back is arched, and her legs are at strange angles. There's a lot going on here. She has an oversized belt that is not held down--it acts more like a hula-hoop that you can position any which way on her waist. Our girl is wearing her usual black bodysuit which, itself, has some interesting geometric designs wrapping around it.

You can really see all the strange angles from this side. Also, yes, the boobs. We'll get to those in a minute. One of the only downsides of this figure is that her hair appears to constructed from three separate pieces that form two seams. The designers could have tried to hide one seam as a part to her hair, but as it stands it doesn't look great. I really like her wristbands, which appear to be made of .50 calibur bullets and her surprisingly detailed gun (couldn't get a picture of the gun with any sort of clear focus). Her high heels also don't appear to be stealthy or comfortable, but that's a common feature to these three.

Oh yeah, the yellow. About half the pictures I took of these girls came out yellow-tinted. I have no idea why. Anyway, here's a good look at Black Widow's face and you can see how "shiny" her catsuit is. I like her expression--cool, confident, with a hint of suspicion, as if she just heard a branch snap or a pin drop. The flow of her hair suggests a quick body motion, and it's still trying to catch up. I love it--the pose is dynamic, a second caught in time.

This is the picture that would make my friend Erik say, "Dat aaaass." Indeed, Black Widow has an impressively rounded posterior. Note also her slim waist--another thing I like about pin-up (or cheesecake) figures is an exaggerated waist-to-hip ratio, and Black Widow certainly has that. You can also see the other side of her sidearm here, and a look at the back of her hair.

Now then, the bewbies. Something about them looks wrong. They're too round, or maybe not scrunched together enough given the width of her zipper. The "Y" shape at the top is too hard, too indented, if that makes any sense. Her breasts look like boulders, not...you know...bags of sand (quick--guess the movie reference!). I've seen better-looking racks on other Kotobukiya figures, let's just put it that way. You can see from this angle how the belt sits right on the hips. I'm not sure what that symbol is on her belt--it looks like an hourglass. Now, I do like the fact that her catsuit has an upturned collar. Something about that is cool. If only she could zip it up all the way. Of course, Catwoman (coming out in...April?) has the exact same problem.

And all this time you thought I was going to open with Rogue. Well, here she is. She's by far the best of these three girls, although Phoenix has very impressive hair. Rogue is by far the most voluptuous of the three, not just because of her pose, but also because her body isn't angular (like Black Widow) but very rounded. The pronounced outer curve of her hip almost defines the figure in frontal view. The striking paint scheme helps promote Rogue's curvaceous midsection.

Rogue isn't quite as gifted in the backside department as Black Widow, but she's no slouch, either. My favorite parts of this figure are actually her boots, belt, and 90's midriff jacket. The sculptor got all the creases right, all the motion captured. I especially love how the boots are kept on with (I assume) elastic straps, and the boot material bunches up between and above them. Great little touches here. Her double-belt is pretty awesome too, with little metal-looking accessories dotting its length. Even Rogue's rolled-up gloves are creased and bunched-up.

From the other side, Rogue looks a bit more angular. Like Black Widow, she's reaching back with her right arm. Note the ruffles in her jacket here. Rogue's hair isn't as dynamic as Black Widow or Phoenix, but it's pretty all the same and clearly part of her pose. She really does have quite a long torso. I don't know what your feelings on 90's midriff jackets are, but I've always liked them. People whined when DC gave their new Wonder Woman a 90's jacket, but I think it's fine. It's not like you always have to wear the thing.

I'm not sure why I took a picture from this angle. It was yesterday, and I'm having a hard time remembering what "Big Bang Theory" was about tonight. Oh, I remember: her collar. The jacket has a striped inner lining which is nice touch. You can also see the "X" stamped on her breast. Hey, that reminds me! Not all of my cheesecake figures are topheavy. Rogue here has a modest bra size compared to, say, Venus on the Beach Kasumi or, must I even remind you, Power Girl.

She's expressive in a modeling-for-the-camera kind of way. Great paint detail on her lips and eyes. I like how her hair overlaps her ears. Rogue's bodysuit ends in a distinct collar. Hey, here's a question for you: how do superheroes and superheroines get in and out of their suits? Superman, for instance. There are no zippers. Why would he wear pants, then underpants over his pants, and a shirt? The neckhole isn't big enough for his head! This is something that's always bothered me about superheroes with painted-on catsuits. I propose that they are drawn this way because the artists don't want to fiddle with the creases and bunches that make up actual clothing. Anyway. Let's get on with the show. Our final figure in the lineup? Phoenix!

There are three things that really stand out about Jean Grey: her wild hair, her awesome base, and her incredibly large, sidewinding breasts. Her belt (is that a belt?) is nice, too, and her arms are in dynamic poses. But who's paying attention to that? Her rack is too big. I'm saying--I'm saying--that her rack is too big. Or at the very least, it doesn't conform to the normal laws of physics. If I had to accuse any of my girls of having fake boobs, it would be Phoenix.

Tearing our eyes away from her lethal breasts, we see Phoenix's wonderful hair, which twirls and extends in all directions in some sort of pantomime of fire or electricity. Her outfit is suspiciously similar to Rogue's in both color scheme and overall composition. The catsuit, the boots, the gloves--all basically the same. There's a red variant of Rogue, but it looked a little too dark. Thinking back, maybe I should've gotten that one. Seeing Rogue and Phoenix right next to each other really underlines their similarities. Anyway, things to notice here: the emblem on her chest--clearly a rising phoenix--is something I really like. It has a medieval feeling to it.

Here's Phoenix's awesome base. It's on fire, baby! The only problem is that it's not as wide as the simple white bases of Rogue and Black Widow, and the bottom isn't perfectly flat. I mean, it stands just fine, but when I walk by, out of all my girls, Phoenix is the only one who shudders. The other problem is that the base isn't particularly heavy, so it lacks grounding. I do really like the sculpting of the fire, though, and how it appears to be swirling around her foot.

Here's Phoenix in, uh, posterior view. I suspect she has some junk in that trunk, but said trunk is largely covered by her scarf-belt (scelt?). Notice the creases in the scelt, which I like to see. Her hair is impressive even from the other side--here especially it looks like a smoldering fireball. All she needs is a transluscent orange orb to put in her outstretched hand for the full effect. Phoenix is arguably more slender than Rogue and maybe even Black Widow, although this could be an optical illusion caused by the sheer breadth of her chest.

See? Even I think it's a little ridiculous. And when I think it's ridiculous, it not only is, it means I'm making some modicum of progress. Note here the kicked-up leg. I especially like how both her scelt and the fire on her base are both flowing in the same direction, giving the subtle indication of wind. Phoenix actually provides a great drawing reference from this angle because you can see the inward curve of the side up to the bottom of the ribcage thanks to her arched back. I don't have a lot of figures that preserve that angle, and it's surprisingly tough to intuit.

So there they are. If I had to put them in order of like most to like least, I'd go Rogue, Black Widow, and Phoenix. They're all fantastic figures in their own right, though, and I'm glad I have them all. Rogue and Black Widow stand about 7.5" high while Phoenix adds another full inch thanks to her skywardly-directed arm. The part you may find hard to swallow is that, despite their small statures, each of these ladies cost $60 (actually, Phoenix was $65--but I got her with store credit). I'm fairly certain they all have limited "print runs," because I haven't seen Rogue or Phoenix since their initial releases. Phoenix is still relatively new. I'd check Amazon or eBay if you have to have 'em. I certainly like them, though.

I have GOT to get a better camera and area to take pictures in.

Still alive...just in hibernation

2010-11-10T14:07:00.000-08:00

You know what's funny? When I first started blogging (back in 2005 or something), I had a very tight 3-posts-a-week schedule that I followed. I built my schedule around it. Nowadays, that's much harder to keep up. Obviously.

I DO have material on the backburner. It's just that I never get around to finishing any of it.

Keep checking back, folks. I promise I'll get some of this up someday.

Xenopermian Hovasaur

2010-10-24T18:08:00.000-07:00

You'll get more on the Xenopermian soon, but I wanted to throw this up to prove it's not dead. This is a derived hovasaur that doesn't have a name yet. I'll admit that the dorsal sails are inspired by Concavenator, but I think they work just fine here. This guy was actually pretty tough to get right--when you evolve a hovasaur, it starts looking like a mosasaur, so the challenge was to come up with something that was still feasible but different than, say, Platecarpus. I think I've done that here, although it still requires tweaking. I'm working on a skeletal now, and it's coming along pretty well.

Other Xenopermian critters on my backlog: More barbouronopsids, mainly, but also more work on the dicynodonts and a few other surprises.

Coming Soon: a "WTF" review of Greg Paul's new book

2010-10-22T12:08:00.001-07:00

I bought this book on sight at Barnes & Nobel the other day. It is honestly hard to read, and I have problems with a lot of the illustrations, too. Once I tap everything I take issue with, I'll provide a point-by-point breakdown of why this new book might not be worth your money.

People "Don't Get" Pachyrhinosaurus

2010-10-16T18:03:00.000-07:00

Not long ago, I was visiting the Alaska Museum of Natural History for reasons that are forgotten to me now. I try not to go over there, in fact. It's an active aversion--every time I get the urge to see "how they're doing," I just remember that my name, Scott's name, and Raven's name are still not anywhere near the big Tyrannosaurus rex skull cast that we restored over a year's time and put our backs into and got NO support and there's NO acknowledgement of our contribution to that particular project. In fact, I doubt our names are anywhere IN the museum, even though all three of us (but mostly Scott and I) have been heavily invested in exhibit prep, tours, etc. in the past.

Makes me mad.

Anyway, the museum's "director," Katch Batchelor, told me that they were getting a Diabloceratops skull cast (this was before that genus was published). She was very excited. I asked why she's wasting the museum's money on a taxon from Utah that lived millions and millions of years before Alaska's Pachyrhinosaurus. In fact, why isn't she getting a Pachyrhinosaurus skull cast? The terrible Fairbanks museum has one. If they can get one, it can't be all that difficult to get ahold of.

Her answer was "People don't 'get' Pachyrhinosaurus." I took this to mean that SHE did not "get" Pachyrhinosaurus. Here's my question: What's to GET?"

There's very little to misunderstand here. Pachyrhinosaurus is a derived member of the Centrosaurinae, which itself is one of the two branches of the Ceratopsidae. The other branch is called the Chasmosaurinae, and it features such well-known taxa as Triceratops, Chasmosaurus (go figure), and Kosmoceratops. The Centrosaurinae is just as diverse, and from there you get good old Centrosaurus, Rubeosaurus, and Diabloceratops. At the upper end of the Centrosaurinae is a monophyletic group of ceratopsids with big nasofrontal bosses instead of horns. They're called pachyrhinosaurines. The group includes two genera comprising three species (Achelousaurus horneri, Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis, and Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai), and several specimens that may represent more distinct species. The group extends from Montana up the west coast of the United States going all the way up to...you guessed it...Alaska's North Slope.

The holotype pachyrhinosaur skull from the Prince Creek Formation on the Colville River is not in great shape, but clearly represents a pachyrhinosaurine.

Right now, the Alaska Museum of Natural History looks more like an odds-and-ends collection of stuff, completely lacking any sort of context or reason for being. When you have a monitor lizard skeleton with an Ornithocheirus skull and a Basilosaurus skull just sitting on the same shelf, but without any sort of text...and in fact, you have a beluga whale skeleton just around the corner, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? And why aren't there any Alaskan dinosaurs? I could go on and on about my misgivings with the AKMNH, but it's useless. They don't even want to use the world "evolution" in fear of scaring people away.

Jesus.

Damn You, Kotobukiya!

2010-10-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

It would appear this company has exclusive rights to my wallet in 2011. First Catwoman, then Ms. Marvel, and now a beautiful Wonder Woman figure? My gosh. Go look at more pictures at (as usual) Tomopop.

Gonna Need This, Too

2010-10-14T13:40:00.000-07:00

Look, I'm not even that familiar with Ms. Marvel as a character, but this sculpt is too gorgeous and dynamic to ignore. Kotobukiya is really going above and beyond with this "pretty girl" line. I've already committed to buying Phoenix later this year (or maybe she'll be a birthday present) and Catwoman in March, but now I'll have to save more pennies for Mr. Marvel, here. No idea what her release schedule is, which is probably a good thing.

You can see more pictures over at Tomopop.

Wonder Woman...TV Show?

2010-10-11T15:17:00.001-07:00

Entertainment Weekly claims that David E. Kelly (a bunch of shows I'd rather forget) is writing a treatment for a Wonder Woman TV show. There's been a WW movie on hold for about a decade while different studios rewrite her origin and try to figure out how to portray an invisible plane on-screen and whether Megan Fox would make a good Diana Pince (she would not). So TV networks have apparently expressed interest. This could be a Very Good Thing or a Very Bad Thing. Here are some thoughts I have that would make the show work:

1) No invisible plane. No flying. Invisible planes are stupid, and flying is a great idea, but live-action TV has yet to portray such an action in any sort of convincing way (Smallville just ignores that particular power). If it were a movie, I'm sure the budget would be there, but a network TV show? Probably not. Find some other way for our girl to get around.

2) Lynda Carter must be present in a meaningful way. Obviously, she can't be Diana Prince anymore (which is a Damn Shame), but she could easily play Hippolyta, WW's mother. The show must acknowledge Lynda's singular, important presence as the character in a way that allows the audience to move away from her, and accept the New Kid. Casting Lynda as Hippolyta is the only respectful way to do that.

3) Don't use the old costume. Not even the JLU costume. It's kitchy, impractical, and certainly not modern. However, the new post #600 costume--the one designed by Jim Lee--is modern, practical, and good lookin'. This is something a superheroine would wear, as opposed to something she'd wear to a Halloween party.

4) Be careful with the origin story. The old origin story is stupid. I'm just gonna go ahead and admit that. A modern WW could have some kind of military origin story--a superpowered child brought up in a military complex (codenamed Themyscira?) and trained to be an American force for good. Many fans will accept a reworked origin so long as series staples show up in one form or another. Respect must be paid to the origin, corny as it is.

5) Wonder Woman is a brunette with blue eyes. She is tall, authoritative, curvy, and chesty. The biggest mistake you can be make in casting Wonder Woman would be to get some flat-chested youthful blonde who just happens to be a big name right now in TV. The show will fail if it strays too far from Diana's look and the familiarity of the character. Unfortunately, network TV has been grappling with curvy leads for a looooong time. Sofia Vergara on Modern Family is the exception that proves the rule. But even if you have to go with some no-name actress who we've never heard of, Diana Prince has to look like Diana Prince. Lynda Carter is her mother, remember?

6) Use the interesting villains, please. Cull from the more recent comics if you have to. If you stick with the military thing, her enemies can be other successful, but rogue, agents with codenames and powers that reflect their specific powers. You can have Cheetah and Hades that way.

7) No Lasso of Truth. It's stupid.

Anyone else? What should/should not be a part of this TV show? Casting ideas? Plotpoints? Go nuts!

Gain +15 to Knowledge

2010-10-10T17:16:00.000-07:00

My dear friend Ann Pache donated her stack of old JVP's to me today because she's cleaning house and doesn't really use them anymore. This will allow me to throw out a TON of printed PDF's that I've accumulated over the years, thus freeing up space in my filing cabinet, but I also like having these kinds of things in book form. So...exciting!

In Which I Apologize for the Lack of Blogging

2010-10-06T11:57:00.001-07:00

Update! I have no IV! My tests went up high enough that I'm still not perfect, but certainly better. I'm to finish up the supply of my new meds and then go in again for a final recheck, but I think I'm in the clear. Whoo!

Sooooo....I haven't been blogging a lot lately. The post I threw together yesterday was more of an attempt to keep things going than anything else (also, ceratopsids are awesome). I've got several posts up here in the ol' noggin, but they're not being put on virtual paper for one giant reason:

A recent doctor's visit informed me that my lung function tests (the barometer of a CF patient's health) were down 20%.

Twenty percent. Jesus Christ.

I'd also lost weight. Taken together, these symptoms indicate a bigger problem: a genuine lung infection, my first in eight years. Now, I should mention that last year, when I came back from London, my lung functions were also down quite a bit. My doctor suspected that I picked something up either on the plane or in Britain, but put me on Ciprofloxin and I got better. Six months later, I was back down, though not as much, and I was put back on Ciprofloxin. Last April, I was totally back to normal levels. My weight was up, my tests were great.

Five months later...I get a 20% drop and 3 kilos of lost weight? Ouch.

So my doctor put me on Ciprofloxin again and a new inhaled medication, which isn't so much medication as vaporized seawater (7% saline solution). He gave me a week to get better. A week later, my weight was up a kilo and my lung function tests were up 5%. That's not incredible, but it is progress. He gave me another week, so I'm going in again on Friday evening to see if I'm back to normal, or at least very close to it. If I'm not...well, it's time for a tune-up.

How do you give a CF patient a tune-up? You stick an IV in his or her arm and pump two kinds of medications in there twice a day (Tobramyacine & Ceptazadine) for between two and three weeks. It's more a hassle than anything else, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had to get one. I mean, eight years is a long time between IV's. What's this have to do with blogging? Well, I usually blog in the evenings, after work and chore and errands. Unfortunately, I'm on three different nebulizer-based medications this month: Pulmozyme, Saline, and Tobi. Altogether, it takes a full hour to do these meds, and I do Saline and Tobi twice a day. After my nightly doses, I have to clean and boil the nebulizers for the next day. So my evenings are basically shot for the month of October.

And when I'm not inhaling saltwater, I'm at the office or catching up on shows or games. Or, sometimes, drawing. I do get quite a bit of sketching done during my evening doses. None of it post-worthy, but you get the idea.

So there it is. Wish me luck for Friday, guys. Much as I wouldn't be surprised if it's IV time, it's not exactly fun to get one.

Meet the Ceratopsian Class of 2010

2010-10-05T14:54:00.001-07:00

As I've said before, 2010 has really been the Year of the Ceratopsian. Here are the new guys, in no particular order. Give 'em a round of applause--they've basically doubled the group's diversity, and they're JUST SO COOL.

Psittacosaurus gobiensis ("Yet another Psittacosaurus)
Claim to Fame: Supposedly shows evidence for how the jaw worked in the genus
Favorite Movie: Multiplicity
Image Credit: The Internet

Archaeoceratops yungjingziensis ("Bits and pieces of a horned face")
Claim to Fame: Hey, it's another species of Archaeoceratops!
Favorite Movie: Disney's Dinosaur!
Image Credit: I have no idea via the Internet

Ajkaceratops ("Part of a horned face")
Claim to Fame: Europe's first ceratopsian.
Favorite Movie: National Lampoon's European Vacation
Image credit: The paper

Sinoceratops ("Fung-Fu horned face")
Claim to Fame: China's first ceratopsid...much less centrosaurine ceratopsid!
Favorite Movie: Big Trouble in Little China
Image Credit: Olorotitan on DeviantArt

Tatankaceratops ("Like a corgi version of Triceratops")
Claim to Fame: Adorable miniature version of Triceratops
Favorite Movie: Twins
Image Credit: The paper

Diabloceratops ("Fiddle-playing horned face")
Claim to Fame: Very basal centrosaurine, narrow frill, odd nasal decorations
Favorite Movie: End of Days
Image Credit: Olorotitan on DeviantArt

Ojoceratops ("Triceratops 8 - THE OJO")
Claim to Fame: Like Triceratops with a rounded (instead of squared-off) squamosal
Favorite Movie: Bowfinger
Image Credit: The Internet

Medusaceratops ("Snake-haired horned face")
Caim to Fame: Basically a chasmosaurine version of Albertaceratops
Favorite Movie: Clash of the Titans
Image Credit: D. Sloan via the paper

Rubeosaurus ("Country bumpkin lizard")
Claim to Fame: Formerly known as Styracosaurus ovatus, has a ridiculously large nasal horn
Favorite Movie: Anything with Adrian Brody
Image Credit: Lukas Panzarin

Coahuilaceratops ("Spring Break horned face")
Claim to Fame: Mexico's first ceratopian; most difficult name to pronounce in all the Ceratopsidae; ridiculously long brow horns
Favorite Movie: Traffic
Image Credit: Lukas Panzarin

Kosmoceratops ("Show-off horned face")
Claim to Fame: Most complicated combination of spikes and hors of any known ceratopsid; brow horns point laterally and arc down along their length
Favorite Movie: Hellraiser
Image Credit: Lukas Panzarin

Utahceratops ("Creatively bankrupt horned face")
Claim to Fame: Small brow horns point laterally, nasal horn sits in front of nasal opening
Favorite Movie: Raising Arizona
Image Credit: Lukas Panzarin

Mojoceratops ("Groovy horned face")
Claim to Fame: Formerly Chasmosaurus kaiseni, named in a pub
Favorite Movie: Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Image Credit: Nick Longrich via the Internet

Vagaceratops ("Took a year off before college horned face")
Claim to Fame: Formerly Chasmosaurus irvinensis, lacks brow horns entirely, epiparietals fold down over parietal fenestrae
Favorite Movie: Road Trip
Image Credit: The Internet

Shantae on DSiWare

2010-10-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

For those of you who own a DSi or DSi XL, I recommend going to the DSiWare store and purchasing Shantae: Risky's Revenge, developed by WayForward. I'm a huge fan of the original Game Boy Color game (that none of you have ever heard of), and this sequel has been in various states of development ever since. It's 1200 Nintendo Points, which may seem expensive, but after an hour with the final product, I can assure you it's well worth it. Just an all-around excellent game, with wonderful spritework and beautiful animation. For those new to the Shantae scene, I can describe the gameplay as something akin to "Metroidvania," but with more item collection and specific quests.

Since you'll have to spend $20 to get the game (that's how Nintendo's retarded points system works), I can safely recommend a few other DSiWare titles to spend the other 800 points on. Dark Void Zero is a wonderful throwback platformer that strives and succeeds to immitate a lost NES game; Pinball Pulse: the Ancients Beckon is a great single-table pinball game from the people who made Metroid Prime Pinball; Spotto is a fun and adorable angle-based puzzle game; and Mighty Flips is WayForward's other DSiWare game, a puzzle game based on spacial reasoning that has connectivity with Shantae.

Say Hello to the New Guys

2010-09-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

The Year of Ceratopsians continues with two new additions to the Chasmosaurinae: Utahceratops gettyi and Kosmoceratops richardsoni. I will give you two guesses as to where the former was discovered. Here's one hint: It's in the name. There was absolutely nothing about this animal that warranted a better, more imaginative moniker. Meanwhile, Kosmoceratops is heavily airbrushed, full of fashion advice, and knows the top ten ways to make your bull go wild in the bedroom. Another surprise is that Chasmosaurus irvinensis is renamed Vagaceratops irvinensis, as it turns out to be closer to Kosmoceratops than Chasmosaurus.

But seriously, this is fantastically exciting. The paper was published in PLoS One and is thus freely available for all. Check out the paper by clicking this lengthy link, but don't be surprised if you can't see the pictures or download the paper as a PDF. It would seem that PLoS One went on hiatus the second this paper was announced, thus going from "awesome free-access journal" to "cocktease."

But don't cry about it--go to The Internets, where people have been blogging about these new dinosaurs all morning. Do you want to know more? Click these links to do just that!

Archosaur Musings
The Open Source Paleontologist
Dinosaur Tracking
Dinochick Blogs

Don't get too excited: they're probably all just ontogenetic stages of each other.

Gaming Update

2010-09-16T19:03:00.000-07:00

Nobody asked for this, but I’m writing it anyway because (1) I enjoy writing, and (2) My post about Concavenator is taking longer than expected. So here’s one of those long, rambling gaming updates where I talk about what I’ve been playin’ and you all get to sit here and listen.

The Conduit (Wii)
I’m about two years too late, but hey, Fred Meyer was virtually giving this game away, quietly pleading for its customers to take heed this Great Deal and free up shelf space for better software like Daisy Fuentes Teaches Pilates. You might think I made that game up, but I did not. It’s sitting there for you to buy. I do not object to the inclusion of Daisy Fuentes, but the very fact that a Pilates game exists makes me shudder with fear. This is an activity best served on Microsoft’s upcoming failure, Kinect, rather than the Wii Balance Board.

Anyway, back to The Conduit. Despite early hype back when it was released in 2009, The Conduit is very much a paint-by-numbers corridor shooter. It’s certainly not bad, but it’s not great either, and whenever the game escapes the confines of endless hallways and monster closets, bursting into larger outdoor vistas, it promptly falls flat. Eager to “push” the hardware, the developers revel in their ability to throw multiple high-powered enemies at you from all directions. Strategy has no meaning here—your only recourse is to “brute force it,” as they say, running amok, guns a-blazing, hoping you survive long enough to reach the next checkpoint. I have not partaken in The Conduit’s supposedly robust online multiplayer offerings, which includes Wii Speak support. My misgivings do not result from the game itself, but my own failures as an online shooter gamer. Previous attempts, which have been valiant, were given to Call of Duty 4, Halo 2, Halo 3, and Modern Warfare 2. All ended in tragedy. To be fair, I did somehow enjoy myself in all efforts, but it was clearly not where my skills existed. If forced to play a multiplayer shooter, I will choose something sufficiently old-school, like Turok 2 or Goldeneye 007, in which modern frills had not been invented, and my limited skillset leads to as many victories as losses, though that number, on average, is often skewed toward the latter.

Dragon Quest IX (DS)
In the same way that the core Pokemon games dig their Razor Claws into my soft hide, Dragon Quest IX has proven to be an unwavering master. Though I recently completed the main story, my tasks are far from complete, as there are Quests to pursue, Alchemy to perform, and Grottos to explore and conquer. I have also been experimenting with the game’s many Vocations (jobs), taking my Lv. 45 Minstrel back down to a Lv. 1 Thief and leveling her up from there, to happy results—although I wish she could carry a shield. My goal now is fuzzy and undefined: leveling up and bettering my equipment occupies the majority of my time, and traveling to Grottos to find ever-rarer alchemical ingredients is a rare, but welcome affair.

I have been wholly unable to make use of the game’s “Tag” mode, in which players can passively download maps where their DS systems sense each-other’s presence. Additionally, Dragon Quest IX features a unique local multiplayer system whereby two players can travel to each-other’s worlds, gathering alchemy recipes and finding items unique to that particular world. Alas, none of my DS-owning friends have any interesting in a traditional Japanese RPG, so I’ll have to wait until one of my NWR colleagues takes my offer of pizza and beer at the Mooses’ Tooth to get my multiplayer on. I’m taking a short break from the eternal grinding of the post-game material to experience the joy of Chrono Trigger (see below).

Bioshock 2: Minvera’s Den (PS3)
My adoration for 2K’s dystopian Bioshock brand is well-established. I’ve played the original brilliant game like three times. I’ve played its sequel through once, and tried on the multiplayer but felt it unrefined and, frankly, unnecessary. The developers have released two or three expansions and tweaks to the multiplayer game, but I was pleasantly Electro-Bolted last week to discover that they recently released a big beautiful single-player expansion called Minerva’s Den. For all intents and purposes, this is an original entry in the series, with little to no immediate connection to the events of Bioshock or its sequel. Taking place after the death of Andrew Ryan and possibly parallel to Sophie Lamb’s final, desperate attempts at control, Minerva’s Den tells the story of the two programmers who built Rapture’s central computer. Your journey takes you into entirely new locales. While still a Big Daddy, your protagonist becomes far more defined by game’s end and the story of Minerva’s Den is one of haunting tragedy and redemption.

The game offers up a new Plasmid, a very effective new weapon, a few new Tonics, and Trophies. There’s also a fun subquest and quicker “defend the Little Sister” segments. While this expansion lasts roughly eight hours (more if you’re trying to complete the subquest), it feels very complete, and in no way overstays its welcome. Minerva’s Den brings to mind the magic of the original Bioshock, and offers a more satisfying ending than Bioshock 2 did. Now we have to wait almost two years for the next iteration of the franchise, but I assure you that Bioshock Infinite looks incredible even at this early stage.

Tomb Raider: Underworld (PS3)
I’m actually replaying this game, but I have a good reason. When I first bought the game, I played through very quickly. I loved it. It was a graphical leap above Tomb Raider: Legend and Tomb Raider: Anniversary while retaining the excellent gameplay of those titles. Underworld, however, suffers from some bugs and performance issues. It’s very easy for Lara to get stuck on geometry or misjudge jump distance or direction during a jump. You have to babysit the camera every step of the way, although this does lead to unexpectedly, but pleasant, looks right down Lara’s shirt. During gunfights and certain platforming sequences, however, the camera is a real burden. The game looks absolutely drop-dead gorgeous—one of the best-looking games on the system as far as I’m concerned—but that graphical fidelity comes with a steep price: framerate issues, especially when bloom lighting is a part of the scenery. I really do like games of this ilk, however. That is, games that feature a bunch of environmental puzzles and platforming.

I’m replaying the game because it updated a year or so ago to include Trophies. Sadly, they are not retroactively applied. So despite completing the game—including finding 100% of the pickups and unlocking Lara’s terrible “bonus” costume (it's a palatte swap)—I didn’t get any Trophies for my efforts once the patch was downloaded. So over the past year, I’ve been slowly replaying the game, only recently getting back into it. Thankfully, I remember where all the really hard-to-find pickups are, but I imagine some backtracking will be required to find the more common treasures. There are only two levels left, and the last one is incredibly short (basically a lead-up to a boss sequence), so I should have this in the bucket before too long. I’m excited to try Lara’s new game, Lara Croft: Guardian of Light, which is already out on the 360 but launches toward the end of this month on the PSN. It’s been getting amazingly good reviews.

Quick Hits
Here’s a list of games I play from time to time—basically, when I get around to them.

Bayonetta (PS3)
I can say with unwavering honesty that I have never played a video game that’s as self-aware and over-the-top as Bayonetta. I enjoy it immensely, but it exists well within the realm of a genre I’m not usually a fan of. At its core, it’s a 3D brawler, but more akin to Devil May Cry and Viewtiful Joe than God of War. It is fast-paced, requires some modicum of precision, and is mission-based. None of this is surprising given the fact that the developers worked on…Devil May Cry and Viewtiful Joe before this. It is an overtly sexual game, though not in the way you’d think: there are no bikini-clad Dead or Alive goddesses here. Bayonetta herself is fully clothed, but adopts a handful of moderate-to-heavily suggestive poses and positions while destroying her angelic enemies. At the same time, the whole game is ridiculously campy. It’s an interesting dichotomy that works for me. Plus, the game was half off. I’m early in the goings, and I imagine things will become steadily more complex the farther I go down this particular rabbit hole.

Chrono Trigger (DS)
My motivation for buying this old-school, genre-defining RPG was twofold. First, it is at the top of my “Secret Shame,” list. These are games I have always meant to experience but never got around to. When Chrono Trigger first came out on the DS several years ago, I almost picked it up, but grimaced at the patented Square Tax that jacked the price up beyond normal DS standards. I was reasonably certain the price would fall in the coming months. This did not occur. My copy was recently procured secondhand, using the remaining store credit I had at the cursed Play ‘n’ Trade, thus breaking my ties to that merchant and revealing my second motive for purchasing the game. It’s a great game so far, although the combat system has demanded some adjustment. If you’ve played the Penny Arcade Adventures games, you’ll have a better understanding of it, though it’s faster-paced in Chrono Trigger. I still don’t like Akira Toriyama’s art, though.

A Boy & His Blob (Wii)
It’s taking me an ungodly amount of time to finish this game, as I’ve had it since November. It’s not terribly challenging; it’s just slow-moving, and I’m a rampant completionist, so I’m compelled to find all of the treasures in each level. I’m halfway through the third world and I genuinely feel like I’ve seen it all, and that everything from here on in is just going to be repetitious. I’m probably wrong (I often am), but that preconceived notion has held me back from just finishing the damn thing. I should mention that this is a beautiful, hand-drawn game in which you can hug the blob. How this simple mechanic has not kept me invested is a genuine mystery.

The Saboteur (PS3)
This is one of those games I bought based on recommendations from podcasts. Generally, I like it. I just haven’t gotten very far. It starts out as a more focused linear story but quickly turns into a WWII Grand Theft Auto game. The controls are a little wonky. The main character is a rabblerousing Irishman who does the kind of building-climbing usually reserved for an Assassin’s Creed game. Unlike those games, however, you have no real way of defending yourself against enemies once they spot you, since they tend to be heavily armed Nazis. So there’s a lot of trial and error, which isn’t necessarily my thing. I haven’t touched this game in awhile, but I do want to get back to it.

Dark Void (PS3)
This is another game I got at Fred Meyer when they were trying to free up shelf space. There are two distinct parts to this strange game: Uncharted-like shooter segments and surprisingly wonky air combat that’s littered with bugs. The story is semi-interesting (This is completely untrue. –Ed) and the main character is voiced by Nolan North, so that’s something. The graphics are pretty standard fare, nothing really stands out, and the enemies can be surprisingly intelligent but insanely cheap. So far, I like Dark Void Zero, a “lost” NES game released for DSiWare, a lot more than this game. However, it’s not terrible, so I pop it in every now and then to get a little farther.

Games I Own But Haven’t Touched
Every gamer has a nefarious backlog of games he or she bought (usually for cheap) but haven’t gotten around to playing. Mine isn’t terrible, and someday I’ll get around to playing these games.

De Blob (Wii)
This game, about a colorful blob who literally paints the town red (or blue, or green, etc.) was given great marks by my own website (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/) and it looks really fun. I like the art style and the idea of splattering paint all over a city. The only thing that’s got me nervous is the fact that you have to wiggle the Wii Remote to jump—obviously a shoehorned “motion control” gimmick.

Resistance: Fall of Man (PS3)
I love Insomniac. They made all the Ratchet & Clank games, after all. But a first-person shooter set just after WWI involving an alien takeover? I’m intrigued, but I’m also a little hesitant. Aside from the SyFy plotline, the game was a PS3 launch game and probably doesn’t perform as admirably as more modern shooters. This was another Fred Meyer sale game. I know I should try it out, but I haven’t had the energy.

Resistance 2 (PS3)
This is the sequel released in 2008 or 2009 (I can’t remember) that I bought when it, too, was regaled to the bargain bin (at Fred Meyer, no less). Since I haven’t played the first game, I sure as hell haven’t played the second one, which I hear is better in some ways, worse in others.

Insta-Buy

2010-09-15T16:39:00.000-07:00

I'm writing this on the calendar. Remember the Kotobukiya concept art for Catwoman that I posted about a few months ago? Well, they've got the actual figure built now, and she's due out March 2011. That's gonna be $60 well spent. You can ogle more angles over at Tomopop.

I Have Nooooo Idea

2010-09-12T14:21:00.000-07:00

Have you ever sat down to write something, and it just turned into something completely different? This is one of those times.

The Story of Thalassocnus

One dreadfully hot Thursday, back in the Miocene, a ground sloth stared out into the endless blue ocean and thought to himself “Blorf,” which means (roughly translated):

“It looks so nice out there…peaceful. It’s so dreadfully hot. And that’s clearly where all this yummy seaweed is coming from, so maybe I should go out there and find my own plants without all this crappy sand.”

So the ground sloth took a swim one day. He swam out as far as he could go. His heavy hair made the journey exhausting, but the sloth was cool and happy. The long swim made him hungry, so the sloth dove underwater and tried to look around but he found that the salt water stung his eyes…He grubbed around on the rocky bottom, more through feeling than seeing, and tried nipping at various things. Fish swam away, coral didn’t taste good, and the plants were also full of sand! Then, in an instant, the sloth was eaten by a shark. Bit right in half, in fact. Fish and invertebrates spent the next few days scavenging his corpse.

The sloth’s remains washed up on that same beach the following Tuesday. His friends didn’t discover the rotting half-carcass until Friday, as they had traveled to the beach to look for seashells and skip stones. Though saddened and alarmed, none of the sloths in the community were particularly surprised that the sloth was dead, mostly because they hadn’t seen him in awhile, but also because the sloth had been spouting weird nonsense like “yornk yornk hazoo,” which means (roughly translated):

“The end is nigh! Repent sinners!”

None of the other sloths knew want “sinners” meant. They’d figured it was just a phase. Still, the entire sloth community was puzzled by their strange friend’s remains. They all assumed that some predator—possibly one of those irritating cats—had attacked and killed the sloth and then either covered his remains with seashells and coral OR thrown him headlong into the ocean after dealing the deathblow in an effort to hide the carcass from another predator, or possibly an owl.

Most of the sloths accepted one or both theories, but a group of three sloths decided to search out more evidence. The elder sloths warned against swimming out into the oceans, and they raised several good points: Sloths didn’t know how to swim; you never know what’s hidden under the waves; and seriously, have you ever even crossed a river? But the elder sloths were old and senile. Why, just last week, two of them wandered off in to an ice cream shop that had closed down like twenty years ago and their families had to drop everything and wandered around looking for them for like two days. Goddamn elder sloths. So anyway, several sloths swam out to sea, convinced that their dead friend’s remains were somewhere out there and would tell them not only the method of death, but also the identity of the cat that killed him.

Three of the sloths were also eaten by sharks, but one made it back alive. He didn’t have as much hair as his compatriots, and so was not as weighed down. As remains of the other three washed up, more investigations were held (sloths are very particular), and this hilarious, though tragic, scenario repeated for several months. On the upside, it was a very good year for sharks. Eventually, the only sloths that were left were the freaks that could at least swim to and from the crime scene. Their investigations concluded that sharks were the culprits in almost all cases, save for the cat who doubtlessly murdered the original sloth before trying to hide the remains below a blanket of crustaceans, seaweed, and bits of coral. The twelve remaining sloths were all deformed in different ways: one was hairless, a few just had very short hair, one had webbed feet and hands, and one was unusually skilled with a harpoon which had fashioned, ironically, from the bones of the original washed-up sloth.

These weirdo sloths, free of oppression from the “normals” of their society, formed a new government based around living in and around the sea, a place where their deformations were celebrated instead of looked down upon. The sloths decreed that the only allowable land-based activities involved sleeping, shagging, and playing charades, which the sloths found difficult underwater. Within just a few years, the sloths had procreated and their children were also happily frolicking in the waves. Their children had an even easier time navigating the sea than their parents did, since so many of the unfortunate deformities had begun adding up in individual children. One of the young sloths was especially adept underwater: he was hairless, had webbed feet and hands, and had developed an unusually long snout which he used to grub around in crevices for food. Not even his mother could look at him straight, but the founding sloths knew that in just a few generations, their entire race may very well look something like that hideous freak. One group of young sloths invented water polo while others began building impressive structures with volcanic rocks and seaweed. Near-shore environments were preferred, as the sloths were quick to notice that anybody who ventured into the darker waters beyond the continental shelf were usually eaten by sharks (or, as sloth legend has it, semi-aquatic cats).

In time, the sloths began basing their society around the sport of water polo. They fashioned balls out of coconut shells and built surprisingly sturdy nets out of seaweed and vines the jungle. As sloth society grew, so too did the number of teams who competed in regional water polo matches. Unfortunately, sloths were pretty unimaginative, and team names tended to blur together: “The Fightin’ Sloths,” “Seasloths,” and “The Fightin’ Seasloths” were all legitimate teams. Adding home-base monikers did little to help. “The Fightin’ Sloths” soon became the “Big Piece of Rock Out by the Pink Coral Reef Fightin’ Sloths.” Not surprisingly, early experiments with announcers and color commentators failed spectacularly.

As the millennia passed, sloth scientists began predicting that ocean levels would drop significantly as the planet became cooler. They suggested that water would actually freeze and that, because of this “freezing” effect, the amount of available liquid water in the oceans would drop, and thus the oceans would recede, and sloth society would be in terrible danger. If the water levels dropped below the continental shelf, the sloths would either have to figure out how to protect themselves against the now largely-mythical sharks or return to life on land. The majority of sloths didn’t find either alternative appetizing, and chose instead to argue about illegal pinniped immigrants and whether or not their sloth king was actually born on the beach. It is generally believed that this useless bellyaching proved the downfall of the marine sloth, which scientists now know as Thalassocnus.

The Summer in Review

2010-09-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

Well, a shitty summer that has been indistinguishable from autumn has finally given way to that actual season. September brings with it rain, dropping temperatures, ever-shorter days, and raking. Oh, the cursed raking. And it really was a terrible summer for the town of Anchorage: we broke a state record for most rainy days in a row (29), and days that weren’t filled with water were overcast. There were four or five really gorgeous summer days, of course, but overall it wasn’t a fantastic season. I did get through a good deal of my gaming backlog, which is always nice. I also stupidly added to it: Bayonetta was on sale and I can’t for the life of me put down Dragon Quest IX. I was slaughtered by the final boss yesterday, so it’s back to grinding for gear, alchemy ingredients, and experience. I might even change vocations, although that would mean more tedious grinding. Just last night, I realized that a single-player expansion for Bioshock 2 was released on PSN, which I now have to buy and play, because I love Bioshock. Have you seen the Bioshock Infinite trailer? Holy frigging crap.

One highlight of the last few weeks has been receiving an early review copy of Metroid: Other M and playing it to total completion, Hard mode and all. I gave the game a 7.0 at Nintendo World Report. It’s not a bad game, it just suffers from control and story issues, and it’s incredibly linear. The post-game content is great, but Hard mode is disappointing in that there is no reward for what’s essentially a lot of work. I also collected all of the Star Coins in Worlds 1-8 of New Super Mario Bros. Wii, then basically gave up on three of the World 9 stages because they’re honestly just not fun, requiring a level of precision that I’m simply not willing to put myself through. In July, my brother-in-law Justin and me played the ever-living crap out of PixelJunk Shooter, an excellent PSN game and completed it to 100%. I’m only missing one freaking trophy, which I’m still trying to nab.

I’ve also started doing Figure Reviews for two reasons. First, figure-collecting is a hobby of mine, and this blog reflects my hobbies. Second, when I’m getting ready to buy a figure, I like to look online for reviews. Sometimes reviews are surprisingly scarce, so I figured (HA!) there’s no harm in contributing. I’ve posted quite a few now, and I have more to cover. After I get done with my girls, I’ll probably start with my other figures, like my NECA TMNT figures.

On the paleo front, this blog’s been pretty quiet on the whole. My biggest “contribution” has been a series of posts about Toroceratops, which has received mixed reviews (check out the comments of those posts). I also did a good post about the semi-aquatic Psittacosaurus theory from Tracy Ford & Larry Martin. I tried to make it semi-serious, and Tracy was a good sport and responded…which I then responded to. Scott and Raven and I also attempted a monthly paleo-themed podcast called “Dino-Rama,” which fell apart almost immediately. In point of fact, we recorded a July episode in June. It’s September, and that podcast still hasn’t been posted. This isn’t really anybody’s fault: Scott is the audio editor but he’s always very busy, and I know nothing about audio editing and don’t especially want to learn how to do it. I do a gaming podcast, though, as you may have heard: the NWR Newscast, a biweekly, Nintendo-centric podcast about news, reviews, and off-track ranting. I’m also sometimes on Radio Trivia Podcast and rarely on Radio Free Nintendo. Actually, you’ll hear my nasally vocals on the upcoming episode of RFN, so stay tuned for that. Dino-Rama may continue in the future, but it will require a major overhaul and probably a fourth co-host who can also edit the audio.

In the coming months, you’ll probably see more irregularly-scheduled Figure Reviews and gaming news, maybe some more book reviews and paleo news coverage. I’ve got several art projects in the slow-cooker, including ceratopsids, Xenopermian critters, NWR avatars, and DinoNoir. None of these projects are on any kind of schedule (when you’re not paid for shit, there’s no incentive to get it done!) but I’ll post progress when I make it.

I’ll also post some updated contact information. A lot of people still use my Hotmail address, but I’m trying to move away from Hotmail for a variety of reasons. My standard email is now sillysaur (at) gmail (dot) com. You can also contact me on Facebook, and if you want to do some online PS3 gamin’ with me, my PSN Handle is Sillysaur.

Also, I’d like to point out that The Boneyard is back! Originally started by Brian Switek a few years ago as a monthly or bi-monthly collection of paleo-related posts, the project fell into disuse for over a year. David Orr, of Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs, has valiantly taken up the mantle. The first edition was just posted, so go check it out! David’s looking for volunteers for subsequent editions and, of course, more paleo posts to link to. All hail The Boneyard!

Excellent picture of Samus Aran by iwaisan, from Kotaku.

Symptom of a Larger Problem

2010-09-04T16:30:00.001-07:00

This post is going to mention Toroceratops, but it's not actually about Toroceratops. I think the Toroceratops debate, and how it's going down in the paleo community, is a symptom of a larger problem in science generally: not waiting around. I'll use Toroceratops as an example: The paper describing the possibility that Triceratops and Toroceratops are synonymous just came out like two months ago, maybe less. What's more, this is the first time (AFAIK) that the idea has been broached in a scientific paper for all to see.

This idea is in its infancy. But what boggles my mind is that many people, including those working in the field and fans standing by the sidelines, have actually made up their minds about it. And many of these people may have access to additional information, specimens, or people that can give them a more accurate read on the situation. But the rest of us can't. In a case like this, the primarily literature itself must make the case. Word of mouth is not enough. I'm happy to see that SVP 2010 will feature a surprising number of talks regarding Toroceratops because the idea will be further explored. This needs to happen--it's how science works. I've spoken with more than a few people who have told me that Toroceratops is most likely correct based on things they've seen, specimens they've worked on, or people they've talked to. I've heard the opposite from other people. That's all heresay. It's not public record until it appears in a scientific publication.

I can't assess that information. All I can assess is what's been published. That's all anyone can assess. Inside information is inside baseball, and it's not something we can all see.

An example of how science should work can be seen with Balaur bondoc. The paper was just published, and the authors suggest that this strange dromaeosaur was a bizarre predator that attacked its prey with four sickle claws and a nonfunctional hand. Well, Andrea Cau has written several posts on his blog, Theropoda, about the interesting idea that Balaur used all four toes to support a bulky belly like a therizinosaur. Nobody's coming firmly down on either side--this is an idea in its infancy, and all possibilities should be explored. Andrea has not been attacked for suggesting that the authors are incorrect or that there might be another explaination. Maybe somebody out there has a third specimen of Balaur that's more complete that can prove one or the other, but it hasn't been published yet, so it's not assessable. This is the opposite of what's happening with Toroceratops.

My own posts regarding Toroceratops were simply explorations into the idea that it might be incorrect. I did not appreciate the surprising inflexibility of a few posters (in both Toroceratops posts) with regards to the idea that other explainations were possible. And again, even if those people have access to more information, it doesn't matter: I can only discuss what I have access to--what's been published.

The bottom line is that nobody should be making up their minds about Toroceratops or Balaur at this stage in both games. Wait a while. More information will be forthcoming, I'm sure, for both animals. Only when considerable evidence has been built up and published should anybody make up their minds about it. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that evidence will come...we just have to be willing to wait for it.

P.S. Anyone else miss the Dino-Riders?

Long Overdue Book Review: Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives & Evolutionary History

2010-09-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives & Evolutionary History is an aptly-titled book from Columbia University Press about the evolution of Man's Best Friend by Xiaoming Wang & Richard Tedford, with illustrations by the incomparable Mauricio Anton. First, I'll say this: if you're a paleo-artist, you need this book just for the illustrations. You will be continually inspired by Anton's photorealistic work. Along with Carl Buell, Mauricio is the most talented prehistoric mammal artist working today. His lavish pencil drawings dot almost every page, and the plates in the center of the book feature his full-color paintings which are a sight to behold.

Aside from the art, Dogs doubles as a handy and very educational reference guide for many aspects of canine evolutionary biology. The authors examine every aspects of dogs, including dog-like carnivorans that are not dogs, like creodonts and borhyaenas. They discuss what makes a dog a dog, and what makes a dog a carnivoran. These are things I never knew. I was especially fascinated to learn that one of the key distinctions between the dog (Canidae), bear (Arctoidea) and cat (Aeluroidea) branches of the Carnivora is the structure of the auditory bulla--the dome-shaped bones at the base of the skull that cover and protect the inner ear. Another interesting factoid is that the common ancestor of cats and dogs probably had retractable claws!

The authors dive into the evolutionary history of dogs and include discussions on just about every genus and species that popped up since the Eocene. The first dogs were fox-sized animals that were actually pretty dog-like, but with long tails and relatively short limbs. However, they quickly diversified and many dogs developed bone-crunching jaws and robust bodies while others stayed lean. It's clear that canids experienced a fast and impressive radiation early in their evolutionary history. The most impressive fossil dogs are perhaps the borophagines--big, short-skulled, tough-jawed bone-crunchers. With domed foreheads and short jaws, these big canids bear some resemblance to small dog breeds today. A less-derived borophagine, Aelurodon, had proportions more suited to a cat or bear than a dog.

The only "mistake" I see is that Wang & Tedford constantly discuss a direct line of decent between any one species or genus and another, as if dog evolution has been essentially anagenetic throughout its history, but that can't be true. This is a common complaint I have with books discussing the evolutionary history of mammals generally, but it's very noticable here.

The authors then discuss, in impressive detail, how dogs work in comparison to other modern carnivores like bears, cats, and hyaenas. Differences in the teeth, the skulls, the senses, and the musculature of the head and neck are are gloriously discussed and illustrated, which gives great insight into how all of these different carnivores can operate in their own spheres without competition. Unfortunately, the authors don't really look at postcranial anatomy (that could probably be its own book).

Happily, the book does look generally at dog behavior and society. Sexual dimorphism, scavenging, and pack hunting are all discussed and compared to cats and hyaenas. It's a relatively brief look, but it's appreciated nonetheless. Better, perhaps, is the discussion on how canids filled their environmental niches throughout their evolution as the world changed. Canids didn't reach their peak of diversity until the late Oligocene, for example, an event which may have contributed to or benefitted from the decline of more archaic predators like hyaenodonts. Basal hesperocyonine dogs began to dwindle in number by the middle of the Miocene but were readily replaced by borophagines, which exploded in diversity and dominated until the late Miocene/early Pliocene, at which point the world was changing, and modern canines took their turn.

Interestingly, modern canids (including wolves) did not really diversify until the Pleistocene Ice Age. The largest (but exinct) modern canine, Canis dirus, was the top predator among Ice Age megafauna. Modern dogs may have rose to dominance because of their flexible diet. While most dogs are "strictly" carnivorous, none will turn down tasty vegetable matter (just ask my corgi) or, in one case (Cerdocyon), crabs. Wang & Tedford wrap things up with a lively discussion of the history and debate of dog domestication, noting that dogs were the first animals to be domesticated by humans. But were dogs domesticated by humans, or did they domesticate themselves? This final chapter doesn't necessarily answer that question, but it does offer intruiging insight.

Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives & Evolutionary History was originally published in hardback in 2008, but came out in paperback earlier this year. It's a fantastic read, and as I said, worth the price of admission purely for the incredible art. But hey, you might learn something too, and this book of course provides an excellent companion piece to The Big Cats. They're sitting next to each other on my shelf, though I wish I had a hardcover copy of that feline book...

Apologies to Meredith Howard for not doing this sooner!

Last Thing on Toroceratops

2010-08-31T12:20:00.000-07:00

Okay, look, it's clear that I'm not the BEST guy to go to when it comes to this subject. I don't have the same access to primary literature that many of you do, I certainly haven't seen many actual specimens of Triceratops OR Torosaurus, my knowledge of stratigraphy is poor, and bone histeology is still very new to me.

I'm not trying to overturn anybody or make a serious case against Scannella and/or Horner. I'm not trying to bogart anybody's future or current research. I'm sorry if I've hit any nerves or didn't read the right papers...well enough.

That said, on morphological grounds alone, I think that known specimens of Torosaurus differ significantly from known specimens of Triceratops, either T. prorsus or T. horridus (although T. horridus looks a bit more like Torosaurus). Several things lack decent explaination. Among them:

Why don't any specimens of Torosaurs have "adult" nasal horn morphology of Triceratops? What other ceratopsid goes through such a radical late-stage morphological change?
How do we know that a solid frill is a juvenile trait, and not a derived trait?
Why aren't there any (AFAIK) Triceratops skulls with small fenestrae besides Nedoceratops, which itself is a contentious specimen?

I liked Haikaru's example in the comments for the 2nd Toroceratops post: if you found a humpback whale and a blue whale as fossils, you might assume that the latter is the adult of the former. Again, I'm not saying that Scannella and/or Horner are WRONG, I'm saying that their conclusion is not completely solid based on that paper alone. And you know what? Few papers are. Further research into post-cranial anatomy, histeology, stratigraphy, and morphology will doubtlessly illuminate this topic further, and I welcome that research.

I didn't mean to step on any toes or insult anybody. My posts were meant to suggest that further research was needed, and that alternatives to Toroceratops are possible.

And that's the last I'll say on the subject...at least until more data is published.

Leviathan = Livyatan

2010-08-27T17:27:00.000-07:00

I'm very late to the party here, but in case you weren't aware, that big raptorial whale that was discovered two months ago, originally named Leviathan, has been renamed Livyatan because the original name was found to be a junior synonym of Mammut, which sucks. To be fair, the name Livyatan conjured up much the same image: it's the Hebrew name applied to large marine monsters. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but hey.

Brilliant!

2010-08-27T10:18:00.001-07:00

As seen on www.toplessrobot.com.

Torosaurus latus is not Triceratops sp.

2010-08-24T21:49:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, Scannella & Horner hypothesized that skulls attributed to the large chamosaurine Torosaurus latus represented a “fully adult” ontogenetic stage of Triceratops, thus invalidating Marsh’s pierced lizard as a distinct taxon. This theory was based in part on a growth series for Triceratops published by Horner & Goodwin in 2006. In neither paper do the authors consider Triceratops at the species level. Prior to 1996, as many as sixteen separate species of Triceratops had been considered valid, but in that year Catherine Forster published a revision of the genus which greatly reduced that number to just two: Triceratops horridus and Triceratops prorsus. Actually, in 1986, Ostrom & Wellnhofer went as far as suggesting that only Triceratops horridus is the only valid species. Neither Scannella & Horner nor Horner & Goodwin address the issue of species-level ontogenetic change in Triceratops. Is the Horner & Goodwin growth series for T. horridus or T. prorsus? Is Torosaurus latus the “fully adult” form of T. horridus, T. prorsus, or both? While not stated outright, the Horner & Goodwin growth series implies that features used by Forster to distinguish T. prorsus from T. horridus may simply be ontogenetic markers, including size and shape of epioccipitals, size and shape of the nasal horn, and curvature of the postorbital horns. Certain abstracts that I’ve read but don’t know if I can actually divulge have suggested stratigraphic or anagenetic reasons for the changes between Triceratops species.

In Scannella & Horner’s “Toroceratops” hypothesis, the authors suggest that, very late in life, Triceratops goes through radical morphological change: the length and shape of the frill increases, and the parietal becomes rapidly fenestrated as bone is reabsorbed on either side of the parietal bar. The authors point to a number of Triceratops skulls with extremely thin areas of the parietal where fenestrae would be expected to appear. However, none of the specimens investigated by the authors have even incipient parietal perforations (except Nedoceratops, but we’ll get into that in a minute). All investigated Triceratops skulls retain a solid frill. That is, the authors cannot point to any Triceratops skulls that would form a transition between the "no fenestrae" condition and the "big fenestrae" condition of Torosaurus. With the often-stated abundance of Triceratops material, I believe this is an important consideration.

According to the Horner & Goodwin growth series for Triceratops, specimen MOR 004 is regarded as an “adult” form. It has thick, forwardly-curved postorbital horns; elongate, highly reabsorbed epiparietals; a large, thick, forwardly-directed nasal horn; and a relatively short, deep rostrum below and anterior to the nasal horn. If MOR 004 is the model adult form of Triceratops, then no currently recognized specimen of Torosaurus latus conforms to the Horner & Goodwin growth series. All currently recognized specimens of Torosaurus latus (ANSP 15192, MOR 1122, YPM 1830, and YPM 1831) have short, upwardly-directed nasal horns with an elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn. Additionally, the snout has a distinctive “stepped-up” morphology wherein the dorsal margin of the rostrum anterior to the nasal horn is lower than the dorsal margin of the rostrum behind the nasal horn. This feature is similar to the “large juvenile” and “subadult” examples of Triceratops in Horner & Goodwin’s growth series. However, even those Triceratops specimens lack the elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn.

Diagonally from top to bottom, the proposed Horner & Goodwin growth series for Triceratops showing overall trends in morphology. To the lower left, Torosaurus latus.

The overall shape of the frill is quite distinct in both taxa. In MOR 004, the frill more or less frames the rest of the skull in anterior view: the parietal bar forms the apex of the frill, and the left and right halves of the frill slope down and out from there. This is especially obvious in two other specimens of Triceratops: YPM 1822 (Forster 1996) and YUM 1822 (Hatcher 1903). In lateral view, the frill attains a distinctive upward curve. Additionally, the squamosals of Triceratops are D-shaped, or perhaps axeblade-shaped. In many individuals, the squamosal-parietal suture is not visible for most of its posterior length. In contrast, Torosaurus’ frill is broad and largely flat, and does not frame the face in anterior view. Rather, it grows away from the rest of the skull and does not retain a distinct upward curve. Additionally, the squamosals in all recognized specimens of Torosaurus have a distinct shape reminiscent of a chef’s onion or paring knife, and the suture between the parietal and the squamosals is surprisingly clear along its entire length.

The largely complete frill of Torosaurus latus, after Hatcher 1903.

According to Scannella & Horner, the underlying geometry of the frill of MOR 004 would have been significantly altered—and quickly—to produce a frill attributable to Torosaurus latus. This sort of morphological change is wholly unknown in other ceratopsians where juveniles are known. In centrosaurines, for instance, the adult frill is, by and large, simply a larger version of the juvenile skull with the addition of unique spikes on the parietal margin or parietal bar (Pachyrhinosaurus lakusai and Centrosaurus apertus is particularly illustrative of this). In addition, the morphology of the snout and nasal horn would essentially reverse from the adult condition to a subadult form. These sorts of radical morphological changes have no basis in close relatives of “Toroceratops.”

Because all of the known specimens of Torosaurus latus share certain morphological features regardless of size or, presumably, age, we are forced to conclude that they are taxonomically valid characters that differentiate it from its closest relatives. For reference, its closest relatives have been consistently shown to be Triceratops and Nedoceratops. Whereas skulls attributed to Triceratops are far more numerous and individualized, those recognized as Torosaurus are much more uniform (ANSP 15192 does differ significantly in the length of the frill and size of the postorbital horns, but this may be an age-related character). While there is obviously a sampling bias at work here, it is instructive to list characters shared by the best-known specimens of Torosaurus latus—ANSP 15192, MOR 1122, YPM 1830, and YPM 1831:

1) Relatively small, upwardly-directed nasal horn that is triangular and develops about halfway up the snout. The horn never grows into the impressive forward-pointing thick horn you see in many Triceratops skulls.

2) An elongate, shallow rostrum anterior to the nasal horn. There is a clear height differentiation between this region and the dorsal margin of the skull behind the nasal horn in the adult stage. This may be termed a “stepped-up” condition.

3) An elongate nasal passage retained into the adult stage. In Torosaurus, the extent of the nasal system resembles the juvenile condition in Triceratops. In that taxon, however, the nasal passage compresses and rounds out as the subadult and adult stages are reached. Torosaurus, by contrast, retains an elongate nasal passage.

4) Blade-like squamosals which remain distinct from the parietal even in the adult stage.

5) An elongate frill that is “swept back” rather than “swept up,” is relatively flat and broad, and contains large parietal fenestrae. In adults, the margins of the frill may be almost completely smooth due to the absorption of the epioccipitals.

Before we go too much farther into Torosaurus, let’s turn our attention to Triceratops. In fact, let’s go back to Forster’s paper regarding species diversity in that genus. She references two individual specimens as models for the two species of Triceratops: YPM 1822 for T. prorsus and SDSM 2760 for T. horridus. I note that the latter displays several features in common with Torosaurus, including the structure of the snout and nasal horn (though not to the same extent), and possibly the structure of the squamosals. It also seems to lack distinct epioccipitals, and the frill is broader than its sister species, T. prorsus. That species, represented by YPM 1822, shows very different features: the nasal horn is large and directed forward, the rostrum in front of the nasal horn is short and deep, and the nasal area is rounded. The epoccipitals are fairly large and triangular.

Neither skull displays a singular suite of ontologic characters consistent with any one growth stage according to Horner & Goodwin. In SDSM 2760, the morphology of the snout and nasal horn are juvenile characters according to the suggested growth series, whereas the thickness and orientation of the brow horns, as well as the loss of epioccipitals, are indicative of adult status. By contrast, YPM 1822 shows a clearly adult snout and nasal horn, but the ends of the brow horns point a bit upwards (a subadult trait) and the frill retains distinct, fairly large epioccipitals (a juvenile or subadult trait). Are these isolated incidents? I’m afraid not. Just ask John Hatcher. In 1903, he included several beautiful illustrations of skulls attributed to Triceratops in his wonderful monograph on the horned dinosaurs. Exactly none of them conform to the Horner & Goodwin growth series to a "T." Going forward, where I reference "juvenile," "subadult," and "adult" features, I'm talking about those ontogenetic stages as defined in Horner & Goodwin 2006.

This is USNM 2100, identified by Hatcher as Triceratops prorsus(?). Although the anterior portion of the snout is missing, one may notice the underdeveloped nasal horn (juvenile-subadult), low-angled brow horns (adult) with sloped tips (subadult), and small but distinctive epioccipitals (subadult). The parietal bar is interesting in that it’s quite bumpy. Where would USNM 2100 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth series?

This is Triceratops brevicornus, ”YPM” 1834. It also shows a curious mix of characters: the nasal horn is distinct and forwardly-directed (adult), but the anterior portion of the snout is quite long (subadult). The brow horns are directed forward (adult) and are unusually short. The parietal-squamosal suture appears to be lost (adult), but the epoccipitals are reasonably distinct and not entirely rounded (subadult). Where would YPM 1834 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth series?

This is Triceratops elatus, USNM 1201. It also displays some curious features. The nasal horn’s growth seems to have stalled: the underlying nasal is indeed reaching forward (subadult), but the epinasal is still apparent (juvenile). The brow horns are large and directed forward (adult). The frill’s margins are bumpy—the epoccipitals have largely been absorbed (adult). Notice the distinct upward bend to the squamosals. While it gives the bones a superficially onion-knife appearance, the parietal curves distinctly upward rather than being directed back. Where would USNM 1201 fit on Horner & Goodwin’s growth curve?

Then there’s this famously odd duck: USNM 2412, Nedoceratops hatcheri. The nasal horn isn’t really a horn so much as a bump in the road, giving the snout a very pronounced “stepped-up” profile. The brow horns are quite large and directed almost straight upward. The frill is riddled with accessory fenestrae, some of which are probably the result of pathologic or natural re-absorption. The skull retains distinct epioccipitals, and the squamosal has a bizarre shape. Nedoceratops may be too much of a wildcard to include in this analysis, but Scannella & Horner consider it to be a transitional form that would exist between MOR 004 and Torosaurus latus. But what happened to the nasal and brow horns? Where did all these accessory fenestrae come from? Surely, Nedoceratops is either an incredibly abarrant individual or a distinct taxon, and will not be considered further here.

This is where things start getting interesting. This is Triceratops calicornis, USNM 4928, and it displays a lot of features that I listed for Torosaurus latus, above. In other words, its morphology conforms nicely to known morphologies that are consistent across currently-recognized specimens of Torosaurus. These include: a small, upwardly-directed nasal horn that is roughly halfway down the snout; a stepped-up snout profile with an elongate anterior portion; an elongate nasal passage; and squamosals that are onion-knife shaped. Most of the epoccipitals are completely re-absorbed. There is one distinct epoccipital capping the parietal-squamosal contact, and half of one above it. The parietal was not preserved in USNM 4928—it may have been fenestrated.

AMNH 5116 (top) compared to YPM 1830 (bottom). The overall similarities are striking.

Based on these proposed characters, I could make an argument that the most famous, well-known specimen of Triceratops in the world—AMNH 5116—is actually a Torosaurus. It has a short, upwardly-directed nasal horn, an elongate rostrum anterior to the nasal horn, an elongate nasal passage, onion-knife shaped squamosals, and a lack of epioccipitals. Like USNM 4928, it was also missing portions of its parietal, although major portions were apparently recovered and plastered back on. The beast was restored with a solid frill (maybe it had one), the assumption being that this is Triceratops. However, when you take the parietal out of the equation, AMNH 5116 is strikingly similar to Torosaurus skulls, particularly YPM 1830. Sorry about the lack of fenestrae in the illustration for YPM 1830—I just now noticed that they’re not there. *facepalm*
MNHN 1912.20, housed in Paris, is strikingly similar to USNM 4928, although its “Torosaurus” features are even more obvious: the snout has a more pronounced “step-up,” the nasal horn is small and retains the epinasal. The anterior portion of the snout is elongate, as is the nasal passage. The frill is elongate and broad. Epoccipitals are nearly absent, and the squamosals are onion-knife shaped. Like AMNH 5116, the frill of MNHN 1912.20 has been heavily restored, although exactly how much of the parietal was “touched up” is not specified in this skull’s description (Goussard, 2006). It may very well be that MNHN 1912.20 is a Torosaurus skull.

AMNH 5116 (top) compared to MNHN 1912.20. Again, note the many similarities.

Go back and look at the growth series picture at the top of the post. Diagonally from top to bottom, this is Horner & Goodwin’s proposal for ontogenetic change in Triceratops from small juvenile (MOR 1199) to adult (MOR 004). If Torosaurus latus were to follow MOR 004, the underlying geometry of the frill would have to change radically, the snout would significantly elongate, and the nasal horn would regress to an earlier developmental stage. Additionally, two giant holes would suddenly open up in the parietal! Scannella & Horner expect us to believe that all of these large-scale changes would happen in the dinosaur’s final years, and in stark contrast to the direction of growth that Triceratops had been experiencing up to that point. No other ceratopsian goes through this sort of late-stage transformation, and there is no reason to think that Triceratops is any different. Additionally, as pointed out by many readers, the rarity of “fully adult” individuals of Triceratops (Torosaurus) compared to the incredible abundance of earlier growth stages is a bizarre and unrealistic preservation bias that does not occur in other fossil animals. If anything, the opposite tends to be true: juvenile and subadults are rare while adults and “full adults” are more common. That is certainly the case in other ceratopsids, even among bonebeds. The bottom line is this: assuming the Horner & Goodwin growth series is generally accurate, YPM 1830 and MOR 1122 would NOT follow MOR 004. It really is that simple.

However, Torosaurus material might not be nearly as rare as everyone seems to think. I believe that the genus can be distinguished based on more than just the presence or absence of parietal fenestrae. It’s possible that specimens once referred to as Triceratops are, in fact, Torosaurus. If nothing else, I hope this post has convinced some of you out there in Readerland that the Scannella & Horner paper presents interesting ideas but serious flaws as well, and needs to be given a second look.

I offer an enormous, Pentaceratops-skull-sized thanks to Andrew Farke for taking the time to double-check my claims and correct others. Readers, notice that I don’t really talk about histeology or stratigraphy. This is largely because I am ill-informed to do so intelligently. I do think that Torosaurus is morphologically distinct from Triceratops based on skull anatomy alone, however, so those factors may not necessarily play a part. On the point of stratigraphy, however, I do wonder whether T. prorsus or T. horridus is older, and whether the similarities between the latter and Torosaurus may represent a close relationship. That is, perhaps T. horridus is closer to the common ancestor of Triceratops and Torosaurus, and that Triceratops prorsus is derived, anagenetically or otherwise, from T. horridus?

Toroceratops Part 2 Teaser

2010-08-21T20:43:00.000-07:00

I'll be revisiting the Toroceratops theory again soon, because I'm a glutton for punishment. I believe I've found a good way to distinguish Triceratops from Torosaurus without relying on parietal fenestrae, although frill morphology does come into play. I'm just making the text sound good, and make sure my argument is sound before I post the whole thing (it's a whopper). Anyway, here's an illustration of AMNH 1201, simplified from Hatcher (1903). It displays a unique combination of juvenile and adult traits, as do many specimens of Triceratops.

Stay tuned...

ID the Spider!

2010-08-21T20:34:00.000-07:00

I have a task for all you invertebrate fans out there: identify this spider. It's been a very good summer for mites, harvestmen, and whatever spider this is, because all three arachnids are everything this year. Something about overcast, rainy skies I guess. Let's go down the list of this spider's features.

It comes in a surprising range of sizes, but the abdomens of the biggest ones I saw were a tiny bit smaller than my thumbnail. It is an orb-weaver, and builds a wheel-shaped web with lots of support strands. The color of the abdomen varies between light green and brown, but all of the individuals I saw had white speckles across the abdomen. The thorax is mostly pale yellow to orange, but has three brown bands moving down the thorax and head. The third pair of legs are the smallest. The legs are mostly the same pale yellow, but the joints are browish. The legs have large hairs.

There is one individual living on my grill, and it has built a surprisingly large web. The orb itself isn't all that impressive, but there number of support strands seems like overkill. The spider does not live on the web, but has constructed a little web-house beneath the grill. Surprisingly, there's a been a much smaller male living in the same web the whole season. His abdomen is a fraction the size of her's, although his leg span is probably similar. His has swollen palps. I watched him try to coax the female into mating one time, but she wasn't having it. Two of her legs were up, and he wasn't budging.

Anyway, it'd be cool if somebody knew what species this spider is. It's everywhere this year. We generally call them "pillow spiders" because of their fat abdomens.

Breaking: Mosasaurs Are Awesome

2010-08-14T17:19:00.001-07:00

This is Platecarpus tympaniticus, and yes, it has a caudal fluke. Confused? I recommend clicking this link for the answers to all your questions.

Ignore this post. It's just to catalogue pics for future reference.

2010-08-13T18:36:00.000-07:00

Zach's Figure Reviews: Kasumi (Venus on the Beach)

2010-08-12T19:24:00.001-07:00

This is my most recently-purchased and one of my favorite figures. It’s one I thought I’d have to buy on eBay or Amazon at some point because I didn’t know when she was coming out (different websites said different things), and there sure as hell wasn’t any chance any of the local comic shops would be importing her. Well, sometimes I love being wrong. On a completely random day last month, I stopped at A-1 Comics on my way to Eagle River. After wandering around the DC area, hoping to find a discounted “Women of the DC Universe” figure (no such luck), I wandered through the anime figures only to find, sitting on a high shelf, Kasumi. My jaw dropped. It was too good to be true! Now I can save on shipping costs (this is a real concern in Alaska)! I plucked her up immediately, of course, paid the shopkeeper, and took my new girl home.

Kasumi is actually my second “Venus on the Beach” figure after Kokoro (stay tuned). There are several other figures in this line, including Hitomi, Lei Feng, Tina, and Ayane. I don’t remember whether or not Christie and Lisa have gotten figures yet. All are based on, predictably, the Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball series rather than the fighting series proper. They’re all also cast-off figures. What’s a cast-off figure? You’ll find out in a minute.

I'm not entirely sure what to call Kasumi's pose. She's down on three limbs, poking her toe in the water to test the temperature, I guess. It's a really wonderful sculpture--every part of this girl is rounded. No hard edges here, and that's something I appreciate. Here's something strange to ponder: Kasumi's paint job. It's fantastic--no point outside the lines, and her skin tone is great. The color scheme for her main swimsuit here is, obviously, taken straight from DoAX, though I'm completely unaware of its name. Her hair is long, and falls wonderfully behind her, hiding her left shoulder in the process.

As my friend Erik might say, "Dat ass." Unlike her in-game counterpart, Kasumi is gifted in the tush department. This angle also lets you get a look at the musculature of her legs and popliteal (kneepit). You can also make out her almost nonexistant nose (that does bother me). I'm not sure what's going on with that yellow ribbon around her upper arm, though. Also notice the base: more on it later. Well, now that you've seen her "normal" costume, I can tell you about her secondary costume, and what "cast-off" means.

Kasumi readily falls apart in a rather disturbing manner. As you can see, her hair separates from the head in two places, her right leg pops off at the hip, and her torso frees itself from her lower body right below the breasts. This is all in an effort to get her red and white bikini off so you can see her "painted on" blue bikini. There are just a ton of separate pieces with this figure:

So many pieces. Thirteen, in fact, and that's not counting the base, which is made up of three distinct pieces. To get her red-and-white suit on, you have to wrap the top strap around her head, secure the bottom strap under her breasts, slide the top strap of her bikini bottom around her lower body, snap the two body halves together, then attach the front of her bottom to the back before snapping the leg back on, then swap out the ties (white 'n' yellow, see?), then finally put her hair back on. It's a goddamn hassle, so I only do it once and awhile. Also, as I've learned with Kokoro (stay tuned), it eventually starts messing up the paint job.

So here she is in the blue bikini. My wife thinks it's a little over-the-top. Keep in mind, though, that she thought that the BOME Kasumi's breasts were "spilling out." This is clearly incorrect! By comparison to this figure, her breasts were safely contained. Her blue bikini here is painted on, but it's also sculpted and textured, which is impressive. I actually don't think her breasts are portrayed very realistically here (YOU DON'T SAY). Now now, I say that because they're not really falling down: they're still kind of sticking out, forward. Her red-and-white bikini top was supporting them, but they should be following gravity a bit more here.

See? I'm not gonna complain too much about it. But you can see the lacy sculpting here and the double-ties. It's a good sculpt, it really is. Interestingly, she's showing about as much cleavage here as in her other suit. Although it's not clear from this shot, they even sculpted where the strap on her back kind of digs into her skin.

You can definately see how much more skin is showing with this outfit. Her asscrack is showing, which is...I mean, it's a feature. She's also clearly wearing a thong. That's not my favorite part of this sculpture. Note also the ripple effects in the water, which is sort of cool, honestly. I'll mention here that her hands and feet are really fantastically done: individual fingers with knuckle creases--same with her toes--and her left foot shows clear bone structure.

Here's the whole figure, base 'n' all. You can see the stand for the water, and the hole where Kasumi's foot fits in. To get her on the base, you put her foot in at an angle and rotate her body to where it's currently sitting on the "poolside." My policy--which has worked just fine so far--is to not mess with my cast-off figures once I figure out which outfit I want them in. Like I said, it's a pain to keep changing up their appearance, although it does offer some variety.

I do have a difficult time deciding which of my figures is my favorite, but Kasumi here might be tied with Kokoro and Velvet for that particular medal. She's a really quality sculpture with a good base and very few flaws. She was not cheap ($100), but she was much cheaper than I would've gotten off the internet (add shipping), so I'm happy I found her. The base is 6.5" long, and the top of her head is 7.5" heigh on the base. She's not too big, but consistent with the size of Kokoro (who's from the same series). They look good together--I'll have to post a picture of them both when I review Kokoro.

Dear Spambot Inventors: Please Die. In Fire.

2010-08-05T23:28:00.001-07:00

You readers may have noticed an uptick in the number of crafty spambots that have infiltrated my blog's clearly futile attempts at security. I don't know if there's a solution, exactly, but I do intend to take this weekend to thoroughly clear every spam comment from the back catalogue. This may take over an hour, but I am prepared. Besides, I have two disks of Justice League to keep me company. I could readily begin the purge tonight, but I would so like to draw before bed. Even some simple stick figures would be nice. It's been so very long since I achieved quality work.

Also, regarding this post's heading: I wish nothing but agonizing harm to the inventor(s) of said spambots. There are few subgroups of humanity I dislike more: Nazis, Islamic terrorists, teenagers who think they've "figured it out," and the entire cast of Sex & the City. My wife wants to "be" Carrie Bradshaw, somehow failing to realize that Carrie Bradshaw is a terrible human being. At any rate, the investor(s) of spambots fall into a similar camp. Lower than Nazis, but higher than the redhead.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Kasumi (Dead or Alive)

2010-08-03T00:10:00.000-07:00

Look, everyone! It's the figure that got me into this goddamn expensive hobby in the first place. This is BOME Kasumi figure, available in white (shown), blue, and black. That last one can only be bought online, I guess. For those who care, Kasumi is from the PS2/Xbox/360 series Dead or Alive, a surprisingly robust fighting franchise that employs lots of counters, cheap end bosses, and beautiful women with (often) giant racks. Kasumi is actually one of the smaller-chested females in the series, but this is not a fact that figure sculptors have ever actually acknowledged. I guess I'm okay with that. The series jumped the shark in the last few years and ditched the male characters and the fighting mechanic altogether for three volleyball titles, in which our girls wear itty bitty teenie weenie bikinis and display some very bizarre breast physics.

Funny story about this figure. First, she was cheap: a mere $20. Second, once my wife saw her, she was kind of appalled, complaining that Kasumi's rack was hanging out. Have you seen my other figure reviews? It's clear that objection doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Hell, even my previous figure reviews have been downright tame compared to my upcoming figures. That's not...that doesn't mean I'm into the freaky stuff or anything. No tentacles, porn, or any combination of those two words. I'd also like to mention, again, that Kasumi here was $20. The most expensive figure (really more of a statue) in my collection was nine times that amount. And she was on sale, for God's sake. And no, it's not that Alphamax Mai Shiranui who I mentioned several weeks ago. She's actually significantly more expensive.

Hey, how'd you like to know abut this particular figure? She's really quite detailed. There's a detachable knife sheath on her back, although the knife itself can't be removed. The knife's hilt has some cotton ball things attached to it, which is nice. I guess. She's got thigh-high leggings and shield things on her feet, and similar...um...things on her arms. What's nice is that the wrist and foot shield things are clearly separate elements. Her kimono (or whatever that is) is open and breezy, and secured 'round her waste by a pink band.

I like her stance. That might seem like a wierd thing to say, but it's confident and statuesque. Shoulders back, leg forward, chest...uh...out. Can't say the same for our girl's expression, which is dull and doll-like. I want a girl ready for a fight, not a girl pretending to be ready for a fight. Although, honestly, in the games, Kasumi is not most aggressive character in the game. She's almost apologetic when she wins a fight.

And here we have her breasts. They're big, but not overdone. This may seem like a minor complaint, but it almost feels like they're too big across for their...depth. Does that makes sense? You'd have to see it, I guess. I should make mention of her hair: it's reddish orange and translucent, like Batgirl's hair. I like the effect--the hair glows in good lighting. What's unfortunate is that her paint job is kind of cheap. After almost five years of sitting on a shelf, the kimono (or whatever it is) has several pin-shaped dark marks, especially up by her shoulders. There are also some marks on her thigh, although my friend Scott showed me how to clean off some of these spots by using a watered-down alcohol solution.

Kasumi is standing on a plastic street corner. There is but a single short peg holding her tall, much heavier figure on the ground. Merely tipping the contraption a hair results in Kasumi basically falling off. I've considered gluing her to the peg, but that seems so...you know...final. This shot also shows off those foot shield things and the straps surrounding them. Good detail work here.

Kasumi is about eight inches tall and not hard to find. There are still several white and blue verions in one of the local comic book stores up here (go figure). I've actually considered picking up the blue version, but then I remember that I could probably use the $20 for other things, like...other figures. Or Dragon Quset IX, which I bought over the weekend and have been absolutely loving. That's neither here nor there, though. The BOME Kasumi is a wonderful figure, well worth the entry fee. Kasumi is the only character I have more than one version of (stay tuned), and there are even more I'd like to have. Also, I apologize for the strange lighting in these photos. I've been taking all my figure pictures on my kitchen table, and the ambient light mixes oddly with the kitchen light. I'm going to try something different for my next figure review.

Tracy Responds

2010-07-28T19:23:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-24T19:18:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-22T12:33:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-17T19:26:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-14T13:34:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-10T23:20:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-07-08T13:11:00.001-07:00

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.

Power Girl Again

2010-06-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

I’ve recently come to appreciate the new comic series Power Girl, published by DC (duh), which concerns said heroine’s exploits on Earth-1 in New York City. This book began last year under the incredibly talented pencil of Amanda Conner, and the typewriting skills of Justin Grey and Jimmy Palmiotti. All three have carried the series through its first year, but unfortunately, all three left after the first year. Now, it’s being held aloft by the art of Sam Basri and the storyline of Judd Winick. It’s clearly not the same comic. Amanda Conner’s art is virtually without peer, and she’s absolutely perfect for the characterization of Power Girl: kind of brash, punch-first-ask-questions-later, but genuinely concerned about her friends and juggling being a superhero and a businesswoman. The comic had a bouncy, playful spirit without feeling the need to connect itself to the overlying DC Universe continuity. Grey & Palmiotti kept the stories largely self-contained, episodic affairs that anybody could read and enjoy.

And Conner’s art…my gosh, it’s beautiful and iconic. She’s got a retro feel to her, and brings that to every character she draws. Her expression work is incredible, and between her lines and the writers’ script, Power Girl has the “right kind” of sex appeal that I’ve commented on before. I guess you could call it “Pin-Up.” Power Girl’s ample proportions are always apparent, but never distracting. It’s refreshing, and lets you admire the rest of Conner’s art. By the way, the Internet informs me that she worked on Vampirilla for awhile. I must find those particular issues!

Anyway, the winning trio has moved on, apparently sparked by Conner herself, who found a monthly book too taxing (I don’t blame her). Grey & Palmiotti have suggested that without Conner’s artwork, the book just wouldn’t be the same, and have departed with her. I agree—the book is completely different now, even just one episode in.

Winick is basically starting from scratch, and this first issue of the second year of Power Girl even details the Kryptonian’s backstory (more or less). He also makes it very clear that this storyline will be heavily leveraged on prior knowledge of the DC Universe’s convoluted backstory. This is not something I’m familiar with. For Power Girl, I came for Conner’s art and stayed for the lightweight story. Now that both are gone, I’m feeling wary of tagging along any more. To be fair, the art is great. Unlike Conner, Barsi doesn’t seem to believe in blacklines, so the art and colors look more like paintings than Conner’s art. His characters are expressive, sure, but Power Girl’s personality seems harder than she was before. Very few jokes are cracked. Sure, the stakes are higher, but I guess that’s part of the problem. I’m also having a difficult time understanding what the heck is going on, since I’m not familiar with all that Infinite Crisis stuff that’s influenced the DC Universe.

Still, I’m willing to give it a chance. I’m less interested in PeeGee’s superheroine story at this point and more invested in her double-life as the head of Starr Industries, which seems like an angle Winick is going to develop more than Grey & Palmiotti did. Still, the absence of the original team is very apparent, and it remains to be seen how well the book will do without them. I’ll stick around for a few more issues, but the book is going to have to get real good real fast for me to keep on caring.

I Should, Like, Blog or Something.

2010-06-28T22:32:00.000-07:00

Things have been quiet, and not just because I've been reading a lot about ceratopsians and the Triassic. I'm also reading about big prehistoric cats and reviewing a bunch of video games. Reviewing things takes up a lot of time! But, perhaps more than the other things, the wife and I have been sucked into this old TV show, which we can't get enough of.

Spare time: gone. Which is a shame, because we could be, you know, shopping or whatever.

By the way, have you folks seen Toy Story 3 yet? Because if you haven't, you should. Like, instead of reading this sentence. Go, go, shoo! It's the best movie I've seen all year, and you will be reduced to a blubbering mass at the end.

Book Review: Triassic Life on Land

2010-06-21T23:59:00.000-07:00

Triassic Life on Land
Hans-Dieter Sues & Nicholas C. Fraser
Columbia University Press (2010)
280 pages, 115 illustrations
$65.00 at the Columbia University Press website

Good news, everyone! Triassic Life on Land may be the most comprehensive “go-to” resource for all your Triassic queries! Want to know where one might find Typothorax or Proganochelys? This book’s got the answer. Want to know the floral composition of Buntsandstein? Sues & Fraser have you covered. Ever wonder what kinds of bugs were around during the Early Triassic of Gondawana? You’ll find it in this book.

This is an impressively researched, well-written, detailed study of the first third of the Mesozoic, and I suspect it will become the standard resource for studies involving said time period and the plants and animals that lived during that time. I especially liked the authors’ discussions about the various arguments that have cropped up around such colorful topics as subdivisions of the Triassic and how long they lasted, environmental conditions across Pangea, and extinction rates at the end of the era. The book is definitely at its best when it’s summarizing ongoing research: history lessons are always welcome. Unfortunately, the majority of the text is dominated by what’s essentially a faunal and floral list of the organisms one finds in the different Triassic-bearing rocks around the world. Now, this is doubtlessly valuable information, and I’m unbelievably happy to have it within reach, but this isn’t the kind of book you read before bed or while sittin' ‘round the fire.

I did appreciate the fact that the authors briefly introduce most of the organisms featured in the Triassic with more than just an off-hand mention. You’ll learn things about the organisms themselves, although I suspect that if you’re the kind of person who’s excited about this book, you probably already have a pretty good idea what Drepanosaurus is, or why Erpetosuchus’ dentition is so strange. Happily, the book is filled to the brim with wonderful illustrations. These are largely skeletal restorations or illustrations of plants. Many of the archosaur illustrations are by Gregory S. Paul (a selling point!), and most of the other illustrations are pulled from their respective original publications. There are no life restorations of animals or environments, which is a shame, and I expected at least a series of plates in the middle of the book—commonplace for this sort of tome—but none are present.

The best illustration in the book, and the only one of its kind, is a B&W reproduction of a Douglas Henderson painting concerning a phytosaur (Smilosuchus) and several smaller, scampering crurotarsians. The picture sits at the front of the book and gives you some indication of things to come, but betrays your expectations a bit. I would have liked to have seen more paintings or drawings of the Triassic environment. This is partially my own neuroses: I have a hard time visualizing things from a description alone, especially extinct organisms. Triassic Life on Land goes to great length to describe the Coelophysis Quarry at Ghost Ranch and the animals and plants that lived there, for example, but an illustration would have really brought it home. When it comes to long-dead animals and plants, a picture is worth far more than one thousand words.

My only other complaint is that the book just sort of ends. One second, the authors are talking about insect diversity going into the Jurassic, and the next second, we’re on the glossery. It’s sudden, and kind of jarring. There’s no “wrap-up” chapter, conclusion, or epilogue. The book just comes to a close without announcing that it’s doing so. In fact, the last three chapters of the book suggest that more could be written. The third-to-last chapter is a look at two particular Triassic environments and the organisms within (Solite Quarry and Madygen Formation). I’m not certain why these two formations were not covered in the other 90% of the book. They’re not especially noteworthy aside from documenting strange, controversial taxa (Longisquama, Scleromochlus). I don’t think they’re any more complete or illuminating than other places. At least, if they are, the authors don’t address how or why. Then there's a chapter about floral and faunal turnover during the entirety of the Triassic, which, if you'd been paying attention up until this point, you'd pretty much know.

The last chapter is about the Triassic-Jurassic extinction and the various theories that attempt to explain it. It’s the most interesting chapter in the book, and what I found interesting is that the evidence isn’t particularly convincing for any one scenario. The press release made a big deal about how the Triassic is where modern ecosystems are set up, but information to that regard is surprisingly scarce in the book. One could probably write an entire volume about this concept and its implications, or at least a chapter, but there is very little of it overall--just touches here and there throughout the text.

For the Triassic enthusiast out there, Triassic Life on Land is a very valuable, comprehensive, up-to-date reference book, providing quick access to a ton of Triassic information. However, I wouldn’t recommend the book to anyone else except maybe paleo-artists, who will swoon over the wealth of skeletal reconstructions offered in the book. There are some damn good dicynodont skeletons in particular, and even a few rhynchosaurs and aetosaurs. I would caution other readers, though: if you’re a casual paleontology fan or somebody who doesn’t care all that much about the Triassic, then the book is probably not for you. Like I said before, it’s very dry, and clearly a reference book. This is not bad—it’s great for a certain audience—but it’s by no means easy reading, and its subject matter is very specific. For its intended readership, though, this is a must-buy.

Recommended for Fans (of the Triassic)

Experimenting

2010-06-17T23:17:00.001-07:00

If I ever wrote a fanfic (and I'm not saying I will), it would be about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, although they wouldn't be teenagers any more. They'd be middle-aged, living separate lives. Donatello (above) would found a successful tech engineering firm, specializing in cybernetics. I have ideas for all four turtles, and as I come up with designs for each one, I'll post them here. Do you readers like the simplified head? Does it still read as a Ninja Turtle?

Look! It's Diabloceratops!

2010-06-17T23:02:00.000-07:00

Gotta wonder how well he plays the fiddle.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Diana Prince (Wonder Woman)

2010-06-12T21:19:00.000-07:00

After the anime-heavy Power Girl last time, I'm ready to move onto something a little more respectable. Here's another entry in the Ame-Comi line, and the last figure in that series I bothered to buy. Diana Price is, as the picture indicates, Wonder Woman. Everybody loves Wonder Woman except DC, who has rebooted her like eight times since she was created. To be fair, Diana has some issues that keep her from being awesome: lame villains, an invisible plane, and a lasso as her primary weapon. Sometimes she can fly, and she's usually super-strong, but there's never been a solid base, here. Of course, we all really fell in love with Linda Carter, not Wonder Woman herself. So there's that.

Wonder Woman is definately one of my favorite figures because the designer took so many great risks with her costume, and I think they all pay off. My biggest beef with Wonder Woman's traditional costume is that it's glaringly patriotic. Diana's from ancient Greece, for pity's sake, not the Midwest. Her costume should reflect her own country, not the one she ends up living in. This figure's costume has red, white, and blue, not in an obnoxious way. This look more like a costume that an Athenian princess might actually wear. I like how relatively spartan it is: the breastplate is held on by straps, and the one spaulder is on the same arm as her shield. She shield is very awesome.

Here's a picture that shows the details of the costume. The breastplate is nicely defined, and the "rim" shows up as a "W". The straps have their own inserts, and there's a belt for holding that ridiculous lasso. The lasso is real string, by way. That's a nice touch. Like I said, I really like Diana's shield. It's layered and looks something like a turtle shell. The spaulder is cool, and a bunch of accessory belts loop around her neck and shoulders. One interesting design desicision was to make Diana's hair long and tentacle-like. You can especially see that in the next picture.

I don't know how much I love the hair-tentacle look, but it's unique, and it frames her upper body pretty well. It also sort of masks the fact that her head is actually very small. I like the little headpiece she has: it's simple but effective. We'll look at her awesome sword in a minute, but I'll also take this opportunity to mention that, compared to Batgirl and Power Girl, Wonder Woman has a pretty conservative bra size. There's not even cleavage coming from the breastplate. Normally I'd find this irritating, but I'm okay with it for this figure. It works.

Here's a picture of her lower half. The thing to take away here is that, like Power Girl, Wonder Woman has very short shins (and feet). The detail on her boots is pretty fantastic, though: there are even little wings on the backs. However, she's wearing heels, and her left heel is a little lengthier than her right one. Thus, she can't stand on her own: she needs the help of a J-hook. If you've never used a J-hook before, join the club! It's basically an L-shaped thing that sticks into the back of Wonder Woman and forces here into a standing position.

Here's the hole in Diana's back. Unfortunately, it doesn't really match the hook's terminal end. You have to really fiddle with the fit to get it right--the correct pose will have the base of the hook basically between Diana's feet, not behind her. I'm not a fan of the J-hook, and the manufacturer assumes that if you're buying this figure, you must have experience with J-hooks, because they didn't include instructions. By the way, I'm glad Ame-Comi downplayed the silly bracelets--she only has one, and it's not all that special. My friend Erik would say that Diana has no ass, which is true. I would counter that a big ass would be difficult to cover with that star-spangled cloth.

Here's the base with the hook attached. The base of the hook securely fits into the round base via peg-and-hole. It can be rotated, but not much. How 'bout that cool sword? I promised we'd take a better look at it!

The sword is huge, and when I first got Diana, I didn't know how to put the sword in her hand. Her fingers don't bend, and the end of the sword's handle was too big to slide into her palm. But wait--the end of the handle actually pops out so that it can be threaded through her palm and recapped on the other side. Poifect! Wonder Woman was the first Ame-Comi figure to cost $60, which I happily paid in this case. There's a second version of her out now, holding a Medusa head, and clearly from the hands of a different sculptor. I don't like it as much as this original one. Ame-Comi is also coming out with a new varient of THIS figure, with a different color scheme. It's not as dynamic as this one. Princess Diana is a hair taller than Batgirl and Power Girl because of her 'do, but it's not really noticeable. She's a fantastic addition to any superheroine colletion, and I can't recommend her enough, if you can still find her.

Zach's Figure Reviews: Karen Starr (Power Girl)

2010-06-10T22:47:00.000-07:00

I'm back for another exciting figure review. Yesterday we stared at Barbara Gordon, and today we'll be tackling Superman's cousin, Kara Zor-L. On Earth, she assumes the identity of Karen Starr and runs a successful engineering firm. She's currently starring in her own mini-series, illustrated by Amanda Conner. Really top-shelf work. The writing is similarly excellent. It's a shame the team is leaving after a scant twelve issues, because it's one of the better comics I've read in a long time. This particular version of Power Girl is another Ame-Comi creation, and more distinctly anime-inspired than Batgirl was.

The most alarming aspect of this figure is how much the designers changed Power Girl's outfit. It's usually pretty basic: white bodysuit, red cape, blue gloves and boots, and a golden shoulderpad and chain. Here is a good example of her modern costume. This statue's giant chain is the only real annoyance. She doesn't even have a shoulderpad for it to attach to--the chain just sort of begins at her neck and attaches to her back. The practicality of such an accessory is hard to justify in the comic, but here? Even moreso.

It's not obvious from the front, but in lateral view, you can see how exaggerated her knee posture is. They're apparently reversable, which is a super-power I didn't know Power Girl had. Take that, Superman! She's got a little more ass than Batgirl, and a lot more breast, too (we'll get to that in a minute). Overall, I like her pose--it's clearly inspired by comic art--but her proportions are a little odd. And I don't just mean her waist-to-bust ratio, either. She's got ridiculously long legs and a very short torso. I blame the anime influence.

Here's a good look at her cape. Power Girl has always had a strange cape. It's more of a ribbon than a proper cape, trailing behind her as she flies through the sky. I like the zig-zag pattern it adopts here. The cape frames her well from the front. This shot also gives you a look at her legs. Look at how long her thighs are, at the expense of the shins! There's also a pretty good shot of her gauntlets, which move been upgraded from here gloves to computer terminals. I'll have a better picture of that later. Also note the overall color scheme: whites and blues, which I like.

And here's the oblique view. The chain is pretty noticable now, as are her exaggerated knees. This photo also makes clear how ginormous her rack is. You could eat dinner off those things. Of some concern is Karen's bubbly expression: it doesn't look playfully determined so much as bubbleheaded beach blonde. One of the things I like most about Power Girl as a character is that she's well aware of her...ahem...assets, but approaches it with humor and sarcasm. A knowing smile or raised eyebrow, that sort of thing. "My eyes are up here," she might say to somebody oggling her chest. There's none of that here.

No, this Karen Starr looks kind of empty-headed. Again, I blame the anime influence. I suspect that Power Girl had a different designer than Batgirl or Wonder Woman. I like her hairstyle, though: it's simple and the proper length, and ever so slightly fall in front of her eyes. Her eyelids have purplish eye shadow, by the way, whcih is a nice touch. It's also worth mentioning that her computer...things are actually attached to her gloves by a yellow band, so they're not actually part of the glove. Still, their purpose isn't exactly clear. In the comic, Karen Starr is the first to admit that she punches first, asks questions later. For communications, she uses a basic earbud headset.

Here's a picture that illustrates my problems with that chain thing. It doesn't seem to function, and it's too big. You might also notice how far up her "boots" go, although I hestitate to assign the word "boot" to the blue part or her leg. Oh, one unfortunate misstep for this figure: it's very clear that Power Girl is made up of two parts: legs and upper body. You can clearly see the mold articulation at the top of her hip, where the skintone meets the bodysuit. There's a little bit of a rim to her hip. It's completely unnoticable at any distance, but upon close inspection, it's pretty obvious.

Here's the other end of the chain. It just kind of attaches to her neck AND the ribbon cape, which makes absolutely no sense (what if the chain pops off? What then, Karen?). Despite my dislike for the computer thingie, it is nicely detailed, with buttons and a little screen. I like to think that it functions as an old-school communicator--the contact's face shows up on the little screen, and Power Girl presses the green button to work the comm. But why would she have one on BOTH gauntlets? And what's the circular disk above each hand? Am I just over-thinking this?

And here's a look at the entire chain, which, again, is too big. Notice the two circles on her torso: the top one is some kind of gold gem, and the bottom one is a hole in the suit, exposing her navel. The anime stylings of the face are also pretty blatant from this angle. Also, I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but GOOD GOD she has big breasts. Just think about it for a second: they're being held up and together by whatever superstrong material that bodysuit is made of. I can't figure out how this version of Power Girl remains upright, especially with her feet so far behind the rest of her (because of the exaggerated knees).

Is this a gratuitous breast shot? Probably. But it is also illustrative of Power Girl's asymmetric posture. Also, check out the wierd "handles" on her boots. Again, they serve no purpose. Power Girl is a good figure, but not great. Certainly not to the same quality (to my mind) as Batgirl. Being one of the earlier Ame-Comi figures, Power Girl came in at $50. Every Ame-Comi figure since has retailed for $60. She's the same height as Batgirl, too: about 8.75 inches tall. She articulates to her base via pegs under her feet. Unfortunately, given her pose, she's a bit more unstable than Batgirl is. I don't know if I'd pay the same amount for her now, knowing what I do about her. If you have a fondness for the character or just really like busty anime figures, you might look online to see if you can find her for cheaper.