New Yard of Bones

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The big news this week has been Titanoceratops, a still unpublished "new" ceratopsid that might actually be Pentaceratops.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!

New Year Boneyard

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!"

Torosaurus latus is not Triceratops sp.

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?

Xenosuchus prognathus is an Archosaur

A note to the readers: this post deals with the "Alt-Permian" project that Will Baird and I have been working on for a few years. Perhaps you'll recall the Barbouronopsid and Neo-Dicynodonts from not too long ago. As a result, Xenosuchus prognathus is, sadly, not a real animal. But Will and I are having some fun with it.

Xenosuchus prognathus is a medium-sized crocodile-like archosaur from the Late Xenopermian of Ural region of Russia. It is thought to have occupied a freshwater niche that has not been filled by the giant marine hovasaurs. While its postcranial remains--what few there are--are largely uninformative, the excellent preservation of the skull bones allow much insight into the lifestyle and phylogenetic affinities of Xenosuchus. Its most remarkable feature is the fan-shaped expansion of the premaxilla in dorsal view.

The rostrums of Proterosuchus (left) and Xenosuchus (right). Not the fan-shaped expanion of the premaxilla, as well as the elongation of those bones toward greatly retracted external nares, in the latter.

The premaxilla is equiped with long spear-like teeth that lack serrations. The maxilla has small, subconical teeth running down its entire length. The fan-like shape of premaxilla, coupled with the specialized dentition, has been interpreted indicitive of a picsivorous diet. While very little of the mandible has been preserved, the anteriormost tip of the dentary is. Interestingly, the dentary is downturned, and the structure of the teeth match those of the premaxilla. However, the dentary is not laterally expanded, instead retaining a weak U-shaped symphesis. The tip of the dentary fits entirely within the premaxilla.

The smooth dorsal and ventral borders of a small antorbital fenestrae, probably triangular in shape, are preserved on the partial lacrimal and jugal bones. More interesting is the very small maxillary fenestrae which appears just caudoventrally to the external nares. Its smooth margins suggest that the fenestra is not an artifact of preservation, but whether it is the result of bone reabsorbtion or pathology is unknown at this time.

The orbit is small and divided into two parts by the intrusion of the postorbital, bringing to mind such an occurance in many rauisuchian-grade crurotarsians. The upper half is roughly D-shaped while the lower half is triangular. Bits and pieces of the sclerotic ring are preserved in the upper half of the orbit. The frontals are small but form a significant portion of the orbit's dorsal border. The postorbital is a large, plate-like bone that is one of the largest bones of the skull. It is matched in size by the jugal, which has a large ascending process that forms a significant portion of the temporal fenestra's cranial margin.

Most interestingly, the parietal bar is strongly reduced to a nub-like process while the squamosal bones are elongate and curve gently outward in dorsal view. The parietal does not articulate distally with the squamosals, and the skull's back half resembles a "W" in dorsal aspect. The temporal fenestrae are vertically elongate, bordered by the jugal, postorbital, squamosal, and quadrate. The posterior half of the articular is poorly preserved, but reveals a short postarticular process, indicating weak jaw-closing power.


A reconstruction of the skull of Xenosuchus prognathus. Rugose nasals restored on the basis of small rugose bone fragments found near the dorsal margin of the skull.

Though a basal member of the group, Xenosuchus is most assuredly an archosaur based on its socketed teeth and antorbital fenestrae. It most closely resembles Proterosuchus fergusi, another semi-aquatic form with a unique "hooked" premaxilla. The two genera are of comparible sizes as well: both are between two and three meters long.

Return of the Boneyard

Welcome back ot the Boneyard, ladies and germs, the blogosphere's premier paleontology blog carnival. It began long long ago on Brian Switek's original Laelaps blog and moved from blog to blog until its once-predictable occurrence was rare. Well today, dear readers, we have an extra-special GIGANTIC double-issue of the Boneyard for you. Let's get right to it--cast your eyes forth at the parade of links before you, and digest the sweet, succulent information contained therein!

The biggest news in the last few months has been the discovery of "Ida," a basal primate from the Messel beds of Germany. The initial media trainwreck irritated some and provided comic fodder for others. Eventually, Brian Switek organized a carnival for for the little gal. Thanks for making this Boneyard a little easier, Brian!

From primates, we move to sauropods--those giant dinosaurs whose heads how crane ever higher thanks to those SV-POW guys. They've actually got a bunch of (what amounts to) supplementary information on their humble blog. Here's what they have to say about heads, DinoMorph, necks in living animals, more against DinoMorph, the sadness that is T.rex's neck (drink!), the implications, and of course, horizontal semicircular canals. And just in case you're wondering what Darren Naish had to say about it all, well, here you go.

Darren also recently discussed the "Birds Come First" theory of avian evolution, and why it FAILS.

Traumador, that adorable tyrannosaur, has been busy lately. He's posted a watchable blog about microfossils as well as a handy field guide to himself, terrifyingly huge monitors, obscure pterosaur Cearadactylus, one of the stranger therapsids I've run across, and finally, giant ground sloths. Talk about diversity!

Speaking of therapsids and diversity, have you seen the new Art Evolved! show about Permian synapsids! There's a secondary "example gallery" lower down. Give it a shot, you'll learn something! Nima has a great breakdown of what a synapsid is over on his blog, too. Speaking of synapsids, Bora reports on a wonderful new mammoth fossil that's been in the news. And while this isn't necessarily paleontology, John McKay details the strange case of Teutobochus. Fascinating!

And of course there's plenty of art to go around. Angie has some really beautiful work up on her blog these days: Cryolophosaurus, a wonderful CG Maiasaura, and a three-part series on a CG Parasaurolophus. Wonderful work, Angie! Can't wait to see your next Art Evolved entry, if you're doing one...Mo Hassen describes three recent creations over at his blog, as well. Finally, Dave Bressan posted some awesome pictures up at his blog that you would all do well to check out.

Have to point these out: David Hone has written two wonderful posts about those whackjobs who comment on our paleo blogs telling use that pterosaurs are lizards or birds are crurotarsians or theropods are paraphyletic or whatever. This is required reading, people! Here's his first volley, and here's the fatal blow. Absolutely wonderful posts. David's blog is just plain awesome, and if you're not reading it currently, you should.

As for me, I written very little in the past few months, but I'd like to think that what I HAVE written has been high quality (cognitive dissonance, I'm sure). Check out my post on everyone's favorite fuzzy ornithischian, Tiangulong, Puijila, and the first two parts of my Horns & Spikes series: postorbital horns and nasal horns!

I'll keep adding posts through the weekend if you folks give me the links! Hope you enjoyed this exciting edition of the Boneyard!

The Coming of the Boneyard

Remember, dear readers: The Boneyard, the interweb's premier paleo blog carnival, is coming once more to my humble blarg on June 12th. If you have submissions to submit, I suggest submitting them via either the comments or by email. I will, of course, be mining my blogroll and beyond for interesting posts (the Ida carnival, for instance) but I always like to see original content. Which reminds me, now that I'm back from E3, I really need to get going on my own Boneyard entry...

Ze Bonyard's Triumphant Return!

Remember the Boneyard? If not, click the corresponding tag. I will return to this humble blog on June 12th, so get those entries written and submitted to me either via comment or email (sillysaur at gmail dot com). I'm going to try and include important stories from the last few months, so anything you've written about Puijila, Tianyulong, Miragaia, etc., include it here. The Synapsid Art Show will be linked to, all that good stuff. Get those entries in, dear readers! This will be epic!

My Favorite Museum(s)

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my Boneyard submission, better late than never!

My Favorite Museum (Royal Tyrell Museum of Natural History)
I haven't been to the RTM in a decade, but some of my most treasured memories rest in its hallowed halls. It was, in fact, the first museum I'd ever been to, probably when my age was still measured in the single digits. I don't remember the details, but I do remember the feeling of awe which said visit inspired. When I was fifteen or sixteen, I traveled there again and was greeted by some awesome displays. The building's exterior is decorated by plenty of life-size models of Albertan taxa including Pachyrhinosaurus (with curious double nasal horns), Albertosaurus, and Ornithomimus. The exhibits inside were even better. An entire room was dedicated to curious theropod dinosaurs. I forget the exact taxa, but there was a tyrannosaur, ornithomimosaur, dromaeosaur, and abelisaur. The main area had that famous Tyrannosaurus mount alongside a Triceratops, and Edmontonia and...I seem to remember a Stegosaurus, which doesn't seem right. Edmontosaurus too, of course. There was another room featuring Cambrian critters with beautiful glass displays featuring what appeared to be floating invertebrates!

That's all I remember of the museum. I hear they have a kickass ceratopsid exhibit now, so I really want to go back. If I do, I kind of want to meet Phil Currie (as I missed him at SVP)! Drumheller in general is a Mesozoic celebration, with sometimes strange-looking dinosaur sculptures dotting the town. My family travelled to Dinosaur Provincial Park last time we went to Calgary, but they were closed due to a power failure. There was a Styracosaurus statue in front of the visitor center. I know Traumador has a special place in his heart for RTM, and I don't blame him. It's really a wonderful place.

The Chicago Field Musem
I've also been here twice, once when Sue was first erected (ohhhh it was so cool) and again two years ago. Not a whole lot changed, from what I remember, but that's alright, because the Field Museum rules! Of course, you are greeted by Sue the T.rex when you walk in the door. I was actually disappointed last time I was there because her "wishbone" (proven now to be a pathological pair of gastralia) was not fixed. I would think the Field Museum would keep up with the literature and keep their most prized dinosaur up to date! I wanted to show somebody proof, but the copy of The Carnivorous Dinosaurs in the bookstore was shrinkwrapped. Perhaps next time! The Field Museum's dinosaur hall is great, if a little disorganized. Interestingly, Buitreraptor was in there, standing under a Deinonychus during my most recent visit. I also saw a full-scale Majungasaurus skull, and it was a lot smaller than I thought it was. Even better than Sue, though, I love the pair of Herrerasaurus sculptures that greet you to the dinosaur hall. One is a skeletal restoration, and the other is a life restoration by...I'm guessing Stephen Czerkas. I was surprised at how big the animal was. You think of basal dinosaurs as small, but Herrerasaurus would have no trouble overpowering a person!

You'd think the Alaska Museum of Natural History would be on my list, as I've done so much work there, but until they put some kind of plaque under that T.rex skull, acknowledging all the work Scott, Brian, Raven and I put into it, the AMNH stays off my list.

The Boneyard: The Next One

Friends, colleagues, lend me your stapes. It is time once again for The Boneyard, a paleo blog carnival spawned by Brian Switek of Laelaps fame. I have been tapped to host this month, so sit back and enjoy the fun! Sadly, without an exciting paleo story in the news, the fires of the blogosphere have gone unstoked. That doesn't mean that bloggers don't have anything to add. Quite the opposite, in fact! Creative posts abound, and so the journey begins thusly!

We begin with two exciting new additions to the blogroll: Dinosaur Home and Renaissance Oaf. The former is an information site while the latter is devoted primarily to art. Try 'em out!

Traumador invites us to visit a wonderful dinosaur museum and gives some interesting information about the unicorn horn of Tsintaosaurus. Traumador also invites us to gleam a sequel to his older "Meet a Prehistoric Creature" post with this cunning entry.

Always curious about the environments of bygone eras, Will Baird managed to scrounge together an excellent post on the ecology of the Carbon Age while getting ready to launch a rocket. Scroll down on his blog for more on that particular adventure.

Ever wonder what ostracods are? Did you know that they've been preserved with soft tissue? Get the whole story at The Other 95%!

Dave Hone waxes philosophic about scientists, ivory towers, and the unwashed masses at Archosaur Musings. Speaking of philosophy, Chris Taylor has a post about taxonomy: science or not?

Good ol' Darren Naish has been wondering about dromaeosaurs lately. Really, what is up with their stiff tails and suspect climbing habits?

What about this carnival's founding father, Brian? He's been posting a lot about his book lately, but has he had time to come up with his famously long uber-posts? Yes indeed! A variety of topics our boy covers, including book review, old dinosaur serials, and T. H. Huxley!

As for myself, I've been sadly lacking on significant paleo posts, as I've been worrying too much about Soulcalibur IV and PAX. But there have been a few offerings: A review of that terrible Jurassic Fight Club show, and a description of Eowyvern dorsetti.

That's it for this edition of The Boneyard! Don't know where the next one's gonna be. Come one, come all for volunteers, and I hope you've enjoyed this month's edition!

Behold: The Boneyard!

Don your digging cap, and head over to The Dragon's Tales for a hefty dose of The Boneyard XII, which has little if anything to do with Albertosaurus. Although that genus is known from extensive bone bed remains...

The Boneyard XI

The Boneyard? It's back! Laelaps' premier blog carnival makes its second appearance on my humble blog, and more than a month has passed since its last iteration. Here now, dear readers, are this edition's submissions!

The big news this last month was Indohyus, a new basal artidactyl that forms a sister group to whales. Several bloggers put their thoughts to keyboard. Of course, Brian starts thing off nicely as he shakes the cetacean family tree. The Hairy Museum of Natural History also chimed in, as did Pondering Pikaia, The Loom, Greg Laden's Blog, and of course, When Pigs Fly Returns.

Amanda from Self-Designed Student has some excellent offerings this time around, including a beautiful Triceratops painting and a cautionary tale about the Irish Elk, which is neither Irish or an elk.

Julia, that most Ethical of Palaeontologists, has some fine posts up this month. There's the funny, but also sad question about Carcharodontosaurus, some humorous dinosaur misconceptions, and a "Merry Christmas" via giant freaking rat.

My buddy Darren Naish has taken a break from anurans lately to focus on...well, salamanders. I sense a new series! There were also those those two posts about caecilians, the strangest living amphibians of all. He also dissects claims that pterosaurs are alive and kicking. Rubbish, I know. But perhaps his most entertaining posts have been the castration of a terrible book, How (not) to Keep Dinosaurs, and then, perhaps, how to really keep dinosaurs.

Speaking of pterosaurs, you'd all do well to check out David Hone's entertaining pterosaur-related blog, in which Dave does a whole lot of good-natured ribbing, but you'll learn more than you care to about pterosaur, archosaurs, and the world of paleo publication that you ever did before! And ask questions, because he eagerly answers them!

If paleo isn't your thing, Christopher Taylor has blessed us with Circus of the Spineless a blog carnival dedicated to invertebrates in all their glory. He also has a great post about the perils of modern taxonomy.

Will Baird gives us the low-down on Cretaceous glaciation. There's also a teaser for a post that will never come to fruition! Politics are great, Will, but get back to the paleo!

Manabu Sakamoto guides us through the process of drawing a gorgeous Allosaurus fragilis. Nicely done, Manabu. Wish I had those mad skillz.

Phew. If I type target=_blank>one more time I'm going to kill somebody! But I must press on!

My own offerings are quite meager this month. I was stuck in Kansas for two weeks without access to a scanner, so I wasn't very motivated to do some big uber-post. But I do have one or two posts of note. Mike Skrepnick and I had a discussion about restoring dinosaurs. I offered my opinion on the Stygimoloch, Pachycephalosaurus, Dracorex debate, and I wrote about what I do and do not want to see in the inevitable Jurassic Park 4: Dinosaurmaggedon.

And then we get to the Boneyard's founder. The man has way too much time on his hands, because he makes all of us paleo-bloggers look like lazy bums ever week! Despite this, his writing style is sharp, entertaining, often witty, and always enlightening. It's difficult to pick just a few key posts from all of Brian Switek's lovely prose, but I'll give it a shot.

We all like spinosaurs, right? Well, is that crocodile analogue worth its weight in fish? turns out, it might be! Brian offers an excellent rebuttal to a recent axe-grinding author who claimed that, obvously, Psitacosaurus' quills are not analogous to protofeathers. Although, after reading the paper itself, the reason is not exactly clear. He also discusses evolution's arrow, or lack thereof.

There it be, folks. Enjoy the Boneyard, and if I get any more submissions today or tomorrow, I shall add them, just because I care.

The Triumphant Return of...The Boneyard!

Get those submissions in, people, either through the comments here or email. After an overly-long absence, The Boneyard is coming back full swing here on When Pigs Fly Returns. Surely you've all managed to write something awesome over the last two months! Let me know of your submissions, and they shall be included. I hope to have the new edition up by Saturday, so get crackin'!

Der Boneyardenhausensteinen

It is with great honor and I bring you The Boneyard #4! Brian Switek's much beloved blog carnival comes to When Pigs Fly Returns, and I aim to please. So without further ado, I give to you...the submissions:

The big paleo news this week was a paper by Sellers & Manning which uses computer models to estimate running speeds for various theropod dinosaurs. The biggest surprise is that Compsognathus, that smallest of Jurassic tetanurines, somehow manages to outpace us all at 40 mph. I'm skeptical, sure, but it's a good read nonetheless!

Sellers, W. I. & Manning, P. L. (2007) Estimating Dinosaur Maximum Running Speeds Using Evolutionary Robotics Proceedings of the Royal Society B: published online.

Julia Heathcote, that most ethical of paleontologists, has a nice little reaction to the article at Faster Dinosaur! Kill! Kill! She also has a fairly tongue-in-cheeck rundown of some famous songs involving everyone's favorite Mesozoic ornithodirs: Songs About Dinosaurs

Julia's husband's uncle has also posted his take on dinosaur running speeds and dinosaur intelligence. They're quite funny and hey, he brings up some good points!

Will Baird promises an excellent post about the little known Late Triassic mass extinction which arguably paved the way for the dinosaurs to take over and wiped therapsids off the planet. They will be missed! Head over to The Dragon's Tales for more.

Laelaps has two excellent posts this week. First he discusses a little known l carnivore with the wierdest dentition I've ever seen. That would be Thylacoleo carnifex, a critter I would not want to mess with. Laelaps also wrote this week about the downright laughable Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I encourage everyone to check it out, as it's not only entertaining, but I use the term "sizeable swellings" on an almost daily basis now.

Pondering Pikaia has a wonderful, if brief, post about potential problems in sequencing a neanderthal genome. I wasn't even aware of this story, so kudos to Anne-Marie for pointing it out.

Over at Everything Dinosaur, there's a report of the oldest orchid fossils found preserved in amber--on an ancient bumblebee! Now if that's not direct evidence for active pollination by insects, I don't know what is. Head over to Everything Dinosaur for the whole story.

I know his latest post is a month old, but Mark Witton has obviously had pterosaurs on the brain lately. Click that link for some beautiful pictures and more information on some of the stranger species than you ever thought was out there.

Finally, I've prepared my own epic post about pterosaurs and their murky origins. Just scroll down for that giant post, and I apologize for the spacing issues. I'm probably going to add to the post tonight, as I forgot to mention Rupert Wild's theory about pterosaur evolution, which is just as good today as it was in the early 1900's.

Many thanks to Brian (Laelaps) for letting me host the Boneyard this week!

Hosting the Boneyard

Well, friends, I have the honor and pleasure of hosting The Boneyard on September 1st. If you have any awesome paleo-related stories or posts you'd like me to link to, feel free to post them in the comments section of this post (you'll need an eBlogger account), or email me (zman1902@hotmail.com). I'll turn the spam filter down so that your emails actually reach my Inbox instead of my Junk folder.

Now, you may say, "Why not just get a Gmail account, Zach?" I once had a Gmail account, in fact, but Gmail screwed me by one day, without warning, canceling said account. That was after only a few months with Gmail. So screw you, Gmail. Hotmail is where it's at. For now. So send those submissions, folks--you've got until August 31st to write up something awesome.

Prehistoric Wierdness

In preparation for the upcoming Boneyard, I've compiled some original art. The general theme is "prehistoric wierdness," although a few of the critters are just incredible examples of convergence (which is wierd). So prepare to be amazed!

Carnotaurus sastrei (Bonaparte, 1985)
This is by far and away my favorite dinosaur. Abelisaurs, as a group, are my favorite theropods (as readers of the original When Pigs Fly surely know), and Carnotaurus seems to have been the pinnicle of these Gondawanna carnivores. The Abelisauridae is characterized by many odd features including a blunt yet tall skull, arms that make Tyrannosaurus look like a gibbon, and incredible head ornamentations. Carnotaurus is no exception, featuring large bull-like horns atop the skull, horny projections along the nasals, and skin impressions showing rows upon rows of tough scales and largish pointy scutes. The beastie was featured in the Disney movie Dinosaur and was, perhaps, the only dinosaur that was portrayed with any level of accuracy (aside from making it too big). The only other member of Carnotaurus' tribe, the Carnotaurini, Aucasaurus, oddly enough lacks the big brow horns of its sister species.

Effigia okeeffaea (Nesbitt & Norell, 2006)
This picture could probably be more detailed, but I honestly couldn't decide whether to give it dinosaur-like integument or crocodilian integument. One might think that this decision would be easy enough. Effigia is a dinosaur, right? Well, that's the amazing part--it's a crurotarian. That means Effigia is a whole lot closer to modern crocodilians than any dinosaur. Even stranger is the fact that Effigia turns up in the same place and time as Coelophysis, a Late Triassic theropod dinosaur. Looks like crocodilians figured out the bipedality thing a little too late, as theropods by then already had their foot through the door.
Still, Effigia is my favorite example of convergent evolution. Why its close relative, Shuvosaurus, was discovered, it was thought to be an incredibly primitive ostrich dinosaur. But an ostrich dinosaur in the Triassic? No way, right? Well, Effigia proved to be a sister taxon to Shuvosaurus, finally illuminating the latter's true position on the archosaur family tree. What's so fascinating is that Effigia has converged not just with theropods but also tetanurine theropods and the Ornithomimosauridae. It has a toothless beak, booted pubis, tridacyl pes, and various other dinosaurian features. Were it not for Effigia's crocodilian ankle joint (which makes me wonder how it's able to walk upright), paleontologists might still think that it, and Shuvosaurus, are early ornithomimosaurs!

Rodhocetus balochistanensis (Gingerich et al. 2001)
Just ten years ago, the ancestry of whales was a total mystery of paleontology. They were mammals, sure, but from what branch of the Mammalia family tree did they originate? Whales give birth to fully-developed young (unlike marsupials), so they are surely placentals. The earliest well-known whale was the unfortunately named Eocene giant, Basilosaurus. However, that taxon is clearly far removed from its ancestor and gave few clues about its ancestry. Paleontologists did, however, notice similarities between the teeth and overall cranial builds of Basilosaurus (and its close relative, Dorudon) and mesonychids, a group of generalized hooved carnivorous mammals that were the Paleocene equivalent of wolves.Things changed, however, in 2001, when nearly complete skeletons of an early aquatic whale, Rodhocetus, were discovered. Although previous finds, including terrestrial Pakicetus and Ichthyolestes, as well as semi-aquatic Ambulocetus had shown the transition from land to water, Rodhocetus preserved ankle bones which showed a direct connection with the artiodactyl ungulates, far from the mesonychids and closer to modern deer, goats, hippes, giraffes, and pigs.
Rodhocetus itself is unique in that it must have swam somewhat like an otter, but had much longer feet with which to propel itself forward. Its arms and hands were fairly short. This is the reverse from normal whales, in which the legs actually disappear completely in many taxa. Rodhocetus would have walked on the sides of its feet on land while it stood digigrade on its strong 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fingers. While Rodhocetus may have been bulkier than I interpret it above (fat stores and all), I drew it this way in order to show off the musculature and overall structure of the creature.

Henodus chelyops (von Huene, 1936)
I can hear you now--what's so special about a turtle? Well, friend, for one thing, this "turtle" has a ridiculously wide carpace that, as far as anyone can tell, is unique in that it's made of interconnected bony scutes instead of ribs. Also, it's got a pretty long tail for a turtle. It also has a long, but flat-faced skull in which the eyes and nostrils face straight forward. The animal's beak is complimented by a small row of balleen-like structures on either side of the jaw, making Henodus' diet a bit of a puzzle. Finally, and this is the wierdest thing--it's not a turtle.
It's not clear whether Henodus is a turtle mimic or it's the other way around, but this bizarre animal is a member of the Placodontia, one of the less famous groups of marine reptiles. Placodonts were fat, heavy little diapsids who had tweezer-like incizors followed by big, flat molars and palate teeth which they used to grab and crush molluscs and brachiopods.
Well, most placodonts did that. Henodus is a bit of a mystery, because its incizors were replaced by a large beak and it seems to have grown balleen along the sides of its mouth. Henodus is usually thought of as a kind of reptilian ray, living on the bottom of the seabed and filtering prey out of the silt and sand. Whether it really did this or not can probably never be known. But isn't it wierd? Also, this drawing took forever. Kudos to Darren Naish for sending me his placodont paper and better pictures of the bugger's skull and shell. I had to simplify the latter for my own piece of mind.

Arizonasaurus babbitti (Welles, 1947)
I'm extremely proud of this picture. I drew and inked it (see below), then handed that picture over to fellow paleoartist Scott Elyard of Coherent Lighthouse fame to use his all-powerful knowledge of Photoshop to paint this lovely digital mural. Arizonasaurus is actually very close to Effigia--they're both from the same major crurotarsian group, the Poposauridae. Arizonasaurus was fairly unknown until just a few years ago, when a nearly complete skeleton was unearthed in Arizona,* and revealed that the creature has a spectacular dorsal sail not unlike those of Dimetrodon, Edaphosaurus, Platyhystrix, Ouranosaurus, and Spinosaurus. Unlike all of those sail-backed critters, however, Arizonasaurus' sail begins caudally to the scapula. In most sail-backed animals, the neural spines begin growing taller at the cervical/dorsal contact, if not before. Thus, Arizonasaurus had a tall, yet oddly abbreviated sail. It also appeared to be plantigrade. Thanks again to Scott for painting this wonderful picture.

*I cannot abide the naming of fossil animals after the place they're discovered. I find it lazy and insulting to the animal itself--Arizonasaurus didn't call its home "Arizona." Surely, Welles could have come up with a more imaginative name. Perhaps, due to the original specimen's fragmentation, a more descriptive name could not be found. However, that doesn't excuse animals like Albertasaurus, Albertaceratops, Utahraptor, Utahdactylus, Edmontonia, Edmontosaurus, Alaskacephalus (if that's even a valid genus), etc. I mean, seriously, Albertaceratops is a centrosaurine with long brow horns and two small nasal horns. According to Wikipedia, the name Medusaceratops was being batted around for awhile. That's so much better! Hell, you could call it Eocentrosaurus and I'd be happier! Or maybe Dirhinoceratops, or SOMETHING that reflected its uniqueness in the greater Ceratopsidae. But no, we get Alberaceratops. *grumble grumble*

And that's the tour, folks, through the Hall of Prehistoric Wierdness. I might start doing this on a regular basis, although perhaps not quite so many drawings all at once in future outings.