Jurassic Park and a Career 20 Years In the Making

I didn't always want to be a paleontologist, despite what those who have known me for the last 20 years may say.

Before my fascination with ancient life, I was still interested in strange creatures - the ones from the movies. Before I knew I wanted to be a paleontologist, I dreamed of being a special effects and makeup wizard like Stan Winston, Rick Baker, and Tom Savini. This obsession started with a viewing of "An American Werewolf in London" when I was...probably too young. The groundbreaking special effects in that film (the shockingly realistic transformation scene in particular) instantly had me hooked.

Whenever a new horror or sci-fi film came out, I read as much about it as I could. How did they make that? How did they come up with the design for that creature? How did David Naughton go from being a "Pepper" to a monster rampaging through Piccadilly Circus?

I've written about this topic a little bit in my post on the dynamic status of Archaeopteryx, but this is where my person shift took place. Walking in the door from school and seeing the April 26, 1993 TIME magazine sitting on the table, the cover showing the reconstructions of bizarre new dinosaurs and the headline "The Truth About Dinosaurs" with the tag "Surprise: Just about everything you believe is wrong".
Eye-catching, to say the least.

This is the initial catalyst that started a series
of headaches for my parents throughout the 90's.

However, it wasn't just the cover story that caught my attention. The teaser in the upper right corner - "Plus: The Making of Spielberg's Jurassic Park" also piqued my interest. Also, embedded in this issue was an impressive two-page fold-out advertising the film; the classic T. rex logo opening up to a vast jungle canopy with tiny helicopters flying low among grazing sauropods.

While the feature article discussed new evidence for an evolutionary relationship between modern birds and extinct dinosaurs, the "making of" article was impressive as well.

However, I must at admit that I was a bit lost. The article talked about the animatronics and computer animation advancements engineered for the film, and discussed a film plot about "genetically engineered dinosaurs". I was in 5th grade. I didn't know the meaning of "genetic engineering". The word "engineering" in context of movie special effects gave me the following impression: This movie was going to be about a park of robotic dinosaurs that go haywire and run amok. (Ironically, at this point I was not yet aware of Michael Crichton's Westworld and the Simpsons had not yet done the famous "Itchy and Scratchy Land" episode...).

The title "Jurassic Park" sounded familiar as well. I vaguely remember seeing the book being sold in stores in 1990. Upon reading the TIME magazine issue, I asked my mom if she had ever read the book. While she hadn't read it, we did own a copy that she received as part of a "book of the month club"; destiny sat on our bookshelf and I didn't even know it.

Crichton's novel is a bit daunting to an 11 yr old 5th grader. I won't pretend I understood every single word or the various discussions taking place in the numerous "Control" chapters upon my first reading. At the time I was more focused on the dinosaur descriptions anyway.

Upon seeing the movie on June 11th, 1993 (first of four screenings) I was completely blown away. It became the only thing I talked about for the next few years, much to my parent's and friend's annoyance. I collected the toys. I had the posters. I had the bed sheets. My April 26th 1993 issue of TIME became a tattered and wrinkled passport that I read over and over again. My fascination with Jurassic Park started like my fascination with all monster movies; how did they do that? However this time as I researched the science behind the effects, I became entranced with the fascinating science more than the effects themselves.

While I had always been marginally interested in dinosaurs, this was the tectonic shift that changed everything. I started collecting books on dinosaurs, collecting local Ordocivian fossils from the dolostone quarries in Pecatonica, IL, and even started to harass the "famous" paleontologists I had read so much about. I was able to reach many of them by phone during their office hours, asking them questions for a few minutes about how they became paleontologists, what they studied, etc. As I had these brief conversations with John Ostrom, Jack Horner, and Robert Bakker, my excitement grew more and more.

Of all the conversations I had, Bakker was by far the most outgoing and talkative. He was encouraging and happily provided information on coming out on a dig at Como Bluff. In the summer of 1996 I went on my first dig at Como with Bakker and the Dinamation crew through the Tate Museum at Casper College.

Would you trust this man around
your son in the badlands of Wyoming?

I have heard rumors that astronauts who went to the moon found it difficult to top that experience when they returned. Regardless of the validity of this anecdote, I can relate. After discovering Apatosaurus nun-chucks, excavating a chewed megalosaurid femur, and finding shed baby theropod teeth, how do you go back to school and say "I'm not sure what I want to do when I grow up"?

At least once a year I revisit the Jurassic Park films and books. They have become a little dated, to be sure, but this is to be expected; while the science continues to advance, the films and books remain the same. No amount of updated CGI or 3D enhancements can really change them (you hear that, George Lucas...?). Divergences in the books and films are commonly critiqued, which is also to be expected. The JP movies are fun popcorn adventures. The books (at least the first one) actually have some compelling ethical philosophies that are lost in the film versions. However, as time goes on and we learn more about dinosaur biology, the "dated" status of the films are upheld and the true philosophy of the story comes out - these aren't really dinosaurs - they are genetically engineered animals made to look like our interpretations of dinosaurs at a given time. With the numerous discussions currently happening regarding "de-extinction", this concept is more relevant today than it was in 1990 or 1993.

Upon its release 20 years ago, Jurassic Park inspired a whole new generation of future researchers that have explored deeper into the geologic past. Given the amazing discoveries made by previous Jurassic Park-inspired paleontologists over the last two decades, imagine what we will know in another 20 years from the kids who put on their 3D glasses and experience this film in 2013.

Research Update: Hydrodynamic Properties of Pachycephalosaurid Crania

On Monday of this past week I had the pleasure of seeing my first research student at UW Oshkosh, Carol Bigalke, give her first talk at professional meeting. At the North Central GSA in Dayton, Ohio, Carol presented on "Hydrodynamic properties of pachycephalosaurid crania". Carol has been working with me on pachycephalosaurid cranial lesions since I started at UWO in the fall of 2010, and will be graduating this summer.

Resin cast of Stegoceras validum.

When she submitted her abstract to GSA in January, it was intended to be a poster. However, due to a need to fill the oral session, the session chair contacted her, praised her abstract, and invited her to give a talk instead. I can say with all honesty that she nailed it on Monday. She handled questions very well and fostered further discussion later in the day with other curious participants. Congratulations, Carol!


 The hydrodynamic processes of isolated dinosaur bones in general have been overlooked in scientific research. Pitting and erosive structures on pachycephalosaurid frontoparietal domes have been attributed to taphonomic processes, such as weathering and erosion. Furthermore, the high frequency of isolated domes characterizing the pachycephalosaurid fossil record suggests a unique taphonomic history. In order to investigate the hydrodynamic properties and potential roles of taphonomic processes on pachycephalosaurid domes, a series of transport experiments were conducted to assess the competent velocities and settling orientations of a collection of pachycephalosaurid specimens. 

Resin casts of Hansseusia sternbergi used
in flume experiments.

Casts of three pachycephalosaurid domes and skulls were composed of a urethane resin with a comparable average density to compact and cancellous bone (r = 1500 kg/m³), and placed in a flume with manual velocity control for transport experiments. 


Data was recorded for competent velocity, transport distance, and settling orientations upon resting and burial of specimens for 35 trials per cast. Though specimens vary considerably in mass, the results suggest specimen shape has a greater influence on transport and hydrodynamic behavior than size; significantly lower velocities are required to transport complete skulls than isolated domes. 

10-meter flume
UW-Milwaukee Department of Geology

Resting and burial orientations of specimens vary significantly for domes and skulls. Isolated domes generally settle and rest on a dorsal or ventral side with their lateral sides facing upstream. Alternatively, complete skulls have a higher tendency to rest on a lateral side compared to isolated domes. These results suggest domes are likely deposited as lag following disarticulation from other cranial and skeletal elements. The near-equal occurrences of domes resting on dorsal and ventral sides is at odds with the exclusively dorsal distribution of pitting and “erosive” features on frontoparietal domes, suggesting taphonomic processes are not a primary cause of these features. The high variability of transport velocities and settling orientations such as these offer significant implications for future taphonomic studies on large vertebrate remains.


(All molding and casting was performed with permission from lending institutions - Thanks to Scott Williams at the Burpee Museum of Natural History and Don Brinkman at the Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology. Very special thanks to the Dinosaur Research Institute which supported this research!)

Book Review: "Carnivoran Evolution: New Perspectives on Phylogeny, Form and Function"

My review of "Carnivoran Evolution can be found at http://palaios.ku.edu/reviews/peterson.pdf.

Enjoy!

The Cultural Evolution of "Ancient Wing"

My first "serious" fascination with dinosaurs began in the spring of 1993 when I came home from school to find the April 26th issue of Time magazine sitting on the dining room table among random envelopes and junk mail. The cover showed a group of Mononychus (Mononychi?) and the bold title "The Truth About Dinosaurs", followed by the somewhat philosophical subtitle, "Surprise: Just about everything you believe is wrong". That subtitle keeps coming back to me, time and again.


An article published today in Nature by Xu et al. reports on a new Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China named Xiaotingia zhengi that possesses a number of characteristics that have traditionally been regarded as diagnostic for Avialae, the clade of dinosaurs including birds and their closest extinct relatives such as Archaeopteryx. Phylogenetic analysis of X. zhengi suggests that it is an archaeopterygids, the clade that includes Archaeopteryx, but more importantly, it moves archaeopterygids from within the Avialae clade to the sister group Deinonychosauria, the clade including "raptors" such as Dromaeosauroids and Troodonoids!

For more information, I recommend reading Larry Witmer's excellent News & Views companion piece located here, where he discusses the significance much better than I can.

The historical significance of Archaeopteryx is also an interesting aspect of this story. First described by Meyer in 1861 (yes, 150 years ago), Archaeopteryx became a poster child for evolution very early on; the description came only 2 years after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species". Since then, about 10 specimens have been found, all from Bavaria's Jurassic Solnhofen limestone, a world famous lagerstaaten locality. Of these specimens, the dubbed "Berlin specimen" is arguably one of the most iconic images in paleontology.

Throughout the years, Archaeopteryx lithographica has been a staple of imagery to convey the concepts of evolution. I have used images and casts of this animal on more occasions that I can remember to exemplify the evolutionary transitions from non-avian dinosaurs to extant birds. Archaeopteryx has always been the steady base for such investigations as "the first bird".

That has now changed.

But for how long? This is only one specimen that de-perches Archaeopteryx from its 150-year-old comfy tree-branch. When Xu et al. removed X. zhengi from their analysis, Archaeopteryx went right back to Avialae. Clearly, this is an extremely important milestone in avian evolution, but one that will surely ruffle many feathers by the time it gets settled out, if ever.

Happy Birthday, Archaeopteryx. At 150 years old you never cease to to create a controversy, whether "promoting the dangerous doctrine of Darwinism" or continuing to make science fun and challenging.