Two and a half years ago, I posted a glorious hemisected hen, taken (with permission) from a poster by Roberts et al. 2016, and supplied by Ray Wilhite, best known in this parish for his work on sauropod appendicular material.

At the end of that post, I blithely promised “More from this poster in a subsequent post!”, and then — predictably — forgot all about it. My apologies. Here is the fulfilment of that promise, in glorious colour:

Segmented 3D model (from CT scans) showing lungs and air-sacs of a domestic hen, in left lateral view. Key (roughly left-to-right): cyan: trachea; yellow: interclavical air-sac; orange: lung; green: cranial thoracic air-sac; white: caudal thoracic air-sac; blue: abdominal air-sac; pink: connections from lung to posterior thoracic and abdominal air-sacs. From Roberts et al. 2016.

There’s lots to love here, not least the sheer extent of the respiratory system — it almost seems there is no space in the hen’s torso for any actual soft tissue. But the big thing for me is how tiny a part of the respiratory system the lung contributes. It’s almost an afterthought: it’s a fool’s game judging 3d volumes from a single perspective, but here it seems that the lung makes up at most 20% of the system.

And yet it’s the only part of the system that has parenchymal tissue — the only place where gas exchange takes place. The air-sacs are not doing anything: they just sit there, moving air through the lung as they expand and contract but otherwise inert. Isn’t that strange? Doesn’t it seem wasteful? Why not respire though the entire air-sac system?

And of course this raises questions about how the system worked in sauropods. Long-time followers of this blog, or indeed of Matt’s research output, will know that there is very good evidence that sauropods had an air-sac system similar to that of birds, but since the air-sacs themselves do not fossilise we can’t know the details of the soft-tissue anatomy — only what we can infer from fossilised vertebrae. So I can’t help speculating about whether the greater metabolic demands of sauropods compelled them to evolve more extensive gas-exchange in their respiratory systems.

[“Greater metabolic demands”? Yes, because metabolic throughput scales roughly with body mass to the 3/4 power (Kleiber 1932) but air gets into an animal though a gas-exchange surface whose area, if isometric, goes with the square of linear dimension, i.e. body mass to the 2/3 power. So metabolic demand relative to gas-exchange area goes with body mass to the power 3/4 / 2/3 = 3*3/4*2 = 9/8. All numbers very subject to debate.]

Long, long ago (2004), in an email, I asked Matt this same question. His response, in part:

Blue whales, of up to 209 tons, get by just fine with the horribly inefficient mammalian design, so why couldn’t 100 ton sauropods get by with the avian one?

Which is a good point. But as I responded at the time:

Maybe the real mystery here is what the heck are whales doing that we’re not? And the answer would seem to be “swimming in water, which is an order of magnitude less energetically demanding than walking on land”. Hmm.

(And yes, it really does seem to be true that swimming is about an order of magnitude less energetic than running: see Schmidt-Nielsen 1972:figure 4.)

And there, my record of our discussion fizzles out. If we discussed further, history does not record what was said. And I feel this is still worthy of some exploration. In short, whales are big blubbery cheats, and nothing they say or do can be taken at face value.


Bonus content! Here is the whole poster!

Roberts et al. 2016.

References

  • Kleiber, M. 1932. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 6:315–353.
  • Roberts, John, Ray Wilhite, Gregory Almond, Wallace D Berry, Tami Kelly, Terry Slaten, Laurie McCall and Drury R. Reavill. 2016. Gross and histologic diagnosis of retrograde yolk inhalation in poultry. The American Association of Avian Pathologists, San Antonio, Texas. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28204.26246
  • Schmidt-Nielsen, Knut. 1972. Locomotion: energy cost of swimming, flying, and running. Science 177(4045):222-228. doi:10.1126/science.177.4045.222

On Thursday, I took the family to the Cotswolds Wildlife Park, a rather lovely zoo just over an hour away from us in Burford, Oxfordshire. Somehow I’d never even heard of this place until we passed a sign for it on the A417 a few weeks ago. Lots of great stuff there, but I wanted to focus on this:

As you can see, the clump of big trees in the giraffe enclosure has had all its foliage methodically stripped off, right up to the point where the tallest giraffe can reach, giving it a striking mushroom shape.

In mammals — certainly the most-studied vertebrates — regional differentiation of the vertebral column is distinct and easy to spot. But things aren’t so simple with sauropods. We all know that the neck of any tetrapod is made up of cervical vertebrae, and that the trunk is made up of dorsal vertebrae (subdivided into thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in the case of mammals). But how do we tell whether a given verebra is a posterior cervical or an anterior dorsal?

Here two vertabrae: a dorsal vertebra (D3) and a cervical vertebra (C13) from CM 84, the holotype of Diplodocus carnegii, modified from Hatcher (1901: plates III and VII):

It’s easy to tell these apart, even when as here we have only lateral-view images: the dorsal vertebra is tall, its centrum is short, its neural spine is anteroposteriorly compressed and its parapophysis is up on the dorsal half of the centrum; but the cervical vertebra is relatively low, its centrum is elongated, its neural spine is roughly triangular and its parapophysis hangs down well below the centrum (and has a cervical rib fused to it and the diapophysis).

But things get trickier in the shoulder region because, in sauropods at least, the transition through the last few cervicals to the first few dorsals is gradual — the vertebrae become shorter, taller and broader — and tends to have no very obvious break point. In this respect, they differ from mammals, in which the regional differentiation of the spinal column is more abrupt. (Although even here, things may not be as simple as generally assumed: for example, Gunji and Endo (2016) argued that the 1st thoracic vertebra of the giraffe behaves functionally like an 8th cervical.)

So here are those two vertebrae in context: the sequence D3 D2 D1 C15 C14 C13 in CM 84, the holotype of Diplodocus carnegii, modified from Hatcher (1901: plates III and VII):

Given that the leftmost is obviously a dorsal and the rightmost obviously a cervical, where would you place the break-point?

The most usual definition seems to be that the first dorsal vertebra is the first one that has a free rib, i.e. one not fused to the vertebra: in the illustration above, you can see that the three cervicals on the right all have their cervical ribs fused to their diapophyses and parapophyses, and the three dorsals on the left do not. This definition of the cervical/dorsal distinction seems to be widely assumed, but it is rarely explicitly asserted. (Does anyone know of a paper that lays it out for sauropods, or for dinosaurs more generally?)

But wait!

Hatcher (1903:8) — the same dude — in his Haplocanthosaurus monograph, writes:

The First Dorsal (Plate I., Fig. 1). […] That the vertebra now under consideration was a dorsal is conclusively shown not by the presence of tubercular and capitular rib facets showing that it supported on either side a free rib, for there are in our collections of sauropods, skeletons of other dinosaurs fully adult but, with the posterior cervical, bearing free cervical ribs articulating by both tubercular and capitular facets as do the ribs of the dorsal region. The character in this vertebra distinguishing it as a dorsal is the broadly expanded external border of the anterior branch of the horizontal lamina [i.e. what we would now call the centroprezygapophyseal lamina]. This element has been this modified in this and the succeeding dorsal, no doubt, as is known to be the case in Diplodocus to give greater surface for the attachment of the powerful muscles necessary for the support of the scapula.

Hatcher’s illustrations show this feature, though they don’t make it particularly obvious: here are the last two cervicals and the first dorsal, modified from Hatcher (1903:plate I), with the facet in question highlighted in pink: right lateral view at the top, then anterior, and finally posterior view at the bottom. (The facet is only visible in lateral and anterior views):

Taken at face value, Hatcher’s words here seem to imply that he considers the torso to begin where the scapula first lies alongside the vertebral column. Yet if you go back to the Diplodocus transition earlier in this post, a similar scapular facet is not apparent in the vertebra that he designated D1, and seems to be present only in D2.

Is this scapular-orientation based definition a widespread usage? Can anyone point me to other papers that use it?

Wilson (2002:226) mentions a genetic definition of the cervical/dorsal distinction

Vertebral segment identity may be controlled by a single Hox gene. The cervicodorsal transition in many tetrapods, for instance, appears to be defined by the expression boundary of the Hoxc-6 gene.

But this of course is no use in the case of extinct animals such as sauropods.

So what’s going on here? In 1964, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in describing his threshold test for obscenity, famously said “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.” Is that all we have for the definition of what makes a vertebra cervicals as opposed to dorsal? We know it when we see it?

Help me out, folks! What should the test for cervical-vs-dorsal be?

References

  • Gunji, Mego, and Hideki Endo. 2016. Functional cervicothoracic boundary modified by anatomical shifts in the neck of giraffes. Royal Society Open Science 3:150604. doi:10.1098/rsos.150604
  • Hatcher, Jonathan B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1:1-63 and plates I-XIII.
  • Hatcher, J. B. 1903b. Osteology of Haplocanthosaurus with description of a new species, and remarks on the probable habits of the Sauropoda and the age and origin of the Atlantosaurus beds; additional remarks on Diplodocus. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:1-75 and plates I-VI.
  • Wilson, Jeffrey A. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladistic analysis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136:217-276.

Various Internet rumours have suggested that the Archbishop is a super-giant sauropod one third larger than the mounted Giraffatitan specimen MB.R.2181 (formerly HMN SII). This is incorrect.

Figure E. Skeletal inventory of NHMUK PV R5937, “The Archbishop”, showing which bones were excavated by Migeod’ expedition. Based on a skeletal reconstruction of Giraffatitan brancai kindly provided by Scott Hartman: note that this image does not illustrate the shapes or proportions of the Archbishop material. Bones prepared and available for study are shown in white; those still in jackets awaiting preparation in light grey; those excavated by Migeod but apparently lost or destroyed in dark grey.

Migeod’s assessment of the size of the animal was based on the vertebrae: “The [neck] vertebrae found give a 20-foot [6.10 m] length […] The length of the back including the sacral region was about 15 feet [4.57 m]. The eight or nine caudal vertebrae cover about 6 feet [1.83 m]” (Migeod 1931a:90). This gives the total preserved length of the skeleton as 41 feet (12.50 m). By comparison, Janensch (1950b:102) gives lengths of portions of the mounted skeleton of MB.R.2181 as 8.78m (neck), 3.92m (torso) and 1.07m (sacrum) for a torso-plus-sacrum length of 4.99m. On this basis, the preserved neck of NHMUK PV R5937 is only 69% as long as that of MB.R.2181, but since the first four vertebrae were missing and omitted from Migeod’s measurement, this factor cannot be taken at face value. More informative is the torso-plus-sacrum length, which in NHMUK PV R5937 is 92% the length of MB.R.2181.

This is consonant with measurements of individual elements, which compare as follows:

Table 4. Comparative measurements of Archbishop and Giraffatitan elements

ElementMeasurement (cm)ArchbishopGiraffatitanRatio
Torso plus sacrumtotal length4574990.916
C10 (mC4)centrum length991000.990
C11 (mC3)centrum length104100[1]1.040
D4 (mD3)centrum length27360.750
Longest riblength over curve2352630.894
Left scapulocoracoidlength over curve221238[2]0.929
Right humeruslength1462130.685
Right humeruswidth51590.864
Right iliumlength98123[3]0.797
Right iliumheight7996[4]0.823
Femurlength122196[5]0.622
Average0.846

Archbishop measurements taken from Migeod (1931a) and converted from imperial; Giraffatitan measurements are for MB.R.2181 except where noted, and are taken from Janensch (1950a:44) and Janensch (1961).
Notes.
[1] Janensch (1950a) did not report a total centrum length for C11, as its condyle had not been removed from the cotyle of C10; but since the length of its centrum omitting the condyle was, at 87 cm, identical to that of C10, it is reasonable to estimate its total length as also equal to that of C10.
[2] Janensch (1961:181) did not include measurements for the right scapula of MB.R.2181, which is incorporated into the mounted skeleton, but does give the proximodistal length of its right coracoid as 45 cm. Using the 193 cm length given for the similarly sized scapula Sa 9, we can deduce a reasonable total estimate of 238 cm for the scapulocoracoid.
[3] Estimated by Janensch (1950b:99) based on cross-scaling from the fibula and ilium of Find J from the Upper Saurian Marl.
[4] This is the measurement provided by Janensch (1961:199) for the ilium Ma 2, which is incorporated into the mounted skeleton, and which Janensch (1950b:99) considered to match MB.R.2181 very precisely.
[5] Based on a restoration of the midshaft which Janench (1950b:99) calcuated based on other finds.

Individual lines of this table should each be treated with caution: Migeod’s measurements may have been unreliable, and in any case are underspecified: for example, we do not know whether, when he gave a vertebra’s length, he included overhanging prezygapophyses or the condyle. Similarly, we know that Migeod (1931:96) wrote that a rib “was as much as 92.5 inches long”, but we do not know for certain that, like Janensch, he measured the length over the curve rather than the straight-line distance between the ends. And when Migeod says that the ilium “measured 38.5 by 31 inches” we do not know that the height was measured “at the public process”, as Janensch (1961:199) specified.

With those caveats in place, nevertheless, a picture emerges of a sauropod somewhat smaller than MB.R.2181, though by no means negligible. On average, the measurements come out about 15% smaller than those of Giraffatitan.

But this average conceals a great deal of variation. The cervical vertebrae are comparable in length to those of MB.R.2181 (The total of 203 cm for C10 and C11 in the Archbishop, only 1.5% longer than 200 cm for MB.R.2181, is a difference well within the margin of measurement error). The Archbishop’s scapulocoracoid may have been 93% as long as in MB.R.2181. But the limb bones are signficantly shorter (87% for the humerus and a scarcely credible 62% for the femur), and the humeri at least bseem to be have been proportionally more robust in the Archbishop: only 2.86 times as long as wide, whereas the ratio is 3.61 in MB.R.2181. If Migeod’s measurements can be trusted, we have here an animal whose neck is as long as that of Giraffatitan, but whose limbs are noticably shorter. These proportions corroborate the hypothesis that the Archbishop is not a specimen of Giraffatitan.

Here’s a pretty cool image: Plate 7 from Lull (1919), showing the partial skeleton of Barosaurus YPM 429 (above), compared to the much more complete skeleton of Diplodocus CM84/94 (below).

I’ve been pretty familiar with that Barosaurus skeleton diagram since I was about 9 years old, because it’s in Donald Glut’s New Dinosaur Dictionary, which I’ve written about here before. In particular, I like that Lull was scrupulous about drawing in the lateral pneumatic cavities in the caudal vertebrae. It’s pretty common in Diplodocus for the tail to be pneumatized out to somewhere between caudal 15 and 19, and the same is true in Barosaurus. I’m not just relying on the figure–Lull was also good about saying explicitly what was going on with the pneumatization in the centrum of each vertebra.

I returned to this image as an adult doing research on sauropod pneumaticity, and I read big swaths of Lull (1919), but never the bit about the sacrum. Why would I? The sacrum of YPM 429 is pretty scrappy, and I was mostly interested in the big honkin’ cervicals, and in learning how to distinguish bones of Barosaurus and Diplodocus. I always assumed that the sacrum of Barosaurus was pneumatized right the way through.

Only, er, it ain’t. As I just discovered.

Lull (1919: p. 22):

See that second sentence? “The central fragment is extremely massive, with no adaptation for lightening the weight appreciable in the portion preserved.” That’s old-timey talk for, “the chunk of centrum has no pneumatic openings or cavities”. Which is kind of a big deal, because:

…a gap of one or more apneumatic vertebrae with pneumatic vertebrae on either side constitutes a pneumatic hiatus. Why that’s a big deal is explained in this post.

If I had read this in the early 2000s, I would have flipped out. I did flip out when I discovered what seemed to be a pneumatic hiatus at the base of the tail in Haplocanthosaurus. Just that possibility sent me scurrying off to the Carnegie Museum to investigate, and precipitated both a dissertation chapter, later published as Wedel (2009), and an enduring fascination with Haplocanthosaurus. If I’d been reading Lull instead of Hatcher, my air sac paper would have been about Barosaurus, probably, and I wouldn’t have known enough about Haplo to get interested in the other specimens, which would have been a real shame.

A pneumatic hiatus in Barosaurus would have been big news in 2009. In 2021, it’s still nice, but not groundbreaking. The groundbreaking pneumatic hiatuses in Barosaurus were described in two different juvenile skeletons by Melstrom et al. (2016) and Hanik et al. (2017). Those were both mid-thoracic hiatuses, which probably separated the pneumatization domains of the cervical air sacs anteriorly and the abdominal air sacs posteriorly. A mid-sacral hiatus in YPM 429 is probably within the domain of the abdominal air sac, just like the hiatus in sacral 5 of CM 879 that I described in my 2009 paper. It’s still exciting, in that it shows that there were abdominal air sacs, and they were separate from the lungs and cervical air sacs, but this example in YPM 429 is now third in line in terms of priority, just within this one genus. Which is why I’m telling the world with a blog post, instead of hopping on a plane (or, er, planning a very long road trip) to New Haven. I’ll check on YPM 429 the next time I’m out there, but the specifics will keep for now.

References

  • Hanik, Gina M., Matthew C. Lamanna and John A. Whitlock. 2017. A juvenile specimen of Barosaurus Marsh, 1890 (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Dinosaur National Monument, Utah, USA. Annals of Carnegie Museum 84(3):253–263.
  • Lull, R.S. 1919. The sauropod dinosaur Barosaurus Marsh. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 6:1-42.
  • Melstrom, Keegan M., Michael D. D’Emic, Daniel Chure and Jeffrey A. Wilson. 2016. A juvenile sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of Utah, USA, presents further evidence of an avian style air-sac system. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 36(4):e1111898. doi:10.1080/02724634.2016.1111898
  • Wedel, M.J. 2009. Evidence for bird-like air sacs in saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Experimental Zoology 311A:611-628.

Two days ago, I wrote about what seemed to be an instance of peer review gone very wrong. I’ve now heard from two of the four authors of the paper and from the reviewer in question — both by email, and in comments on the original post — and it’s apparent that I misinterpreted the situation. When the lead author’s tweet mentioned “pushing it through eight rounds of review”, I took this at face value as meaning eight rounds at the same journal with the same reviewers — whereas in fact the reviewer in question reviewed only four drafts. (That still seems like too many to me, but clearly it’s not as ludicrous as the situation as I misread it.) In this light, my assumption that the reviewer was being obstructive was not warranted.

I have decided to retract that article and I offer my apologies to the reviewer, Dave Grossnickle, who approached me very politely off-list to offer the corrections that you can now read in his comment.

THIS POST IS RETRACTED. The reasons are explained in the next post. I wish I had never posted this, but you can’t undo what is done, especially on the Internet, so I am not deleting it but marking it as retracted. I suggest you don’t bother reading on, but it’s here if you want to.

 


Neil Brocklehurst, Elsa Panciroli, Gemma Louise Benevento and Roger Benson have a new paper out (Brocklehurst et al. 2021, natch), showing that the post-Cretaceous radiation of modern mammals was not primarily due to the removal of dinosaurs, as everyone assumed, but of more primitive mammal-relatives. Interesting stuff, and it’s open access. Congratulations to everyone involved!

Neil Brocklehurt’s “poster” explaining the new paper in broad detail. From the tweet linked below.

Neil summarised the new paper in a thread of twelve tweets, but it was the last one in the thread that caught my eye:

Thanks to all my co-authors for their tireless work on this, pushing it through eight rounds of review (my personal best)

I’m impressed that Neil has maintained his equanimity about this — in public at least — but if he is not going to be furious about it then we, the community, need to be furious on his behalf. Pushed to explain, Neil laid it out in a further tweet:

Was just one reviewer who really didn’t seem to like certain aspects, esp the use of discrete character matrices. Fair enough, can’t please everyone, but the editor just kept sending it back even when two others said our responses to this reviewer should be fine.

Again, somehow this tweet is free of cursing. He is a better man than I would be in that situation. He also doesn’t call out the reviewer by name, nor the spineless handling editor, which again shows great restraint — though I am not at all sure it’s the right way to go.

There is so, so much to hate about this story:

  • The obstructive peer reviewer, who seems to have to got away with his reputation unblemished by these repeated acts of vandalism. (I’m assuming he was one of the two anonymous reviewers, not the one who identified himself.)
  • The handling editor who had half a dozen opportunities to put an end to the round-and-round, and passed on at least five of them. Do your job! Handle the manuscript! Don’t just keep kicking it back to a reviewer who you know by this stage is not acting in good faith.
  • The failure of the rest of the journal’s editorial board to step in and bring some sanity to the situation.
  • The normalization of this kind of thing — arguably not helped by Neil’s level-headed recounting of the story as though it’s basically reasonable — as someting authors should expect, and just have to put up with.
  • The time wasted: the other research not done while the authors were pithering around back and forth with the hostile reviewer.

It’s the last of these that pains me the most. Of all the comforting lies we tell ourselves about conventionl peer review, the worst is that it’s worth all the extra time and effort because it makes the paper better.

It’s not worth it, is it?

Maybe Brocklehurst et al. 2021 is a bit better for having gone through the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th rounds of peer review. But if it is, then it’s a marginal difference, and my guess is that in fact it’s no better and no worse that what they submitted after the second round. All that time, they could have been looking at specimens, generating hypotheses, writing descriptions, gathering data, plotting graphs, writing blogs, drafting papers — instead they have been frittering away their time in a pointless and destructive conflict with someone whose only goal was to prevent the advancement of science because an aspect of the paper happened to conflict with a bee he had in his bonnet. We have to stop this waste.

This incident has reinforced my growing conviction that venues like Qeios, Peer Community in Paleontology and BiorXiv (now that it’s moving towards support for reviewing) are the way to go. Our own experience at Qeios has been very good — if it works this well the next time we use it, I think think it’s a keeper. Crucially, I don’t believe our paper (Taylor and Wedel 2021) would have been stronger if it had gone through the traditional peer-review gauntlet; instead, I think it’s stronger than it would have been, because it’s received reviews from more pairs of eyes, and each of them with a constructive approach. Quicker publication, less work for everyone involved, more collegial process, better final result — what’s not to like?

References

Anatomical features of the neural canal in birds and other dinosaurs. A. MWC 9698, a mid caudal vertebra of Apatosaurus in posterodorsal view. Arrows highlight probable vascular foramina in the ventral floor of the neural canal. B. LACM 97479, a dorsal vertebra of Rhea americana in left anterolateral view. Arrows highlight pneumatic foramina inside the neural canal. C. A hemisected partial synsacrum of a chicken, Gallus domesticus, obtained from a grocery store. Anterior is to the right. The bracket shows the extent of the dorsal recess for the glycogen body, which only spans four vertebrae. Arrows highlight the transverse grooves in the roof of the neural canal for the lumbosacral organ. D. Sagittal (left) and transverse (right) CT slices through the sacrum of a juvenile ostrich, Struthio camelus. The bracket shows the extent of the lumbosacral expansion of the spinal cord. Indentations in the roof of the neural canal house the lumbosacral organ. In contrast to the chicken, the ostrich has a small glycogen body that does not leave a distinct osteological trace. Yellow arrows show the longitudinal troughs in the ventral floor of the neural canal that house the ventral eminences of the spinal cord. Wedel et al. (2021: fig. 4).

This is the second in a series of posts on our new paper about the expanded neural canals in the tail vertebrae of the Snowmass Haplocanthosaurus. I’m not going to talk much about Haplo in this post, though. Instead, I’m going to talk about chickens, and about how you can see a lot of interesting spinal anatomy in a living dinosaur for about two bucks.

You know by now that Academia Letters publishes peer reviews, which is one of the things that drew me to this fairly new journal. More on that in a later post, but in the meantime, the peer reviews for the Haplo paper are on the right sidebar here. I confess, I had a total forehead-slap moment when I read the opening lines of Niels Bonde’s review: 

This paper is interesting, and should be published and discussed by others with interest in dinosaur-bird relations. However, as these publications are also meant for the general public, I would recommend that 2 – 3 illustrations were added of the features mentioned for birds under nos. 3 – 6, because the general public (and many paleontologists) have no ideas about these structures, and what they look like.

The original submission only had figures 1 and 2. And this request is totally fair! If you are going to discuss six alternative hypotheses for some mysterious anatomical structure, it’s just responsible reporting to illustrate those things. That goes double if, as Niels Bonde noted, the anatomy in question is unfamiliar to a lot of people, even many paleontologists. Huxley’s quote after first reading Darwin’s Origin of Species flashed through my head: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.”

Slide 21 of my 2014 SVPCA talk on supramedullary diverticula in birds and other dinosaurs, illustrating pneumatic foramina in the roof, walls, and floor of the neural canal.

At the time I read that review, I already had images illustrating five of the six hypotheses. A juvenile ostrich synsacrum that Jessie Atterholt and I had CT scanned gave us three of them all by itself: the lumbosacral expansion of the spinal cord to run the hindlimbs, as in all limbed tetrapods and in some fish with sensitive fins; the transverse channels in the dorsal wall of the neural canal to accommodate the lumbosacral balance organ; and the paired troughs in the floor of the neural canal that house the ventral eminences of the spinal cord (Figure 4D in the image at the top of this post). I had good photos of pneumatic foramina in the walls and floor of the neural canal in a dorsal vertebra of a rhea from my 2014 SVPCA talk (Figure 4B), and some photos of small foramina, presumably for blood vessels rather than air spaces, in the floor of the neural canal in a caudal vertebra of Apatosaurus (Figure 4A).

What I did not have is a photo illustrating the fairly abrupt, dome-shaped space in the sacral neural canal that houses the glycogen body of birds. I mean, I had published images, but I didn’t want to wrestle with trying to get image reproduction rights, or with redrawing the images. Instead, I went to the grocery store to buy some chicken.

I don’t know how universally true this is, but IME in the US when you buy a quartered chicken, the vertebrae are usually nicely hemisected by the band saw that separated the left and right halves of the animals. So you can see the neural canal in both the dorsal and sacral parts of the vertebral column. Here are the hemisected dorsal vertebrae in the breast quarter from a sectioned rotisserie chicken:

That’s just how it came to lie on my plate, but it’s not in anatomical position. Let’s flip it over to sit upright:

And label it:

I could and probably should do a whole post just unpacking this image, but I have other fish to fry today, so I’ll just note a couple of things in passing. The big interspinous ligament is the same one you can see in transverse section in the ostrich dissection photos in this post and this one. Also, the intervertebral joints heading toward the neck, on the left of the image, have much thicker intervertebral cartilage than the more posterior dorsals. That’s because the posterior ones were destined to fuse into a notarium. You can see a diagram and a photograph of a chicken notarium in figures 4 and 5, respectively, here. And finally, the big takeaway here is that the neural canal is normal, just a cylindrical tube to hold the spinal cord.

The thigh quarter usually has the pelvis and the hemisectioned synsacrum attached. Here’s a lateral view of the left half of the pelvis and synsacrum:

And the same thing labeled:

And now flipped around so we can see it in medial view:

And now that image labeled:

And, hey, there are three of our alternative hypotheses on display: the long (many vertebral segments) lumbosacral expansion of the spinal cord, which is reflected in a gradually expanded neural canal in the synsacrum; the shorter, higher dome-shaped recess for the glycogen body; and finally the transverse spaces for the lumbosacral balance organ.

As a refresher, there’s nothing terribly special about the lumbosacral expansion of the spinal cord — you have one, labeled as the ‘lumbar enlargement’ in the above diagram. Where the spinal cord has adjacent limbs to run, it has more neurons, so it gets fatter, so the neural canal gets fatter to accommodate it. The cord itself doesn’t look very expanded in the chicken photo above, but that chicken has been roasted rotisserie-style, and a lot of lipids probably cooked out of the cord during that process. What’s more important is that the neural canal is subtly but unmistakably expanded, over the span of many vertebrae.

The lumbosacral spinal cord of a 3-week-old chick in dorsal view. The big egg-shaped mass in the middle is the glycogen body. Watterson (1949: plate 1).

That’s in contrast to the recess for the glycogen body, which is colored in blue in the chicken photo. Glycogen bodies, like the egg-shaped one in the young chicken in the image immediately above, tend not to go on for many vertebral segments. Instead they balloon up and subside over the space of just 4 or 5 vertebrae, so they leave a different skeletal trace than other soft tissues.

Finally, there are the transverse spaces for the lumbosacral balance organ, which I discussed in this post. Those are the things that look like caterpillar legs sticking up from the sacral endocasts in the above figure from Necker (2006). In life, the spaces are occupied by loops of meningeal membranes, through which cerebrospinal fluid can slosh around, which in turn puts pressure on mechanoreceptive cells at the edge of the spinal cord and gives birds a balance organ in addition to the ones in their heads. In the photo of the cooked chicken, the delicate meninges have mostly fallen apart, leaving behind the empty spaces that they once occupied.

I really liked that chicken synsacrum, and I wanted to use it as part of Figure 4 of the new paper, but it needed a little cleaning, so I simmered it for a couple of hours on low heat (as one does). And it promptly fell apart. At least in the US, most of the chickens that make it to table are quite young and skeletally immature. That particular bird’s synsacrum wasn’t syn-anything, it was just a train of unfused vertebrae that fell apart at the earliest opportunity. I had anticipated that might be an issue, so I’d gotten a lot of chicken, including a whole rotisserie chicken and four thigh quarters from the deli counter at the local supermarket. Happily this fried chicken thigh quarter had a pretty good neural canal:

And it cleaned up nicely:

And with a little cropping, color-tuning, and labeling, it was ready for prime time:

I didn’t label them in the published version, for want of space and a desire not to muddy the waters any further, but the jet-black blobs I have colored in the lower part of that image are the exit holes that let the spinal nerves out of the neural canal so they could go serve the hindlimbs, pelvic viscera, and tail. We have them, too.

At my local grocery store, a fried chicken thigh costs about $1.65 if you get it standalone, or you can buy in bulk and save. You get to eat the chicken, and everything else I’ve done here required only water, heat, soap, and a little time. The point is that if I can do this, you can do this, and if you do, you’ll get to see some really cool anatomy. I almost added, “which most people haven’t seen”, but given how much chicken we eat as a society these days, probably most people’s eyes have fallen on the medial surface of a cooked chicken thigh quarter at one time or another. Better to say, “which most people haven’t noticed”. But now you can. Go have fun. 

Way back in January of 2019, I finished up “Things to Make and Do, Part 25b” with this line: “I have one more thing for you to look for in your bird vertebrae, and that will be the subject of the next installment in this series. Stay tuned!” Here we are, 2.3 years later, and I’ve finally made good. So if there’s a promised post you’ve been waiting for, stick around, we may get to it yet.

References

A. Recovered skeletal elements of Haplocanthosaurus specimen MWC 8028. B. Caudal vertebra 3 in right lateral view. C. The same vertebra in posterior view. Lines show the location of sections for D and E. D. Midsagittal CT slice. The arrow indicates the ventral expansion of the neural canal into the centrum. E. Horizontal CT slice at the level of the neural arch pedicles, with anterior toward the top. Arrows indicate the lateral expansions of the neural canal into the pedicles. B-E are shown at the same scale. Wedel et al. (2021: fig. 1).

New paper out today:

Wedel, Mathew; Atterholt, Jessie; Dooley, Jr., Alton C.; Farooq, Saad; Macalino, Jeff; Nalley, Thierra K.; Wisser, Gary; and Yasmer, John. 2021. Expanded neural canals in the caudal vertebrae of a specimen of Haplocanthosaurus. Academia Letters, Article 911, 10pp. DOI: 10.20935/AL911 (link)

The paper is new, but the findings aren’t, particularly. They’re essentially identical to what we reported in our 1st Paleo Virtual Conference slide deck and preprint, and in the “Tiny Titan” exhibit at the Western Science Center, just finally out in a peer-reviewed journal, with better figures. The paper is open access and free to the world, and it’s short, about 1600 words, so this recap will be short, too.

A. Photograph of a 3D-printed model of the first three caudal vertebrae of Haplocanthosaurus specimen MWC 8028, including endocasts of the neural canal (yellow) and intervertebral joints (blue), in right lateral view, and with the neural canal horizontal. B. Diagram of the same vertebrae in midsagittal section, emphasizing the volumes of the neural canal (yellow) and intervertebral joint spaces (blue). Anterior is to the right. Wedel et al. (2021: fig. 2).

John Foster and I described Museum of Western Colorado (MWC) specimen 8028, a partial skeleton of Haplocanthosaurus from Snowmass, Colorado, in late 2014. One weird thing about that specimen (although not the only weird thing) is that the neural canals of the tail vertebrae are bizarrely expanded. In most vertebrae of most critters, the neural canal is a cylindrical tunnel, but in these vertebrae the neural canals are more like spherical vacuities.

John and I didn’t know what to make of that back in 2014. But a few years later I started working with Jessie Atterholt on bird anatomy, which led me to do a little project on the whole freaking zoo of weird stuff that birds and other dinosaurs do with their neural canals, which led to the 1PVC presentation, which led to this. 

Caudal vertebra 3 of Haplocanthosaurus specimen MWC 8028 in left posterolateral (A), posterior (B), and right posterolateral (C) views, with close-ups (D and E). In A and B, a paintbrush is inserted into one of the lateral recesses, showing that the neural canal is wider internally than at either end. Wedel et al. (2021: fig. 3).

Of course there will be more posts and more yapping, as signaled by the ‘Part 1’ in the post title. Although I am extremely satisfied with the streamlined, 1600-word missile of information and reasoning that just dropped, there are parts that I want to unpack, that haven’t been unpacked before. But the paper launched at midnight-thirty, Pacific Daylight Time, I’m up way too late finishing this first post, and I reckon the rest will keep for a few hours at least.

Anatomical features of the neural canal in birds and other dinosaurs. A. MWC 9698, a mid caudal vertebra of Apatosaurus in posterodorsal view. Arrows highlight probable vascular foramina in the ventral floor of the neural canal. B. LACM 97479, a dorsal vertebra of Rhea americana in left anterolateral view. Arrows highlight pneumatic foramina inside the neural canal. C. A hemisected partial synsacrum of a chicken, Gallus domesticus, obtained from a grocery store. Anterior is to the right. The bracket shows the extent of the dorsal recess for the glycogen body, which only spans four vertebrae. Arrows highlight the transverse grooves in the roof of the neural canal for the lumbosacral organ. D. Sagittal (left) and transverse (right) CT slices through the sacrum of a juvenile ostrich, Struthio camelus. The bracket shows the extent of the lumbosacral expansion of the spinal cord. Indentations in the roof of the neural canal house the lumbosacral organ. In contrast to the chicken, the ostrich has a small glycogen body that does not leave a distinct osteological trace. Yellow arrows show the longitudinal troughs in the ventral floor of the neural canal that house the ventral eminences of the spinal cord. Wedel et al. (2021: fig. 4).

I have a ton of people to thank. John Foster, obviously, for initiating the line of research that led here. Julia McHugh for access to the MWC collections, and for being an excellent sounding board regarding the Morrison Formation, sauropod dinosaurs, and crafting ambitious but tractable research projects. Anne Weil for helping me be methodical in thinking through the logic of the paper, and Mike Taylor for helping me get it polished. Niels Bonde, Steven Jasinski, and David Martill for constructive reviews, which were published alongside the paper. We couldn’t take all of their suggestions because of space limitations, but figures 3 and 4 were born because they asked for them, and that’s not a small thing. Vicki and London Wedel for putting up with me at various points in this project, especially in the last few days as I’ve been going bonkers correcting page proofs. And finally, because I’m the one writing this blog post, my coauthors: Jessie Atterholt, Alton Dooley, Saad Farooq, Jeff Macalino, Thierra Nalley, Gary Wisser, and John Yasmer, for their contributions and for their patience during the unusually long gestation of this very short paper.

More to say about all that in the future. For now, yay, new paper. Have fun with it. Here’s the link again.

References

I have several small ordered sequences of data, each of about five to ten elements. For each of them, I want to calculate a metric which captures how much they vary along the sequence. I don’t want standard deviation, or anything like it, because that would consider the sequences 1 5 2 7 4 and 1 2 4 5 7 equally variable, whereas for my purposes the first of these is much more variable.

Here is a matric that I think does what I want, and will allow me to compare different sequences for variability-along-the-sequence.

For the n-1 pairs along the sequence of n elements, I take the difference (absolute value, so always positive) between elements i and i+1. Then I average all those differences. Then I divide the result by the average of the values themselves, to normalise for magnitude.

Some example calculations:

  • For the sequence 1 5 2 7 4, the differences are 4 3 5 3, for a total of 15 and an average of 3.75. The average of the values is 1+5+2+7+4 = 19/5 = 3.8, which gives me a metric of 3.75/3.8 = 0.987.
  • For the sequence 1 2 4 5 7, the differences are 1 2 1 2, for a total of 6 and an average of 1.5. The average of the values is again 3.8, which gives me a metric of 1.5/3.8 = 0.395.
  • So the first sequence is 0.987/0.395 = 2.5 times as sequentially variable as the second sequence.
  • And for the sequence 10 20 40 50 70 (which is the same as the previous one, but all values ten times greater), the differences are 10 20 10 20, for a total of 60 and an average of 15. The average of the values is 38, which gives me a metric of 15/38 = 0.395, the same as before — which is as it should be.

And now, my question! Does this metric, or something similar, already exist? If so, what is it called? Or if I should be using something else instead, what is it?

(It happens that my sequences are the aspect ratios of the cotyles of consecutive vertebrae, but that’s not important: whatever metric we land on should work for any sequences.)

Taylor 2015: Figure 8. Cervical vertebrae 4 (left) and 6 (right) of Giraffatitan brancai lectotype MB.R.2180 (previously HMN SI), in posterior view. Note the dramatically different aspect ratios of their cotyles, indicating that extensive and unpredictable crushing has taken place. Photographs by author.