New paper out today: Aureliano et al. (2022) on vertebral internal structure in the earliest saurischians
December 9, 2022
Micro-computed tomography of the vertebrae of the basalmost sauropodomorph Buriolestes (CAPPA/UFSM 0035). (A) silhouette shows the position of the axial elements. Artist: Felipe Elias. (B), three-dimensional reconstruction of the articulated cervical vertebral series and the correspondent high-contrast density slices in (D–I). Diagenetic processes partially compromised the internal structures in these cervicals. (C), 3D reconstruction of the articulated anterior dorsal vertebrae and the correspondent high-contrast density slices in (J–M). Small circumferential chambers occur both ventrally in the dorsal centrum (J) and laterally in the neural arch pedicles (D). All images indicate apneumatic chaotic trabeculae architecture. Some of the latter develop into larger chambers in the centrum (E,J,K). Nutritional foramina are broader at the bottom of the neural canal in the posterior cervicals (F,G). All slices were taken from the approximate midshaft. Anterior views in (D–H,J,K). Lateral view in (L). Ventral view in (H,I,M). Anterior/posterior orientation was defined based on the axial position, not the anatomical plane. cc circumferential chamber, ccv chamber in the centrum, ctr chaotic trabecula, d diapophysis, ltr layered trabeculae, nc neural canal, nf nutritional foramen, s neural spine. Scale bar in (A) = 500 mm; in (B–M) = 10 mm. Computed tomography data processed with 3D Slicer version 4.10. Figures were generated with Adobe Photoshop CC version 22.5.1 X64. (Aureliano et al. 2022: fig. 4)
Here’s a nice early holiday present for me: 51 weeks after our first paper together, I’m on another one with Tito Aureliano and colleagues:
As before, I’m in the “just happy to be here” last author position, and quite happy to be so, too. I’ve had a productive couple of years, mostly because my colleagues keep inviting me to write a little bit, usually about pneumaticity, in exchange for a junior authorship, and that’s actually a perfect fit for my bandwidth right now. That dynamic has let me work on some cool and varied projects that have broadened my experience in satisfying ways. But enough navel-gazing!
Also as before, Tito made a really nice video that explains our findings from the paper and puts them in their broader scientific context:
For a long time now I’ve been interested in the origin of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity (PSP) in dinosaurs and pterosaurs (e.g., Wedel 2006, 2007, 2009, Yates et al. 2012, Wedel and Taylor 2013) — or is that origins, plural? Tito and crew decided to take a swing at the problem by CT scanning presacral vertebrae from the early sauropodomorphs Buriolestes and Pampadromaeus, and the herrerasaurid Gnathovorax. (Off-topic: Gnathovorax, “jaw inclined to devour”, is such a badass name that I adopted it for an ancient blue dragon in my D&D campaign.) All three taxa have shallow fossae on the lateral sides of at least some of their presacral centra, and some neural arch laminae, so they seemed like good candidates in which to hunt for internal pneumatization.
I’ll cut right to the chase: none of three have internal pneumatic chambers in their vertebrae, so if there were pneumatic diverticula present, they weren’t leaving diagnostic traces. That’s not surprising, but it’s nice to know rather than to wonder. The underlying system of respiratory air sacs could have been present in the ancestral ornithodiran, and I strongly suspect that was the case, but invasive vertebral pneumatization evolved independently in pterosaurs, sauropodomorphs, and theropods.
Detail of the vertebrae and foramina of the basalmost sauropodomorph Buriolestes (CAPPA/UFSM-0035). Cervical (A–C), anterior (D–F) and posterior (G–I) dorsal vertebrae in right lateral view. Note that nutritional foramina are present throughout the axial skeleton (dark arrows). Anterior/posterior orientation was defined based on the axial position, not the anatomical plane. Scale bar = 5 mm. Figures were generated with Adobe Photoshop CC version 22.5.1 X64. (Aureliano et al. 2022: fig. 4).
Just because we didn’t find pneumaticity, doesn’t mean we didn’t find cool stuff. Buriolestes, Pampadromaeus, and Gnathovorax all have neurovascular foramina — small holes that transmitted blood vessels and nerves — on the lateral and ventral aspects of the centra. That’s also expected, but again nice to see, especially since we think these blood vessels provided the template for invasive vertebral pneumatization in more derived taxa.
The findings I’m most excited about have to do with the internal structure of the vertebrae. Some of the vertebrae have what we’re calling a pseudo-polycamerate architecture. The polycamerate vertebrae of sauropods like Apatosaurus have large pneumatic chambers that branch into successively smaller ones. Similarly, some of the vertebrae in these Triassic saurischians have large marrow chambers that connect to smaller trabecular spaces — hence the term ‘pseudo-polycamerate’. This pseudo-polycamerate architecture is present in Pampadromaeus, but not in the slightly older Buriolestes, which has a more chaotic internal organization of trabecular spaces. So even in the apneumatic vertebrae of these early saurischians, there seems to have been an evolutionary trajectory toward more hierarchially-structured internal morphology.
Micro-computed tomography of the vertebrae of the herrerasaurid Gnathovorax (CAPPA/UFSM-0009). (A) silhouette shows the position of the axial elements. Artist: Felipe Elias. (B) 3D reconstruction of the anterior cervical vertebra and the correspondent high-contrast density slices in (D-I). Diagenetic artifacts greatly compromised the internal structures. (C) 3D reconstruction of the articulated posterior cervical vertebrae and the correspondent high-contrast density slices in (J–O). Minerals infilled between trabecular vacancies generate reddish anomalies. All images indicate irregular, chaotic, apneumatic architecture. Note the apneumatic large chambers in the centrum (ccv) and the smaller circumferential chambers at the bottom (cc). All slices were taken from the approximate midshaft. Anterior views in (D,H,I). Right lateral view in (E,L,M). Ventral view in (F,G,J,K). cc circumferential chambers, ccv chamber in the centrum, ce centrum, ctr chaotic trabeculae, d diapophysis, dia diagenetic artifact, nc neural canal, nf nutritional foramen, poz postzygapophysis, prz prezygapophysis. Scale bar in (A) = 1000 mm; in (B–O) = 10 mm. Computed tomography data processed with 3D Slicer version 4.10. Figures were generated with Adobe Photoshop CC version 22.5.1 X64.
But wait, there’s more! We also found small circumferential chambers around the margins of the centra, and what we’re calling ‘layered trabeculae’ inside the articular ends of the centra. These apneumatic trabecular structures look a heck of a lot like the circumferential pneumatic chambers and radial camellae that we described last year in a dorsal vertebra of what would later be named Ibirania (Navarro et al. 2022), and which other authors had previously described in other titanosaurs (Woodward and Lehman 2009, Bandeira et al. 2013) — see this post.
So to quickly recap, in these Triassic saurischians we find external neurovascular foramina from the nerves and vessels that probably “piloted” the pneumatic diverticula (in Mike’s lovely phrasing from Taylor and Wedel 2021) to the vertebrae in more derived taxa, and internal structures that are resemble the arrangement of pneumatic camerae and camellae in later sauropods and theropods. We already suspected that pneumatic diverticula were following blood vessels to reach the vertebrae and produce external pneumatic features like fossae and foramina (see Taylor and Wedel 2021 for a much fuller development of this idea). The results from our scans of these Triassic taxa suggests the tantalizing possibility that pneumatic diverticula in later taxa were following the vascular networks inside the vertebrae as well.
A morphological spectrum of vertebral structure, as I thought of it 15 years ago. The Triassic saurischians described in the new paper by Aureliano et al. 2022 would sit between Arizonasaurus and Barapasaurus. (Wedel 2007: text-fig. 8)
“Hold up”, I can hear you thinking. “You can’t just draw a straight line between the internal structure of the vertebrae in Pampadromaeus, on one hand, and Apatosaurus, or a friggin’ saltasaurine, on the other. They’re at the opposite ends of the sauropodomorph radiation, separated by a vast and stormy ocean of intermediate taxa with procamerate, camerate, and semicamellate vertebrae, things like Barapasaurus, Haplocanthosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Giraffatitan.” That’s true, and the vertebral internal structure in, say, Camarasaurus doesn’t look much like either Pampadromaeus or Ibirania — at least, in an adult Camarasaurus. What about a hatchling, which hasn’t had time to pneumatize yet? Heck, what about a baby Ibirania or Rapetosaurus or Alamosaurus? Nobody knows because nobody’s done that work. There aren’t a ton of pre-pneumatization baby neosauropod verts out there, but there are some. There’s an as-yet-unwritten dissertation, or three, to be written about the vascular internal structure of the vertebrae in baby neosauropods prior to pneumatization, and in adult vertebrae that don’t get pneumatized. If caudal 20 is the last pneumatic vertebra, what does the vascular internal structure look like in caudal 21?
Cervical vertebrae of Austroposeidon show multiple internal plates of bone separated by sheets of camellae. Bandeira et al. (2016) referred to those as ‘camellate rings’, Aureliano et al. (2021) called them ‘internal plates’, and in the new paper (Aureliano et al. 2022) we call similar structures in apneumatic vertebrae ‘layered trabeculae’. (Bandeira et al. 2016: fig. 12)
To me the key questions here are, first, why does the pneumatic internal structure of the vertebrae of titanosaurs like Ibirania — or Austroposeidon, shown just above in a figure from Bandeira et al. (2016) — look like the vascular internal structure of the vertebrae of basal sauropodomorphs like Pampadromaeus? Is that (1) a kind of parallelism or convergence; (2) a deep developmental program that builds vertebrae with sheets of bone separated by circumferential and radial spaces, whether those spaces are filled with marrow or air; (3) a fairly direct ‘recycling’ of those highly structured marrow spaces into pneumatic spaces during pneumatization; or (4) some other damn thing entirely? And second, why is the vertebral internal structure of intermediate critters like Haplocanthosaurus and Camarasaurus so different from that of both Ibirania and Pampadromaeus— do the pneumatic internal structures of those taxa reflect the pre-existing vascular pattern, or are they doing something completely different? That latter question in particular is unanswerable until we know what the apneumatic internal structure is like in Haplocanthosaurus and Camarasaurus, either pre-pneumatization (ontogenetically), or beyond pneumatization (serially), or ideally both.
A Camarasaurus caudal with major blood vessels mapped on, based on common patterns in extant tetrapods. A list of the places where blood vessels enter the bone is also a list of places where sauropod vertebrae can possibly be pneumatized. We don’t think that’s a coincidence. From Mike’s and my presentation last December at the 3rd Palaeo Virtual Congress, and this post. (Wedel and Taylor 2021)
I was on the cusp of writing that the future of pneumaticity is vascular. That’s true, but incomplete. A big part of figuring out why pneumatic structures have certain morphologies is going to be tracing their development, not just the early ontogenetic stages of pneumatization, but the apneumatic morphologies that existed prior to pneumatization. BUT we’re also nowhere near done just doing the alpha-level descriptive work of documenting what pneumaticity looks like in most sauropods. I’ll have more to say about that in an upcoming post. But the upshot is that now we’re fighting a war on two fronts — we still need to do a ton of basic descriptive work on pneumaticity in most taxa, and also need to do a ton of basic descriptive work on vertebral vascularization, and maybe a third ton on the ontogenetic development of pneumaticity, which is likely the missing link between those first two tons.
I’m proud of the new paper, not least because it raises many, many more questions than it answers. So if you’re interested in working on pneumaticity, good, because there’s a mountain of work to be done. Come join us!
References
- Tito Aureliano, Aline M. Ghilardi, Bruno A. Navarro, Marcelo A. Fernandes, Fresia Ricardi-Branco, & Mathew J. Wedel. 2021. Exquisite air sac histological traces in a hyperpneumatized nanoid sauropod dinosaur from South America. Scientific Reports 11: 24207.
- Aureliano, T., Ghilardi, A.M., Müller, R.T., Kerber, L., Pretto, F.A., Fernandes, M.A., Ricardi-Branco, F., and Wedel, M.J. 2022. The absence of an invasive air sac system in the earliest dinosaurs suggests multiple origins of vertebral pneumaticity. Scientific Reports 12:20844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25067-8
- Bandeira KLN, Medeiros Simbras F, Batista Machado E, de Almeida Campos D, Oliveira GR, Kellner AWA (2016) A New Giant Titanosauria (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous Bauru Group, Brazil. PLoS ONE 11(10): e0163373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163373
- Navarro, Bruno A.; Ghilardi, Aline M.; Aureliano, Tito; Díaz, Verónica Díez; Bandeira, Kamila L. N.; Cattaruzzi, André G. S.; Iori, Fabiano V.; Martine, Ariel M.; Carvalho, Alberto B.; Anelli, Luiz E.; Fernandes, Marcelo A.; Zaher, Hussam. 2022. A new nanoid titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Brazil. Ameghiniana. 59 (5): 317–354.
- Taylor, Michael P., and Mathew J. Wedel. 2021. Why is vertebral pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs so variable? Qeios 1G6J3Q. doi:10.32388/1G6J3Q.5
- Wedel, M.J. 2006. Origin of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in dinosaurs. Integrative Zoology 2:80-85.
- Wedel, M.J. 2007a. What pneumaticity tells us about ‘prosauropods’, and vice versa. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77:207-222.
- Wedel, M.J. 2009. Evidence for bird-like air sacs in saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Experimental Zoology 311A:611-628.
- Wedel, Mathew J., and Taylor, Michael P. 2013. Caudal pneumaticity and pneumatic hiatuses in the sauropod dinosaurs Giraffatitan and Apatosaurus. PLOS ONE 8(10):e78213. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078213
- Wedel, M.J., and Taylor, M.P. 2021. Blood vessels provided the template for vertebral pneumatization in sauropod dinosaurs. 3rd Palaeontological Virtual Congress.
- Woodward, H.N., and Lehman, T.M. 2009. Bone histology and microanatomy of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Maastrichtian of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29(3):807-821.
- Yates, A.M., Wedel, M.J., and Bonnan, M.F. 2012. The early evolution of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57(1):85-100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.2010.0075
The Day of the Dinosaur, and the legend of the regrown sauropod tail
October 17, 2019
Two professionals, hard at work.
After this year’s SVPCA, Vicki and London and I spent a few days with the Taylor family in the lovely village of Ruardean. It wasn’t all faffing about with the Iguanodon pelvis, the above photo notwithstanding. Mike and I had much to discuss after the conference, in particular what the next steps might be for the Supersaurus project. Mike has been tracking down early mentions of Supersaurus, and in particular trying to determine the point at which Jensen decided that it might be a diplodocid rather than a brachiosaurid. I recalled that Gerald Wood discussed Supersaurus in his wonderful 1982 book, The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. While on the track of Supersaurus, I stumbled across this amazing claim in the section on Diplodocus (Wood 1982: p. 209):
According to De Camp and De Camp (1968) these giant sauropods may have been able to regenerate lost parts, and they mention another skeleton collected in Wyoming which appeared to have lost about 25 per cent of its tail to a carnosaur and then regrown it — along with 21 new vertebrae!
De Camp and De Camp (1968) is a popular or non-technical book, The Day of the Dinosaur. Used copies can be had for a song, so I ordered one online and it was waiting for me when I got back to California.
The Day of the Dinosaur is an interesting book. L. Sprague De Camp and Catherine Crook De Camp embodied the concept of the “life-long learner” before there was a buzzword to go with it. He had been an aerospace engineer in World War II, and she had been an honors graduate and teacher, before they turned to writing full time. Individually and together, they produced a wide range of science fiction, fantasy, and nonfiction books over careers that spanned almost six decades. The De Camps’ writing in The Day of the Dinosaur is erudite in range but conversational in style, and they clearly kept up with current discoveries. They also recognized that science is a human enterprise and that, like any exploratory process, it is marked by wildly successful leaps, frustrating wheel-spinning, and complete dead ends. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the authors were completely up to speed on plate tectonics, an essentially brand-new science in 1968, and they explain it as an alternative to older theories about immensely long land bridges or sunken continents.
At the same time, the book arrived just before the end-of-the-1960s publications of John Ostrom and Bob Bakker that kicked off the Dinosaur Renaissance, so there’s no mention of warm-blooded dinosaurs. The De Camps’ sauropods and duckbills are still swamp-bound morons, “endlessly dredging up mouthfuls of soft plant food and living out their long, slow, placid, brainless lives” (p. 142), stalked by ‘carnosaurs’ that were nothing more than collections of teeth relentlessly driven by blind instinct and hunger. The book is therefore an artifact of a precise time; there was perhaps a year at most in the late 1960s when authors as technically savvy as the De Camps would have felt obliged to explain plate tectonics and its nearly-complete takeover of structural geology (which had just happened), but not to comment on the new and outrageous hypothesis of warm-blooded, active, terrestrial dinosaurs (which hadn’t happened yet).
The book may also appeal to folks with an interest in mid-century paleo-art, as the illustrations are a glorious hodge-podge of Charles R. Knight, Neave Parker, photos of models and mounted skeletons from museums, life restorations reproduced from the technical literature, and original art produced for the book, including quite a few line drawings by one L. Sprague De Camp. Roy Krenkel even contributed an original piece, shown above (if you don’t know Krenkel, he was a contemporary and sometime collaborator of Al Williamson and Frank Frazetta, and his art collection Swordsmen and Saurians is stunning and still gettable at not-completely-ruinous prices; I’ve had mine since about 1997).
ANYWAY, as entertaining as The Day of the Dinosaur is, it doesn’t do much to help us regenerate the tale of the regenerated tail. Here’s the entire story, from page 114:
Sauropods, some students think, had great powers of regenerating lost parts. One specimen from Wyoming is thought to have lost the last quarter of its tail and regrown it, along with twenty-one new tail vertebrae. That is better than a modern lizard can do; for the lizard, in regenerating its tail, grows only a stumpy approximation of the original, without new vertebrae.
That’s it. No sources mentioned or cited, so no advance over Wood in terms of tracking down the origin of the story.
Massospondylus tail with traumatic amputation at caudal 25 (Butler et al. 2013: fig. 1A).
To be clear, I don’t really think there is a sauropod that regrew its tail, especially since we have evidence for traumatic tail amputation without regeneration in the basal sauropodomorph Massospondylus (Butler et al. 2013), in the theropod Majungasaurus (Farke and O’Connor 2007), and in a hadrosaur (Tanke and Rothschild 2002). But I would love to learn how such a story got started, what the evidence was, how it was communicated, and most importantly, how it took on a life of its own.
If anyone knows any more about this, I’d be very grateful for any pointers. The comment thread is open.
References
- Butler, R. J., Yates, A. M., Rauhut, O. W., & Foth, C. 2013. A pathological tail in a basal sauropodomorph dinosaur from South Africa: evidence of traumatic amputation? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33(1): 224-228.
- De Camp, L. S., and De Camp, C. C. 1968. The Day of the Dinosaur. Bonanza Books, New York, 319 pp.
- Farke, A. A., & O’Connor, P. M. 2007. Pathology in Majungasaurus crenatissimus (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(S2): 180-184.
- Krenkel, R. G. 1989. Swordsmen and Saurians: From the Mesozoic to Barsoom. Eclipse Books, 152 pp.
- Tanke, D. H., & Rothschild, B. M. 2002. DINOSORES: An annotated bibliography of dinosaur paleopathology and related topics—1838-2001. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, vol. 20.
- Wood, G. L. 1982. The Guinness Book of Animals Facts & Feats (3rd edition). Guinness Superlatives Ltd., Enfield, Middlesex, 252 pp.
The “Growth series of one” poster is published
September 22, 2017
This was an interesting exercise. It was my first time generating a poster to be delivered at a conference since 2006. Scientific communication has evolved a lot in the intervening decade, which spans a full half of my research career to date. So I had a chance to take the principles that I say that I admire and try to put them into practice.
It helped that I wasn’t working alone. Jann and Brian both provided strong, simple images to help tell the story, and Mike and I were batting ideas back and forth, deciding on what we could safely leave out of our posters. Abstracts were the first to go, literature cited and acknowledgments were next. We both had the ambition of cutting the text down to just figure captions. Mike nailed that goal, but my poster ended up being slightly more narrative. I’m cool with that – it’s hardly text-heavy, especially compared with most of my efforts from back when. Check out the text-zilla I presented at SVP back in 2006, which is available on FigShare here. I am happier to see, looking back, that I’d done an almost purely image-and-caption poster, with no abstract and no lit cited, as early as 1999, with Kent Sanders as coauthor and primary art-generator – that one is also on FigShare.
I took 8.5×11 color printouts of both my poster and Mike’s, and we ended up passing out most of them to people as we had conversations about our work. That turned out to be extremely useful – I had a 30-minute conversation about my poster at a coffee break the day before the posters even went up, precisely because I had a copy of it to hand to someone else. Like Mike, I found that presenting a poster resulted in more and better conversations than giving a talk. And it was the most personally relaxing SVPCA I’ve ever been to, because I wasn’t staying up late every night finishing or practicing my talk.
I have a lot of stuff to say about the conference, the field trip, the citability of abstracts and posters (TL;DR: I’m for it), and so on, but unfortunately no time right now. I’m just popping in to get this posted while it’s still fresh. Like Mike’s poster, this one is now published alongside my team’s abstract on PeerJ PrePrints.
I will hopefully have much more to say about the content in the future. This is a project that Jann, Brian, and I first dreamed up over a decade ago, when we were grad students at Berkeley. Mike provided the impetus for us to get it moving again, and kindly stepped aside when I basically hijacked his related but somewhat different take on ontogeny and serial homology. When my fall teaching is over, I’m hoping that the four of us can take all of this, along with additional examples found by Mike that didn’t make it into this presentation, and shape it into a manuscript. I’ll keep you posted on that. In the meantime, the comment field is open. For some related, previously-published posts, see this one for the baby sauropod verts, this one for CM 555, and this one for Plateosaurus.
Flying over Baffin Island on the way home.
And finally, since I didn’t put them into the poster itself, below are the full bibliographic references. Although we didn’t mention it in the poster, the shell apex theory for inferring the larval habits of snails was first articulated by G. Thorson in 1950, which is referenced in full here.
Literature Cited
- Bair, A.R. 2007. A model of wear in curved mammal teeth: controls on occlusal morphology and the evolution of hypsodonty in lagomorphs. Paleobiology 33(1):53-75.
- Gilmore, C.W. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11: 175-300.
- Hatcher, J.B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1:1-63.
- Kraatz, B.P., Meng, J., Weksler, M. and Li, C. 2010. Evolutionary patterns in the dentition of Duplicidentata (Mammalia) and a novel trend in the molarization of premolars. PloS one, 5(9), p.e12838.
- Sych, L. 1975. Lagomorpha from the Oligocene of Mongolia. Palaeontogia Polonica 33:183-200.
- Thorson, G. 1950. Reproductive and larval ecology of marine bottom invertebrates. Biological Reviews 25(1):1-45.
- Wedel, M.J., and Taylor, M.P. 2013. Neural spine bifurcation in sauropod dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation: ontogenetic and phylogenetic implications. Palarch’s Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 10(1):1-34. ISSN 1567-2158.
- Wedel, M.J., Cifelli, R.L., and Sanders, R.K. 2000b. Osteology, paleobiology, and relationships of the sauropod dinosaur Sauroposeidon. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 45:343-388.
Step 1: Include the Share-Alike provision in your Creative Commons license, as in the mysteriously popular CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA.
Step 2: Listen to the crickets. You’re done. Congratulations! No-one will ever use your silhouette in a scientific paper, and they probably won’t use your stuff in talks or posters either. Luxuriate in your obscurity and wasted effort.
Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis by Andrew A. Farke, CC BY 3.0, courtesy of PhyloPic.org.
Background
PhyloPic is the incredibly useful thing that Mike Keesey made where makers upload silhouettes of organisms and then people can use them in papers, posters, talks, on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and so on.
At least, they can if the image license allows it. And tons of them don’t, because people include the stupid Non-Commercial (NC) and even stupider Share-Alike (SA) provisions in their image licenses. (Need a refresher on what those are? See the tutorial on licenses.)
Why are these things dumb? Well, you could make a case for NC, but it will still probably kill most potential uses of your images. Most journals are run by companies — well, most are run by incredibly rapacious corporations that extract insane profits from the collective suckerhood that is academia — and using such an image in a for-profit journal would break the Non-Commercial clause. Even open-access journals are a bit murky.
But Share-Alike is way, way worse. What it means is that any derivative works that use material released under CC-BY-SA have to be released under that license as well. Share-Alike came to us from the world of software, where it actually has some important uses, which Mike will expand upon in the next post. But when it comes to PhyloPic or pretty much any other quasi-academic arena, including the Share-Alike provision is misguided.
As of this writing, PhyloPic has two silhouettes of Panphagia. I can actually show you this one, because it doesn’t have the Share-Alike license attached. The other one is inaccessible. Image by Ricardo N. Martinez and Oscar A. Alcober, CC BY 3.0, courtesy of PhyloPic.org.
Why not Share-Alike?
Why is Share-Alike so dumb for PhyloPic? It’s a viral license that in this context accomplishes nothing for the creator. Because the downstream material must also be CC BY-SA (minimally, or CC BY-NC-SA), almost any conceivable use is prevented:
- People can’t use the images in barrier-based journals, because they’re copyrighted.
- People can’t use the images in almost all OA journals, because they’re CC BY, and authors can’t just impose a more restrictive license on them willy-nilly.
- People can’t use the images in their talks or posters, unless they want to make their talks and posters CC BY-SA. Even people who do release their talks and posters out into the wild are probably going to use CC BY if they use anything; they care about being cited, not about forcing downstream users to adopt a pointlessly restrictive license.
- People probably can’t use the images on t-shirts or bumper stickers; at least, I have a hard time imagining how a physical object could meet the terms of CC BY-SA, unless it’s being given away for free. And even if one could, most downstream creators probably won’t want the headache — they’ll grab a similar image released under a less restrictive license and move on.
- I can’t even blog the CC BY-SA images because everything we put on this blog is CC BY (except where noted by a handful of more restrictive museum image use policies), and it would more than a little ironic to make this one post CC BY-SA, which it would have to be if it included CC BY-SA images.
You may think I’m exaggerating the problem. I’m not. If you look at the Aquilops paper (Farke et al. 2014), you’ll see a lot of ceratopsian silhouettes drawn by Andy Farke. We were making progress on the paper and when it came time to finish the illustrations, most of the silhouettes we needed had the Share-Alike provision, which made them useless to us. So Andy drew his own. And while he was doing that, I took some of my old sauropod drawings and converted them to silhouettes and uploaded them. Both of us used CC BY, because all we care about is getting cited. And now people are using — and citing! — Andy’s and my drawings in preference to others, some arguably better (at least for the sauropods), that have pointlessly restrictive licenses.
So we have this ridiculous situation where a ton of great images on PhyloPic are essentially unusable, because people put them up under a license that sounds cool but actually either outright blocks or at least has a chilling effect on almost any conceivable use.
Is this a good silhouette of Camarasaurus? Maybe, maybe not. But that’s beside the point: this is currently the only silhouette of Camarasaurus on PhyloPic that you can actually use. By Mathew Wedel, CC BY 3.0, courtesy of PhyloPic.org.
What I do about this
Here’s my take: I care about one thing and one thing only, which is credit. All I need is CC BY. If someone wants to take my stuff and put it in a product and charge a profit, I say go for it — because legally every copy of that product has to have my name on it somewhere, credited as the creator of the image. I may not be making any money off that product, but I’m at least getting exposure. If I go CC BY-NC, then I also don’t get any money, and now I don’t even get that exposure. Why would I hack my own foot off like that? And I don’t use CC BY-SA because I don’t write software, so it has only downsides to offer me.
Now, there are certainly artists in the world with sufficient talent to sell t-shirts and prints. But even for them I’m skeptical that CC BY-NC has much to offer for their PhyloPic silhouettes. I know we’re all nuts around here for monochrome filled outlines of dead animals, but let’s be real, they’re a niche market at best for clothing and lifestyle goods. Personally I’d rather get the citations than prevent someone in Birmingham or Bangkok from selling cladogram t-shirts with tiny copies of my drawings, and I think that would still be true even if I was a professional artist.
What you should do about this
I suspect that a lot of people reading this post are dinosaur enthusiasts. If you are, and you’d like to get your name into published scientific work (whether you pursue writing and publishing yourself or not), get drawin’, and upload those babies using CC-BY. Make sure it is your own original work, not just a skin thrown over someone else’s skeletal recon, and don’t spam PhyloPic with garbage. But if you can execute a technical drawing of a critter, there’s a good chance it will be used and cited. Not only because there are still holes in PhyloPic’s coverage, but because so many otherwise great images on PhyloPic are locked up behind restrictive licenses. To pick an example nearly at random, PhyloPic has two silhouettes of Pentaceratops, and both of them are useless because of the Share-Alike provision in their licenses. You have an opportunity here. Don’t tarry.
If you already uploaded stuff to PhyloPic using CC BY-SA for whatever reason (it sounded cool, Joe Chill murdered your folks, you didn’t realize that it was academic reuse equivalent of radioactive syphilis), change it or replace it. Because all it is doing right now is driving PhyloPic users to other people’s work. Really, honestly, all you are doing is wasting your time by uploading this stuff, and wasting the time of PhyloPic users who have to hover over your pictures to find out that they’re inaccessible.
You don’t get any credit if no-one ever uses your stuff. Or, more precisely, you get 100% of a pie that doesn’t exist. That’s dumb. Stop doing it.
Reference
That last one really hurts. Here’s the original image, which should have gone in the paper with the interpretive trace next to it rather than on top of it:
Papers referenced in these slides:
- Taylor, M.P., and Wedel, M.J. 2013b. The effect of intervertebral cartilage on neutral posture and range of motion in the necks of sauropod dinosaurs. PLOS ONE 8(10): e78214. 17 pages. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078214
- Wedel, M.J. 2007a. What pneumaticity tells us about ‘prosauropods’, and vice versa. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77:207-222.
- Wedel, Mathew J., Richard L. Cifelli and R. Kent Sanders. 2000b. Osteology, paleobiology, and relationships of the sauropod dinosaur Sauroposeidon. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 45(4): 343-388.
Plateosaurus is comical
September 5, 2013
Back in 2008, Matt and I were at the Museum Für Naturkunde Berlin. We spent some time down in the collections, where we were particularly pleased to see the much-admir’d C8 of Giraffatitan‘s paralectotype, MB.R.2181 (previously known as HMN SII).
While we were down there, we found a C8 from Plateosaurus, too, so we put that next to the Giraffatitan vertebra and shot them together:
I’m just sayin’, is all.
—
Note: after having written this post, I now see that I wrote an essentially identical one, with an essentially identical image, earlier this year. My memory is definitely going. Oh well: since I’ve written this, I may as well post it anyway.
Plateosaurus is pathetic
January 16, 2013
This photograph is of what I consider the closest thing to the Platonic Ideal sauropod vertebra: it’s the eighth cervical of our old friend the Giraffatitan brancai paralectotype MB.R.2181. (previously known as “Brachiosaurus” brancai HM S II — yes, it’s changed genus and specimen number, both recently, but independently.)
And if you look very carefully, down at the bottom, you can see the same vertebra, C8, of the prosauropod Plateosaurus. Pfft.
This photo was taken down in the basement of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, on the same 2008 trip where Matt took the “Mike in Love” photo from two days ago. For anyone who didn’t recognise the specific vertebra I was in love with in that picture, shame on you! It is of course our old friend the ?8th dorsal vertebra of the same specimen, which we’ve discussed in detail here on account of its unique spinoparapophyseal laminae, its unexpectedly missing infradiapophyseal lamina and its bizarre perforate anterior centroparapophyseal laminae.
AMNH mounted Apatosaurus with Taylor for scale
September 8, 2012
We’re off to Oxford next week for SVPCA, so things may be quiet around here for a few days. Catch you on the flip side.
Plateosaurus sacra of the AMNH
August 15, 2012
Plateosaurus trossingensis AMNH 6810 sacrum and pelvis in left dorsolateral view
We’ve shown a lot of sauropod sacra around here lately (for example here, here, and here), so here’s a little look back down the tree.
You haven’t heard from me much lately because I’ve been busy teaching anatomy. Still, I get to help people dissect for a living, so I can’t complain.
Further bulletins as events warrant.
Plateosaurus engelhardti (originally P. trossingensis) SMNS 13200 cervical vertebrae 3-8 in left lateral view. C8 is roughly 15 cm long.
In the recent post on serial variation in sauropod cervicals, I wrote:
Even in ‘adult’ sauropods like the big mounted Apatosaurus and Diplodocus skeletons, the anterior cervicals are less complex than the posterior ones. Compared to posterior cervicals, anterior cervicals tend to have simpler pneumatic fossae and foramina, fewer laminae, and unsplit rather than bifid spines. In all of these things the anterior cervicals are similar to those of juveniles of the same taxa, and to those of adults of more basal taxa. This is also true in prosauropods–in Plateosaurus, the full complement of vertebral laminae is not present until about halfway down the neck.
I was working from memory there and actually understated things a bit. Plateosaurus presacral vertebrae don’t have well-developed spinal laminae, but they do eventually get the four major diapophyseal laminae–the anterior centrodiapophyseal lamina (ACDL), posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina (PCDL), prezygodiapophyseal lamina (PRDL), and postzygodiapophyseal lamina (PODL–please see the lamina tutorial if you need a refresher on these and the other 15 commonly identified laminae). But they aren’t all present halfway down the neck–the ACDL doesn’t really show up until the cervicodorsal transition. The other three kick in sequentially down the neck, as shown in the above image. I think that’s pretty cool, that you get different character states expressed at different points along the neck, in one individual organism, at one time. And possibly also at different times–in sauropods, the anterior cervicals tend to look more ‘juvenile’ or ‘primitive’, even in adult animals, so all of the cervicals go through a juvenile stage, but not all of them grow out of it. I don’t know if there’s a word for that–some kind of serial heterochronotopomorphy or the like–but hopefully someone will enlighten me.
I took the original photo in the collections at the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart in the spring of 2004. Markus Moser and Rainer Schoch were wonderful hosts during my visit. Mike did all the work of turning the raw photo into a figure, so thanks to him for getting this off my hard drive and out into the world.
Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week 