If, by some extraordinarily astronomical set of circumstances, anybody will be in the Tucumcari area this weekend, please consider attending my directoral debut in the form of a collection of sketches called “Skits-ophrenia”. Performances will be held this Saturday at 7:00 PM and Sunday at 2:00 PM, each of which should last for approximately an hour and a half. Admission is absolutely free!
Okay, enough shameless self-promotion. This situation will doubtlessly keep me quite busy this weekend, so I’ll be unable to add a ‘wonder’ post for a few days.
May the fossil record and everything theatrical continue to enchant us all!
Don’t worry hard-core science lovers, there will be more substantial material discussed shortly. However, I just couldn’t resist indulging in frivolous childhood nostalgia for a wee bit…
On this day in 1954, Toho Studios released what was arguably the most influential Japanese film ever made: “Gojira”, a name which later evolved elsewhere on the globe into “Godzilla”. The rest is well-known history: the movie spawned a whopping twenty-seven sequels (excluding the hideous American film starring Matthew Broderick) and the massive mutant has grown into a household name in place of countless contemporaries (and rip-offs). In light of this momentous occasion (and lest anyone doubt my nerdy-ness), I’ve decided to create this celebratory post in order to highlight one of the greatest things about Godzilla movies: the diverse and often bizarre cast of enormously proportioned creatures.
The series has seen the appearances of literally dozens of monsters, ranging from giant lobsters to three-headed extraterrestrial dragons to one-eyed cyborgs. As a result, the saga has expanded far beyond the realm of the monster king himself. Thus, I humbly present a countdown of the characters which are, in my humble opinion, Godzilla’s greatest co-stars:
#10: Megaguirus
Although a relative late-comer to the Godzilla series, Megaguirus has earned a place on this list due to the exceptional originality which accompanies her character, both in terms of design and behavior. Unlike the traditional adversarial kaiju (“Japanese Monster”), her combat style rests not upon physical strength or weaponry but on agility and strategy. Her evasive yet brutal tactics have doubtlessly commanded the respect of many a monster fan, in addition to the recognition she deserves from them for being the only satisfying original villain of the millenium series.
#9. Anguirus
(No, he’s not related to the previous beast)
Okay, the very fact that ‘Ang’ isn’t listed within the top five will automatically draw the ire of most Japanese monster nerds, to which I say ‘tough toenails’! I’ll readily concede that Anguirus is certainly an interesting character due to his tenacity and combativeness. I simply don’t find him to be nearly as interesting as the monsters I’ve listed below. Nonetheless, he does hold the distinction for being the first Godzilla villain and, later, one of “the big G’s” most valuable allies. Plus, his revamped appearance in the fiftieth-anniversary film “Godzilla: Final Wars” marked the premiere of some truly stunning (if somewhat unorthodox) attack techniques.
#8: Biollante
One of the most innovative and effective Godzilla villains, Biollante continues a long-held tradition within the series: turning the audience’s attention towards one of the leading threats of the era. While Godzilla himself originated as a commentary on nuclear testing and Hedorah ‘the smog monster’ was used to capitalize on the ever-growing threat of pollution, Biollante drew its strength from examining the unknown aspects of the then-new field of genetic engineering. Additionally, while most Godzilla villains are either vaguely humanoid in appearance or based clearly upon the anatomy of an extant animal, this genetically-altered plant sports no such ties and presents the viewer with a truly grotesque beast.
#7: Gigan
Gigan has undergone a rather polarized demeanor through his various incarnations, having been depicted as an inglorious but intelligent coward during the seventies and as a relatively brainless hulk in “Godzilla: Final Wars”. Nonetheless, he’s always been dear to G-fans and his battles have never failed to impress.
#6. Hedorah (aka: “The Smog Monster”)
There are precious few words with which to describe Hedorah and, by extension, the entirety of the film “Godzilla vs The Smog Monster” in which his debut was made. One thing is pristinely clear, however: Hedorah cannot be classified as a ‘weak’ villain. This metamorphosing juggernaut instantly strikes the audience as a nearly-unstoppable foe, for how could anyone defeat such a powerful beast whose makeup is largely restricted to toxic sludge? This creative and bizarre film defines the term ‘relic from the seventies’, an age when the hippie movement was surging and disco was at its height, both of which make huge contributions to the plot and visuals of this strange, strange movie. Nevertheless, the movie’s success is largely attributable to its intimidating and unpredictable desperado.
#5: Rodan
With the obvious exception of Mothra, Rodan is, to date, the only kaiju to have become an indispensible part of the Godzilla series after starring in his own (highly entertaining) film. One of the many reasons why I regard Rodan more highly than Anguirus lies in the fact that he didn’t need to ride the coat-tails of the monster king to achieve cinematic glory, he performed magnificently in his own 1956 movie before joining the Godzilla series eight years later. His usually easy-going yet strongly assertive character provides a unique mixture of admiration and comic relief to every film in which he appears (who could forget his schadenfreude-inspired cackle when watching Mothra cover Godzilla in webbing during ‘Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster’?).
4. Destoroyah
Easily the series’ greatest villain of the ’90s, Destoroyah maintains a reputation for being one of the strongest, most sinister, and most impressive adversaries Godzilla has ever faced. It’s been observed that what makes this beast so engaging to longtime fans is its exquisite blend of characteristics from earlier foes: it’s many forms stem from Hedorah’s frequent transformation, it’s tusks are a throwback to those of Biollante, and its arthropod-esque skin forces us to recall Ebirah ‘the sea monster’. “Godzilla vs Destoroyah” is unquestionably one of the greatest films in the series and, strange as it may sound, nearly everyone I’ve shown it to finds its conclusion to be genuinely moving. The villain is just one entry on a long list of things that the movie gets right, and not just in terms of its design. Destoroyah is particularly notorious for being a ruthless, sadistic menace who has earned international scorn for brutally killing the comparatively-tiny Godzilla Junior. The one factor which prevents it from achieving a higher place on this list, however, is its relative inexperience. Having debued in 1995 and having failed to make an appearance since, it simply can’t compete with the likes of King Ghidorah and Mechagodzilla when the topic of great Godzilla villains emerges.
#3: Mechagodzilla
Mechagodzilla is a character who appears to undergo constant improvement, yet this is not to say that it’s been evolving in a predictable direction. In its first appearance back in 1974’s “Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla” and its direct sequel “Terror of Mechagodzilla”, the gargantuan robot relies almost exclusively upon its arsenal of projectile weaponry. In 1993’s “Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2″, the metal contraption features a massively-upgraded arsenal and connects itself to a smaller vessel to even further increase its power. But it is its latest incarnation as shown above which arguably commands the most attention, due to its comparatively lean physique and extreme adeptness at vigorous physical combat. Regardless of whether or not the robotic menace is portrayed as a hero or a villain, the very fact that it’s always been intended as ‘the anti-Godzilla’ ensures that its every appearance is a memorable one.
#2: Mothra
Alright, so she’s not the most intimidating monster. However, consider the following: Mothra entered the Godzilla series after being featured in her own movie (just as Rodan would later do), became THE best-known co-star of the big G, AND starred in a series of films outside of the Godzilla series during the late nineties. She obviously could not have done so had she lacked any sort of redeeming quality. First of all, she’s exceedingly intelligent, often utilizing her superior brainpower to overcome whatever villain threatens her. This also translates into a very politically-savvy bug, as exemplified in “Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster” when she was able to convince Godzilla and Rodan to work together against an otherwise unbeatable nemesis which could have easily destroyed the planet. Also, her petite appearance wonderfully contrasts the gruff and frequently hideous collection of characters which surrounds her in every film. Despite this, she proves time and time again that she’s more than capable of fighting with ‘the big dogs’. Finally, she’s defined what the Godzilla series is more than any other single kaiju with the obvious exception of the namesake character. The fact that she’s the saga’s only monster other than Godzilla himself to be pitted against an antithetical beast (the insect known as ‘Battra‘) shows just how vital she is to the franchise.
#1: King Ghidorah
The Yankees have the Red Sox, Thomas Jefferson had Alexander Hamilton, O.C. Marsh had Edward Drinker Cope, and Godzilla has King Ghidorah. While Godzilla has found an occasional ally in Mothra and even, briefly, enlisted the aid of Mechagodzilla at the conclusion of “Godzilla: Tokyo SOS”, King Ghidorah has always stood firmly against the king of the monsters. Godzilla’s sheer size has always been one of his greatest assets, yet he’s almost invariably been dwarfed by this three-headed behemoth. Even in 2001’s “Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monster All-Out Attack” (which desperately requires a shorter title) in which Ghidorah was depicted as being a smaller, more serpentine creature, he gave the then massively-powerful Godzilla his only true challenge. Whether he’s seen as being under extraterrestrial control, a product of reckless time travel, or as an ancient Japanese guardian, King Ghidorah has never come close to finding common ground upon which to tread with Godzilla and has often made the big guy look like an unadulterated hero when compared to his extreme brutality and blood lust. And one would almost certainly arrive at the conclusion that when faced with such a fantastic array of villains as that presented by the Godzilla series, only an antagonist of King Ghidorah’s caliber could hope to incontestably maintain the title of ‘Public Enemy Number One’ for nearly half a century.
May the fossil record (and the B-movies it so often inspires) continue to enchant us all!
Long-time readers of ‘The Theatrical Tanystropheus’ will know that I’m greatly interested in improving the communication of science to the public. Thus, it should come as no surprise that I greatly admire the late Cornell astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan. Lately, I’ve rediscovered the following video, which creates an almost immaculate sensation of awe and humility that never fails to produce a tear:
Recently, however, I’ve also taken to watching the lectures and discussions of AMNH astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (who, incidentally, was very nearly a student of Sagan’s) and another effective science communicator. While Tyson can’t compete with Sagan in terms of eloquence and poetry, he makes up for it with his relatable personality and excellent sense of humor even in the midst of controversial subjects as displayed here:
After watching three or four of Dr. Tyson’s videos, his stage presence and compelling arguments lead me to list nearly all of them in the ‘favorites’ section on my YouTube channel page. Having done so, I began to consider another academic who is also frequently cited as a science popularizer: Richard Dawkins. Yet anyone reasonably familiar with the man’s work will almost instantly realize that Dawkins is far less frequently embraced by the general public than either of these astronomers.
But why? Dawkins is just as articulate as Sagan ever was, but when asked to compare his work to Sagan’s or Tyson’s, nearly every non-scientist I’ve met expresses their preference for the latter two.
In addition to Sagan, Tyson, and Dawkins, the list of recent and modern science popularizers contains (among many others) the equally-outspoken PZ Meyers, the University College-London’s Steve Jones, the late and incomparably articulate Stephen Jay Gould, the iconic Stephen Hawking, and the frequently-televised naturalist David Attenborough . Yet whenever I expose my relatively non-scientific friends to their various works, only Sagan, Tyson, Hawking, Gould, and Attenborough are commonly recognized as ‘persuasive’. So what are these men getting right that everyone else is getting wrong?
1. They Don’t Shy Away From The Arts, Culture And The Humanities.
It never ceases to amaze me how many science students, instructors, professors, and teachers utterly loathe the arts and social sciences; a paradox I’ve previously discussed here. I’ve always felt that science and the humanities can learn a great deal from each other and are mutually beneficial to an enormous degree. For instance, would anyone care to guess how many hundreds of paleontologists, geologists, biologists, and naturalists were inspired by the artwork of Charles R. Knight and the novels of Michael Chrichton? Yet the extreme distaste many scientists harbor for these and similar fields is so well known that it’s been discussed on the popular (and excellent) sitcom ‘The Big Bang Theory’ in which Sheldon has made such assertions as ‘the social sciences are largely hokum’ and was indefensibly dismissive of a former love interest of his room-mate because her PhD was in literature.
There are exceptions to this rule of course, the most notable of which is none other than Sagan himself who, according to many of his friends and relatives, expressed an enthusiasm for mythology and prose from an early age. This passion grows obvious when watching reruns of ‘Cosmos’ as shown in his introduction to the library of Alexandria and utilizes the discussion to reveal just how vast the gaps in our knowledge could really be:
Furthermore, he would often take the time to point out constellations and their surrounding legends when directing his audience towards the heavens.
Why?
Because even though they’re scientifically useless, most people find such things fascinating!!
I used to work at Massawepie Scout Camps near Tupper Lake, New York every summer as an instructor whose speciality lay in teaching ‘Reptile and Amphibian Studies’ merit badge at the ecology lodge. Though the badge was often identified as one of the most challenging offered by the camp, I learned that I could make the material much more understandable by finding something which the students could relate to, which frequently took the form of the arts. A lecture concerning how certain salamanders can regrow limbs (and parts of their heads in some cases) was made easier by first giving a brief review of Hercules’ legendary conflict with the Hydra. I suspect that this was due to the fact that since most of the students found Greek mythology interesting, I was able to build a springboard from fantasy to reality and in so doing, maintain their interest by exposing them to several fascinating intricacies of nature grounded literally in our own backyards.
This is hardly a novel approach. Several physics professors nationwide teach an introductory class entitled something along the lines of “The Physics Of Sports”. Even more remarkably, the University of Minnesota’s James Kakalios has acquired astronomical success with his popular course entitled “Everything I Need To Know About Physics I Learned By Reading Comic Books” and his book based thereon, “The Physics Of Superheroes”. In the volume’s introduction, Kakalios makes the following observation:
“The real world is a complicated place. In order to provide illustrations in a physics lesson that emphasize only a single concept… over the decades teachers have developed an arsenal of overly stylized scenarios involving projectile motion, weights on pulleys, or oscillating masses on springs. These situations seem so artificial that students inevitably lament ‘When am I ever going to use this stuff in my real life?’
One trick I’ve hit upon in teaching physics involves using examples culled from superhero comic books that correctly illustrate various applications of physics principles. Interestingly enough, whenever I cite examples from superhero comic books in a lecture, my students never wonder when they will use this information in ‘real life.’”
2. They Explain WHY Things Are Fascinating.
Recently, I re-watched one of my favorite films to date: Pixar’s ‘The Incredibles’. After the movie, I perused the special features when I came upon a segment which focused on the personal story of historian and author Sarah Vowell’s (the voice of ‘Violet’) involvement. In it, she discussed her frustration with the fact that her longtime interest in Abraham Lincoln has rarely been greeted with enthusiasm by her peers and expressed relief in participating in the movie when she discovered she didn’t have to convince everybody that it was interesting.
Throughout my life, I’ve experienced an identical predicament when attempting to invoke ardor for the subject of paleontology in my friends, family and associates who have found such things as sports, shoes, cars, cheeseburgers, and Japanese animation far more captivating. I’m no gambler, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that most life-long science enthusiasts can relate.
I simply cannot ignore the feeling that were these individuals to fully understand the significance of a 215,000,000-year old phytosaur skull, they’d find it at least as interesting as a happy meal. The biological sciences are just as humbling as their astronomical counterparts, yet when people look at a frog or a tree, they usually aren’t nearly as awestruck as they are when gazing upon the stars. By every right, they should be: the science is there.
To exemplify this, I shall call upon the late, great Stephen Jay Gould who presented this musing back in 1980:
“I think that the fascination so many people feel for evolutionary theory resides in three of its properties. First, it is, in its current state of development, sufficiently firm to provide satisfaction and confidence, yet fruitfully undeveloped enough to provide a treasure trove of mysteries. Second, it stands in the middle in a continuum stretching from sciences that deal in timeless, qualitative generality to those that work directly with the singularities of history. Thus, it provides a home for all styles and propensities, from those who seek the purity of abstraction (the laws of population growth and the structure of DNA) to those who revel in the messiness of irreducible particularity (what, if anything, did Tyrannosaurus do with its puny front legs anyway?). Third, it touches all of our lives; for how can we be indifferent to the great questions of genealogy: where did we come from and what does it all mean? And then, of course, there are all those organisms: more than a million described species, from bacterium to the blue whale -with one hell of a lot of beetles in between- each with its own beauty, each with its own story to tell.”
3. They Never Fail To Discuss The Philosophical Implications Of Their Disciplines.
Once again, I must turn to an astronomer to exemplify this idea by displaying the following video of Neil Degrasse Tyson discussing the odds of discovering technologically-advanced extraterrestrials:
To quote Daniel Dennett, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science, there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”
4. They Avoid Acquiring Reputations As Militant Atheists.
Okay, this is doubtlessly going to be my most controversial observation, but I cannot avoid mentioning a very real, very destructive elephant in the room here: individuals who attempt to establish themselves as both vociferous atheists and effective science communicators. As far as I’m concerned, a single person cannot be both.
The obvious example here is Richard Dawkins. Honestly, I feel saddened when observing the plight of the Oxford professor because, truth be told, he really is an exceptional communicator of complex scientific principles. Case in point is “The Selfish Gene”, his first book and, scientifically, his most influential. I’ve just recently completed the thirtieth anniversary edition of this excellent volume and found it to be a truly enjoyable read: a fact which was strongly assisted by its accessible prose and evocative arguments.
Yet most people know Dawkins as the author of another, more controversial book: “The God Delusion”.
It’s no secret that Carl Sagan was arguably just as critical of organized religion, as shown in “The Demon-Haunted World” among other publications. So why do most people familiar with both men cite Dawkins as the militant atheist rather than Sagan?
Because Sagan never launched a nation-wide campaign to encourage atheists to exit their closets. Sagan didn’t accuse everyone espousing theistic beliefs as being ‘delusional’ in an international best-seller. And I doubt that Sagan would have willingly assisted a movement to replace the word ‘atheists’ with ‘brights’.
As a freethinker, I fully acknowledge that the need to encourage public acceptance of atheism is a valid one, but I can’t help but worry that such aggressive atheistic scientists ultimately harm the scientific cause more than they assist it. The bottom line is this: regardless of how eloquent and thought provoking Dawkins is, even moderately-religious people will fail to acknowledge any of his scientific points for their minds prevent them from seeing in him anything other than a militant atheist.
Again, this is not to say that secular scientists should wholeheartedly embrace traditional religions, but rather those who hope to educate the public should avoid combating them so aggressively.
“I think that the fascination so many people feel for evolutionary theory resides in three of its properties. First, it is, in its current state of development, sufficiently firm to provide satisfaction and confidence, yet fruitfully undeveloped enough to provide a treasure trove of mysteries. Second, it stands in the middle in a continuum stretching from sciences that deal in timeless, quantitative generality to those that work directly with the singularities of history. Thus, it provides a home for all styles and propensities, from those who seek the purity of abstraction (the laws of population growth and the structure of DNA) to those who revel in the messiness of irreducible particularity (what, if anything, did Tyrannosaurus do with its puny front legs anyway?). Third, it touches all our lives; for how can we be indifferent to the great questions of genealogy: where did we come from and what does it all mean? and then, of course, there are all those organisms: more than a million described species, from bacterium to blue whale, with one hell of a lot of beetles in between—each with its own beauty, and each with a story to tell.”
Also, consider the following discussion between Tyson and Dawkins (WARNING! Dawkins says a very bad, but amusing, word!)
Which school of thought do you think is more effective?
Please feel free to add your comments below!
May the fossil record (and the host of disciplines which seek to unravel the mysteries of our universe and everything in it)continue to enchant us all!
Due to the fact that over the past few weeks, this blog has essentially transformed into ‘Mark’s Ode To Phytosaurs’ (something which I seriously doubt that Dr. Hungerbuehler would have any sort of problem with), I’ve decided to dedicate this week’s ‘wonder’ to one of my beloved paleo-mammals.
Recently, my good friend and colleague Donny Price (another MCC paleo-student and research assistant with whom my long-time readers have already been acquainted on several occasions) were asked by Dr. Hungerbuehler’s wife, Simone, to create and present an hour-long lecture concerning the evidence for evolution for her high school students who have opted to take a special Mesalands biology class (yes, I know: this isn’t nearly enough time). When the time came to plan our specific examples, I couldn’t resist commenting on a growing trend I’ve observed in the science of paleontological evolution: cetaceans are the new avian theropods. Simply put, fossils which widen our knowledge of whale evolution are ‘hot’ right now, both in terms of press coverage and academic prestige, with entirewebsites dedicated to their study. Furthermore, many of the most prominent paleontology programs have taken at least one cetacean expert under their wing of late, including SUNY Stony Brook and the University of Michigan: a trend which is quite comparable to the hype surrounding individuals working on the early evolution of birds and bird-like theropods during the ‘dinosaur renaissance’ of the sixties and seventies. With this in mind, I insisted that we cover the information presented by the fossil record concerning this new study, a discussion for which I shall largely turn to the following video:
To best prepare myself for this scenario, I’ve been ‘boning’ up on fossil whales recently (okay, that pun even makes ME vomit…) and have stumbled across a rather bizarre critter: Eurhinodelphis sp., aka: the ’sword-nosed dolphin’.
Eurhinodelphis bossi skull reconstruction (hat-tip to Palaeos.com)
In 1900, Frank Evers Beddard pointed out in his book creatively entitled “A Book Of Whales” that “the snout [of odontocetes, the 'toothed whales']… is very elongated, the degree of elongation varying from genus to genus. It is most developed, perhaps, in the extinct genus Eurhinodelphis, [(which he compares to a platanistid... more on this later)]. The toothed whales, in fact, embody the extremes of shortening and elongation of the facial regions of the skull.”
“Rostrum [('snout')] excessively elongated, occupying in one case (Eurhinodelphis longirostrus) nine-elevenths of the length of the skull…premaxilla strongly attenuated, forming by itself, in E. longirostrus, much more than half of the rostrum; in E. cochetexui, it is, on the other hand, shorter than the rostral portion of the maxilla. Skull… either slightly convex (E. cochetexui, E. longirostrus) or with a transverse crest (E. cristatus). Maxilla and mandible alone bear teeth; maxilla with 37 to 60 conical teeth, single rooted in each maxilla; premaxilla edentulous [('toothless')], with a rudimentary alveolar gutter with sharp borders, which extends to the anterior extremity of the rostrum [('forward-most part of the snout')]… the symphysis of the lower jaw [(''the connection point between the two halves, or 'mandibles')] is very long, and the mandible is furnished with conical teeth, very close together, and single-rooted. Lachrymal free, separated from the jugal by a suture, but with age, sometimes anklyosed around it. Olfactory foramina are large. Supraorbital arch [('the arch above the upper half of the eye socket')] convex. Maxillae, above the orbits, especially in E. cristatus, very thick… The form of the various bones in the skull, especially the squamosal, varies greatly in different individuals.”
Eurhinodelphis reconstruction.
Kellogg also notes that the cervical vertebrae of these animals are free, the scapula resembles that of modern oceanic dolphins, and the humerus is very similar to those found in modern sperm whales. Furthermore, unlike modern dolphins, Eurhinodelphis was a heterodont: meaning that its jaws contained differently-shaped teeth, with the anterior teeth generally being thinner than their posterior counterparts in addition to the former frequently pointing forward (most noticeably in E. cocheteuxi). On his personal page, Jayson Kowinsky writes that “Although Eurhinodelphis teeth are [more] complex [than those of modern dolphins], they are still tiny and peg-shaped… This means that Eurhinodelphis‘ diet was similar to that of today’s dolphins, [which consists] mainly [of] crustaceans and fish.”
Kowinsky holds an assemblage of Eurhinodelphis teeth.
He also compares the snouts of Eurhinodelphis and modern river dolphins (platanistoids) and points out that these creatures are unrelated (though somewhat comparable in size, as Eurhinodelphis reached lengths of six to seven feet or two to three meters, which is quite similar to those obtained by the extant Amazon river dolphins ), a fact solidified by the absence of premaxillary teeth in Eurhinodelphis (among other things). It’s been speculated that the long snouts of this creature was used for such things as digging for small, sand-dwelling organisms or as a bat with which to stun fish.
Just as the evolutionary transition between theropods and birds produced a number of oddballs, it would appear that cetaceans have had a few eccentric relatives of their own, many of which are doubtlessly awaiting discovery and research.
I apologize for the extreme tardiness which has accompanied this post, a fact largely due to recent restrictions on my schedule and that of the good doctor which have exposed themselves of late. So, without further ado, I present this long-awaited interview with my instructor and leading phytosaur expert, Dr. Axel Hungerbuehler of Mesalands Community College who has graciously agreed to ‘talk shop’ by answering a few questions about his favorite tetrapods .
(Below is a clip from a local news channel highlighting some of our recent aetosaur specimens which was filmed last January and features “Dr. H” and myself)
Q: Do Triassic researchers have any ideas regarding from what ancestors phytosaurs may have evolved?
A: Phytosaurs are widely regarded as the most basal group of the crurotarsans. Unfortunately, the earliest phytosaurs contain all of the major features that identify them as such, so it’s difficult to reconstruct what the ancestral forms looked like. And since there are no known ‘intermediates’, there’s very little to be said about where phytosaurs came from because the ones we know of are simply too derived.
A Redondasaurus skull on display at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science in Albuquerque.
Q: Phytosaurs are often directly compared with modern crocodilians. How apt is that comparison? Aside from the nostril position (it’s reasonably well known amongst Triassic enthusiasts that while modern crocodilians have nostrils at the tip of their snouts, phytosaurs sported theirs much closer to the eyes, and frequently just in front of them), what are some obvious differences between phytosaurs and modern crocodilians?
A: A modern crocodilian is the best living analogue, but I’d exercise some caution when invoking it because phytosaurs are certainly NOT identical to them. For instance, they have a much higher degree of heterodonty (‘they have multiple types of teeth in their mouths much more frequently’) than any living crocodilian. With regards to the overall shape of their skulls, all phytosaurs, even the robust ones, have comparatively narrow snouts. Thus, they can best be ecologically compared to the gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) and false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii). Still, the overall similarity exists and its appropriate to compare them. However, it’s not an exact correspondence. As for other major differences between phytosaurs and modern crocs, all phytosaurs had a soft secondary palate (as opposed to the hard, bony secondary palates found in living crocodilians) which caused the reorganization in shape of all the area’s bones.
Rutiodon skeletal reconstruction.
Q: How long did phytosaurs persist during the Triassic? Is there any chance that they may have survived into the Jurassic?
A: There’s no clear evidence of any phytosaur surviving into the Jurassic. Though three nicely-preserved teeth have been found in the Hettangian stage in France, they were most likely redeposited from older rocks. It’s recently been argued that the Triassic-Jurassic boundary is lower than it’s commonly considered to have been which, if true, could mean that some phytosaurs lived into the Jurassic after all, but we’ll have to await further evidence. As for the oldest phytosaurs, every phytosaur remain that’s been proven to have come from such an animal and has hailed from a clear locality is from the Upper Triassic. However, a basal phytosaur (Mesorhinosuchus) from Germany reportedly came from a Lower Triassic deposit, but the specimen was destroyed in 1944, so there’s no way to confirm this claim (though some rumors argue that the specimen survived, they cannot currently be substantiated and are of doubtful accuracy). We need either the actual specimen or a second one from the deposit to be sure.
Angistorhinus cranial reconstruction drawn by the Hairy Museum of Natural History's Matt Celesky
Q: What was the biggest phytosaur? What was the smallest?
A: Here we have to resort to skull length rather than total length — although phytosaur remains are the most abundant fossils in the majority of terrestrial Upper Triassic deposits in the northern hemisphere, complete skeletons are exceedingly rare (the total count here is 3). Also, there are some gigantic postcranial phytosaur elements known, but we have no means to assess the dimensions of their former bearer. The record-holder skull is that of Leptosuchus gregorii (AMNH 3060) with 1420 mm, on display in New York, followed by several specimens falling the size class between 1200 to 1300 mm (genera Angistorhinus, Leptosuchus, Pseudopalatus, and Redondasaurus). I assume the smallest means the smallest mature animal, rather than clear juveniles (the smallest complete skull of a juvenile is 275 mm). It’s hard to assess the individual age of smaller specimens (meaning smaller skulls), as most lack the axial skeleton that could potentially demonstrate whether the specimens were mature or not. The smallest skulls that ‘look’ mature are in the range of 600 to 650 mm (genera Paleorhinus, and Nicrosaurus).
A small but well-preserved phytosaur tooth I located in Petrified Forest National Park last summer. The shape is that of a posterior cutting tooth ('away from the snout tip'). Mud from this site is still caked on my hiking boots.
Q: Do phytosaurs display interesting differences in ontogeny? Also, is there any speculated sexual dimorphism?
A: We don’t know about ontogeny differences as very few juveniles are known. Out of those we do have, standard features are observed (large orbits, etc.), but otherwise the traditional phytosaurian characteristics are present. As for the sexual dimorphism, the topic crops up every few generations with speculations frequently being made only to fade away. The problem is simple: to show sexual dimorphism, we need a population in a single quarry with several specimens to show that there were at least two morphs available. Sadly, such sites don’t exist and don’t produce specimens to the required degree. However, in sites with an array of around a half-dozen skulls, one can postulate that trends exist, which has been done with Pseudopalatus in the Canjilon quarry. Here, it’s been suggested that males had prenarial (‘in front of the nostrils’) crests and females didn’t. Personally, I think that the authors have a point here, but I’m afraid that some people will claim that because this distinction exists in Pseudopalatus, it exists in all phytosaurs, which isn’t the case. Also, there’s a wide variety of different crest types that have been described for many phytosaur species, some of which are ambiguously defined. I can live with the presence or absence of a crest in Pseudopalatus, but I’m not sold on this characteristic in other genera.
Parasuchus skull reconstruction in dorsal ('aerial') view.
Q: Were phytosaurs fairly uniform in their eating habits, or were different genera adapted to eating different things? What do you suspect they were eating? Do we have stomach contents for any phytosaurs?
A: We do have stomach contents: the two known Indian Parasuchus skeletons each have a prolacertiform in their stomachs (in fact, the holotype and paratype of Malerisaurus were the food items of these specimens). As for their eating habits, the old interpritation is that slender-snouted species were gharial-like piscivores whereas the massively-snouted ones were hunting terrestrial prey. However, the two aforementioned Parasuchus specimens each had slender snouts and meter-long Malerisaurus in their stomachs (they’re partially articulated and were likely swallowed whole). Thus, the only preserved phytosaur stomach contents contradict the standard theory, which I find amusing. My guess is that they were opportunistic predators like modern crocodilians and ate whatever they could fit into their snouts. I also have no problem with envisioning the massively-skulled phytosaurs (eg: Leptosuchus) bringing down essentially anything that moved since most had the dentition to tear these beasts into manageable chunks and almost certainly possessed the physical strength with which to kill these animals.
The Petrified Forest Musuem's famed Leptosuchus skull.
I’d like to once again thank Dr. Hungerbuehler for agreeing to be interviewed and my readers for submitting such excellent questions.
May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!
Upcoming Posts:Prosqualodon, my new-found love of evolutionary psychology, and (less scientifically) a celebratory Godzilla post.
I’d just like to remind everyone that my instructor and world-known phytosaur expert Dr. Axel Hungerbuehler has agreed to do a Q&A session on his favorite archosaurs via this humble corner of the web. If anyone would like to submit questions about these frequently-neglected Triassic critters, please do so via commenting on this post or e-mailing yours truly at triassictype@aol.com
The interview will be posted right here next week (probably around Tuesday or Wednesday).
May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!
UPDATE: I realize that thus far this semester, I’ve been less than consistent with my posting frequency, for which I sincerely apologize. A combination of paleo research, extracurricular activities, and a difficult academic schedule has prevented me from updating it as often as I used to. With regards to this interview: it WILL happen, but neither the good doctor nor myself are currently capable of executing the project due to the advent of midterms week. I’ll be sure to keep everyone posted with regards to its progress in the future but for now, all I can do is humbly ask your forgiveness in its postponement.
Okay, enough suspense: it’s time to bring up the curtain! My long-time readers are acutely aware of my current involvement with the Phytosauria. Recently, I’ve decided that I could use some extra incentive for completing my “Redondasaurus project” (which involves a description of a partial skull that has been sitting around the museum for over a decade without acquiring scientific attention) and have signed up on the Paleo Paper Challenge concieved by ‘The Open Source Paleontologist’ and ‘Dave Hone’s Archosaur Musings’. Essentially, the challenge is to complete any submitted project by January 2010. I’ve jumped this particular bandwagon with such paleo-practitioners as Bill Parker, ReBecca Hunt, Mike Taylor, Matt Wedel, and my good friend Brian Beatty.
A 'fighting phytosaurs' diorama on display at the Petrified Forest National Park's Museum.
I’m nearly done with cleaning the skull and have begun identifying the various bones on its dorsal (‘upper’) side, but there’s still a considerable amount of work to be done. In the meantime, it struck me that since detailed phytosaur information is rather difficult to come by on the ‘net, perhaps I should take advantage of the fact that my instructor and future co-authoris one of the world’s leading authorities on the group. So, if anyone has ever had any nagging questions about the origins, morphology, evolution, cladistics, biogeography, or anatomy of these intriguing creature, now’s the time to ask. Simply post your queries into the comments section or send me an e-mail and I’ll relay them to Dr. Hungerbuehler. The following interview will serve as a ’special edition’ of next week’s ‘Weekly Wonder’ and will contain the grossly-belated third entry in my ‘Phytosaur Skull Update’ video series.
Here the good doctor stands alongside my friend and fellow student Donny Price at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science in Albuquerque.
May the fossil record continue to enchant us all, and may I get off my Italian hiney to get some work done!
I realize that this week’s ‘wonder’ has been delayed again, which is due to the fact that I’d like to do something very special with my next entry that will require a bit of extra effort (I’ll keep you in suspense until I can confirm or deny my ability to execute it as planned). In the mean time, I thought that I’d discuss what I believe to be an issue of vital importance to society at large: the fact that nobody can seem to make a decent movie about sharks. Seriously, what is it about these cartilaginous fish that compels people to start shooting some of the most ridiculous footage known to mankind?
I know, I know: everyone says that ‘Jaws’ was a classic, and to an extent, I agree: afterall, the film does have some excellent monologues and does a fantastic job of building suspense (I also quite like Peter Benchley). However, even the most die-hard fans can’t deny that it contains some incredibly stupid scenes (such as the 2,000 pound shark leaping atop a boat in order to devour the captain). Furthermore, nobody can claim that the film’s sequels aren’t painful to the extent that the pentagon should consider weaponizing them. However, as a cinematic masochist and avid Mystery Science Theatre fan, I quite enjoy watching some of their cheeziest scenes, along with those displayed in the never-ending series of rip-offs which have been appearing since the late ’70s.
Case in point is the following clip from ‘Jaws 3′. (Warning! Spoiler!)
I’ve also included a few of my other favorites starting with this gem from “Shark Attack 3: Megalodon” (Warning! Graphic Content!):
Here’s one of the most unabashedly-silly shark attack scenes of all time which hails from the intentionally-bad movie “Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus” (Warning! Crude Language!):
And, finally, a gripping scene from 2008’s “Shark In Venice” (Warning! Bad Italian Accents!):
May the fossil record continue to enchant us all and, in the case of ‘Carcharodon’ megalodon, inspire a plethora of new B-movies!
Easily the series’ greatest villain of the ’90s, Destoroyah maintains a reputation for being one of the strongest, most sinister, and most impressive adversaries Godzilla has ever faced. It’s been observed that what makes this beast so engaging to longtime fans is its exquisite blend of characteristics from earlier foes: it’s many forms stem from Hedorah’s frequent transformation, it’s tusks are a throwback to those of Biollante, and its arthropod-esque skin forces us to recall 
Mechagodzilla is a character who appears to undergo constant improvement, yet this is not to say that it’s been evolving in a predictable direction. In its first appearance back in 1974’s “Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla” and its direct sequel “Terror of Mechagodzilla”, the gargantuan robot relies almost exclusively upon its arsenal of projectile weaponry. In 1993’s “Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2″, the metal contraption features a massively-upgraded arsenal and connects itself to a smaller vessel to even further increase its power. But it is its latest incarnation as shown above which arguably commands the most attention, due to its comparatively lean physique and extreme adeptness at vigorous physical combat. Regardless of whether or not the robotic menace is portrayed as a hero or a villain, the very fact that it’s always been intended as ‘the anti-Godzilla’ ensures that its every appearance is a memorable one.
