Good tidings and well-wishes and happy holidays!

Since the holiday season is fast upon us (if it hasn’t already arrived for some of us), I felt that my humble corner of the internet display a wee bit of a festive tribute to this ‘most wonderful time of the year’, with a slight twist of course. Below, you’ll find a collection of holiday decorations and excerpts designed to appeal to the nerdiest of web surfers. As a firm believer in giving credit where it’s due, I’ve also attached links to the posts and web pages from whence they’ve come and would encourage everyone to view them in their original context to support the primary uploaders. So grab a cup of ‘cheer’ (whatever that is), open your textbooks and enjoy!

To kick things off, Jen McCreight, author of the ever-popular ‘Blag Hag‘ and president/co-founder of the Purdue Non-Theists Society has presented the following  illustrative evidence in favor of the idea that Santa is in for some competition this year:

And, through the miracle of modern capitalism, one can readily obtain mugs, t-shirts, and other products depicting this most festive of displays from Jen’s online store.

Despite the fact that its content doesn’t exactly conform to that which has generally become associated with this blog, I simply cannot deny my love of CBS’ ‘The Big Bang Theory’. Below, I’ve re-posted an unofficial highlight reel of the show’s Christmas special which was released last December.

What’s Christmas without the decorations? Recently, I’ve stumbled upon this post which highlights a series of nerdy Christmas ornaments, my favorite of which 9despite my hatred of mathematics) can be seen below.

Right then, back to paleontology! Paleo nerds aren’t generally difficult to buy for, but should you find yourself in want of a paleontological gift idea, ReBecca “Dinochick” Hunt-Foster has brought to the blogosphere’s attention what is quite possibly the coolest series of stuffed animals ever manufactured: the Evolvems!

"From Fish To Tetrapod!"

According to the official web-page,

“Unzip and flip the creature inside out and you’ll get its evolved form. Watch fins turn to feet and gills grow into lungs right before your eyes. The best part is that all you kids who want to see ‘em don’t have to line up at our museum. You can have your own piece of evolution in your own home and bring it in for show n’ tell at school. Show those other monkeys their roots, we say.”

The line contains Coelocanth-Ichthyostega (pictured), Dimetrodon-Cynognathus, Yinlong-Styracosaurus, and my personal favorite, Pakicetus-Squalodon.

Having successfully regurgitated pieces of saturnalia flare from round the world wide web, I feel that this post would be incomplete without providing one of my own. So, in Darren Naish style, I now offer my readers a bit of a geeky puzzle. In honor of everyone’s favorite levitating holiday cervid, I now present ‘TTT’s first annual ‘Winter Solstice Mystery Artiodactyl‘ contest.  The first reader to correctly identify the following even-toed ungulate via sending me their entry through the ‘comments’ section, my personal e-mail account, or any other means available to them will receive an automatic thumbs-up from yours truly along with a shout-out at the onset of my next post. With that, I present your beastie:

Io Saturnalia everyone and, as always, may the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Good tidings and well-wishes!

Terrestrial crocodylomorphs have been gracing the various postings of this blog since its earliest days and thus, I felt it would be quite fitting to throw the spotlight upon one of these magnificent creatures for the conclusion of ‘The Theatrical Tanystropheus’s first week-long ’special’. So, without further ado (boy, that’s a first!), I now present the star of today’s installment of my ‘Week Of Wonders’ series:  Sebecus icaeorhinus.

A crocodylomorpha 'family portrait'. Sebecus itself can be observed crouching down in the stream on the left (more on that later).

As per the general protocol of this space, a discussion concerning the animal’s taxonomic affiliations is in order. Though you wouldn’t know it from looking at modern specimens, the crocodylomorpha has undergone a fascinating evolutionary history featuring dozens of intriguing players which ranged from streamlined aquatic predators to turtle-crushing behemoths to stout terrestrial omnivores. Until fairly recently, the superorder was divided into the suborders Eusuchia, Mesosuchia, Thalattosuchia, and Protosuchia. However, a handful of papers published earlier this decade have since re-arranged this antiquated setup.

The crocodylomorpha's place within the sauropsida class.

Under the new system, Sebecus and its relatives have been placed within the Mesoeucrocodylia taxa, which includes the Eusuchia, Thallatosuchia, and now-obsolete Mesosuchia suborders. The group is united by the following characteristics:

-The secondary palate is expanded toward the rear.

-The vertebrae are amphicoelous (concave at both ends).

When we attempt to more specifically define Sebecus‘ taxonomic place, however, problems emerge. There simply isn’t enough space for me to describe the current state of the Sebecosuchia suborder, so I’ll send everyone to ‘Why I Hate Theropods‘ for a nice overview. In 2007, sebecosuchians were treated to a fairly extensive revision which, among other things, dissected the Sebecus genus by re-naming “S. huilensis” Langstonia huilensis, and “S. querejazus” Zulmasuchus querejazus (These updates along with several others put forth that year [see above], have effectively reduced the genus to a single species: S. icaeorhinus).

A sebecosuchian tooth

Nonetheless, the Sebecosuchia is characterized by the following traits (from ‘palaeos.com’):

“Active terrestrial predators. Tall, narrow rostrum [('snout')]; sides of rostrum tall and nearly vertical; teeth long, curved, laterally compressed  (very similar to theropod teeth) [(in point of fact, they're so similar that until the late 1930's, several paleontologists used them as evidence behind the idea that non-avian theropods had survived the K-T event)] ; 4 teeth on premaxilla; 10-11 teeth on maxilla; no enlarged maxillary teeth; teeth widely spaced, intercalate; posterior ends [('rear ends')]of maxillae meet on palate anterior to [('in front of')]palatine; broad maxilla forms sides of rostrum, and narials forms flat dorsal [('top')] portion, terminating in a premaxilla with substantial diastema; maxilla and premaxilla do not overlap; no maxillary fenestra [('holes')]; nares [('nasal openings')] face antero-laterally [('forward and to the side')] or dorso-laterally [('upward and to the side')]; maxilla and, especially, premaxilla deeply sculptured with deep pits connected by channels; rostrum widens abruptly in front of orbits [('eye sockets')]; orbit relatively small; angular and surangular large, long and strongly curved dorsally [('upwards')].” 

Sebecus skull (heavily reconstructed).

The suborder is furthermore divided into three families: the Baurusuchidae, the Bretesuchidae, and the Sebecidae. Naturally, Sebecus falls within the latter alongside Langstonia, Ayllusuchus, Barinasuchus, & Ilchunaia.

A modern Alligator modified to resemble a juvenile Sebecus.

As with many taxonomic identification systems, the characters mentioned earlier almost exclusively refers to cranial features. How, then, can we assert that Sebecus and its relatives were terrestrial predators? Well for starters, the comparatively rare limb bones (and the even scarcer articulated skeletons) of these beasts tend to bear a much greater resemblance to those of rauisuchians than to the traditional crocodilian physique (in fact, their proportions suggest that they likely severed all ties to any sort of liquid habitat). However, the skull itself offers a significant amount of evidence towards the land-based hunter interpretation, for the teeth of these crocs conform to a ziphodont mold, meaning that they’re compressed from side to side, slightly recurved, and serrated along their edges: a pattern which frequently found in terrestrial carnivores, but is rarely seen in their aquatic counterparts.

A pair of Baurusuchus square off, exhibiting the generally-accepted terrestrial crocodylian stance.

In his excellent 2002 book, “King Of The Crocodylians: The Paleobiology Of Deinosuchus”, David R. Schwimmer (not to be confused with the actor who famously portrayed a geeky pseudo-paleontologist) writes (note that, for the sake of modern accuracy, any mention of ‘Sebecus‘ should be replaced with ‘Sebecus and its kin’) (NOTE: Certain parts of the following quote are debatable and/or inaccurate. See the ‘comments’ section for details) :

“The sebecosuchids were… the last terrestrial crocodylomorphs in the fossil record, and the namesake genus Sebecus apparently survived and flourished in isolation in South America, when it was separated from both Africa and the Northern Hemisphere during much of the Tertiary period. Sebecus filled the role of dominant large predator there until the Pleistocene, when North American predators (eg: big cats) entered South America via the Central America land bridge When Sebecus went extinct, less than 1.0 Million Years ago, it was the last remaining mesoeucrocodylian below the neosuchian grade- and at the same time the last crocodylomorph below the eusuchian grade!”

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Good tidings and well-wishes!

Longtime readers of ‘The Theatrical Tanystropheus‘ may have observed my general tendency to ignore non-avian dinosaurs within its confines. This trend is largely due to the simple fact that nearly every lay person with whom I become engaged in a discussion concerning paleontology seems to be utterly convinced that the subject should simply be re-named ‘dinosaur-ology’ to disambiguate its intended purpose. In other words, the average person seems to think that either paleo is concerned only with the 165-million year reign of the dinosauria (to the exclusion of their descendants of course) or, worse, that anything which becomes extinct is automatically classified as a ‘dinosaur’ by the scientific community (Zach Miller of ‘When Pigs Fly Returns’ recently created a post through which those of us in the blogosphere can vent our frustrations with this latter aggravating phenomenon).

However, at this time, I feel that it’s necessary to remind everyone precisely whose responsibility it is to remedy this regrettable situation: those of us currently taking residence in the paleontological community. If we cannot bring our own academic fields into the public consciousness, who can?

Since this rant has already taken up too much space, I’ll descend from my soap box and redirect those interested to this exquisite diagnosis of the problem from both perspectives in order to move on to the subject at hand.

Virtually no prehistoric organism of any era is more commonly mistaken for a dinosaur than the infamous Dimetrodon , even though the animal is quite demonstrably more closely akin to us than it is to any ‘terrible lizard’ (which is actually a mis-translation. Check this out!). However, I’d like to dedicate this particular post to an early relative of the famed beastie which was somewhat less showy (though just as interesting) and accordingly receives far less attention from the popular media and scientific community alike: Ophiacodon sp. of the early Permian.

Ophiacodon reconstruction

Ophiacodon was a moderately large (species ranged from 2 to nearly 4 meters in length) pelycosaurs, a wonderfully diverse group of non-mammalian synapsids hailing from the Carboniferous and (mostly) early Permian (though some species held out until the second half of the latter period). The pelycosauria order was among the first group of amniotes to evolve, paving the way for virtually every organism most of us instantly picture when we hear the word ‘animal’, including ourselves.

A trio of Pelycosaurs: Cotylorhynchus in the background, Ophiacodon in the midground, and Varanops in the foreground.

However, most of the scientific community recognizes them for pioneering another characteristic: the ’synapsid skull’. According to the invaluable ‘palaeos.com’ entry on the pelycosauria:

“[The cranium] features a single, large opening on the side of the skull (the temporal region) behind the orbit (eye socket). This special opening allowed the development of larger and longer jaw muscles, and hence stronger jaws that could be opened wider and closed forcefully, enabling the animal to dispatch struggling or larger prey. It was this simple evolutionary adaptation that gave the pelycosaurs the edge in the struggle for survival. All that was needed was a prolonged period of drought, such as the sudden period of aridity during the Kasimovian Period, to kill off many of the large stem tetrapods that kept the pelycosaurs insignificant, and these creatures were able to emerge as the dominant life-form on Earth during the Permian period, while the captorhinids remained small and relatively insignificant.”

An Ophiacodon skull which exhibits the traits mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Ophiacodon itself was more specifically the name-giving genus of the Ophiacodontidae family, a group from whence the sphenacodontids and edaphosaurids would later emerge. The most obvious traits uniting the family’s members are their disproportionally-large elongate skulls and massively wide shoulder girdles (the latter was almost certainly utilized to help support the former). Their awkward proportions and cone-like teeth have traditionally led most scientists to believe that these were semiaquatic piscivores, however, this interpretation is likely a definitive example of being wrong and right simultaneously.

A collection of Ophiacodon teeth.

Fairly complete Ophiacodon skeletons have revealed that the creature’s wrists and ankles were weakly attatched to their respective limbs, suggesting that the animal’s legs were largely incapable of equipping it with an efficient means of terrestrial locomotion. This fact throws additional weight to the idea of Ophiacodon being an obligate fish-eater, but precisely how the beast captured its scaly prey (fun fact: skin impressions of Ophiacodon and its relatives reveal that these animals were scale-less throughout much of their bodies but nevertheless sported dermal scutes on their bellies)  remains highly debatable.

Ophiacodon skeletal mount.

Many Permian workers have maintained that Ophiacodon may have swung its skull from side to side through a body of water while pursuing fish. However, one huge factor obstructs this view: the skull itself. As the 181st entry of the Carnegie Institute Of Washington’s Publication pointed out in 1913,

“the skull [of Ophiacodon] is remarkably narrow, high, and long. The very small nares [('nasal openings')] are at the extreme front end, the small orbits are far posterior [('very far behind them')]. The upper side is flattened in the frontal and parietal region: it’s greatest width is just behind the orbits… Immdeiately in front of the orbits the upper surface narrows; thence to the nares the border, formed chiefly by the nasals, is gently convex in outline. Doubtless in life the very broad sides of the face were gently convex, but, as preserved, the thin bones forming them are nearly in contact, producing a light concavity between the thickened alveolar border of the maxilla and the thickened nasal border; the bones of this region are scarcely thicker than writing paper for the most part…”

Ophiacodon skull replica in aerial view.

This most certainly is not the skull of an animal which actively pursues fish by laterally swinging its skull as the aforementioned Permian paleontologists have argued because if it’s utilized in this fashion, an immense amount of drag will hinder its progress (try striking a fast moving fish underwater with the broad side of an oar and you’ll see what I mean).

A fishing Ophiacodon reconstruction.

So just how did Ophiacodon and its kin use their bizarre skulls? Recently, the paleontology department of the Houston Museum of Natural Science has put forth the following idea for Dimetrodon’s dietary habits: the creature may have used its massive size to tackle large and cumbersome freshwater sharks (such as Xenacanthus) with whom it shared its semi-aquatic environment. Though Dimetrodon was much more heavily-built than any ophiacodont, this scenario provides an intriguing hypothetical answer to one of the fundamental questions about these latter animals which has plagued the scientific community for several decades.

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Good tidings and well-wishes!

Aside from dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mammoths, and ’saber-toothed cats’, few groups of ancient fauna can claim strong international fan bases like the various extinct marine reptiles of the world can. You can argue that it stems from the age-old mythology of sea-serpents or that it merely extends from the human fear of the ocean’s depths, but you simply can’t deny the universal appeal of these aquatic beasties. However, as with nearly any paleontological bestiary, nothing sells interest to the general public quite like an intimidating animal of a bygone age: and with all due respect to the plesiosauria, icthyosauria, and thalattosauria (along with many others), no collection of marine reptiles proves to be quite as terrifying to imagine alive as the mosasauridae. (To get an idea of just how monstrous some of these things were, do go here).

Yet every congregation of Goliaths is sure to have its David, and to the mosasaur family, ‘David’ is known as Carinodens sp, a ‘pint-sized’ species of the Netherlands.

Carinodens reconstruction, courtesy of 'oceansofkansas.com'.

At 3.5 meters in length, it’s safe to say that were any of us to find ourselves in the company of Carinodens during a late Cretaceous swim, we’d hesitate before referring to the creature as a ‘dwarf’ of any kind. Yet when one considers the fact that certain mosasaurs may have reached 15 meters from nose-tip to tail-tip, the animal’s miniscule distinction seems appropriate.

As usual, before we can fully appreciate the eccentricities of Carinodens itself, an introduction to the seagoing critter’s phylogeny is required.

Carinodens jaw fragment.

The beast belongs to the mosasaurinae subfamily which, according to D.A. Russel in “Systematics and morphology of American mosasaurs” is defined by the following features:

“Small rostrum present or absent anterior [('in front of')] to premaxillary teeth. Fourteen or more teeth present in dentary and maxilla. Cranial nerves X, XI, and XII leave lateral wall of opisthotic through two foramina [('openings')]. No canal or groove in floor of basioccipital or basisphenoid for basilar artery. Suprastapedial process of quadrate distally expanded. Dorsal edge of surangular thin lamina of bone rising anteriorly to posterior surface of coronoid…At least 31, usually 42–45 presacral vertebrae [(meaning 'those before the hip region')]present. Length of presacral series exceeds that of postsacral, neural spines of posterior caudal vertebrae [('tail vertebrae')] elongated to form distinct fin. Appendicular elements [('those dealing with the arms and legs')] with smoothly finished articular surfaces, tarsus and carpus well ossified.”

More specifically, Carinodens is a member of the Globidensini tribe, the members of which are famous for their unorthodox dental arrangements.

Carinodens' larger relative, Globidens. Courtesy of 'oceansofkansas.com'

Traditional reconstructions have overwhelmingly depicted globidansine mosasaurs as shell-crushing oyster eaters, although it’s been suggested that cephalopods and arthropods may have been on the menu as well. In 2005, the question of what precisely Carinodens and its relatives ate was visited by the Maastricht Museum of Natural History’s A.S. Schulp, who utilized the discovery of a recently-discovered group of material to create a ‘mechanical mosasaur’ which was designed to crush various marine animals between its jaws. The experiment revealed that

“a biomechanical model of the bite force of Carinodens applied to a mechanical jaw model provides a constraint on the possible prey items this mosasaur could have processed. Echinoids, smaller bivalves, and gastropods are considered to have been likely prey items. Carinodens was probably less successful in crushing larger bivalves such as scallops and oysters which exceeded 100 mm in size. Particularly rounded gastropods, such as winkles, may not have provided sufficient grip to be crushed… The fact that the dentition of Carinodens was well adapted for crushing hard-shelled prey items does not imply that it did not eat softer food. Animals such as shrimp are quite easily processed, so there is no reason to exclude such animals a priori from the menu.”

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Courtesy of oceansofkansas.com

Good tidings and well-wishes!

When asked to cite my favorite sub-discipline of biology by interested parties, I often find myself at an uncharacteristic loss for words. As an academic marriage of geology and bio, my beloved field of paleontology certainly can’t qualify as a finalist for this distinction. This fact results in a three-way tie between evolutionary studies (which, I hardly need tell my fellow nerds, covers an enormous intellectual area), psychobiology (which nicely combines my love of the humanities and social sciences with my passion for evolutionary biology), and the centuries-old subject of comparative vertebrate anatomy.

This latter science is a beautiful thing in that it so very often lends an enormous amount of scientific credence to the notion that ‘looks can be deceiving’. For the proponents of this science have shown that their beloved domain can do much more than assist us in our efforts to ascertain the identities of the various chimeras which have proclaimed their existence to the scientific community through the ages: it can also reveal that those creatures which, at first glance, appear to be entirely mundane are actually far more interesting than anything which we could have possibly imagined. Last spring, I utilized this column to feature the strange case of Sivathertium: a moderately-large giraffid which, according to most any initial inspection, resembled a moose with an elongated skull. Nearly six months later, I’d like to draw the attention of my readership to the anatomical story of another bizarre animal: Coryphodon sp. of the Eocene.

Let’s begin by examining the animal’s skeleton as displayed below:

Coryphodon sp. Skeleton (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Mammal enthusiasts are likely to assume that this beastie was merely a type of prehistoric Hippopotamus as suggested by its relatively stout limbs, barrel-like chest, and fearsome jaws.

However, perhaps we should now compare it to a skeleton of an actual Hippopotamus:

The two aren’t exactly uniform in composition, are they?

In their excellent book, “Mammoths, Sabertooths, And Hominids: 65 Million Years Of Mammalian Evolution In Europe”, Jordi Augusti and Mauricio Anton write:

“the skeleton of Coryphodon [is] a mixture of traits reminiscent of those of different kinds of animals. The trunk vertebrae have surprisingly weak neural spines for such a big animal [(Coryphodon was approximately 1 meter in height and 2.25 in length)], suggesting a partly amphibious lifestyle, like that of modern hippos. The long bones of the limbs resemble in structure those of heavy perissodactyls like rhinos and tapirs, while the feet, retaining all five digits, are like those of modern elephants in structure. In side view, the head vaguely resembled that of the Paleocene arctocyonids, with huge canines, although this animal was not an omnivore like the latter, but a specialized vegetarian.”

Coryphodon foot reconstruction, which, as the authors have pointed out, really resembles that of an elephant more than anything else.

Although Coryphodon certainly bore distinct resemblances to various members of the artiodactyla, perissodactyla, proboscidea, and arctocyonidae, this intriguing herbivore owed its phylogenetic allegiance to none of these groups. So what the hell was it?

The animal actually belonged to the extinct order pantodonta: one of the first groups of herbivorous mammals to truly attain relatively large sizes.  A list of the group’s distinguishing characteristics may be located here.

Restorations of some pantodonts of the North American Paleocene. A. Coryphodon. B. Barylambda. C Titanoides primaevus. D. Caenolambda. E. Pantolambda cavirictus. E. Pantolambda bathmodon. (Courtesy of paleocene-mammals.de)

As the preceeding image indicates, pantodonts were a wonderfully diverse lot despite their aforementioned similarities. While our hippo-like Coryphodon likely behaved in the manner of the modern creature to which its skeleton was compared at the onset of this article, Barylambda was built like an eccentric ground sloth and likely acted accordingly, Titanoides was a fairly large terrestrial herbivore whose dietary habits largely consisted of tough vegetation, and Pantolambda was a vaguely cat-like creature which nevertheless maintained an herbivorous diet. For an immeasurably more complete description of these incredible organisms, do go here.

A behind-the-scenes look at the Coryphodon cranial reconstruction which was recently employed at the AMNH's recent 'Extreme Mammals' exhibit.

There are certainly many more questions to be answered concerning this magnificent group of creatures (most notably, that of ‘to what other congregation of mammals is the pantodonta most closely related?’), and one would hope that they will soon be answered with the advent of additional research and a host of rising specialists.

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Good tidings and well wishes!

I realize that it’s been well over a month since my last ‘Weekly’ Wonders installment. So, to compensate for this regrettable trend of inactivity, I’ve decided to initiate a ‘week of wonders’: every day of this work-week will feature a brand new article of ‘Weekly Wonders’ design. Suggestions for specific critters to be highlighted will be considered.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll readily say it again: amphibians have had a fascinating, though somewhat under-studied, evolutionary history which has produced a series of genuine odd-balls that have, for innumerable generations, inspired the emergence of nearly every emotion imaginable, including awe, confusion, and even fear. The sight of the latter feeling in this context may seem incredibly odd, for when one grows up in the company of Kermit the frog and “The Wind in the Willows”, imagining a terrifying amphibian suddenly becomes a tall order.

But in spite of our synthetic biases, a number of prehistoric amphibians (including everyone’s favorite (‘flat frogs’) were in fact equipped with truly ferocious-looking dental arrangements. But arguably no amphibian of any era displays a more intimidating set of chompers than Anthracosaurus russeli: a massive, eel-like predator of the Carboniferous.

Anthracosaurus cranial reconstruction.

Anthracosaurus, incredibly enough, hails from the anthracosauria order the members of which, according to Jennifer A. Clack in her book “Gaining Ground: The Origin And Evolution Of Tetrapods”,:

“are characterized by contact between the tabular and parietal bones in the skull table in combination with the presence of an intertemporal (a primitive character), a closed palate with small or no vacuities [('holes')]in the midline, and often a skull table that is separated from the cheek plates by a noninterdigitating suture. [(connection points between bones that don't interlock like clasped hands)].

Anthracosaurus skull reconstruction (the largest image is in aerial view)

Additionally, the anthracosauria is  an incredibly diverse group, containing the problematic seymouriamorpha, the intriguing diadectamorpha (which produced some of the planet’s earliest known terrestrial herbivorous vertebrates), the bizarre  gephyrostegida, and the generally ferocious-looking members of the embolomeri. Anthracosaurus itself is allied with the latter group, which largely consisted of crocodile-like piscivores whose remains have been unearthed in both the U.K. and eastern U.S. and sports such genera as Pholiderpeton, and Archeria.

In the “Catalogue Of The Fossil Reptilia And Amphibia In The British Museum (Natural History)“, describes Anthracosaurus itself as follows (never let it be said that these animals had a shortage of teeth!):

“Skull broadly triangular with large postero-lateral expansions [('widened ridgstemming from the skull's rear and sides')]… orbits very small, subtriangular, approximated, and situated in the hinder third of the skull…. Premaxillary and maxillary teeth few, unequal, and forming an irregular series; one large palatine tusk near the posterior nares [('the rear of the nasal openings')], and the others further back; mandibular teeth irregular [('the teeth on the lower jaw are relatively uneven in size and shape')]; pterygoids apparently carrying a number of denticles. Crowns of teeth ridged, conical, with a transversely oval section at the base, and laterally compressed [('flattened from side to side')] and curved near the summit… Cranial sculpture pitted and very sparsely distributed. Intercentra apparently absent in vertebral column.”

The legendary evolutionary biologist and anatomist Thomas “Darwin’s Bulldog” Huxley first described Anthracosaurus in 1863, giving it the Greek name of ‘coal lizard’ after its geological affiliations.

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

UPDATE: For a brief discussion of the relationship that exists between paleo-amphibians and modern amniotes, please check the comments section.

Good tidings and well-wishes!

As I’ve previously mentioned, it’s finals week here at Mesalands, and I’ve been working my intellectual butt off via a series of all-nighters and as such, haven’t had the luxury of posting very much of late. However, to satisfy the paleontological cravings of my readers, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to a few excellent posts which have emerged throughout the blogosphere recently.

-For those of you who may have appreciated my interview with Dr. Hungerbuehler earlier this semester, Jeff Martz has posted an excellent review of phytosaur evolution and biostratigraphy. A definite must-read for anyone interested in archosaurs of any kind!

-Gombessa Girl has reminded my why I really ought to play more video games by highlighting an upcoming beauty about… are you ready for this?… Hitler’s top-secret army of Nazi dinosaurs! Words fail me.

-Scott Sampson has posted an exquisite and thought-provoking answer to the age-old question of ‘why paleontology matters‘ on his brand spankin’ new blog.

Hopefully, I’ll obtain the chance to post original material next week, as my “final Final” will be completed later today, giving me far more free time than I’ve had thus far this month.

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!

Good tidings and well-wishes!

I apologize for my inability to post of late, due to the intense studying I’m currently undergoing in preparation for my final exams next week. I hope to produce some new paleontologically-charged fodder in the near future, but until then, I’d urge everyone in need of a little amusement to watch the following parody of “I Love College”:

May the fossil record continue to enchant us all!