In my last post, I mentioned that I have had more fun with my recent project on Nedoceratops than anything else I've done lately. Just as a refresher, this paper described an oft-neglected horned dinosaur skull known as Nedoceratops hatcheri, and presented counter-evidence to a hypothesis (published by John Scannella and Jack Horner) that Nedoceratops, Triceratops, and Torosaurus were all the same animal. This all sounds kinda boring and academic, so where's the fun in that?
As a scientist in a small field like vertebrate paleontology, it can be awkward when you disagree with a colleague. I've heard third-hand accounts of shouting matches at scientific conferences, and have occasionally seen very heated discussions during the Q&A time at presentations. Thankfully, this sort of behavior is pretty rare. Yet, I was a little worried about what might happen when I publicly presented a counter-argument to Scannella and Horner's hypothesis.
My nightmare of a confrontation with John Scannella (left) at SVP. Maybe there wouldn't be fists involved, but at a minimum a wrestling match. He's in better shape than I am, so I would be in trouble.
Of course, I was less concerned about a shouting match, and more focused on not being a jerk in print. I've known both John Scannella and Jack Horner for a number of years, and wanted to stay on at least semi-cordial terms with them. Of course I was going to disagree with them (based on my interpretations of the available data), but I wanted to do so in a way that was fair, collegial, and honest.
So, I did something that some people might consider stupid. I sent John and Jack a copy of my unpublished, unaccepted, in-review manuscript. At the very least, I figured it was only fair that I should give them a heads-up that I would be presenting counter-arguments to their hypothesis about Triceratops and Torosaurus. More importantly, I wanted to make sure that I was representing their work fairly and accurately.
This initiated a lengthy and wide-ranging email conversation. Although I had done a decent job of representing most of their points, there were a few areas where I had inadvertently set up a straw man. I fixed those as best I could. In some (thankfully minor) areas, I needed to update information or account for some specimens I had neglected. For instance, I had grossly understated the amount of variation in the frills of various adult Triceratops (something that has only been adequately documented thanks to John's Ph.D. work). With their honest feedback, I was able to craft a much-improved version of my manuscript. It is not just a smarmy platitude to state that I genuinely appreciate their input.
Of course, I won't claim that Scannella and Horner find my counter-arguments (that Torosaurus and Triceratops are different animals) entirely convincing. And, my current opinion on the matter is not unchangeable. John and I had a nice long chat at the SVP meeting this year, comparing notes and talking about our future research plans. He has some really cool data (some of which he has presented at SVP and other conferences), and I look forward to seeing it in print. Undoubtedly, we will both modify our interpretations as new data are published.
Now why am I finding this to be so enjoyable? It's the joy of discovery, the entertainment of questioning long-held ideas (especially my own), and the pursuit of new data. After all, science shouldn't be about scoring rhetorical points, but working towards an accurate view of our world. I know beyond a doubt that we all are playing on the same team. My dialog with John (and Jack) has been engaging, challenging, and stimulating in a unique way. I've learned more about Triceratops in the past six months than I had in the past six years (to be ultra-nerdy, for instance, some specimens lack the mid-line epiparietal - neat!!!). It's just darned fun to be working on a research problem like this!
No matter how this whole issue shakes out, I think there is one thing we can all agree on right now. Horned dinosaurs are AWESOME!
John Scannella and I, with our favorite dinosaur
Coming Up: A few final thoughts on the process behind this paper.
7 comments:
Andy,
I think it's almost certainly necessary to let your (likely) harshest critics have a go at your draft; letting whom you know to be the severest critic, themselves publishing work you are attempting to refute, allows them to give you potential refutation and the perspective of an opponent to help broaden your means of approach in the work. It can allow you to see the subject from a hopefully further source, new eyes, and the sense that maybe an argument is not as sound as it could be.
I've done this with at least TWO papers in draft form, where I made arguments and sent the drafts to people whose work I (in part) was refuting, and both authors gave welcome (and constructive) feedback.
Hi Jaime--I agree with you on all of those points too (and this is another reason why I sent my MS to John and Jack). But. . .I also would only send out an unpublished manuscript if I felt that the recipients would use the information and critique the paper in good faith. Although "scooping" or plagiarism is rare, it does happen. I'm definitely more careful about distributing unpublished work than I used to be.
Andy,
Great stuff.
Rod Scheetz just yesterday showed me that they are repreparing the huge Triceratops skulls ay BYU to look for signs of fenestra in the frills (covered in prep?). A worthwhile test!
WE really need a multi-instutional Torosaurus utahensis project to excavate more material (CEU - Carpenter???) examine relationships, and produce a full reconstruction of the beast!
that's my brother John ha ha
Good Day everyone.
A few days ago (11/13/2011), I have read a blog in the Dinosaur Mailing List that says Protoceratops hatchlings have unfenestrated coalesced parietals, which, according to Fowler, tells that Torosaurus is the senescence stage of Triceratops and that fenestration of the neck crest occurs in the old adult phase. Regarding this issue of when (or whether) fenestration happened in the coalesced parietals of Triceratops, Tsuihiji et. al (2011) cautioned that the ontogeny of even sister species could have significantly different trajectories (again, humans and chimps are excellent examples; humans don't get a thick layer of hair covering most of their bodies unlike chimps). In one retrorespect, I have to agree with Fowler that Triceratops seems to be a paedomorphic taxon. Nevertheless, was the evolutionary trend of ceratopids towards paedomorphosis (with the more advanced taxa being more paedomorphic and having smaller parietal fenestrae relative to the size of the coalesced pair of parietals)? Also, were the neck crests already present in hatchlings? If those youngsters died around a few weeks after hatching(for convenience's sake, I'll just refer to them as nestlings), then it is reasonable to assume that the coalesced parietals are still unfenestrated since having a protective layer of bone for the brain is an uncompromisable necessity for nestlings.I think it would be more reasonable to examine all available ceratopid pups at the same phase of ontogeny (that is, those youngsters that are at least old enough to leave their nest and forage for their own food) as the Triceratops pup in Goodwin and Horner's 2006 paper to see if the trend in Ceratopidae is parietal fenestration at a very early stage. Also, I have read a news article that states Longrich will perform his own histological analysis on the Torosauri specimens at Yale because according to him those specimens have subadult/adolescent features (i.e. unfused skull bones).
Literature cited:
Tsuihiji T., Watabe M., Tsogtbaatar K., Tsubamoto T., et. al. (2011). Cranial osteology of a juvenile specimen of Tarbosaurus bataar 9Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae)from the Nemegt Formation (upper Cretaceous) Bugin Tsav, Mongolia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 31(3):1-21.
Good Day everyone.
A few days ago (11/13/2011), I have read a blog in the Dinosaur Mailing List that says Protoceratops hatchlings have unfenestrated coalesced parietals, which, according to Fowler, tells that Torosaurus is the senescence stage of Triceratops and that fenestration of the neck crest occurs in the old adult phase. Regarding this issue of when (or whether) fenestration happened in the coalesced parietals of Triceratops, Tsuihiji et. al (2011) cautioned that the ontogeny of even sister species could have significantly different trajectories (again, humans and chimps are excellent examples; humans don't get a thick layer of hair covering most of their bodies unlike chimps). In one retrorespect, I have to agree with Fowler that Triceratops seems to be a paedomorphic taxon. Nevertheless, was the evolutionary trend of ceratopids towards paedomorphosis (with the more advanced taxa being more paedomorphic and having smaller parietal fenestrae relative to the size of the coalesced pair of parietals)? Also, were the neck crests already present in hatchlings? If those youngsters died around a few weeks after hatching(for convenience's sake, I'll just refer to them as nestlings), then it is reasonable to assume that the coalesced parietals are still unfenestrated since having a protective layer of bone for the brain is an uncompromisable necessity for nestlings.I think it would be more reasonable to examine all available ceratopid pups at the same phase of ontogeny (that is, those youngsters that are at least old enough to leave their nest and forage for their own food) as the Triceratops pup in Goodwin and Horner's 2006 paper to see if the trend in Ceratopidae is parietal fenestration at a very early stage. Also, I have read a news article that states Longrich will perform his own histological analysis on the Torosauri specimens at Yale because according to him those specimens have subadult/adolescent features (i.e. unfused skull bones).
Literature cited:
Tsuihiji T., Watabe M., Tsogtbaatar K., Tsubamoto T., et. al. (2011). Cranial osteology of a juvenile specimen of Tarbosaurus bataar 9Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae)from the Nemegt Formation (upper Cretaceous) Bugin Tsav, Mongolia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 31(3):1-21.
Good Day everyone,
Also, I have pointed out in my blogposts in Zach Miller's site using my old(and now defunct) email add that this hypothesis of Scanella and Horner will need more discoveries before it could be satisfactorily resolved. New information either supporting or refuting it should come from all possible methods (morphological analysis, histological test, ecology, behavior inference, molecular examination)...As I perceive this issue based on the first three methods, both sides strong arguments and counter-arguments in support of their hypothesis. Maybe what is needed is to subject the skin samples from the Triceratops (?T. horridus) "mummy" found by Dr. Bakker plus preserved soft tissues in Triceratops bones (if present and in good quality) to a qualitative molecular examination to see if there are any usable traces of peptides from that "mummy"; if there are, collect as many samples to determine the consensus amino acid sequence of Triceratops as comprehensively as possible. Do the same for the "Torosauri" specimens; then subject them to amino acid sequence analysis (one can even perform probabilistic reverse genetics since the present sequence of amino acids hints at the possible sequence of DNAs that produced it). As I have said before, in even a 1% or 2% difference (with regards to equivalent genes; other factors such as the differences in respective numbers of those identical genes' copies and gene expression control mechanisms present in those taxa are anybody's guess with our current technology) in the molecular composition of two taxa can render them as separate but very closely related (i.e. humans and chimps). If the molecular data contradicts the morphological ontogeny implied by histological data, then there is a significant possibility that Torosaurus is indeed valid.
Post a Comment