Comparitive Forelimb Muscle Attachments - Ventral

The ventral forelimb muscle attachment sites in crocodylians, Anhanguera, and a corvid. The attachments in Anhanguera are inferred from muscle scars, and comparison with crocodylians and birds.

• Bennett, S. C., 2003. Morphological evolution of the pectoral girdle of pterosaurs myology and function, in Buffetaut, E., and Mazin, J-M. (eds) 2003, Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs, geological society of London, 2003 217 pp. 191-215
• Hudson, E. H., Lanzillotti P. J., 1955. Gross anatomy of the wing muscles in the family Corvidae, The American Midland Naturalist, 53:1 pp. 1-44
• Meers, M. B., 2003. Crocodylian forelimb musculature and its relevance to the Archosauria, The Anatomica Record, Part A

Comparitive Forelimb Muscle Attachments - Dorsal

The dorsal forelimb muscle attachment sites in crocodylians, Anhanguera, and a corvid. The attachments in Anhanguera are inferred from muscle scars, and comparison with crocodylians and birds.

• Bennett, S. C., 2003. Morphological evolution of the pectoral girdle of pterosaurs myology and function, in Buffetaut, E., and Mazin, J-M. (eds) 2003, Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs, geological society of London, 2003 217 pp. 191-215
• Hudson, E. H., Lanzillotti P. J., 1955. Gross anatomy of the wing muscles in the family Corvidae, The American Midland Naturalist, 53:1 pp. 1-44
• Meers, M. B., 2003. Crocodylian forelimb musculature and its relevance to the Archosauria, The Anatomica Record, Part A

The Structure of a Pterosaur

Here's something I've been working on for quite some time: a multi-layered diagram of all the structural elements of a pterosaur - basically, the things that give them their shape.

You can find the full version, with a still image, an interactive version, and a higher-res video at palaeontography.

It's also up at YouTube, if you want to vote for it, or whatever people do on YouTube.

Compsognathus longipes

This is a digital re-working of a fairly old picture of mine: Compsognathus longipes feeding on a dead fish it has found on a Solnhofen beach.

The disastrous pop-culture image of Velociraptor

In doing a quick search for Velociraptor images today, I came across something disturbing: the entire first page of google results (with one exception of a Todd Marshall painting) are complete rubbish. They look nothing like what we know of Velociraptor's true appearance from fossil evidence and careful study.

Who cares? I do! A more accurate feel for the appearance of prehistoric animals gives us all a better appreciation of evolution and biodiversity, and is just plain more interesting than the silly pop-culture image.

The real Velociraptor was a very birdlike animal not much bigger than a turkey. Perhaps it looked something like my drawing above, or maybe like one of the these excellent restorations at Scott Hartman's SkeletalDrawing.com.

If you want to help give Velociraptor its rightful image in pop-culture, participate in "link-to-an-accurate-Velociraptor day". Simply link to your favourite V. image or page using the word "Velociraptor" in your journal , website or blog, and help bring the popular image of V. (and by extension prehistoric animals) more into line with the science.

Here's a few links to accurate restorations (there are surprisingly few, in my opinion):

Velociraptor by Matt Martynuik,
Velociraptor , and Velociraptor and Protoceratops by yours truly,
Velociraptor by Mike Keesey,
Velociraptor, Velociraptor and Velociraptor by Alain Beneteau, and
Velociraptor by Demetrios Vital.

What may happen in the retro-future

I found this excellent turn-of-the-(previous)-century article from The Ladies Home Journal using stumble upon. It's easy to laugh at this kind of thing... so let's go ahead:

"There will be no C, X or Q"

... because they are useless. Actually, we seem to like useless things, and have preserved most of them, while inventing new useless things of our own. I predict that in 100 years we will have merged pictograms into English :-( .

"No Mosquitoes or Flies"

Whoa - I'm not even sure we want to get rid of flies, even if we could. I'm sure they do something useful.

"Grand opera will be telephoned to private homes"

As a form of futuristic torture no doubt.

"England in less than two days"

On hydrofoils with air-enveloped skids that convert to submarines during bad weather. Fricken' AWESOME.

Curiously, right after the (obviously accurate) prediction that automobiles will be everywhere and used for everything horses were, we get:

"Everybody will walk ten miles... Any man or woman unable to walk ten miles at a stretch will be regarded as a weakling".

The predictions of television-like devices, and telegraphed photos both include the example of watching battles in the orient. I guess watching Chinese fight was how nerds got their jollies back then too.

Pteranodon sternbergi

Pteranodon sternbergi, a 6-8m wingspanned pterosaur from Late Creataceous North America soars over a choppy sea - generating lift from wind over the waves, just like an albatross.

But we ARE monkeys.

I have often been irritated by hearing "sceptics", when arguing with creationists, say that we did not evolve from apes or monkeys, but rather merely share a a common ancestor with them - like this is somehow supposed to score a blow against creationist incredulity.

This argument is tosh, and should be avoided at all costs. First off, it's flat wrong, as Mike Keesey nicely demonstrates here. We are apes, which are monkeys. Secondly, even if the argument were true, it's pointlessly pedantic. We have evolved from something people would call and ape, which evolved from something people would call a monkey. No point getting mealy-mouthed about it.

We're clever monkeys, that's just what we are .

Anhanguera Portrait

Anhanguera piscator sat for a portrait. Very proud of her wings, she was.

(A work in progress, she lacks teeth for on thing.)

Say No to Taxonomy

I was thinking about the old Linnean vs. Cladistic taxonomy debate again, and not for the first time, when a new thought struck me, why is it necessary to have a formal taxonomic system at all?

Linnean taxonomy sought to emphasise correlates of morphology as well as phylogeny, and in doing so over-formalised these correlations to the extent that it becomes almost anti-evolutionary, creating false dilemmas and the dreaded typological thinking that has been so criticised. But it was the formality that led it to such an undesirable outcome. Rather than being defined in paper for utility, taxa became objects of communication; static and difficult to criticise.

Cladistic taxonomy, of course, corrects many of these shortcomings; but I would argue that it does so at a price. The price is content - cladistic taxonomy in itself holds absolutely no information about the external world.

I'm not saying that we need abandon concepts such as clades, stems, nodes, and all the conceptual framework of phylogenetics, but I do question the utility in the institutionalised formality this branch of biology has taken on.

Clade names may be useful in the written discussion of phylogenetic hypothesis, and in discussions in involving phylogenetic bracketing. However, I don't see why these discussions warrant the formality not afforded to (or it seems needed in) other branches or biology.

Indeed, the formality of phylogenetic taxonomic groups make discussion of subjects not directly related to phylogeny cumbersome and difficult, because nothing can be said of a clade apart from phylogenetic inference. The feeling - generated by their formal institutionalisation - that they should be used above other possible groupings is unhelpful.

Phylogenetic units (clades in this case) are not THE units of biology, they are one of numerous possible units. Nothing should prevent us from erecting paraphyletic or polyphyletic groups based on other biological correlations such as functional morphology or ecology; as the context demands. Institutionalising any of them would be a poor choice however.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if the biological groups used in papers was based purely on utility to the subject, rather than and a formal classification system of marginal utility and perhaps hindrance.