Pharyngula::New Archaeopteryx specimen

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, December 02, 2005

New Archaeopteryx specimen

PZ Myers • 24 Comments

Science has published a description of a new specimen of Archaeopteryx, the best preserved one yet, with clearer preservation of the skull and feet. What it reveals are details of the limbs: Archaeopteryx lacked the opposed first toe of modern birds, so it lacked the ability to perch, but it did have an extensible second toe, rather like the terrible claw of Deinonychus. The discovery tightens the affinities between birds and theropod dinosaurs.

One other odd thing: this amazing specimen is going to be housed in the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, Wyoming…a small town of about 3,000 people in the middle of a big empty state.

Their company, Big Horn Prospecting Inc., was set up as a for-profit business to excavate dinosaurs. The partners soon split up, and Pohl decided to set up a museum that would show fossils being dug up and prepared, as well as exhibits of casts and real skeletons. In July 1995, he opened the Dinosaur Center, a 1500-square-meter steel building. "It's not the prettiest structure," he admits. Pohl also set up the nonprofit Big Horn Basin Foundation to help care for the fossils, run the exhibits, and take tourists, for $125 a head, out to dig at some of the sites.

As museums go, the center is a shoestring operation. About a dozen people, including three or four preparators, work there year-round. Pohl holds the only Ph.D. In May, he hired Scott Hartman as science director. Hartman has a bachelor's degree in zoology, training in scientific illustration, and several years of museum experience. This year, Hartman and his colleagues presented findings at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's annual meeting, including the oldest known specimen of a troodontid.

It's origins are a bit murky, but gosh, great fossils like this are worth a lot of money.

The origins of the Archaeopteryx, however, remain hazy. Pohl says he "found a donor" to buy it from a private collector after the Senckenberg failed to raise enough money. (Mayr declines to reveal the asking price, but the Paläontologische Museum München paid DM 2 million—about $1.3 million—for a less spectacular specimen in 1999.) The Archaeopteryx appears to be legal, because Bavaria allows the export of fossils. Pohl won't say who legally owns it, but he says that it's "guaranteed that it will stay in a public collection."

Still, you want to see it: photos are below the fold. It's a beauty.

Click on the images for much larger versions.

The 10th skeletal specimen of the Archaeopterygidae (collection number WDC-CSG-100) in ventral view. (A) Skeleton with wing and tail feather impressions. (B) Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph to show the preserved bone substance.

Skull of the new Archaeopteryx specimen. (A) Overall view as preserved. (B) Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence photograph. (C) Interpretative drawing. ch, choanal process of palatine; dt, dentary teeth; ec, ectopterygoid; fr, frontal; hy, hyoid; j, jugal; la, lacrimal; md, mandible; mf, maxillary fenestra; mx, maxilla; na, nasal; pa, parietal; pf, promaxillary fenestra; pg, pterygoid; pj, jugal process of palatine; pm, praemaxilla; pt, palatine; q, quadrate; sc, plates of sclerotic ring;?v,?vomer. (D) Detail of antorbital fenestra with palatine bone.

Selected post-cranial bones of the new Archaeopteryx specimen. (A) Right coracoid in cranial view. (B) Left coracoid in lateral view, proximal end of left humerus in caudal view, and left scapula in lateral view. (C) Right tarsus in cranial view. (D) Left foot in dorsal view. (E and F) Right foot in dorsal (E) and dorsomedial (F) view. as, astragalus; ap, ascending process of astragalus; bct, biceps tubercle; ca, calcaneus; co, coracoid; dt, dentary teeth; fe, feather impressions; fi, fibula; fns, foramennervi supracoracoidei; gl, glenoid process of coracoid; hu, humerus; mt1, first metatarsal; pla, lateral process of coracoid; sca, scapula; tr, proximodorsally expanded articular trochlea of first phalanx of second toe. White arrows in (C) indicate the margins of the ascending process of the astragalus; pedal digits are numbered in (D) to (F).

Mayr G, Pohl B, Peters DS (2005) A Well-Preserved Archaeopteryx Specimen with Theropod Features. Science 310(5753):1483-1486.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3487/lQvepKiT/

Comments:

#51726: marsha — 12/02 at 01:16 PM
Thermopolis is Fabulous! There are these hot springs that have slides and smell like sulfer. I had no idea it had a museum. Childhood memories

#51727: Keith — 12/02 at 01:21 PM
As a child, I had a dino book that gave a brief, kid friendly overview of the various periods and which dinosaurs lived in them. One of the later pictures showed a pair of Archaeopteryx and they always set my imagination going. Dinosaurs with wings! Hot damn! This brings all that dino goodnes back.

#51732: — 12/02 at 01:46 PM
I seem to remember reading that Archaeopteryx was most likely an evolutionary dead-end and not the true precursor of modern birds. What is the current thinking on this?

#51741: fwiffo — 12/02 at 02:29 PM
@Rey: That's still the current thinking AFAIK. That is to say, there was some even more primitive bird that was ancestral to modern birds an to Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx would be its closest known relative though. It would be a great-great-...-great-uncle of modern birds instead of a great-great-...-great-grandfather.

Archaeopteryx is just plain awesome. Just the name is friggin' cool. How many words end in 'ryx'? The new specimen is beautiful, but I'd have to say that the Berlin specimen is even more lovely, from a purely aesthetic point of view.

#51742: — 12/02 at 02:30 PM
I may be mistaken, but isn't Dr. Bakker connected at least unofficially with this museum.Also let's take it easy on big empty states there's a lot to be said for emptiness unless we're discussing someone's cranium.

#51747: The Rev. Schmitt. — 12/02 at 02:39 PM
Rey: that is still the current thinking.

Excellent post. *Look* at that little beauty, like a perfect snapshot in time. What a turn up the extendable toe was, as if the dromaeosaur-bird link needed even more evidence!

-The Rev. Schmitt.

#51749: DouglasG — 12/02 at 02:53 PM
Once upon a time, a famous comic set in prehistoric times used to feature the Archaeopteryx "a flightless bird with hairy feathers." I would occassionally enjoy those. Now, not so much... But I have to admit it is an excellent name! Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx...

Douglas E. Gogerty
-----
“No, I’m from Iowa. I just work in outer space.”
-James T. Kirk

#51750: Steve Ervin — 12/02 at 03:06 PM
Douglas G. You have Apteryx and Archaeopteryx confused. It was BC Comics that featured the Apteryx..."a wingless bird with hairy feathers"...AKA...the Kiwi.

Regards,

S. E.

#51753: — 12/02 at 03:39 PM
Mmm, fossils.

#51759: — 12/02 at 04:18 PM
"Thermop" isn't much further into the boondocks than Drumheller, Alberta is, and the Royal Tyrrell is there! Perhaps dino museums are intended to be in remote oilfield towns.

#51766: — 12/02 at 05:12 PM
Well, dinosaur fossils are typically found in dry, windswept locations, are they not?

Also, thanks for answering my question about Archae. For some reason, PZ's post made it sound like they had found another "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, and that didn't jibe with things that I found when I was doing research for a paper in college. Not to diminish how neat a find this is. Yes, the archaeopteryx is a cool not-quite-proto-bird-thing.

#51767: — 12/02 at 05:20 PM
In regards to the aquisition by Frederick Pohl of this Archeopteryx specimen, Scott Hartman sent out the following to the Vertebrate Paleontology Listserv.

Fellow VPers,

Those of you with institutional and/or personal subscription to Science may want to mosey on over to their website and download the pdf of the description of the most recent specimen of Archaeopteryx.

We have gone to great lengths to make sure that the specimen will always be in a public institution, and be available to researchers. Unfortunately, some of that message seems to have been lost in bit of the coverage. To clarify the issues of providence, ownership, and accesibility, we are releasing the following statement (which is being hosted off-site due to expected web traffic):

http://skeletaldrawing.com/Archaeopteryx/archaeo.htm

We expect there will be questions that remain, and I hope we can address them and ease whatever concerns the are raised. The take-home message, however, is that there is an iron-clad agreement by the sponsor of the specimen that no matter what, it is going to remain in a museum or other research institution. It will not, and cannot, go the way of the Maxberg specimen. Considering some of the other parties that were interested in purchasing the specimen, I sincerely believe that the end result is of great benefit to the science. I hope all of you avian-theropod people enjoy the paper!

Hope this helps clarify some of the issues.

I agree with Marsha (above) that Thermopolis is a neat place to visit (although off the beaten track for most people.)

#51797: Mrs Tilton — 12/02 at 08:51 PM
These are indeed beautiful; and, as the Senckenberg is all of ten minutes' walk from my house, you can imagine my bitter disappointment.

That said, the Senckenberg is a very honourable museum with a lot of wonderful specimens, including some spiders that are both beautiful and important.

But still. I can only hope business will bring me to Thermopolis, Wyoming some day.

#51810: — 12/03 at 12:24 AM
n regards to the aquisition by Frederick Pohl

You goofed a bit on the name, and had me thinking for a moment that Frederik Pohl was somehow involved... which would have made me like my favorite sci-fi author even more.

#51818: — 12/03 at 04:12 AM
Yes, the name is Burkhart Pohl, second author on the critical paper. You can contact Gerald Mayr, Pohl, or even Scott for particular details. It is refreshing to see this fossil finally be described, and more details are forthcoming. This is the preliminary discussion from the guys at the Senckenburg, where the fossil is undergoing study and final prep before his long-term reposition in Wyoming. Of all the fossils, this being the tenth, named Archaeopteryx, it is one of the more stunning and details, showing features of the ankle and shoulder and skull that have not been clear or apparent in anmy of the other, sometimes extraordinarily well preserved, specimens.

That said, Rey wrote:

"I seem to remember reading that Archaeopteryx was most likely an evolutionary dead-end and not the true precursor of modern birds. What is the current thinking on this?"

To which fwiffo replied:

@Rey: That's still the current thinking AFAIK. That is to say, there was some even more primitive bird that was ancestral to modern birds an to Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx would be its closest known relative though. It would be a great-great-...-great-uncle of modern birds instead of a great-great-...-great-grandfather.

The condition of fossils and species based on them makes it impossible to determine species arising from species, and is confused in the issue of whether a species can be identified even today. We use a variety of methods to call a species a "species," including gross morphology, or ability to interbreed, but since neither of these or the other some 20-odd species concepts available are considered to be "the best" concept except by those who favor any, it is impossible to determine a species arising from another, much less the ability to argue for an "evolutionary dead end," in which case no "new species" have arisen from this one. A point of fact, the group of fossils to which the name Archaeopteryx (and by Andreij Elzanowski and a few others, Wellnhoferia as well) are groups by common features, but are generally placed at the base of the avian radiation of species, and thus may be argued that the entirety of birds are the product of this one animal or group thereof, thus saying that Archaeopteryx is not an "evolutionary dead end". Indeed, it seems to have been so plesiomorphic that autapomorphies have not be fully identified compared to other birds because it seems to be the dawn-bird, or Urvögel, if you will, and that all other birds specialized in form following it. Even those species of dinosaurs that "preceeded" it evolutionarily are seeming to converge on this very morphology, resulting in an hourglass-shaped like continuum at which the crux of the pre-avian dinosaurs and the avian dinosaurs is Archaeopteryx itself.

Or the closest thing to that Urvögel we have yet found. Note that precursors in fossil means are simply implied, not found, because even if you found it, logically, it could only be compared as a close relative, and speaking of ancestors puts the fossils into an overly subjective framework, building strawmen, or spaghetti-stick men, shattered with a breeze. When we speak of ancestors and descendants, we tend to consider our own known patterns of descent (Adam begat Shem who begat...) rather than realize that these conditions are unknowable for fossils, preserving no Y-chromosomes or maternal mtDNA in which to track descent. Concepting life as branches is brilliant, but ultimately misleading, since at resolution, it's a structure of imbricating, reticulating groups of lineages, and only when a schism becomes so deep the branches cannot rewntwine, do descent lineages become "clear", an aspect of a posteriori resolution we lack. Thus, even if it were a species that lay outside the critical population, it would still be the closest relative and the closest we have to that true ancestor, and makes for a good proxy, but it is erroneous to think of it AS that ancestor.

#51821: The Rev. Schmitt. — 12/03 at 06:37 AM
Mr Headden: Your comment is superbly clarifying about a few issues, thanks.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

#51850: — 12/03 at 12:28 PM
"t's origins are a bit murky, but gosh, great fossils like this are worth a lot of money."

Apparently not enough money. It is a pity that the specimen was held secretly until the first owner died. ( http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408&feedId=online-news_rss10 ) It is also a pity it is not a crime to withheld what could be important common information.

"it's a structure of imbricating, reticulating groups of lineages,"

Umm, is it? Let's see:

'imbricating' := To overlap in a regular pattern.

'reticulating' := To make a net or network of.

So it is a network with a _regular_ pattern? Does that mean crossbreeding is happening at a regular period? How do we know that? Intuitively (as in "not worth a damn in real life") crossbreeding rates would be dissimilar across 'lineages'. Well, they could be, couldn't they?

#51853: jre — 12/03 at 12:47 PM
I'll add my vote to those of Marsha and David: Thermopolis is well worth visiting, for any of several reasons.
The surrounding country is really quite beautiful, in that wind-scrubbed Wyoming style. On the road approaching from the south, strata in the roadcuts are marked with prominent signs identifying the period and age for each -- Wyoming loves its geology! The commercial water park is fun, especially with kids; how many natural hot water slides have you been on? Right next to the commercial park is the state-run spa, which is squeaky-clean, nicely laid-out, and free. As to Thermopolis' location, it is probably far enough from wherever you are that you'll know you've been on vacation, and it's on the way to Yellowstone.
Now that they have an important fossil, there's one more reason to go there.

What's not to like?

(This opinion not paid for or endorsed by the Thermopolis Chamber of Commerce.)

And another thing: if you want to have some hands-on fun with fossils in Wyoming, try Ulrich's Fossil Gallery in the Green Mountain formation. For a modest fee, they will take you out to a quarry on BLM land where they will tell you all about the area's geology, and let you dig fossil fish to your heart's content. Kids over 10 are welcome -- they have more fun than we do on the dig. It's a great way to kindle the fire of curiosity.

#51902: — 12/04 at 03:00 AM
Torbjörn Larsson wrote:

"Apparently not enough money. It is a pity that the specimen was held secretly until the first owner died. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8408&feedId=online-news_rss10)

Actually, and I know Jeff Hecht knew this when writing the article cited, the fossil was not held secretly, but held as part of a gleanings without the owner of the quarry being aware of what he had. It was not as exposed as the photos now shown, and the material was recovered only when the man's widow released the collection to buyers. This has happened to other fossils, and sometimes, even professionals can be mislead or confused about the fossils. The second ever discovered specimen of this species was the Teylers, or Haarlem, specimen which is in the Teylers Museum of Haarlem, the Netherlands, and was originally identified by Hermann von Meyer in 1861 as Pterodactylus crassipes; later that year, recovery of a newer, more complete specimen from the quarries allowed von Meyer to name a new species, Archaeopteryx lithographica, and it would not be until 1970 that the first specimen in Haarlem was found to belong to the same species. Such things happen to everyone.

I had written:

"it's a structure of imbricating, reticulating groups of lineages,"

And Torbjörn replied:

"So it is a network with a _regular_ pattern? Does that mean crossbreeding is happening at a regular period? How do we know that? Intuitively (as in "not worth a damn in real life") crossbreeding rates would be dissimilar across 'lineages'. Well, they could be, couldn't they?"

We know that such patterns of imbrication occur in species diversity today: species continually mesh between populations (imbrication) or mix with close, but distinct groups, or cross-back into a parent species after picking up distinct features and increasing the genetic yield of the whole (reticulation), causing a distinct darwinian tree to be a matter of resolution, not absolute terms. Such reticulation occurs in simple observations of interacting populations today that are given allowance to cross, especially in bacteria and simple eukaryotes. Crossing, recrossing, and dispersal, followed either by speciation or backcrossing, will result in allopatric, parapatric speciation, as well as hybridization through distinct genetic lineages. This not only confuses the use of "species" but will blur the very definitions used to support theories of species diversity when merged, especially if the parent lineages cease to exist, making them historical artifacts that because of the descendants, we may never be able to determine apart from "populations" or "races". It also results in a dissolution of the idea of "racial" distinction.

#51950: — 12/04 at 03:10 PM
Jaime, thanks for answering, it is appreciated!

"Actually, and I know Jeff Hecht knew this when writing the article cited, the fossil was not held secretly, but held as part of a gleanings without the owner of the quarry being aware of what he had."

Oh. I was confused by the sentence "It has remained unknown to science until its owner's death," and I choose the worst interpretation without being really aware of choosing. My bad.

"continually mesh between populations (imbrication)"

Umm, it seems to be a technical term with a different meaning than the one ("regular pattern") I pulled from a web dictionary on 'imbricating'. 'Imbrication' also yields "intricacy of structure" which is perhaps closer to the meaning the tecchnical term come out of.

I don't see that you say the pattern is observed to be regular over all the species (but continually happening and intricate). So I think we agree.

You know, I guess I should have said earlier outright "but if you mean regular pattern why don't you say so?". I guess your technical terms feels more precise for you, but they don't easily communicate meaning onto me as a nonbiologist reader of this blog.

"Crossing, recrossing, and dispersal, followed either by speciation or backcrossing, will result in allopatric, parapatric speciation, as well as hybridization through distinct genetic lineages."

I could object to the obvious problem to translate a sentence with so much information. I could also object to the illogic of saying that speciation results in speciation, or rather that the first "speciation" probably means a different thing than the second (which probably are an example of the resulting type of population distribution).

But let us instead try to decipher this:

'allopatric' := "occurring in areas isolated geographically from one another"

'parapatric' := "In parapatric speciation, the new species evolve from contiguous populations."

I am not sure how crossing, recrossing and backcrossing differs, except that maybe 're' and 'back' stresses that continued crossing will go 'back'. I can't make sense of "hybridization through distinct genetic lineages".

So I guess you are at least saying that crossing, dispersal, and speciation leads to dispersed and contiguously mixed populations.

Which would be in line with the rest of your message of the difficulty of resolving distinct populations especially in the fossil but also in the existing live record. I hope.

#51952: — 12/04 at 03:27 PM
Oops, I now see that allopatric and parapatric speciation is different _types_ of speciation (geographic isolation vs environmental gradient) and not different attributes of speciation.

So I guess that the sentence I was trying to understand means that one sees both isolated and mixed species. Ie it could be even more of a mess than with 'only' mixed species.

#51954: — 12/04 at 03:32 PM
(Initally) isolated and mixed _populations_ of course. Geez!

#52007: — 12/04 at 09:45 PM
Beautiful! Thanks for posting large pictures of the specimen; I've been looking for them since hearing the news.

#52171: — 12/05 at 02:15 PM
On Ulrich's fossil operation near Kemmerer, Wyoming;

The opportunity to split lakebed sediments to find your own fossils is fun, but beware that old Mr. Ulrich (assuming he still runs the place) will look over your finds and reserves the right to confiscate anything that he deems too valuable. My wife found a nice but quite little (2") Knightia that the parsimonious Ulrich considered pulling from the otherwise fragmented assortment our party of three had collected.

I haven't been to the Wyoming Dinosaur Center. It's a "dinosaur dude ranch" where folks can pay to play paleontologist. I'm not sure what to think about this commercial operation and the secretive financing that will bring this specimen to Thermopolis.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Chirality matters

Previous entry: Find out more about Carl

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, December 02, 2005

New Archaeopteryx specimen

Info