Monday, January 23, 2012

Chronofaunas! Or: Comments on Figueirido et al. 2012

















These clear-cut divides more closely emulate the intention of the chronofaunas used by Webb and Opdyke (1995) to serve as bins with distinct boundaries between mammalian communities. However, I don't like em'. They're too clear cut and they ignore the concept discussed above wherein fauna take a while to establish themselves. Taking the first figure of Figueirido et al. (2012) and using a 0.5 factor loading as indicating when the community both begins and stops being the dominant fauna, and then assigning whole biochronological bins, I came up with the following estimates on when the chronofauna-identifying subfamilies were a major, if not dominant, component to the community.:

  • Paleocene: Puercan 1 to Wasatchian 5 (65 to 53.0 Ma)
  • Early-Middle Eocene: Wasatchian 3 to Uintan 2 (54.4 to ~44 Ma)
  • Middle-Late Eocene: Bridgerian 3 to Orellan 2 (47 to 33 Ma)
    Oligocene: (very late) Duchesnean to Arikareean 3 (37 to ~21 Ma)
    Miocene: Arikareean 3 to Clarendonian 3 (23 to 9 Ma)
  • Pliocene: Barstovian 2 to modern (13 to 0 Ma)




Figueirido B, Janis CM, Pérez-Claros JA, De Renzi M, Palmqvist P. 2012. Cenozoic climate change influences mammalian evolutionary dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(3):722-727. Abstract and full text available to PNAS subscribers here. DOI:







Monday, April 13, 2009

A quick complaint about The Scientific Contributions of Othniel Charles Marsh

"To claim that O. C. Marsh's contributions to evolutionary theory were enormous is an understatement. While Darwin and Huxley were the originator and propagator of the teachings, it was Marsh more than anyone who bolstered their ideas with physical evidence. Marsh's work with mammals provided the backbone for the dogma that proved unbreakable. It was his deductions of the dinosaur-avian relationship and his prediction of Africa as the key to human evolution, however, that illustrate his genius."
`Mark J. McCarren, The Scientific Contributions of Othniel Charles Marsh: Birds, Bones, and Brontotheres, page 52. Emphasis added, obviously.

Ok, as the book points out earlier (on page 40), the dinosaur-avian relationship was deduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1868, 2 and 4 years before Marsh described Hesperornis and Icthyornis. So Marsh did not deduce that.

As far as Africa? McCarren claims that Marsh showed "remarkable foresight" saying that the missing links between human and ape would be found in Africa in 1877. Which I guess meant that following statement:

"It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African Continent than elsewhere."

Was not said by Charles Darwin in 1871 in a slightly popular book called The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

So... if a Marsh biographer tries to use two ideas that Marsh didn't come up with as proof that Marsh was a genius, does this mean that Marsh was not a genius? I am confused.

Special thanks to:
McCarren, M. J. 1993. The Scientific Contributions of Othniel Charles Marsh: Birds, Bones, and Brontotheres. Peabody Museum of Natural History Special Publication 15. Peabody Museum of Natural History: New Haven.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Upcoming:

One day: cetartiodactyls.

Right now: just formatting.