By Caitlin Syme

Dr Tamara Fletcher and I wrote an article for The Conversation on de-extinction - whether we can, and should, bring extinct species back to life. We believe that de-extinction needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis per species. The health and well-being of the individual animals, whether they can fill a currently vacant niche in an ecosystem, and what affect they have on their new ecosystem will vary widely between, say, a woolly mammoth versus the gastric brooding frog. Have a read of the article if you'd like to know more about the de-extinction debate.

We also spoke on ABC Radio and 2SER about whether de-extinction is a sensible idea. Have a listen to the interviews here:

By Caitlin Syme and Dr Tamara Fletcher

As palaeontologists, we understand the desire to bring ancient animals back to life. It could answer so many questions about these enigmatic creatures: How did they behave? How did they grow? And what colour were they? Indeed, what could possibly go wrong? Surely if we kept these animals in a pen on an island without a scheming thief unlocking all the gates on a stormy night, we would all be safe.

Humans often seem to act with little regard for their environment. We have seen the consequences borne out in the rapid extinction of animals and plants in countries where humans are the newly introduced species – the exotic invaders. Even when humanity and their natural environment are apparently in harmony, new arrivals with different cultural practices can throw the whole system back into turmoil. We only seem to understand the consequences of our actions in hindsight, and sometimes not even then.

De-extinction could be seen as a path for redemption, to ease us of our guilt. We can finally bring back long-dead fauna and flora that we had a hand in wiping out. But to what end? It is our belief that we should only resurrect species that still have niches available to them in ecosystems that are struggling in their absence. This is not a new idea. With all the recent hype around resurrecting woolly mammoths, Beth Shapiro, author of How to Clone a Mammoth (Princeton University Press, 2015) was quoted as saying, “I probably should have called the book, How One Might Go About Cloning a Mammoth (Should It Become Technically Possible, And If It Were, In Fact, a Good Idea, Which It's Probably Not)” (Callaway, 2015). We agree, and wonder if these resources are likely better spent protecting the environment we do have, and repairing the environmental damage we’ve done, and are currently doing.

By Caitlin Syme

Drones and dinosaurs, the perfect partnership!

Our lab (UQ Vertebrate Palaeontology and Biomechanics) has teamed up with CSIRO, Airborne Research Australia (Flinders University), and the Goolarabooloo Traditional Custodians and Yawuru Native Title holders to map 130 million year old dinosaur footprints along the Broome coastline in Western Australia.

Find out more over at the news@CSIRO website: "Walking With Dinosaurs: Advanced science recreates ancient past."

There will be more updates about this exciting project over the coming months on this blog. And if you'd like to see regular updates about this project, you can follow Dr Steve Salisbury (@implexidens) and Dr Anthony Romilio (@a_romilio) on Twitter.

by Caitlin Syme

As palaeontologists, we spend quite a bit of time trawling the internet to keep up-to-date with new fossil discoveries and hypotheses. The UQ Palaeo Blog is a great place for us to let you know about the interesting and exciting ideas we've uncovered, such as this new study on the preservation and taphonomy of pachycephalosaur skulls.

Enjoy!

Pachycephalosaurids are a well know group of ornithischian dinosaurs from North America. If the name doesn't ring a bell, maybe these pictures will - apparently, the poor things were almost constantly butting heads with rivals, or charging off head-first for no apparent reason:

I always feel a sympathetic headache come on when looking at these pictures. Images from top left clockwise: rareresource.com; Maichol Quinto and Florian Stitz - Paizo Publishing; Ryan Steiskal; Wikimedia Commons.

While most debate has focussed on the function and behaviour of these dome-crested dinos, palaeontologists have also puzzled over why the dome-shaped skull is the most commonly preserved part of the pachycephalosaur skeleton. Researchers noticed that the domes were rounded and heavily worn, and presumed they had been bumped, scratched and scraped as they were carried along by rivers. From that, they inferred that pachycephalosaurs probably lived up-river from where their 'tough' skulls were eventually washed to and buried, and that the rest of the skeleton was broken down or lost on the down-river journey.

This hypothesis suggests that the domes are allochthonous – 'foreign' to the host rock, transported far from where the pachycephalosaurs lived, instead of autochthonous – 'native' to the host rock, fossilised near to where the pachycephalosaurs lived.

Jordan C. Mallon and David C. Evans refute this long-held view (what they call the 'Transport Hypothesis'). Instead, they propose in their new paper, "Taphonomy and habitat preference of North American pachycephalosaurids (Dinosauria, Ornithischia)", that (1) pachycephalosaur domes actually aren't actually that rounded, (2) roundness doesn't correlate with the distance a dome skull travelled anyway, and (3) pachycephalosaur fossils aren't more common in the up-river, intermontane areas that they supposedly habited. 

They suggest that the domes are actually autochthonous, or possibly parautochthonous  – that pachycephalosaurs lived in alluvial and coastal lowlands, closer to where their remains were fossilised than previously thought.

This new hypothesis may not be popular – the 'Transport Hypothesis' has been around since the 1930's. And unlike the 'Transport Hypothesis', it doesn't quite explain why there are many more dome skulls preserved than the rest of the skeleton. But just because an idea may not be popular, does not mean it is incorrect. I look forward to seeing how the rest of the scientific community responds to the hypothesis proposed in this paper.

Fossil pachycephalosaur domes, showing the 4 stages of dome wear as classified by Mallon et al., 2014. The ventral (underside) and left lateral (left side) of each dome is shown. The skulls belong to the following species: Stage 0 – Hanssuesia sternbergi (CMN9148), Stage 1 – Prenocephale brevis (CMN8819), Stage 2 and 3 – Sphaerotholus edmontonensis (CMN8830 and CMN8832 respectively). Image from Mallon et al (2014).

References

Mallon, J.C., Evans, D.C. 2014. Taphonomy and habitat preference of North American pachycephalosaurids (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Lethaia, DOI: 10.1111/let.12082.

I say 'dinosaur', because the 40 cards you can collect feature not only dinosaurs, but also flying reptiles (including Dorygnathus and Anhanguera), an ancient marine reptile (Mesosaurus), and one therapsid (Estemmenosuchus), giving you more bang for your palaeo-buck!

If you visit the Prehistoric Playtime website (here's the link via The Northern Star), you can also play some dinosaur themed games online, including one where you hurl meteors at some hapless dinos! There is also a chance to win some dinosaur figurines, a link to an online quiz which will be made available during Dino Week (Monday, June 2 to Saturday, June 8), and some fun facts on the homepage.

If you want to learn more about these ancient animals, Dr Steve Salisbury from The University of Queensland (the head of the UQ Palaeontology Lab) will be hosting an online palaeontology Q&A session on Tuesday, June 3 from 11am to 12 noon. You can ask him questions during the session, or email your questions before the session begins to [email protected]. Be sure to visit your favourite newspaper website and sign up for a reminder email so you don't miss out!

These cards are available to collect between the 17th May to the 21st June. So, get collecting!