UQ Palaeo Blog
  • Blog Home
  • About

Bringing back extinct animals: hypothetical, inevitable, ethical?

12/6/2015

2 Comments

 
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.

Picture
One thing is for sure - we won't be seeing real live dinosaurs any time soon. Image from Jurassic World, by Universal Pictures.

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

Picture
De-extinction & Jurassic World in the real world. 
ABC Gold Coast 91.7 - Drive Time, 9th June 2015.

Picture
De-extinction (link to right)
ABC Adelaide 891 - Afternoons, 10th June 2015.
abcadelaide_interview.mp3
File Size: 9546 kb
File Type: mp3
Download File


Picture
Could dinosaurs roam the Earth once more? 
2SER 107.3 - 2SER Breakfast, 15th June 2015

2 Comments

Should we delve into de-extinction?

5/5/2015

0 Comments

 
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.

Picture
Old species, new invasive: What modern day niche would the Columbian Mammoth, Mammuthus columbi, fill?
For now, technological limitations render ethical arguments somewhat moot. The only available way to currently recreate past environments is through historical records and palaeontology: the study of ancient organisms and the traces they left behind, whether they are bones or teeth, carapaces of insects or footprints of any animal, leaf impressions, wood, pollen, and the list goes on. When it comes to reconstructing whole environments, looking to modern analogues can help us out. Does the pattern of plants in the fossil record look similar to any modern environments? Does the pattern or rings in wood occur in any climatic conditions now? Do any known modern animals leave traces like those left behind in ancient sediments?

While as palaeontologists we can explore ancient environments, we may never know for certain exactly how a species behaved. For example, footprints left behind by modern birds engaging in mating displays may indicate that certain repetitive patterns of movements were used, and we might be able to hypothesise that these animals were engaged in mating behaviours. But we wouldn’t know just from those prints what their wings were doing, or what their call sounded like. That said, if we brought these animals back would they even behave like their ancient counterparts, if born of the lab and raised by humans? 

De-extinction may be an interesting and worthwhile thought experiment, and it may even raise awareness of the plight of modern endangered species, but for now we are safe from the island of dinosaurs, and even the dodo. 

References
Callaway, E. 2015. Mammoth genomes provide recipe for creating Arctic elephants. Nature News, 1st May 2015. http://www.nature.com/news/mammoth-genomes-provide-recipe-for-creating-arctic-elephants-1.17462. Accessed 6th May 2015.

0 Comments

'Walking with Dinosaurs in the Kimberley': CSIRO and UQ join forces

5/5/2015

0 Comments

 
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."

Picture
Image by Damian Kelly Photography
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.
0 Comments

The enigma of dome-headed dinosaurs

10/7/2014

1 Comment

 
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:
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
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.
Picture
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.
1 Comment

Extra, extra! Get your ancient reptiles here!

20/5/2014

2 Comments

 
By Caitlin Syme

Queensland and northern New South Wales dinosaur fans rejoice: for the next 4 weeks our regional newspapers, including The Queensland Times, The Morning Bulletin, The Coffs Coast Advocate, The Sunshine Coast Daily, and The Northern Star, are handing out tokens for the 'Dinosaur' Collector Card series!
Picture
One token from the newspaper can be redeemed for 2 collectable cards from participating newsagents. 
Image from The Sunshine Coast Daily


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.
Picture
Nice to see a common mistake about our flying reptile friends cleared up! 
Image taken from the Prehistoric Playtime website.


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!
2 Comments

    Archives

    May 2015
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Posts by author

    All
    Caitlin Syme
    Steve Salisbury
    Tamara Fletcher

    RSS Feed

    Twitter feed

    Tweets by @implexidens
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.