Friday, 18 January 2013

Flying things that lived a long time ago

Inspired by an awesome XKCD comic, this is what I study using only the thousand most common English words. Well, it's more of a description of the animals, but it's still entertaining. I'll work on it and get a better one later, but this is the start: 

I study flying animals that died a really long time ago. They are cold blooded animals and had some hair-like covering but lots of skin. They flew using a really long finger and skin that went from the end of the finger to their legs. They moved their arms up and down to push against the air and fly. These animals were the biggest flying animals ever, some as big as a bus, but others were small. Some had lots of teeth that they used to catch food, but others had no teeth and ate animals that live in water whole. I look at pictures of their inside hard body parts to guess how heavy they were. This can tell us if they would have been too heavy to fly, and how they could fly. Did they use their power to fly? Or just put their arms out and let the air push them? We can look at animals that live today to better understand animals that lived a long time ago.

If anyone wants to give it a go, try it out here!

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Hitting the wall

Manuscript A: Alright. I have a problem. My goal was to finish my pterosaur manuscript a long time ago, and for sure finish it by the end of this month. Of course, that did not happen, and isn't going to. Part of the reason is that I discovered I did some very silly things originally that I need to correct and address in order to get it to publication quality. The problem is, this involves re-doing several of my analyses. Do you know how much time it takes to re-analyse all the CT scans I've done so far? And it's not exactly the most stimulating, it's sitting with ImageJ all day. So needless to say, I have hit the wall with this paper right now. I suspect that when I get back to the UK I'll be more productive again. But we'll see.

Then we have Manuscript B: the dreaded undergrad thesis. I have been working on this thing for a few years, and I really want to see it through, but it's getting harder and harder to stay motivated. It's on something completely unrelated to what I'm working on now (I looked at skull morphology in Centrosaurus to be exact), which makes it hard. I've started working on it again, and I need to re-learn all the ceratopsian skull terminology. Met with my former supervisor and co-author last week, and he decided that I need to do a phylogenetic analysis, which I've never done before outside of an assignment. Thanks to Andy Farke, I have a matrix to work with, and I'm slowly combining a few different matrices. I'm slowly learning how annoying it is when people use slightly different characters (like one paper uses one character as 0-75% and others use 0-80%. Why you have to be so difficult!), or switch around the character states. All in all, it's not too bad, just time consuming.

I suppose that after this year of ups and downs, I'm just burnt out. I've needed this break so badly without even realising it. What I would like to know is how people deal with the loss of motivation? What makes you push to get stuff done? I'm in serious need of being prodded into productivity... Help!

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

The 70 kg Quetzalcoatlus debate

Last week, a press release went out from Texas Tech University on some findings that were presented recently at Geological Society of America annual meeting. This is not abnormal. What is unfortunate, is that the press release covers a talk based primarily on a study by Chatterjee and Templin from 2004, and other results that have not been peer reviewed. Mark Witton, Mike Habib, and Brian Switek have all done a great job discussing why this is bad, troublesome, and poor science (you can check those out here, here, and here), so I won't get into that. For me, having spent the last year looking at pterosaur mass and how we estimate it, my big problem is the mass of Quetzalcoatlus associated with this study.

For a super brief explanation on how some mass estimates are determined for pterosaurs, check out my previous post on pterosaur mass estimation. Chatterjee and Templin (2004) determined that 70 kg was the absolute maximum that Quetzalcoatlus could be, based on estimates by Atanassov and Strauss (2002). This was determined using a principal component regression method based on different skeletal measurements. For more information, check out their poster here. The rest of the conclusions in Chatterjee and Templin (2004) are based on the 70 kg mass, and fail to take into account recent studies like the quadrupedal launch hypothesis by Habib (2008). They determine that if Quetzalcoatlus was more than 70 kg, it would not have been able to take off, and that at 70 kg, it would have needed a hill or cliff to successfully take to the air. This is based largely on the theory that pterosaurs took off the same way as birds, from two feet, rather than the quadrupedal launch. When accounting for the quadrupedal launch, and other adaptations, a higher mass is possible. Other estimates for Quetzalcoatlus range from 259 kg (Witton 2008) to 544 kg (Henderson 2010).

Aside from that, there is a huge problem with a 70 kg Quetzalcoatlus, which has been discussed by Witton (2008): in order for Quetzalocoatlus to be 70 kg, it would have required it's body to be about 60-90% full of air. Recently, the 70 kg estimate was put into prospective for me. First of all, an important piece of information is required. Quetzalcoatlus is about as tall as a giraffe, with a wingspan of 10-12 m, as seen in a great image by Mark Witton:
That is a HUGE flying animal! Now picture a 70 kg giraffe. For the record, giraffes are about 1600 kg on average. Putting it down to 70 kg is a bit impossible. This was even more obvious to me when I realised that my brother is about 70 kg, and probably pretty similar in size to the guy in the picture. So now imagine taking that mass, and spreading it over the size of a giraffe. It doesn't work! Yes, pterosaur bones are lightweight, but they are not THAT lightweight. According to Witton (2008), the skeleton itself was 18 kg, and other evidence suggests that might be a low estimate (Martin and Palmer 2012). How then is it supposed to have only 52 kg (maximum!) of muscle, still be able to successfully cover its body in skin and muscle, AND be able to fly?! It's not possible! I do not understand at all how someone can justify a 70 kg pterosaur with a wingspan of 10-12 m, and to my knowledge, they have not tried to explain it, or to scientifically address the heavy mass estimates. Not cool!

So basically, my question is this: how does anyone expect a 70 kg Quetzalcoatlus to have the muscle necessary to fly, walk, or even live?! The answer: it doesn't. Which is why the 70 kg estimate and anything based off of this estimate is incorrect.

References
Atanassov, M. and Strauss, R. 2002. How much did Archaeopteryx and Quetzalcoatlus weight? Mass estimation by multivariate analysis of bone dimension. Poster at Society of Vertebrate Paleontology annual meeting. Download here
Chatterjee, S. and Templin, R. 2004. Posture, locomotion, and paleoecology of pterosaurs. Geological Society of America Special Publication 376: 1-64.
Habib, M. B. 2008. Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs. Zitteliana Reihe B 28: 159-166.
Henderson, D. M. 2010. Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional mathematical slicing. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 768-785.
Martin, E. G. and Palmer, C. 2012. A novel approach to estimating pterosaur bone mass using CT scans. Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy oral presentation. Abstract on page 18 and can be downloaded here.
Witton, M. P. 2008. A new approach to determining pterosaur body mass and its implications for pterosaur flight. Zitteliana Reihe B 28: 143-158.

Monday, 15 October 2012

Dinos at the Bristol Zoo

Until November, the Bristol Zoo has one of those travelling dinosaur exhibition, featuring a number of animatronic dinosaurs spread throughout the zoo. Seeing as I work(ed) at an educational park in Canada that features over 40 animatronic and mostly life-size dinosaurs, I was of course interested in what the zoo had to offer (shameless plug for Jurassic Forest of course). Here's a short review of what I saw at the Bristol Dino Zoo.

Ok so I may be slightly biased by the fact that I have a lot riding on the success of Jurassic Forest in Canada, but I have to say, these dinosaurs are quite unimpressive compared to what I'm used to. First of all, most of them are not even close to life-size, which makes them kind of sad. The animatronics were pretty bad as well. At Jurassic Forest, the animatronics run on motion sensors and cycles, so when the sensor is triggered, they will go through their cycle of movement, then a cool-down period required to keep them from overheating. The dinos at the Bristol zoo seem to go off constantly, which although is really neat, means that the movements are pretty bad. They are quite slow and restricted, presumably to prevent overheating. Here is a video of the Amargasaurus and baby to get an idea.
Another thing that I found very interesting is the noises. I have no idea who decided on the noises for these dinosaurs, but man, some of them are bad. The Coelophysis sounded kind of like someone was shooting something, and I can't even begin to explain the noise of Edmontosaurus. One description given by my friend Davide, who came with me to check out the dinos, was that it sounded vaguely like a rubber ducky. Unfortunately the video has a lot of background noise, so I won't post it here. I will however post a picture of the Edmontosaurus, which made me want to cry a bit.



In general, the the information about each dinosaur was pretty good, even if the actual reconstructions weren't. For example, they had a Dilophosaurus that spat water ("venom"), but if you actually read the sign, it stated that there was no evidence that it did that, and that it was made up for the movies. Even though having a dino do that gives the wrong impression, thumbs up for accurate signage! 

In general, I would say the worst dinosaur was the Brachiosaurus. I have no idea what they were trying to do to it, but it just looked funny. I don't know what I would say is the best. The T. rex wasn't too bad, but he was very fat, and the Ornithomimus wasn't bad (so I've been told, I really know little about ornithomimds). All-in-all, it was good fun, even if it was mostly laughing at the reconstructions. Here's a few pictures of the dinos they had. 
Allosaurus
Brachiosaurus
Fat T. rex
Dilophosaurus - I still can't figure out what is up with his giant hands
Ornithomimus
Triceratops actually wasn't too bad
Coelophysis
Baryonyx also did this weird spraying thing. Not sure what that was all about
And of course I did see some actual animals. My favourite would definitely be the seals. I could watch seals for hours! Monkeys of course are always fun to watch. I really wanted to see the pygmy hippos and the river otters (I love them), but couldn't actually see them in their pens. I also got to see a capybara for the first time, which was pretty awesome, as well as a huuuuge fruit bat!
Meerkats are always cool
Sleeping capybara!
Family dispute between the fur seals

Thursday, 11 October 2012

Funding: the bane of my existence

So it's now been just over a month since I have handed in my MSc thesis. I decided that I would put off starting my PhD for a few months while I apply for funding, and go home to Canada for a few months. As I have discovered, being an international student in the UK is very difficult when it comes to funding. For example, at the University of Bristol, there is one international studentship given out each year for the whole faculty of science. Basically what I've been told is that Earth Sciences will never get it, because we can't win Nobel prizes in general. So frustrating! So for funding, I have to look outside of the university.

Now from what I can tell, I'm pretty lucky because there are a number of Canadian funding sources that will fund you even if you're outside of Canada. And when I say a number, I really mean around 5. The big one of course is NSERC, the big government funding body. I just finished up my application for it, and although there was a lot to do, it's at least fairly straight forward. Then there are things like the Canadian Federation of University Women, that offer lots of scholarships, and it's very complicated to apply (like 7 copies of everything, 3 copies of reference letters, I don't even want to know how much paper this will be). Oh ya, then there's the O'Brien Foundation. They are just great. And by that, I mean they suck. Their website says that their grants are "primarily" for residents of New Brunswick. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but "primarily" means that sometimes they make exceptions, right? Well apparently not. I sent in my application, and about an hour later, got an email saying I wasn't eligible because I'm not from New Brunswick. I sent them a very annoyed email asking them to clarify their website if that is the case, since I wouldn't have put so much effort into it. Annoying!

There are a few other ones I can apply for, but they don't have deadlines until the new year, so I'm ignoring them for now. I'm also currently working on numerous funding applications for travel and research, since I plan on doing some museum visits. Hopefully those will come through.

Otherwise, I've run into an interesting predicament. I've heard from people from other universities, that they could help to fund an international PhD, albeit not entirely, but at least partially, through department or school funding. Then the question was raised, if they can do it, why can't Bristol?? To that, I can only say: I have no idea. I'm not sure why Bristol seems unwilling to help international students. All I know is it's very frustrating. All I want is a little bit of money to help me through! Who wants to help? Anyone? Pleeeeease?

Monday, 17 September 2012

SVPCA Experience!

Well the Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy (SVPCA) was last week: my first ever conference, and of course, first ever oral presentation. The conference was great. I had a fantastic week meeting people, learning about palaeontology, and getting ideas for my PhD. I got to meet some people I had had lots of email/social media contact with, which was nice, as well as some new people I had never talked to before.

My talk was on Wednesday, with pterosaurs being sandwiched between marine reptiles/crocodiles and dinosaurs: it was basically Mesozoic Wednesday. I went right before lunch, the first talk of the pterosaurs. It seemed to go well, although I was a bit terrified when I looked up to see several hands in the air after I finished. Fortunately, people were just very curious in what I did, asking good methodological questions, and being curious about what exactly I found. I had several people approach me afterwards asking me about my data, what I had found, and with ideas for future projects. All-in-all, I think my first talk was a success. Now I can start thinking about my next one, which will hopefully be at Rio Ptero 2013, the pterosaur conference in Brazil.

Most of the talks were excellent, with some bad ones and some great ones spread throughout. Most entertaining talk definitely goes to Jeff Liston, which had most of us laughing throughout his description of some fish fossils (followed up of course by the best auctioneer I've ever seen as he ran the auction Thursday night). As for my favourite talk in terms of content, I would probably say that Dave Hone's Protoceratops aggregation, which was very cool.

The conference in all was very interesting, but I was possibly more interested in the difference between men and women. The first day it became apparent to me that there weren't many women, so I started to investigate, and came up with some interesting numbers. I decided it was worthy of some investigation, so bear with me and my many graphs!

So this is interesting. Although 31% of the total people at the conference were female, only about 25% of presenters were female and males seemed to be much more willing to present their work than women were. Where are all the women? Well it's also interesting if you break it down into multiple author talks and posters. 


Of talks given with multiple authors, the presentations with females as an author increased as the number of authors increased, with few presentations being dominated by female authors. Of 13 talks with more than 5 authors, only 3 had 50% or more authors as females. Similar information is seen in posters with more than one author, although there were few posters to compare. 


What I was also interested in is the breakdown by area of study. I didn't go through everything, but for talks with the primary author being the one looked at, the numbers of female:male for each topic are as follows:
Fish 3:4
Palaeozoic tetrapods 1:2
Marine reptiles and crocodiles 0:8 (although one was presented by Lorna Steel, although the first author was male)
Pterosaurs 1:2
Dinosaurs 1:7
Birds 2:3
Mammals 6:8
I'm especially amazed by the difference between males and females in the marine reptiles and crocodiles, and dinosaur studies. Most other groups aren't statistically significant, while mammals has almost as many females as males. I know that there is a lot of discussion about getting women involved in science, and this was some definite evidence that this field is dominated by men. 

Come on girls! Start doing some science! I want the next conference to be more than 25% female! 

Friday, 7 September 2012

Thesis complete! Now SVPCA ahhh

Today, I submitted my MSc thesis. What a huge weight off my shoulders! Of course, shortly after I printed it, I discovered a mistake. Don't worry, it was minor. I had to resist the urge to re-print it. But now it is handed in and complete. No more work until... next week. Dammit.

On Monday, I'm off to the SVPCA annual meeting in Oxford, where I will do my first ever conference presentation titled "A novel approach to measuring pterosaur bone mass using CT scans". I will be presenting the results of my MSc research, co-authored by my supervisor Colin Palmer. I'm also hoping to get the first publication submitted shortly, but we'll see. Sadly, there are only 3 pterosaur oral presentations, and mine is first (how'd that happen?!). I'm really looking forward to the other pterosaur talks, which involve one on the really awesome Darwinopterus by David Unwin et al, and a small azhdarchoid from the Isle of Wight by Darren Naish et al. There are also a few posters on pterosaurs: a re-appraisal of Istiodactylus latidens from Calum Davies, a re-appraisal of British Jurassic pterosaurs by Michael O'Sullivan, pterosaur tooth anatomy by Steven Vidovic, and azhdarchid relationships by Mark Witton. Apparently no one from outside of the University of Portsmouth decided to submit a poster on pterosaurs since 3 are by UoP PhD students, and one is a staff member. What the heck? Share the love, guys! Speaking of guys, they are also all male... Interesting. Where are the females? I just noticed I'm also the only female pterosaur presenter.

I have to admit, I'm terrified to present next week. I have talked in front of a large number of people once in my life, and that was at my Mom's funeral. This is a little bit different. In that case, I was talking about my Mom. Who could tell me I'm wrong? Now, I have to get up in front of a room full of experts, where lots of people could tell me I'm wrong. AND it's right before lunch, when I'm sure most people would rather be eating. On the plus side, that may mean that no one will ask me questions. This isn't helped by the fact that there are a number of experts in my particular field in the room, including ones that I contradict in my talk. Mark Witton already gave me a heart attack by telling me I couldn't use his results in my presentation because I disagreed with him. He had me convinced that he was serious. (I'll get you back for that, Mark... you have been warned). Wednesday can stay away for now I think... But seriously, does anyone have any suggestions of what to do/not do at a scientific conference? Specifically while giving a talk? Have I mentioned that I've never even been to a real conference? Geez, whose idea was it to give a talk at a conference before going to one. Clearly that was a bad idea.

I've practiced my talk in front of a group of people once, and had some positive response. Plus, Colin took a look at it and gave me some suggestions. I'm hoping it goes well. But lets just say that I will be extremely happy once Wednesday is over.

Now that I'm done my thesis, you might ask what I am going to do with myself? Well immediately, I will start applying for scholarships. I have a PhD position at Bristol starting in January, but it's unfunded, so I'm in need of some way of paying for this. Most of the deadlines are from October-December, so that's what I'll be doing. At the end of October, I go home for a few months to spend with my family. My Mom passed away in January, so I'd like to go home and spend time with my family through that tough time (like her birthday, Christmas, and 1 year from her death). It won't be a happy few months, but at least I'll be with family. Then in January, I'll come back to Bristol and start my PhD. That's the plan anyways. If there's something I've learned this year, it's that nothing goes according to plan...

I'll post my thoughts on the conference when I get back next week!