Showing posts with label Topical Overload. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topical Overload. Show all posts

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Later This Year, On The Lord Geekington!

For my own good, I've decided to keep track of the posts I have started but never finished, and the ones I have promised but never gotten around to. I've set up a page to keep track of them (see toolbar, to be updated regularly), and here are the contents thus far:



Research blogging. I'll finally get on the bandwagon (if I can get the page to work) and discuss some recent papers on clades I have an unusual fondness for (turtles, vultures, remipedes, loricariids, cephalopods, et cetera) which receive little attention from the science blogosphere at large. I'm counting on you Google Scholar alerts!

'Cadborosaurus' analysis. A sequel to my treatment of Heuvelmans' Many-Finned (reportsanalysis), I will utilize anecdotal data from LeBlond and Bousfield's Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep to determine if their proposed cryptid is actually suggested by the reports they included. After reading the book, I suspect that the proposed morphology for 'caddy' was based mostly on the Naden Harbour carcass; if the carcass is assumed to be mundane and/or over/misinterpreted, 'caddy' will either get much simpler (say, elongated body + ungulate-like head + big eyes), or no well-supported patterns will emerge at all. One controversial aspect is lumping different eyewitness traits (i.e. horse-like head, cow-like head, giraffe-like head, et cetera), so I'd like to see how big a difference different degrees of lumping will make. This will all inevitable tie in with the controversy over whether the very concept of a cryptid taken from numerous eyewitness reports has any validity. I'd also like to record the number of characteristics per report and see if there is a trend with distance or possibility of a hoax. Obviously this is going to be a whole serious of posts!

The Hagelund specimen. There's something in the works about this one and I'm planning on giving some additional background and commentary upon publication.

'Caddy' Reports. Some of them are really quite interesting!

The Canvey Island Monsters. Cryptids that are definitely known fish, although this does not appear to be widely acknowledged.

Clade-by-clade turtles. I'm thinking of reviewing turtles as a whole by major clade (mostly 'families', perhaps some well-supported sub-families). It just seems inevitable.

Brackish and Saltwater turtles. There are a few non-seaturtles that can venture out to sea (previously mentioned here) and the ability for 'freshwater' turtles to survive in brackish water is downright common.

Teeny Turtles.Turtles on average are rather large creatures (previously discussed here), and it would seem that at small sizes the shell would offer little protection and become an unnecessary burden. However, very small turtles (< 15 cm strait shell length) can thrive in areas with crocodilians and other potential turtle-crushers. I'll review the smallest species of all with emphasis on predation, growth, niche, and other relevant aspects of their life history.

Jaguarundi and the Philosophy of Genera. I'll discuss why placing Jaguarundi in the genus 'Puma' is a huge mistake (blatant paraphyly, for one thing) and offer my own philosophy on how genera should and shouldn't be used. The concept of a genus is subjective, but I think the best approach would be to construct them of species which are obviously closely related (i.e. the Right Whales in Eubalaena, vs. the Bowhead Whale in Balaena) and thus may be split or lumped over time. I think the concept of a 'subgenus' is useless and they should just be bumped up to a proper genus (see my thoughts on pangolins).

Shrink-wrapped whales. Inspired by discussion with Markus Bühler (of Bestiarium) and discussion on SV-POW! (part 1part 2) I'll reconstruct extant whales in the most dreadful manner possible to discuss how some extinct forms probably didn't look like quasi-reptilian monsters in life.

Cleaned by a vulture. For some reason, American Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) engage in lots of interspecific grooming.

Snake Eels. Eels with necks! Kinda!

Clade-by-clade remipedes. Another inevitable topic.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

One Year of The Lord Geekington

61 published posts.

That's what I'm measuring my year by. At a rate of a post a week I feel somewhat accomplished. Cutting and pasting things into Word revealed that I have written something like 87,000 words and filled out around 300 pages so far. By either count, this is roughly the length of an average novel. Granted somebody like H. P. Lovecraft could pump out a letter of a similar length in about a week, but given the subjects covered I feel that I've accomplished something. At least one monstrous post took over a dozen hours to illustrate and write, for instance. I feel that I'm being self-congratulatory here, this feels bizarre.



Reflections Upon the Lord Geekington


So how did this all begin anyways?


I remember as a little kid how I'd always ramble on about every science fact I knew to who ever had the tolerance to listen to me. This blog seems to be a direct continuation of that, now that everybody has the capacity to write about everything to everybody else. As you may recall, the first few months of this blog were rather uneven and, well, geeky. I talked about video games, weird paintings, art, forteana, my own personal speculative evolution, and even a bizarre type of, um, -craft. In retrospect, it really doesn't feel all the worthwhile writing to me. Sure art is nice, but there are much finer websites out there covering it. I had reached the realization that with 100 million other bloggers out there (big numbers scare me) I might want to write something more worthwhile. What is worthwhile to me isn't worthwhile to everybody of course, but at least I feel writing about overlooked natural science is a lot more fulfilling. I hope that it is at least an occasionally interesting read to some people occasionally, I'd hate for this just to be some self-centered exercise, or, er, more so. But hey, I don't get paid for this so at least I feel a little altruistic!

From about February on I had shifted more towards science blogging, writing about cephalopods and cryptid amphibians and other things Darren Naish hadn't posted on yet (or ever). Being dangerously under-qualified compared to Dr. Naish, I didn't my blog to just just wind up a Fooling Grandma* (or worse yet, a Deceiving Great-Grandma) of his creation. I think now that there is information, probably far more than enough, to go around for everybody. Since starting to blog Darren has moved to Scienceblogs and some other very fine Zoology/Paleontology based blogs have arisen such as, ooh, say Laelaps and the Catalogue of Organisms. These blogs and others have given me an unprecedented opportunity to learn about science in a way that I would never have been able to do in the past. What a golden age of information we live in.

*Coined by Russell Shepherd, date unknown. Signifies a product made in imitation of an actual franchise (Action Rangers --> Power Rangers). Most kids and adults realize the difference, so apparently these products were making profits solely by fooled grandmas. Deceiving Great-Grandma. Older people also have great difficulty reading white on black and this footnote is likely nigh-unreadable.


It has come to my surprise that not only do people read what I write, but two fellows (Darren and Chris Taylor (Cat. of Org.)) have given me the "thinking blogger" award, much to my astonishment. If I had heard about such a thing at the outset of blogging, the thought of receiving it would never have crossed my mind. Instead of making me feel pretentious (!!??!) it makes me live in fear of betraying this title. And I don't believe I've ever formally thanked Chris yet, well, thanks! As for awarding others...I don't think I carry any sort of authority, so I'll trust other better bloggers to make their decisions.



Here I am writing this post, just to give you all a glimpse of the magic in progress. I'm sitting on the floor, not even in my own room, and hammering away. Oh yes, I cut my hair rarely, usually shaving my head on Maine Day. This is why I don't talk about or show my personal life.



Random Highlights

As if the structure of this post wasn't convoluted enough...


Disappointments.

Judging by my comments, I have had some uninteresting posts here. I've got to hand it to my sister for commenting enough to basically be a co-blogger of sorts. No zero comments for me! My "scientific" racism, dang! I though that was a pretty good topic. Maybe my "Proto-Europoid" mug scared everybody off. My post on pseudopapers was also just, blah, not needed. There are others, but a cursory glance should give them away.

I'm often rather self-critical, so that coupled with feedback (or lack thereof) will hopefully drive me to improving this blog. I have the drive to improve things, although recently the motivation to do much is more difficult to come by (severe money related troubles, yeesh).


Successes - or at least better posts.

Despite my oft-critical perspective, I'm surprised by how popular some posts were. Anything dealing with large animals (here and here) were surprisingly popular. They were a topical overload and kinda jumpy, but hey, they were pretty fun. As for my favorite posts, I'd say that they were the Omnivore vs. Hypercarnivore post, the choristodere post, and the Meganthropus post - the one that launched me into using peer-reviewed articles. The super-long and semi-technical posts were my favorites, but unfortunately they have to be rare due to the time involved. Sigh...

And now for highlights in picture form:





My interpretation of three bigfoot "types" according to Hall/Coleman/Huyghe.


Some very large squids. Hmm, no 108 footers as far as I can tell...




That ever-strange cetacean centipede.


The amazing blanket octopus. Taken by Marcello Conticelli off Ponza, Italy.


The obscure Barra carcass, one very strangely decomposed whale.


And I course, I give my thanks to everybody that I have failed to mention in this post. And if you find this slightly interesting, please visit the links to the right.


Let's hope I can write another one of these

-Cameron

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Horrendously Antiquated Illustrations

Dear Constant Readers,

I've always had a fondness for those archaic illustrations done by individuals who speculated on poorly known, extinct, or outright fictional beasties. Having nothing to compare them to and often having less than reliable sources, they imagined them as bizarre monstrosities with inconceivable features. Perhaps one of the most famous was Dürer's Rhinoceros, which is iconic enough to get its own fairly detailed Wikipedia article. Even though it was replaced as the stereotypical image for a rhinoceros in Europe, its likeness was still replicated into modern times. It's a good meme in other words. For those Lord Geekington trivia buffs out there, the Dürer's Horn is my favorite fictional anatomical feature. Re-railing here, these depictions are now often rather silly in an endearing sort of way. Early Science or proto-science was rather preliminary and simple, and we clearly have come a long way. Looking back, I can't help but wonder if some of our reconstructions and beliefs will be looked upon as being rather silly themselves in the future. I could get into posterity but I'll spare you, for now.

I have covered at least one illustration in this vein before: the surreal Cetacean Centipede of Rondelet. You can read the full blog here. This appears to be a chimera of sorts combining a perciform fish, shark, whale, polychaete worm and perhaps lobster. This is almost certainly an obscure mythological animal, although there have been vague and sporadic reports of "sea-serpents" with a plethora of appendages. It is quite possible, but unproven, that the less vague reports were inspired by memories of this image or even hoaxes based upon it. This also reminds me that surrealism-like images from the Medieval/Renaissance periods may get written upon soon enough.




Aquatic animals always seem prone to really odd depictions. This here is an imaginative illustration from Harper's Weekly in 1868. The encircling gill slits, giant mouth and size make it probable this was a basking shark. But, umm, what on earth is up with those mammalian legs that make it look ready to pounce? Did the illustrator imagine this fish bounding majestically along the sea floor? The Stronsay "beast" of six decades earlier was perhaps another instance of fins (and claspers?) getting confused for limbs on a basking shark. The vertebrae size was smaller than (but otherwise identical to) that of an above average 25 foot (7.6 m) basking shark despite the reported length of 55 feet (16.8 m). Thank you Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. This was probably just exaggeration, but there is the remote possibility of some freak basking shark that doubled its vertebral count that somehow lived to maturity.


Mentioned in this not-too-recent post is the Carta Marina of Olaus Magnus. As far as weird and mythological aquatic creatures go, this is their holy grail. You'd better click on this and pray you don't have dialup:


You can spend a lot of time picking out crazy stuff in this map. Judging by the names the "Balena" and "Orcha" are supposed to be extant cetaceans, but you can't really tell by the weird collars, tube-like nostrils, piggish faces, and other really strange features. The "Ziphius" sounds like it could be a beaked whale, but the eagle head doesn't seem quite right. Also of note are people camping out on a big "island fish", what appears to be a devil/pan sweeping a stable, a monster with three eyes on its body, a feathery dragon, and lots of other strange things. Like Dürer's Rhinoceros, this is another one of those really iconic images/memes that symbolizes the time period. I for one miss maps that alert us to potential terrors waiting for us in exotic, far away lands. Also take note trivia buffs: the man's face in the clouds blowing wind is another one of my favorite images.


While Magnus worked in the 15th and 16th centuries, fantastic illustrations continued into the 19th century, my favorite era (for this). I recently came across an amazing flickr album (which prompted this post) on a book called Sea and Land from 1889. Not only are the illustrations fantastic and iconic but they're all in the public domain, making this all the sweeter for me. Due to many of these illustrations being fairly common in the Cryptozoology domain, plus me uncontrollably discussing the subject, I suppose the label is justified. Here are some favorites from this volume:

Crab lifting a goat, hmm. Robber crabs/Coconut crabs are pretty big for crustaceans and utterly colossal for a land arthropod (~9 lbs, ~3 foot span max) but lifting a goat? The appearance does seem accurate, but I'll assume this was based on somebody's crazy story/myth.



As usual, marine creatures, in this case reptiles, are depicted rather oddly. The long-tailed fellow with a puppy-dog expression is a plesiosaur with the head placed on the wrong end. Despite the traditional swan-neck pose which is common even today, plesiosaurs and elasmosaurs could not (and probably had no reason to) assume that position. The ichthyosaurs were also portrayed as being rather crocodile-like as opposed to fish like. An actual marine crocodile does seem fairly reasonable, undoubtedly due to living relatives. The small beaked swimmer in the bottom left-hand corner is something is a mystery to me, perhaps a rhynchosaur erroneously depicted as swimming?

[Correction thanks to Matt Celeskey: The "plesiosaur" is actually a mosasaur, and the beaked creature is actually the turtle Osteopygis. See "comments" for more.]


My favorite depiction of the "Kraken" sinking a ship. This is a wonderfully dark and moody piece, or wait no, dark and disturbing, muhaha. I remember as a much younger Crypto-enthusiast I was tantalized by what appear to be two small fins low on the mantle on this cephalopod. Y'see, there was this theory that the St. Augustine monster was in fact a cirrate octopus. Here is a depiction of "Otoctopus giganteus" from Michael Raynal's Institut Virtuel de Cryptozoologie.



An image supposedly representing the St. Augustine carcass. Both the description and drawing in the Pennsylvania Grit were horrendously naive, more like something out of the middle ages than 1896. It actually is a pretty cool monster design though, I'll have to steal it. The carcass wasn't a cephalopod/fish hybrid or a giant octopus, but in fact a sperm whale. I'll discuss globsters some other day.


The best source on the Internet for strange science is, well, Strange Science. Their website has the cream of the crop of all this weird stuff, as well as biographies and an excellent primer on evolution. I'd love to post everything, but, I can't. Here are some of my favorites:


Very very strange things were thought about the appearance of a mammoth. It was assumed to be a burrower and was compared to an ox for size and, well, there you have it.


Very strangely, Japetus Steenstrup realized that two reported instances of a "sea monk" bore a remarkable resemblance to a recently captured squid. If this is in fact the case, it demonstrates that people had some horrendously overactive imaginations in that time period. This is why anecdotal evidence, even (or especially) today can never be used as proof of anything. The squid might be the Octopoteuthid Taningia danae.


I am really lost for an explanation on this one.


So there you have it, a sampling of some of the strangest drawings I've ever seen. Some of these, such as the marine reptiles, were taken seriously; but I wonder about some of the others. Regardless, for some people a bestiary-like mindset lives on in their personal take on cryptozoology. They still think that there are fantastic monsters lurking in the mysterious and not-so-mysterious reaches of the globe. As a kid, I myself depicted bestiary scenes of aquatic cryptids I read about. Consequently, Darren Naish at about the same age made a far-superior depiction...sigh. Older now, I learned that value of critical thinking and realized that upon closer inspection, many of these beasts are most certainly figments of the imagination, modern day mythological creatures. What truly astounds me is that actual discoveries are often more strange than fiction. Take the cnidarian worm (!) Buddenbrockia for example. Coming up with your own world and your own fiction is difficult considering how fantastic our world already is.


I've got a lot of options for posting now, hopefully I'll squeeze something out soon here.

-Cameron



[Addendum 7/15/07: As per suggestion of Kevin Z, I'll talk about the Anthropomorpha of Linneus here. This excellent website was used as a source.

Carolus Linnaeus (born Carl von Linné) as you all known, is the great father of taxonomy. Sure his system is rather antiquated right now thanks to cladistics, but it was definitely a step in the right direction. In another interesting move, Linnaeus chose to classify humans among the animals. Despite being a creationist (like everybody back then) he recognized the obvious similarity between primates and man. His classifications (quite confusingly) changed with publications, and in one scheme he broke the genus Homo into two sub-genera: Homo diurnus and Homo nocturnus. H. diurnus included our species which was (unfortunately) divided into four races. Feral humans were considered a separate species (H. ferus) and a wastebin taxa of various monsters was called H. monstrosus. This included mythical Patagonian giants, Alpine dwarfs, and very real (but not one-testicled) "Hottentots".


Left to Right: "Trogloodyte", "Lucifer", "Satyr", "Pygmee"

The poorly named Homo nocturnus (aka troglodytes) made up the other half of the Anthropomorpha. Linnaeus was far from rigorous in some instances, and despite trying to "de-mythologize" some creatures, ended up making a mess. The above depicted apes were not created with specimens, but with heresy and second-hand accounts of a medieval bestiary quality. For instance, the first one is evidently supposed to be an orangutan! Probably because of him, depictions of apes were very, well, strange for a while and also still have rather peculiar scientific names (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus). Eventually this convoluted mess got (mostly) ironed out into neat little families, sub-families and tribes today. Let this be a lesson to cryptozoologists who want to describe and classify with secondhand knowledge!



Even though he did not classify them as Homo monstrosus or even talk about them, that category reminded me of some of my favorite humanoid bestiary monsters.


The giant cyclopes probably* originated from elephants skulls perhaps mixed with observations of the actual disease cyclopia. I find images of that very disturbing, I warn you in advance of googling that. The cynocephali (dog-headed fellow) is evidently based on baboons and perhaps soon-to-be-extinct giant lemurs. The foot-parasol fellow is baffling, perhaps based on elephantiasis? The Strong Mad-esque Anthropophagi is unexplainable, for me at least. The book Curious Creatures in Zoology by John Ashton is online here for more bestiary fun.

*As in probably not. Darren Naish will some day explain this...

Phew, and I'm spent]

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

The Revenge of the Honkin' Big Animals!

Dear Constant Readers,

Y'know, it really doesn't seem like there are any books these days with nothing but random, interesting facts. Sure knowing the record for the largest male blue whale (107'1" !?) isn't theoretically of the utmost importance, but as a connoisseur of the random animal fact it still is something I enjoy knowing. It really gives that sense of wonder and nostalgia to my not-so-distant boyhood of reading outdated books. I literally travel to the ends of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to read Gerald Wood's Animal Facts and Feats (part of the Guinness family)...well that and eat falafel pockets. As soon as I get over my miserly nature and cough up the 9 dollars (plus shipping) for the book, expect a grand finale to this trilogy started here.



Worms

Perhaps one of the most vaguest classification terms ever, this covers well over a dozen diverse phyla of generally elongated animals. Judging by how people discussing this video were baffled by what they were seeing, it is safe to say that nemerteans are among the least familiar "worms". Nemerteans are typically marine (occasionally freshwater and terrestrial) unsegmented predatory worms characterized by a proboscis. And they're huge, did I mention that? The worm in the video (a previously unknown species?) measured a fairly respectable 7 feet (2.1 m) in length. This very nice website has a picture of a 20 foot (6 m) long specimen, which about the same length as the record African Giant Earthworm (an entirely unrelated Annelid). The author points out that the biology of Nemerteans is virtually unknown, including how such an elongated animal can forage in the wide open without being eaten. I'd like to know why they need to be so outrageously elongated in the first place. It is known that they can reabsorb most of their bodies when resources are scarce and can reproduce asexually from fragments, so maybe that's part of the answer. Still, looking from the previous video and this one the length still seems a little...needless.

I led on that 20 feet was something impressive for this group...it certainly isn't. Dr. Shimek has another photograph of a 40 foot (12 m) worm. And even that isn't too much considering the awe-inspiring (or nausea inspiring?) Lineus longissimus. He relates one story from the prominent E. Ray Lankester who measured a worm while playing golf near a beach that was over 100 feet (30 m) long stretched from hole to hole (not golf holes). A nemertean that washed up in St. Andrews, Scotland in 1864 was collected in a jar measuring 8" by 5", which it half filled. So while the nemertean was incredibly skinny (the norm is 5-10 mm wide!), Professor V. C. McIntosh measured out 30 yards (27.4 m) of it before the worm ruptured. He had measured less than half of it. This is where the occasionally cited figure of 180 feet (54.5 m) comes from...but it should have been at least that. So can this animal break the 200 foot (60 meter is you prefer) barrier, perhaps with the outrageous dinosaur Amphicoelias fragillimus as its primary contender? According to Gerald Wood, nemerteans can "shrink" to about 1/3 of their length, which would put this worm down to a measly 60 feet (18 m). These worms are apparently quite stretchy as well, exaggerating their length. But since Wood's account revealed that this wasn't measured on a beach (which I presumed at first) but post mortem by a scientist, should this length be accepted? Even if it isn't, a worm presumably 5-10 mm by 60 meters stretched (6-12,000 times longer than wide!) is biomechanically insane. How do the nerves work? How can it possibly stay intact? How can it do anything? Should I become a Nemerteanologist (neologism?) to find out?


I've always had a fear of living "spaghetti", and I think becoming a L. longissimus specialist is a bit out of the picture. As disgusting as that concept is (thanks Heuvelmans), I find internal parasites to be far more disturbing. Ugh, just the thought of this thing inside of me, biting some part of me I'm helpless to defend, draining my precious bodily fluids is....revolting to say the least. Tapeworms are not Nemerteans but an even simpler group called Platyhelminthes or flatworms. It includes planarians...but also other parasites like flukes. Wikipedia claims a length of 18 meters (~59 feet) from a dead website, but for once it seems to be under-exaggerating. Wood's book lists a tapeworm an utterly astounding 82 feet (25 m) taken from a human being. The longest tapeworm ever was found in a Sperm Whale: it measured 98'5" (30 m). It is curious to note that while people certainly do not have 80 feet of intestine, Sperm Whales have around 250 feet (~75 m) of tract. Are there even longer tapeworms out there? Who knows...but I am sufficiently disgusted by them to move on. If that amount of intestine is impressive to you, then it's segway time...



Elephant Seals

While Elephant Seals certainly are big and strange looking (and like buckets and not having them stolen), there is just one part of their anatomy which I just can't believe. According to Wood's book, a Southern Elephant Seal bull measuring 15'9" (4.8 m) had an intestinal tract measuring 662 feet or 202 meters long. That is 42 times as long as the seal itself! How does it cram itself into there? This paper (which I can't access) says the seals have intestines 25 times as long as themselves, so apparently that specimen was an exceptional one. Even then, that's a lot and what it is used for apparently isn't known. The abstract said it probably wasn't related to deep diving. Longer digestive systems are typically characteristics of herbivores; but if I recall my Vertebrate Bio textbook correctly, dolphins have long intestines to compensate for the fatty foods it eats. Still, 1/10 of a mile or more of intestine seems a bit...unnecessary for anything really.

Oh yes, their regular bodies are quite big too. The average size for a bull is (or probably, was) 16'6"(4.9 m) and around 5000 lbs (2200 kg) according to Wood. Females are about 1/3 the size of the males, making them impressively sexual dimorphic...for a vertebrate. Dr. Robert C. Murphy observed the flensing of a bull that was estimated to measure over 22 feet long originally (6.85 m) and weighed an incredible 5.5 tons (5 tonnes)...in the same size class as the seal's namesake. Murphy mentioned another seal that was a mere 18'4" (5.6 m) long, but was outrageously obese. Apparently it was so obese that even after half the blubber was removed, the men still had great difficulty moving it. It was never weighed or apparently even estimated, but judging from the sheer difficulty it very well could have been heaver that 5.5 tons. How something that size can move on its belly on land just seems ludicrous.

Equally absurd is that not only is the Southern Elephant Seal the biggest Carnivore (the Order) with the longest intestines around, Wood claims it has the most flexible spine of any vertebrate. I can't find a picture online, but the book definitely did have a picture with the seal bending over backwards to get a fish on its flippers. The Northern Elephant Seal can't do this, why would this one species need a much more flexible spine? Is it related to the increased mass? Does anyone know of a vertebrate that can contest this claim? Why do I end up asking so many questions?



Cnidarians

Back to Invertebrates. Simpler yet than Platyhelminthes is this group containing the familiar jellyfish, corals, Portugeuse men o' war, and the somewhat familiar hydras. I won't get too into them here, but I will mention two that have been touted as the "longest animal". The impressive looking Lion's Mane Jellyfish certainly is far more massive than the worms mentioned so far; a specimen washed up in 1865 (wiki oddly says 1870) apparently had a bell diameter of 7'6" (2.3 m) with tentacles stretching an additional 120 feet (36.5 m)! So I guess you could say that this is the longest length recorded from an animal, but not the implied longest. There are anecdotes of larger specimens but, well, I'm kinda tired of dealing with those anecdotal reports.

It should be noted that there are claims, undoubtedly reliable, that the Siphonophore genus Praya can reach 30-50 meters (100 to 165) in length...apparently judging from sonar hits. This "creature" has two swimming organs at the end and is greatly elongated with numerous tentacles for capturing prey and thousands of stomach. Thousands you say? Siphonophores are made out of numerous different "individuals" acting in a coordinated manner as some sort of super-organism. Since the individuals really can't live on their own, it is quite ambiguous if this is in fact a colony or a single organism. But that really is just an arbitrary human definition now, isn't it?

Since Ernst Haeckel is long departed, I'm sure he won't mind me posting one of his awesome drawings of Siphonophores:




Arthropods

I guess there was no real transition into this topic, oh well. Despite being encased in armor and usually being quite small and numerous, some Arthropods can get considerably big indeed. Well, not the size of the pit bugs on Skull Island, but quite considerable none the less. Here is our first subject....don't ask:


Yes, I steal stuff from 4chan. This thing, occasionally confused for a living trilobyte or apparently some sort of Zerg (or Reaver?), is the giant isopod Bathynomus which can reach 18 inches. An isopod is a Crustacean familiar to most people as roly-polies, woodlice, pillbugs, et cetera. That's right, that enormous sub-Phylum has far more than just those decapods. Before I get ahead of myself, does anybody know of a phosphorescent species of isopod in Maine? They seem to be quite common but I have not currently been able to identify them.

I'll make no secret that centipedes scare the hell out of me. They're far too fast for having all those legs, the dang things are just so eerie looking. The largest centipede is occasionally cited as being Scolopendra galapagoensis, but it appears tales of its size have been greatly exaggerated. The largest species appears to be S. gigantea which can reach over a foot in length. You can read more about these monsters here.

Now on to the really big arthropods.

Over a month ago David made this neat little comparison pic which I intend to steal conceptually and modify somewhat. Oh yes, and Sordes, do you have any more information of that giant shrimp that you saw? I'm tantalized.


The leftmost animal is Arthropleura. The uppermost animal is the trilobite Isoletus and the animal below it is the American Lobster. In the center is me (1.74 meters tall) and the animal next to me is the Japanese Spider Crab. The animal farthest to the right is the Eurypterid Pterygotus.


Pterygotus was a gigantic Eurypterid, a group of large predatory chelicerates (horseshoe crabs, spiders, scorpions, et cetera). The largest known complete specimen measured 1.26 meters long (~4'), but there is evidence for specimens getting up to 2.3 meters (~7.5 feet) long. That is the hypothetical size portrayed in the illustration. There have been some old claims of 3 meter Eurypterids, but it doesn't seem like this is accepted anymore.

Arthropleura is another potential candidate for the largest Arthropod of all time. It is a centipede or millipede-like creature known as an Arthropleurid that is definitively known to get a meter in length. Tracks indicate that it could get 2 meters in length, but for some reason Wikipedia claims up to 3 meters. Once again I chose the more modest size...unless there is strong evidence to prove otherwise.

Certainly not the as massive at the other Arthropods, the Japanese Spider Crab (Macrocheira kaempferi) is still dimensionally shocking, especially for an extant animal. I used the same scale as the trilobite from the Pharyngula website (well, actually the paper it cites that I can't access) that is the source for these images. The commonly cited figure is a 3 meter/10 foot leg span, which I suppose the illustrated animal can live up to. Something that long and spindly being able to function encased in armor seems quite ludicrous, and it makes even larger claims (e.g. 8 meters/26 feet) quite hard to believe.

I already sorta mentioned the Trilobite and gave the link. For those of you that didn't look, Isotelus rex reached a pretty incredibly 0.72 meters long...for a trilobite.

I'm also portraying the American Lobster Homarus americanus with the same scale model as the giant trilobite. The portrayed lobster is 0.5 meters long (~20 inches) along the body. The record claim is 1.18 meters (3.9 feet), but it is not clear what that is measuring. Is that including the outstretched antennae, or the claws? So while this illustrative size may be overly modest, it still is quite impressive. The specimen weighed 22 kilograms (48 lbs), which is utterly astounding for an Arthropod. The Japanese Spider Crab nearly equals it with a weight of 20 kilograms (44 lbs).


So it looks like that wraps up this edition of the Revenge of the Honkin' Big Animals. I really wasn't expecting this to be so invertebrate heavy, but these sorts of things can be a tad bit unpredictable. I was expecting to transition from elephant seals to elephants, but it didn't quite work out. Since Anomalocaris evidently got in the same size-class as Arthropleura and Pterygotus I was thinking of sneaking it in here somewhere, but it is unfortunately Arthropod-related and not a member of the group itself* . These posts are mostly meant to cover the size of animals, but I anticipate that if I get sufficiently interested in one of these groups I'll most certainly give them a more detailed coverage.

*[Edit: There are some who claim that Anomalocaris and kin are indeed Arthropods, other who claim they fall outside the group, and other who claim that any similarities are convergent. More on this later]


During the course of writing this blog (yes, it actually is a multiple day affair), I had ordered Gerald Wood's book. You can probably anticipate some changes to this blog in the future, seeing as how I did not consult it for the big Arthropods. I won't write the finale just yet, but I'll let it ferment for a while. I've still also got to write a post covering the future of Cryptozoology, make up some more hypothetical animals, and of course attempt to write fiction. I've still fortunately got a summer left to try and do this all.



-Cameron



Addendum 6/26/07:

I got the 3rd Edition of The Guinness Book of Animal Facts & Feats, which has a photograph that really puts the size of elephants seals in perspective:


No information on this photo was given, but note how the animal doesn't even have a developed trunk yet.


Wikipedia's claim of lobsters weighing up to 22 kilograms and 1.18 meters along the body (48 lbs, 3'10") are exaggerations, but the apparent record is 1.067 meters from (extended?) claw to the tail and 20.13 kilograms (3'8" and 44 lb 6 oz). This is really outrageous in light that a thorough study in 1911 by Dr. Francis Herrick did not turn up a lobster larger than 25 lbs (11.3 kg). Even bigger sizes have been reported of course, there is a lobster grabbing a human in Olaus Magnus' famous 16th Century Carta Marina. The 18th Century Erik Pontoppidan mentioned a report of a lobster with a 6 foot (1.8 meter) claw spread that terrified fishermen. Given the oft-dubious nature of that time, these really are just amusing anecdotes. I'm pretty satisfied with a freakish arthropod as big as a moderately sized dog.


The largest validated lobster caught off Nova Scotia in February 1977. Other information on this photo is lacking. The tape measure isn't in the best of positions, so it is hard to tell if it actually does go up to 42 inches. Was it measured with the claws more stretched out? Regardless, I have seen another photograph of this specimen (or another similarly large one) in an unambiguous position that ridiculously dwarfed an average lobster. As far as outsized growth is concerned, this seems extreme.

Monday, January 1, 2007

The Speculative Dinosaur Project

Dear Constant Readers,

Out of everything written about what would have happened had Dinosaurs not gone extinct, it is interesting to note that the best work on the subject is available for free on the Internet. Spec World is created by people who actually have paleontological training...and a nerdy sense of humor. From what I've heard (from its creators) there has been an utterly tremendous amount of thought and consideration that went into this, and it is readily apparent from reading it. Other projects tend to either have animals survive through intact or warp them to be unrecognizable (normally resembling a modern niche, hmm). Spec World tries to find a happy medium of what the plausible evolution will be. The inspiration I've gotten from this project is the amount of effort they put in, I'm far lower on the academic food chain than these fellows, but this project wanted me to set high standards for myself. Of course I don't agree completely with every speculation, but that's just my (very) humble opinion.

The website doesn't seem to be working quite right, so I'll have to have yet another hyperlink choked post. Even though it is arranged geographically, I think I'll try and shoot for a phylogenetic approach. The section of dinosaur evolution is very very extensive and somewhat irrelevant to me (except for the evolutionary concepts) so I'll breeze through that. This is vast project compared to The World of Kong, but I'll try to keep things reasonable. Put on your pith helmets and let's go spexploring!

The first inspiration worth noting is that one the main page (now not working) it was mentioned that Choristoderes were still clinging on to life. I had never heard of this group before, but I guess it is worth noting that a two headed specimen recently became news-worthy. They generally looked like small gharials or lizards, although others looked curiously plesiosaur-like. They are noteworthy for having the spottiest fossil records of any group I've ever heard about. Their history possibly begins in the Upper Triassic, starts for sure in the Mid-Jurassic, and pops up again in the Late Cretaceous and Eocene. It is also worth pointing out that they go unrecognized as another major group of reptiles (other than lizards/snakes, tuataras, turtles, and crocodilians) that survived the dinosaur-killing KT extinction. Millions of years after the last Eocene Choristoderan another specimen names Lazarussuchus from the Oligocene popped up. It is extremely problematic since it seems much more primitive from the Cretaceous-Eocene Choristoderans and even the Mid-Jurassic ones. At the very least is is a "ghost lineage" in the tens of millions of years, possibly well over 100 million years. Last I heard they have been found even more recently from the Miocene. So kudos to Spec World for pointing out these nearly-unkillable animals to me. I don't know what they'll be like in Spec World, but I do know that they will play a minor role in the fauna of my island along with other oddballs out of time. This goes to show just how well researched and thought provoking this material can be.

[Edit: Fourth of July, 2007. Choristoderes (not -derans) finally get their own post]


On to the dinosaurs! Therizinosaurs have been among my favorites since I first heard about them, which was surprisingly recently. They were related to the carnivorous Theropods (yadda yadda yadda "raptors" from Jurassic Park), but became large, very strange and herbivorous. Strangeness is obviously very appealing to me, so a "sumo-dinosaur" that resembled a cross between a goose and a giant ground sloth will obviously catch my attention. Spec World continues their evolutionary history, documenting their early diversification, split into two major branches, adaptation to cold climate, and their "current" decline. Competition has made them mostly shaggy arctic browsers above the 55th parallel, although small mountain dwelling forms also exist. There is apparently a story of human exploration of this alternate universe (it is spread out and vague) and whoever these explorers were, they were apparently all nerds because Spec World is filled with all sorts of geeky references. The Therizinosaur to the left is called a "Shantak", named after, of course, a monstrous bird-like creature from H. P. Lovecraft's The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. I love it when worlds collide like that. See the Therizinosaur page for several other species and the full history. The rest of the work done on the theropods is astoundingly well done and complete and just as worth checking out.

Due to extinctions on our own planet birds are a highly distinct group, with Crocodilians as their closest living relatives. On Spec World, however, things have gotten very complicated. Not only is the line between Maniraptorian Dinosaurs and "birds" quite blurry, if it even exists, there are many more basic groups of birds. Our Neornithes are but one radiation, in Spec toothed seabirds (see here too) still exist as well as primitive flying creatures (see here too) more closely related to predatory dinosaurs. A great deal of the small bird (i.e. modern day songbird) diversity is now taken over by the "opposite birds". Enantiornithids are quite interesting concept-wise, they look like modern birds but have weird palates, slow growth and metabolism, and are poisonous. The picture gets pretty complicated (I'm not going to pretend like I understand enough about it to blog on it) so I won't even attempt to explain it all here. I'm thinking a few odd survivors might make it through to my island, but I'll mostly be Neornithes that will populate it. I think all of this information on the primitive birds and the bird/dinosaur relationship is going to get me to read up a lot more on this subject in the future.

Interestingly, even with a far greater diversity of birds (not necessarily species-wise though) on Spec, some modern day groups are still present. Ducks have their origins in the Cretaceous, so they occupy some niches in New Zealand. A particularly species called the "Disco Duck" engages in silly walks and of course has the name Ludicrus cleesei. Even though crows are not present on Spec, nearcrows are in an interesting occurrence of parallel evolution. Convergent and parallel evolution (convergent involves unrelated groups, parallel involves related ones) is a fascinating concept, the placental and marsupial "wolves" come to mind immediately. I can't help but wonder if the environment makes the evolution of some niches more probable, if not nearly unavoidable. Not that evolution has any direction. The show is stolen by the penguins present on Spec, monstrous creations of Brian Choo. Penguins apparently came from the Late Cretaceous on small islands near New Zealand, so with or without an extinction event, they are still likely to have evolved. They still retain the tube-nostrils of their ancestors, but have basically the same layout. One Spec, however, they occupy brackish and even freshwater environments, and are more diverse. Penguins of death are large predators unlike anything birds have occupied on our world. Due to their size (over 15 feet long) they have evolved a marsupial-like pouch to incubate their eggs. The best part are just the names, the Leering Baby-eating Penguin of DEATH!!!, the Screaming Ninja Penguin of DEATH!!!, and of course the Giant Psycho-Killer Penguin of Death. I wish our penguins were better named...

Most people are unaware that crocodiles used to occupy a wide variety of niches. The creators of Spec World did not forget, of course. Although there are still Eusuchians occupying the "traditional" semi-aquatic ambush predator niche, they are far more varied. Long limbed terrestrial carnivorous crocodiles evolved in the late Cretaceous apparently even with dinosaur competition, but on Spec the non-traditional niches occur on that other strange island, Madagascar. On Madagascar they begin to resemble the Archosaurs before the dinosaur radiation, with some resembling herbivorous Aetosaurs (and Ankylosaurs), and others somewhat resembling Rauisuchians. Others, however occupy almost feline-like niches, and are in fact called Felisuchians. They have erect postures, saber teeth (occasionally), and talon-like claws. Others even climb trees to hunt lemurs. This may sound very improbable compared with the modern conception of sessile crocodiles, but those interestingly came from much more active ancestors. And yes, herbivorous crocodiles are known too. This is creating a debate about my island whether or not I should have crocodiles "echo" their ancient ancestors, or if I actually should have their (evolved) ancestors present. Or heck, I might as well do both. I wish that more work on crocodiles was done, but this project appears to be a work in progress, so there is likely more to come.

The diversity of the Mosasaurs, those horrendously overgrown aquatic monitors, is interesting enough (to me) to warrant mention. Most lizards were pretty small in the dinosaur-infested Mesozoic, but it is odd to think that at the end of the period the oceans were ruled by giant lizards of comparable ferocity to the largest predatory dinosaurs. Their reign was awfully short, but on Spec World they have continued to evolve. It's interesting that as aquatic reptiles evolve, they tend to have an elongated form at first, and then eventually get more compressed and fish-like, best exemplified by the icthyosaurs. Even though I probably won't have (many?) aquatic reptiles on my island, I'll still probably document their fascinating conquests soon. Spec World speculates what would happen to Mosasaurs if their reign was not cut so short. Two parallel branches of them evolved into eel-like river dwelling forms, a reference to the separate evolutions of river dwelling dolphins. Others have taken a more icthyosaur-like (but not exactly) route and have become fish or shark-like top-predators. The largest specimen is the 60 ton Nodens, named after a Lovecraft deity from Dream-Quest as well. They are covered in scars from a Spec cryptid (?!) called the great ktulu (Cthulhu!!) in an absolutely bizarre convergence of three separate interests of mine. My favorite Mosasaur is the absolutely bizarre Hobb's leviathan, which needs a picture since it can't really be compared to anything. Actually the basic body plan looks exactly like the Piranhadon from The World of Kong, which I wish I had a picture of. You'll have to take my word for it.

The absolutely most bizarre creations of Spec world are the Baleen-squids which roam the oceans with the neo-Mosasaurs. The numerous similar arms of cephalopods could theoretically be prone to specialization, but in the real world only sperm transferring arms, long grasping tentacles, and some large photophores have evolved. We ourselves come from animals with long redundant body segments, but ours have regionalized and specialized and folded into our unique body plan. Even given our remarkable transformation from our ancestors, the Baleen-squids are pretty extreme. More primitive baleen-squid are known, such as the Ktulu, which have tentacles that have split into "fingers" on the end. I don't know why real life cephalopods never did this, the closest they have come are the tactile cirri of cirrate octopodes and "vampire squid". Of course, the Great Ktulu also gets a mention...unavoidable with anybody who is a fan of cephs. Then things got very weird with more derived species. Two arms have evolved into "gnathobranchiums", not actually functional jaws but arms designed to act as jaw-shaped protectors of interior tentacles. Two "digitibranchiums" have evolved into a baleen-like structure designed to filter prey. The remaining tentacles remain behind to manipulate food. Simply put, these are enormous squid that have evolved as a bizarre homologue to baleen whales and manta rays. This is easily the most far-fetched thing on Spec, and I'm still uncertain what to make of them exactly. The extreme similarity to known species of whales is going too far in my opinion though. It still is an interesting concept though, and my island could use a few animals created on a whim. Because even though sometimes evolution can be predictable to some degree, very strange things have been known to happen.

Now here is a statement which will frighten some people...the main source of my inspiration from Spec World revolves around the work they did with mammal evolution. Should I have said that before? Early mammal and Mammaliaform diversity is still somewhat confusing but fascinating for me. I'm still not sure if Mammaliaformes should be called "mammal-like reptiles" or not, phylogenetic placement for some of these specimens just seems to float around like iceberg, constantly shifting and changing position. I wish they got the same attention that Dinosaurs get. Early mammals are very poorly represented in the modern world, with only a few species of monotremes. Apparently a mouse-like creature from New Zealand that lived a few million years go was somewhere in between monotremes and modern therians. If it is in fact a Multituberculate as I suspect (nothing I read has mentioned assignments), then that clade will also be an nearly unkillable ghost lineage prone one, though not to the same degree as Choristoderans.

The first group covered are the Docodonta Mammaliaformes, obscure Mesozoic rodent-like critters known mainly from teeth. In fact, most small primitive mammals (or Mammaliaformes) do seem to resemble rodents and the various groups' unique dentitions are the best way to differentiate them, hence all the "toothy" names. This group was actually in the news recently, with the discovery of a "large" (2 pounds, 17 inches) swimming possible piscivore. This is pretty remarkable given that most other mammals and Mammaliaformes at the time seemed to be occupying rather marginalized niches. The Spec World Docodonta species isn't related to the various known parallel developments of moles, but re-develops it in South America. It has the same strange spurs as Monotremes, is that a plesiomorphy for mammals then? Very curiously, the Spec website also mentions that their "molarity" can swim in rivers, prophetic of the news story to come years later. I don't understand why, but burrowing animals always have an extremely easy time adapting to or even just going into water. Caecilians, for instance, are bizarre amphibians which occupy only burrowing or aquatic (fully aquatic at that) niches. I'll probably have closely related burrower/aquatic species of some sort on my island. Since Connor's island tends to avoid the Mesozoic, where these creatures are exclusively from apparently, they don't have good odds of showing up. But hey, it's a big island.

Breaking the rule of naming schemes are the fully fleged Mammals Gondwanatheres, named for the continent where they inhabit. They actually survived the KT extinction living on Seymour island of Antarctica...along with sloths, possums, penguins, and ratites. I recall from the book Evolution by Stephen Baxter that he had Dinosaurs and other surivors (marine amphibians again?!?!) hanging out on an Antarctic island until waaaay into the Miocene. There's no proof for that of course, but it is an interesting idea since they inhabited an area where all fossil proof of them would have been destroyed theoretically. Hopefully my island will capture a similar weirdness to that of the anachronistic hemisphere, as well as the strange mixtures resulting from continental connections. Alright, back to Gondwanatheres. Their phylogenetic placement is floating around right now (as they seem to be, much to my confusion), but Spec places them around Monotremes, which sounds reasonable. Their unique dentition involves high crowned hysphodont (i.e. horse-style) teeth, and they seemed to occupy a burrowing or semi-aquatic niche. On Spec they generally occupy the same niche, but spread out from the Southern Hemisphere. Interestingly, Spec has one species present on New Zealand, so maybe my Multituberculate prediction for the discovery is wrong, we'll see. They have colonized that other perpetually weird island, Madagascar, and occupy the niches not occupied by other rodent-like creatures. Gondwanatheres may make it onto my island as well, possibly occupying their favorite niche or a more derived one thanks to other rodent-like creatures and actual rodents.

Unlike in our real world, Monotremes are quite impressive in Spec. The fossil record of Monotremes is apparently rather on the poor side, and I can't recall reading about fossils of anything but platypi and echidnas, or vague teeth that may have belonged to semi-aquatic creatures. Is this all the Monotremes ever did, diversify to two odd niches? Were other bizarre creatures around that never fossilized? Spec doesn't try to speculate on them, if they ever existed, but instead continues the platypus line which apparently took quite a pounding on our planet's KT extinction. Who knows where the echidnas went. Instead of continuing the same body plans through the Cenozoic, the Monotremes on Spec are some of the most specialized mammals, with some even having evolved live birth. Reptiles and fish evolved live birth separately lots of times, so this isn't improbable at all. Even though modern looking platypi have evolved (with a much larger range), for the most part they are larger or at least more predatory than they are on our planet. This, however, is only the start of their diversity as the Platypus line has given rise to the Specsclusive Cancridontians. These are marine mammals and the largest mammals of any sort on Spec. They still retain the electrosensitive beak and venemous spurs for fighting, but occupy very different bodies. The 30 different species show different levels of adaptation to the water with some called "creakers" that are still seal-like to the "smooches" and "walducks" which are quite whale-like. The largest mammal on Spec is the 8 tonne "Moby Duck", which looks identical to beaked whales in our own time, down to the tusks and coloration. I would suggest that they would have kept their venemous spurs for fighting as a homologue to the tusks of beaked whales, but oh well. This is one of the few times I feel Spec is just too dang similar to our own real world. Then of course there is the bizarre "winghead" that makes up for it by looking like no other animal I've seen before, in the true spirit of Monotreme weirdness. (Post script: Darren Naish pointed out to me that it is based off of a Sperm whale with the head of a tapejarid pterosaur). Very oddly, some early swimming Cancridontians have actually taken to burrowing (as usual) on...New Zealand of all places. I think if Monotremes are present on my island, they'll probabably either be or have been in some marginalized aquatic niche, possibly marine.

Another group of "toothy" mammals are the Eutriconodonta, predatory mammals rare in the Mesozoic that continued to pull through to the modern day...in Spec. They are famous for being able to take on small dinosaurs, and were probably the first carnivorous mammals. On Spec they are still quite primitive, they lay eggs and have the same venemous spurs. They seem to be mustelid-style carnivores and continue on their "tradition" of being large for mammals, reaching 2.5 meters in the "otter trike". Curiously, it retains a reptilian style of locomotion and undulates laterally in the water. There are also rumors of one on Madagascar, of course. Not much is known about them, there doesn't seem to be too much to know though. They probably will make it onto my island, but only in a very small role.

Multituberculates are among some of the most successful mammals, having made it across the KT barrier, so it is no suprise that they made it into Spec. They are called the "rodents of the Mesozoic" and occupied the small scurrying niches, using bizarre shearing teeth as homologues to the dentition of true rodents. Eventually of course, they were out-competed...unless they made it until recently on New Zealand. Fortunately for Multituberculates and other rodent-y animals on Spec, true rodents never evolved. However, they still went through a Cenozoic decline with only three groups left. One of them is squirrel-like, and the others are burrowers. They reach huge sizes by terrestrial mammal standards, with the "Digga-dumdums" reaching a meter and a half in length. The diversity of such relatively conventional looking mammals isn't too interesting, but just the idea of a relict "alternate rodent" is. They'll be on my island for sure, and probably in a specialized niche due to rodent, gondwanathere, and competition from who knows what else.

The public generally doesn't know that Marsupials are far from a bunch of Australian weirdos. The group may have actually evolved on North America, and at least 60 species (latest I heard was 90...from Wikipedia) of opossum dwell in South America in addition to two odd little relict orders. The "Monit del Monte" is noteworthy for being classified as an Australian marsupial despite living in the Andes Mountains. On Spec the condition seems similar to what the marsupials are currently like in the Americas, a bunch of scurrying critters easy to overlook ableit with a worldwide distribution. Yes, marsupials lived worldwide at one point of time on our own planet too. However, with the cooling of the planet in an ice age, the Dinosaurs/Birds faltered and marsupials took the opporitunity to fill niches. In the Arctic they have taken to occupying the niche of being large aquatic predators, looking all for the world like crazy killer otters. Killer otters have always been a favorite of mind, and I can all buy guarantee their presence (probably placental though) on my island. The aquatic marsupials are apparently quite succesfull reaching 500kg and 6 meters, and outcompeting the resident predatory birds. The "selkie" is my favorite, looking like a strange cross between a marsupial otter an a leopard seal, a niche curiously left unoccupied in our world. It is also worth noting that because of their pouches, marsupials struggle to occupy aquatic niches, with only one semi-aquatic opossum (the Yapok) living in South America. Perhaps like the Monotremes they evolved a more precocial birthing process. The Artic is also haunted by relatives of the aquatic predators, the badger sized (and badger-like) "baskervilles". They are quite noteworthy for having symbiotic bioluminescent fungi, allowed to grow by the males for breeding season and used to communicate. It's weird, but actually fairly concievable. That perpetually bizarre Madagascar is also home to another region of marsupial diversification where they have taken to fossa and civet-like niches. Marsupials on my island will probably occupy niches similar to the opossums of the real world, although possibly continuing the trend towards becoming primate-like similar to the Caluromyid Opossums.

And finally, we have the familiar live, precocial birthing Eutherians, making up the majority of mammalian diversity in both our world and Spec world. Given the length of this blog already, I can't give a complete overview. Very curiously, fairly modern looking groups such as the Xenarthrans, Tenrecs, Bats, and even Primates. True rodents are not present, the related Xenotheridians are, and are nearly as succesfull...though not good enough to totally drive out the numerous archaic rodent-y niches. Curiously, their closest relatived are Paraselenodontians, mammals convergently evolving into ungulate niches, but in the Arctic of course. For terrestrial mammals they are gargantuan, reaching up to 300 kg. These different strange groups also give the same impression of floating around phylogenetically with only a few sparce fossils. Knowing that these animals had their basis before the dinosaurs went extinct shows that they were already much more differenciated than what would be expected. However, since I'll be working around the Mesozoic, I'll probably have to deal with later animals rather than these weirdo survivors.

Wow, this blog has gotten absurdly long. And yet, I really only did scratch the surface of the information, it really is quite remarkable. This stuff can get pretty dense at times, but that only makes me want to go out and try and get a fuller understanding. However, I realize the more I know, the more confusing this all gets. Phylogeny always looks simple in books, but in reality there are always weirdos popping up in the middle, or unexpected relationships and other things to turn a pattern into chaos. Despite this, the level of work put into this had inspired me to continue to deal with the increasingly complex nature of fictional evolution, not to mention all of the fascinating ideas presented.

So kudos to you free information! This will probably be among my last "inspiration" blogs, it is time to start working on my own world.

-Cameron

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The World of Kong: Skull Island and Connor's Island

Dear Constant Readers,

See, I told you I wouldn't be too long. Now I am entering another phase of this blog, the one which will try and document my creative process. Barlowe will still undoubtedly distract me, and if anything else fascinating comes my way, expect a post on it. I suppose there is a focus...kinda.

The second book (well, first I suppose) that I received is one by Weta Workshop called The World of Kong, and documents the creative process behind the movie. Much like their work on The Lord of the Rings, these guys just really go all out to add a phenomenal level of detail. I've never heard of a "Lost World" movie having this much background work done on it, very little of which will be actually seen on screen. Just hearing about this work had in fact inspired me to try and work out the background to my story a lot more. I already had an island, strange natives, and archaic fauna, but this was only in the context of the story. I started to go beyond what I had written and began fleshing out an entire world. I think that even though you don't show the work directly, there still is a way of sensing a very fleshed out and realistic story. So I think it is interesting to finally get their book and to compare our concepts. I don't plan at all on copying creatures directly or avoiding certain "types" from their book, everything I create will take its own unique shape eventually. The most inspiration I got from this book is that Connor will come across a bestiary of sorts in the story, which will probably be created in real life as well. When I create something I realize that I try to express it in as many different ways as I can.

Aside from its significance to my pet project, The World of Kong is a fascinating and entertaining book in its own right. It doesn't appeal to my artistic aesthetic sense the way Barlowe and other painters can, but more to my imaginative and scientific side. The little story is that after all that business with the gorilla, expeditions were launched to the island to document the unique fauna. Those that survived found an absolutely incredible amount of biological wonders, and the significance of the find was compared to that of the New World. The island was very small (7 by 5 miles by my reckonin') and was rapidly shrinking, causing animals to be crammed together and giving the island an unbelievably crowded feel. This created some sort of insane super-Green Hell which really appeals to that Dinosaur-loving little kid in me. Of course, good things never last and the island was shortly destroyed by an earthquake before much could be learned about it. Lost information like that, especially really fascinating things, is a concept that bugs the hell out of me.

It is not going to be possible to give anything near a complete overview of that fauna, probably for the best considering copyright. There appear to be well over a hundred unique creatures, most of which are very bizarre and thus appealing to me. I'll try and try and give the overall impression of the island I got as well as talk about concepts I found particularly interesting. Regardless, this post could run very very long. The book is divided into different geographical areas (coast, lowlands, waterways, jungle, chasms, uplands), so I'll write my blog in the same style.

For Skull Island, the coasts contain some fairly typical species such as fur seals, seagulls, and others. Monitor lizards fairly similar to those on the mainland also inhabit this area. I suppose this place is the most "connected" with the outside world in some ways. Then of course there is a Limusaurus, a bizarre droopy faced marine amphibian occupying a placodont-like niche. Perhaps the Weta chaps were inspired by the bizarre marine amphibians that once existed...or they just made it up. Even more strangely, the shores are patrolled by a very large Rauisuchian Archosaur called Nefundusaurus. This is strange (to me) because these creatures were the dominant carnivores of the Triassic who went extinct and gave up the torch to Theropod Dinosaurs (the familiar meat-eaters). The even more massive Tartarusaurus looks like either a potential relative or some bizarre semi-quadrupedal Baryonychian Theropod with a Abelisaurid-like skull. The skulls of Rauisuchians and theropods often looked incredibly similar, enough for at least one scientist to claim relationship between the two. Kudos to whoever can remember that source, since it has escaped my mind. My suspension of disbelief was called into question with the absurdly dragon-like fish-eating theropod Peracerdon, ugh. It might have been a reference to the dragon-like creature in The Son of Kong, so I guess I'll let it slide. The section on human natives made me wonder about the oddly taboo nature of the human female areola and its mysteriously obscure nature in Western work, but that's a subject for a different day. The rest of the stuff here more than made up for it.

Nefundusaurus acerbus eating some poor bloke.


The rather similar Tartarusaurus.


The lowland areas are the most shrunken on the sinking island and are home to some very familiar looking dinosaurs. Brontosaurus (Sauropod), Ligocristus (Hadrosaur), Ferrucutus (Ceratopsian), and Vastatosaurus (Tyrannosaur) look almost the same as their pre-KT ancestors and would be readily identifiable by just about anybody. Dinosaurs do seem to have been rather conservative at times, and I suppose 65 million years could go by with few major changes. I think that like the "familiar" fauna of seabirds and fur seals, the artists wanted to create a familiar-looking bunch of Dinosaurs to contrast with the other unfamiliar creatures. The public is incredibly unfamiliar with mammal-like reptiles (better referred to as Therapsids, Synapsids, Pelycosaurs, et cetera), and that is probably why Lycaesaurus was included. It looks identical (down to the coloration pattern, hmm) with the real life late-Permian Lycaenops and it creates an incredible 250 million year ghost lineage. It is interesting to think what would happen if the world of quasi-mammals and Dinosaurs met, and that's what happens in this books quite frequently. It is known that herbivorous Dicynodonts miraculously made it into the Cretaceous from the Permian and Triassic extinctions, so I can't help but wonder what other "prehistoric survivors" of sorts also existed in the time of the Dinosaurs. The collision of different groups of fauna will be a major theme in my Connor's Island pet project, by the way. Even though Lycaesaurus somehow remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, another more advanced mammal-like reptile (Cynodonts) changed into the completely unrecognizable flying "pugbats". That seems to happen a lot in this book, either something remains unchanged or it changes incredibly. The incredibly versatile and unbelievably ugly Marabou storks are always a favorite of mine, and the flightless "carrion storks" are clearly derived from them. I'd say that if I hadn't heard about Marabous and they were presented like the animals in here, I would definitely not find them plausible at all. Really makes me think...

Carrion storks. Compare with Marabou Stork and Shoebill Stork


The Waterways of Skull Island are fairly Dinosaur-free, but still really crazy. Swamp environments are always a favorite of mine and seem to be a monster breeding ground. The Piranhadon steals the show for this one, possibly because I've always been partial to very big, very ugly fish. And this one takes the cake for ugly, its kinda hard to describe what this exactly looks like. I think it may be partially inspired by the big super-predatory Sarcopterygian fish Rhizodus, but the incredibly strange body plan looks similar (derived from?) Brian Choo's "Hobb's Leviathan", which is a Mosasaur. The "Spec World" project has arguably been even more inspirational to me than Skull Island, so I'll have to cover that shortly as well while I'm at it. I can't make phylogenetic heads or tails of Piranhadon, it has a neck and well developed limbs like a tetrapod, an eel-like body, rows of gills like a shark, a double jointed jaw, and probably lungs as well. Help! Actually this reminds me of another aquatic phylogenetically ambiguous creation I've been thinking about for my story, but for the most part I try and steer clear of really crazy looking monsters. There is a large predatory amphibian named "Inox" around, probably inspired by Temnospondyls somehow surviving way into the Cretaceous. Curiously, both it and the super-surviving Dicynodonts lived in the Southern Hemisphere, which could very well have been a "lost world" of sorts at that time period. Temnospondyl remnants, less conventional looking ones, are lurking in my mind's eye as well. What also captured my imagination were the pack hunting "eels" (lampreys) and strange aquatic reptiles with heads like Placoderm fish called an Udusaurus. I don't know what it is, but I really like the idea of an animal hunting in packs under water. Giant otters (in the real world) hang around in groups too, but I'm not too sure about pack hunting (just mobbing?). God I wish I could remember my sources better. Oh yes, and there's a flying frog of sorts, a Karl Shuker reference anyone?

The jungle is where things on Skull Island really get interesting. The Foetodon (the crocodile-like monster in the movie) is something I found fascinating since unlike the quadrupedal Rauisuchians seen earlier, this is a recent Crocodilian evolution to become more like them (as well as their ancestors). I'm not sure how selection like that can work on an island this dang small (leave it to the mystery of evolution...), but I'll be sure to have more logic. Regardless, I really do enjoy the fact that Crocodilians once occupied a myriad of niches and were there were even (small) terrestrial forms until historical times (see here too). Thank God for Darren Naish. I just enjoy that the researchers (apparently) knew about these obscure but fascinating facts. The "Carver" creature fascinates me because I always like the idea of very big quadrupedal carnivores. The biggest ones I can think of are Andrewsarchus and Megistotherium, extinct carnivorous mammals (A Mesonychian and Creodont, respectively) at about 18 feet long and a couple of tons apiece tops. Saurosuchus was a Rauisuchian that topped at over 20 feet, but appears to have been rather slim in comparison. What exactly stopped them from, say, reaching the size of a large theropod dinosaur in the 5+ ton region? The "Carver" appears to be a mammal-like reptile, possibly a Cynodont, which has re-evolved armor (synapsids had mammal-like "hide" and maybe hair) and evolved to a gargantuan 25-33 feet long. It seems to be feasible, and I'm wondering why something like it never existed. It never ceases to amaze me how this book can evoke my sense of wonder like that.


Good lord this is getting to be a long blog! Well if you've seen the movie, you've basically seen everything that lives in the chasms, giant crickets, colossal crickets, giant crabs, crazy crawfish/spider unclassifiable arthropods, and of course the meanest polychaete worms you've ever seen. Apparently the small black flying animals in the movie were Vultursaurs, theropod dinosaurs that evolved bat-like flight unrelated to birds. Then of course rodents also learned how to fly on this island and became the dominant forms. This makes three unrelated lineages (remember the pugbats?) of vertebrate flight being evolved, as compared to the three times that happened in the real world (pterosaurs, birds, bats). I wonder if these guys compare notes, or if things really wanted to fly on this island. Another inexplicable evolution and loss of flight is being planned out for my island as well, but not from any of these lines. The last thing interested me was the Dimetrodon-like Malevolusaurus lurking on the mountains. For some reason the idea of a Pelycosaur still hanging around really appeals to me, though if I ever include one, I doubt it'll have the typical sail and the typically gigantic Skull Island size. That about wraps up the animals I'll talk about, there are many many more I didn't even touch on, so hopefully Weta feels safe.

Comparing the work of the others to your own and seeing what you want to do different can be a way to strengthen the concepts you already have. Some general concepts present in this book (underwater pack hunters, quadrupedal predators, a flying lineage) may very well make it into my very work, but they will be very distinct. The most important idea this book gave me is that things in here seem to have come in waves. There were old animals (mammal-like reptiles, Piranhadon), middle animals (Dinosaurs), and newer animals (monitors, seals) that were all interacting. This creates the impression of fairly recent waves of invaders coming in, and all of them adapting. There is no real dominant group on this island, and it seems like the ancient lineages get another shot. I want something similar for my own project, to let the old radiations compete and interact without those Dinosaurs mucking about. That's right, I plan on making a "lost world" type idea with no Dinosaurs. Additionally, the process of the animals coming over and interacting will be...somewhat unnatural. I haven't worked out the mechanics, but the timeline of Connor's Island and our real world will not be the same. I don't want the same "Skull Island effect" of superpredators from across time duking it out, my interactions will be more subtle. I've just got to create and come up with my own unique "feel", which will be easier without multiple people working on it.

So thank you Weta Workshop for the inspiration. Even though the book was outrageous at times, it still was much more thought provoking and entertaining than any book on movie concept art I've ever heard of. Dougal Dixon's books and the wonderful Spec World will be talked about to cover all of my major inspirations. I've probably forgotten to comment on a lot of things I've mentioned in this blog (or haven't mentioned), but you will see them again. And please comment on the hyperlinks, are they all distracting? If I didn't have them, I might have felt obliged to make this dang post even longer though...

I shall see you all again shortly, the Geography of Connor's Island beckons me...

-Cameron