EXTINCTION MAY NOT ALWAYS BE FOREVER: Bringing an extinct tortoise back from the grave

I suppose that a tortoise that that went extinct nearly 200 years ago is not actually a fossil species, but being declared extinct should at least make you an honorary member of The Land Of The Dead blog.

Charles Darwin studied and collected specimens during his stop at the Galapagos Islands between Sept 15 – Oct 30 1835. Darwin served as the naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle on its five year circumglobal travels. One of the striking things that Darwin noticed were the large tortoises on the islands. In fact, islands got their name “Insulae de las Galopegos” (Islands of the Tortoises) in the 18^th century because of their abundance of tortoises (1). The island-to-island differences in Galapagos tortoise species helped spark Darwin’s thoughts about evolution through natural selection.

Fig 1  The Galapagos Islands.  Floreana Island in green. Isabela Island  in red.

The Galapagos were used extensively as a stopover by pirates and whaling ships. In the first half of the 19^th century some 200,000 tortoises were killed for food by the whalers. The tortoises were large, heavy (up to 880 lbs.), and slow moving, making them an easy target. It also made them a target for extinction. Habitat destruction and the introduction of rats, pigs, etc. also contributed to their demise (2). In spite of these depredations each island still has its own living species of tortoise (with greatly reduced populations), but the species on Floreana Island, the giant Galapagos tortoise (Chelonoidis elephantopus), went extinct. It was rare when Darwin visited the Island and extinct by 1850.

So it was surprising when in 2008 Nikos Polakakis and colleagues (3) reported that genetic studies of Galapagos tortoises revealed that 11 hybrid tortoises (Chelononidis becki) on Isabela Island in the Galapagos had genes from C. elephantopus. For the technically inclined, they were looking at single nucleotide polymorphisms that vary among the tortoises on different islands.

This discovery provided a great opportunity. By selectively breeding individuals of C. becki having C. elephantopus genes, in about four generations (approximately 100 years) there would be individuals with about 96% of the C. elephantopus genetic markers. This would allow them to reintroduce the species to with some of its original genetic diversity back onto Floreana Island (1, 2).

Fig 2  "This hurts me more than it does you."  Collecting blood samples for genetic analysis.

However, in a more stunning paper just published (4) Ryan Garrick and his colleagues (including Nikos Polakakis) the story becomes more remarkable. They have found that for 84 of the tested C. becki on Isabele Island, genetic analysis shows that they are the result of a hybridized breeding event that involved a purebred C. elephanoptus as one of the parents Given that 30 of these 84 these individuals are less than 15 years old and that Galapagos tortoises have lifespans of over 100 years, there is the very strong possibility that pure genetic strains of G. elephantopus are still alive and crawling around Isabela Island. The search is now underway to find those purebred individuals.

Figure 3.  The  Galapagos tortoises, by virtue of their large size and great weight, have a real impact on vegetation and erosion.  Imagine thousands of such beasts per island!  Their removal  radically and negatively changes the island ecosystem they evolved in.

Tortoises are important members of the island ecosystems and their presence, or absence, greatly influences the plants and animals on the island. Purebred C. elephantopus could be used to establish a breeding program to produce young that could be used reintroduced to Floreana Island, bringing the "extinct" tortoise back to the island it once inhabited. This is the first time that genetic tracking in hybrids has led to the rediscovery of a (thought to be) extinct species.

One final question. If each Galapagos island has its own species, how did C. elephantopus get to Isabela Island? It is well known that pirates and whalers moved them. Maybe some of that was intentional, but when whalers left the Galapagos they would toss overboard any tortoises still on the ship to make room for a far more valuable cargo than meat --- whale blubber. (2) Although large, the tortoises don’t sink like stones and some of them probably made it to the shores of Isabela Island to breed amongst themselves and survive cryptically until today.

Photos 

Fig 1(modified): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_tortoise
Figs 2, 3:  http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/bringing-back-the-dead-reviving-an-extinct-tortoise-species/

References 

(1) Galapagos tortoise (Wikipedia):en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_tortoise>
(2) Muller, B. 2010. Bringing back the dead: reviving an extinct tortoise species. Yale Scientific Magazine (posted in 83.2 News)  www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/bringing-back-the-dead-reviving-an-extinct-tortoise-species/
(3) Pulakakis, N. et al. 2008. Historical DNA analysis reveals living descendants of an extinct species of Galapagos tortoise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 15464-15469.

(4) Garrick, R.C. et al. 2012. Genetic rediscovery of an “extinct” Galapagos giant tortoise species. Current Biology 22(1): R10-R11 (copy available for free download at:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/issue?pii=S0960-9822%2811%29X0025-8

SACRED BIRDS, LUCKY RHINOS, AND THE VIRGIN AND THE SAUROPOD

Fig. 1 Large theropod track from the Early Jurassic.

It should come as no surprise that dinosaur tracks are known from thousands of sites across the globe. After all, an individual dinosaur left hundred of thousands of footprints throughout its life but had only one skeleton to contribute to the fossil record. Many dinosaur sites, when discovered, have bone exposed just as fragments or as a ghostly cross section visible in a rock outcrop. Such subtle clues are not easy to see or make sense of. However, footprints are often more easily recognized. True, footprints can be distorted and poorly preserved, especially when the animal was walking on a wet, muddy substrate. But often fossil tracks are easy to see, even if you are not a paleontologist. Indeed, the late paleoichnologist W.A.S. Sarjeant surmised that fossil footprints were probably recognized as being made by animals well before fossil bones were recognized as the remains of animals (1)

Lida Xing and his colleagues, and his colleagues Adrienne Mayor, Yu Chen, Jerry Harris, and Mike Burns, have recently published a very interesting and enlightening review of Chinese folklore as it relates to dinosaur tracks and how such myths might help in paleontological prospecting (see link at ref 2 for free pdf of this paper). The paper focuses on eight localities scattered across the country. The Chinese written record of ‘dragon bones”, (i.e. fossil bone, most often of mammals) used for medicinal purposes go back as far as the 3^rd century BC. However, fossil bone is more transient because it is fragile and easily destroyed by erosion. Fossil footprints are often less susceptible to such damage and are often visible in large numbers on extensive surface exposures. The authors suggest that because of this difference fossil tracksites can remain exposed for long periods of time and be seen by many generations of people. Hence it is not surprising that myths would arise in prescientific cultures to explain these striking features.

Fig 2 Examples of  theropod tracks associated with the various bird legends in China (not to scale).

These three toed footprints are usually made by bipedal theropod (carnivorous) dinosaurs. They are strikingly bird-like in appearance (not unexpected since birds are direct descendents of small maniraptoran theropods) so it is not surprising that the myths surrounding them attribute them to birds. In China they go under a variety of names -- “Divine Birds”, “Feng Huang tracks (a giant Phoenix mythological bird), “Golden Chicken” and “Heavenly Chicken”. At one locality, the deeply impressed tracks were thought to have been impressed directly into the rock, suggesting something supernatural. Today funeral processions progress along the trackway in the belief that this guides the dead to heaven. (2)

Fig 3 Lianhua Baozhai footprint site and rock building on an eroded surface cut into the cliff face.

The large herbivorous hadrosaur dinosaurs left three toed tracks but with a different look than the elegant tracks of theropods. Hadrosaur tracks have thick blunt toes and a broad rounded heels. At the Lianhua Baozhai site the hadrosaur tracks were thought to be lotus petals, while fossil mudcracks with the tracks were interpreted as the veins of lotus leaves. Ripple marks on the rock surface reinforced a watery environment for these impressions and help lead to the interpretation of the footprints as lotus plant remains. The fossil site is located in the middle of a cliff face next to a rock shelter built in 1256 with an associated Chinese inscription. The lotus symbolizes purity in many Asian cultures and the translation of “Lianhua Baozhai” is “The mountain stronghold protected by lotus.” (2, 3)

Fig 4 Lianhua Baozhai.

Fig 5 Lotus petal shaped hadrosaur tracks on the overhang at Lianhua Baozhai.

The gigantic sauropod dinosaurs have a foot structure quite different from that of theropods and, not surprisingly, leave strikingly different tracks. These dinosaurs are quadrupedal and the hand and foot impressions are often close together. Given the great weight of sauropods their tracks can be deep and somewhat nondescript impressions. In Fushun County a trail of eighteen sauropod tracks are attributed to an ancient tale of a rhinoceros that ascended the mountain to get mushrooms. Counting these tracks is thought to lead to good fortune.(2)

Fig 6 Sauropod tracks posing as a lucky rhinoceros trackway.

***********************************

However, fossil footprint folklore is not restricted to China --- there is a rich tradition from around the world (4). One of the most interesting comes from the coast of Portugal and involves, again, sauropod footprints.

Fig 7  The Church of Nossa Senhora da Mua at the cliff's edge.

At Cabo Espichel steeply dipping rocks of Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous age rise from the sea to form tall cliffs hundreds of feet high along the small bay of Lagosterios. On the top of the cliffs is the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Cape Espichel which dates back to the 15^th century. Of most interest to our present story is the Memory Heritage or Church of Nossa Senhora da Mua (Our Lady of the Mule), a small building located away from the rest the Sanctuary at the very edge of the cliff.

Fig 8. The steeply dipping dinosaur track layers at Cabo Espichel.  Arrow point to location of the small white Church of Nossa Senhora da Mua  perched precariously at the edge of the cliff.

The legend underpinning this small building involves two elderly men who lived in separate cities (Caparica and Alcabideche). Both men, on the same night, dreamt that the Virgin Mary appeared on the cliff top astride a giant she-mule. Later, both men went to the site of their shared dream vision and found a miraculous image of Our Lady. Beneath this spot, on the great cliff wall rising out of the ocean, can be seen lines of large depressions and those closest to the church were interpreted as the footprints of the Virgin’s giant mule that she rode out of the ocean and to the top of the cliff. (5)


Inside the Church of Nossa Senhora da Mua is a panel of 18^th century painted, tin-glazed, ceramic tiles commemorating the appearance of Our Lady on the mule. The tracks can be clearly seen coming out of the ocean and up the cliff face. However, we now know that these “mule tracks” are not miraculous, but are nevertheless interesting, as they are the footprints of Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaurs. Remarkably, this panel turns out to be the oldest known illustration of dinosaur tracks! (6)

Fig 9  Tile inside Church of Nossa Senhora da Mua showing the Virgin Mary on a mule and two angels at the top of cliffs at Lagosterios Bay.  Directly behind the mule's back legs you can see the two  rows of mule, er...sauropod, tracks on the steep cliff walls.

On the cliffs of Lagosterios forty sauropod trackways occur at eight different levels. The sauropod tracks, known in the area as far back as the 13^th century, are large and quite visible even from a great distance.

Fig 10  Stratigraphic column for Cabo Espeichel, showing the positions of the eight sauropod track bearing horizons.

Although the setting is magnificent, the height of the exposures and the tilt of the beds making accessing and studying the tracks difficult and dangerous. Martin Lockely and his colleagues used ropes, climbing equipment, and bolts to study and map these sites in detail in the mid-1990s (7, 8).

One of the track horizons at Cabo Espichel (level 3) provides evidence of social behavior in sauropods. Here one can see the footprints of seven subadult dinosaurs, all about the same size, traveling close together in the same direction, and evenly spaced. The details of track morphology clearly show that they were made by sauropods and not a small herd of celestial mules.

Figure 11  Map of track level 3 at Cabo Espichel showing the trackways made by a group of seven juvenile sauropods traveling together. Tracks 8 and 9 are from adults crossing the area earlier.

Fig 12.  Reconstruction of the juvenile sauropod crossing recorded in level 3 at Cabo Espichel.  Note larger adult sauropod trackway already present as the herd crosses the area. That is trackway 8 in fig 11.

***********************************

Fig 13 Edward Hitchcock, the father of the scientific study of dinosaur tracks.

Although fossil tracks have long been recognized as tracks of some sort, the serious scientific study of dinosaur tracks did not begin until the early 19^th century when Congregationalist Minister and geologist Edwin H. Hitchcock (1793-1864) began collecting and describing fossil tracks from the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic rocks of the Connecticut River Valley. Hitchcock amassed an immense and diverse collection of fossil footprints that became part of the museum collections at Amherst University and some of it is still on exhibit today.

Fig 14  Part of Hitchcock's immense dinosaur track collection as exhibited in the Amherst museum in the 19th century.

His studies spanned several decades and resulted in three book-length monographs and numerous scientific papers (9, 10, 11). Ironically, when Hitchcock began his studies dinosaurs were not even known to exist. Faced with peculiar tracks, many of which were three toed, he made careful study of foot structure in many different terrestrial vertebrates. After making these comparison Hitchcock reached the conclusion that the tracks were made by (you guessed it) giant birds! (12) Sadly, he never recognized the dinosaurian nature of his discoveries.

For a really great series of photos of the Hitchcock tracks in the collections at Amherst take a moment to visit John McCauley's May 31 2011 post at  http://njtntm.blogspot.com/2011/03/amherst-college-beneski-museum-of.html

Photos

Fig  1:  NPS

Figs 2 (modified), 3, 6:  Xing et al (ref 2)
Figs 4, 5:  http://english.cntv.cn/program/cultureexpress/20111027/103571.shtml
Fig 7: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermida_da_Mem%C3%B3ria_%28Sesimbra%29

Fig 8:  http://portugalfotografiaaerea.blogspot.com/2011/02/baia-dos-lagosteiros.html

Fig 9:  Antuns and Mateus (ref  6)
Fig 10, 11, 12: Lockley et al (ref 7)
Fig 13:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hitchcock
Fig 14:  http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pw011/jazidas/icnotaxa_teropodes_triassicofinal_jurassicoinicial.html

 References 

(1) Sarjeant, W.A.S. 1997. The Earliest Discoveries. in: Farlow, J.O. and Brett-Surman, M.K. (eds.) The Complete Dinosaur. Indiana Univeristy Press: 3-5.
(2) Xing, L., Mayor, A., Chen, Y. and Harris, J.D. 2011. The folklore of dinosaur trackways in China: impact on paleontology. Ichnos 18:213-220.  (copy freely available for download at: http://www.xinglida.net/paper_list.htm)
(3) Xing,L., Mayor, A., and Chen, Y. 2011. Lianhua Baozhai (Lotus Mountain Fortress, Qijiang County of Chongqing City): Direct evidence of co-existing ancient Chinese and dinosaur tracks. Geological Bulletin of China. 30(10): 1530-1537 (copy freely available for download at: http://www.xinglida.net/paper_list.htm)
(4) Mayor, A. and Sarjeant, W.A.S. 2001. The folklore of footprints in stone: from Classical Antiquity to the Present. Ichnos 82: 143-163.
(5) Antunes, M.T. 1976. Dinosauros eocretacicos de Lagosteieros. Lisboa: Universidad de Lisboa.
(6) Antunes M.T. and Mateus, O. 2003. Dinosaurs of Portugal. Comptes Rendus PaleoVol 2: 77-95 (copy freely available for download at http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/luso.pdf)
(7) Lockley, M.G., Meyer, C.A., and Santos, V.F.d. 1994. Trackway evidence for a herd of juvenile sauropods from the Late Jurassic of Portugal. Gaia 10: 27-25.
(8) Lockley, M. and Meyer, C. 2000. Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of Europe. Columbia University Press, N.Y.: 323 pages.
(9) Hitchcock, E. 1848. An attempt to discriminate and describe the animals that made the fossil footmarks of the United States, and especially of New England. American Academy of Arts & Sciences Memoir (n.s.) 3:129-256.
(10) Hitchcock, E. 1858. Ichnology of  New England: A Report on the Sandstone of the Connecticut Valley, especially its Fossil Footmarks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 220 pp. 

(11) Hitchcock, E. 1865. Supplement to the Ichnology of New England. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 96 pp. (copy freely available for download at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/EH1865download.html)
(12) Pick, N. and Ward, F. 2006. Curious Footprints: Professor Hitchcock's Dinosaur Tracks and Other Natural History Treasures at Amherst College. Amherst College Press:121 pages

MAYBE THEY ARE DUMBER THAN A FIFTH GRADER?

Allosaurus has been the Utah state fossil for well neigh forty years. Utah is a remarkable state when it comes to dinosaur fossils, in part because it has so much in the way of Mesozoic terrestrial rocks and in part because it is so arid. The extensive desert ecosystems of Utah means that there is little in the way of forests, grasslands, cities, roads, etc. to cover up the rocks. And the more rock exposed the better the chance of finding fossils. If Utah, as it has sometimes been referred to, is “The Dinosaur State” then how did Allosaurus end up being selected as the state fossil? Well there’s damn good reason for that.

The Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Emery County, near the city of Price in southeastern Utah, is the motherload for Allosaurus fossils. Discovered in the 1930s, it was worked for a time by Princeton University and then on a more sustained basis by first Lee Stokes and later James H. Madsen of the University of Utah. The CLDG had produced thousands upon thousands of dinosaur bones, most belonging to Allosaurus fragilis. The remains of over 40 Allosaurus have been collected, ranging in size from very small to very large individuals. The skeletons were in water for some period of time and are completely disarticulated --- with even skulls falling apart into their individual bones --- but the abundance, size range, and quality of preservation make this one of the world’s great carnivorous dinosaur sites. With most of the quarry unexcavated much work remains to be done. The existing collections from the CLDQ have been studied by many paleontologists, including myself, and have contributed to many scientific publications. The quarry is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and there is a small visitor center with exhibits at the site.

The CLDG is world renowned in scientific circles and every dinosaur paleontologist knows of it. It is, without a doubt, one of the best understood (scientifically) meat-eating dinosaurs in the fossil record. So it’s not surprising that when Utah selected a state fossil they chose Allosaurus. That brings us to the title of this post.

Along U.S. Highway 40, at the Utah-Colorado border, there is a billboard welcoming those traveling westwards as they enter Utah. The big image on the billboard is a flesh restoration of a carnivorous dinosaur. You might reasonably think that this would be famous Allosaurus, since that is the state fossil, but you would be WRONG!

The dinosaur shown has a prominent horn over the nose and is clearly the carnivorous Ceratosaurus (whose name, not surprisingly, means “horn lizard”). The nasal horn core is a diagnostic feature of Ceratosaurus and easily separates it from Allosaurus. This is not some obscure morphological feature, such as whether branches II and II of the trigeminal nerve exit the braincase through a common foramen or via separate canals. Really, the nasal is horn is big and obvious to anyone willing to taking a few moments to look.

Skull of Ceratosaurus nasicornis (from Gilmore 1920)

Skull of Allosaurus fragilis (from Madsen 1976)

Unlike Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus is a pretty rare dinosaur, although one fairly good specimen is known from the CLDQ. To further the confusion, the dinosaur on the sign has three fingers on its hand (like Allosaurus) and not four fingers (like Ceratosaurus). How this chimaera came to be is unknown but I am sure they though it was Allosaurus. Whoever selected the graphic knew nothing about dinosaurs and certainly no careful checking was done. I guess a dinosaur is a dinosaur, so who would know or care? Come on even an elementary school dinosaur enthusiast can tell the difference. Maybe this seems a small point to the reader, but imagine if New Jersey had a welcome sign with its nickname “The Garden State” and below that there was a silhouette of chemical plants and storage tanks. Ooops -- never mind.

Thinking about visiting the CLDQ? Visitor information can be read at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/price/recreation/quarry.html

References

Gilmore, C.W. 1920. Osteology of the Carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with Special Reference to the Genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 110: 159 pp + 36 plates.

Madsen, J.H. 1976. Allosaurus fragilis: a Revised Osteology. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 109: 163pp.

Photos
GLDQ photos: BLM website given above.

NEW YEAR, NEW NAME, NEW LOOK, SAME OLD CRAZY BLOGGER

The completion of the Quarry Visitor Center rehabilitation and reconstruction project poses a conundrum for the Quarry Visitor Center blog. I started this blog in March 2010 with the purpose of documenting the scientific and resource management implications of a unique undertaking --- the partial demolition and reconstruction of a building over a large, in-place exhibit of dinosaur bones. With that project completed I could bid adieu and we could all go our own ways. Although there are still paleo things to blog about at Dinosaur they have little or nothing to do with the QVC project. Paleontology itself is an amazingly active field, with new and astounding discoveries happening all the time, and a rich, complex, and sometimes very peculiar history. So there is much to still be blogged about.

With that in mind, I’ve decided to continue, with a few modifications. I’ve changed the title to one that better encompasses what I’ll be blogging about, essentially anything paleontological and not just dinosaurs. In keeping with that change I’ve also changed the format. However, the url is the same, which means that all my past posts are still available here, though the blog name is different. So those of you who have been following me can continue to do so without having to sign on to another site. I hope you’ll enjoy the larger universe of the new blog and will follow along. Please put seat backs and tray tables up, fasten your seat belt, and enjoy your trip to the Land of the Dead.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 2011

 

Five minutes sooner and I would have gotten a photo before T. rex got to  all the reindeer!

Photos

Reindeer killing field:

http://www.holytaco.com/the-12-deviant-days-of-christmas-9-rotting-reindeer/dead-reindeer-2/

EVERY SILVER CLOUD HAS A DARK LINING

The Park Service often finds itself on the horns of a dilemma inherent in its creation. The 1916 Organic Act creating the NPS gave it a dual mission:

“…..the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

This is something of an administrative Charybdis and Scylla. It is no secret that the NPS worries about “losing relevance” to most Americans in the 21^st century and is making great efforts to attract visitors to its nearly 400 units. At the same time, there is the oft repeated NPS lament that visitor impacts are so great that parks are being “loved to death.” So balancing resource protection and visitor enjoyment can, at times, be quite difficult and challenging.

In the previous post I looked at the travails of early visitors trying to get to the Monument. Now let’s look at that visitation from the perspective of impacts.

As visitation to Dinosaur increased so did visitor impacts. There were problems with both local and more distant visitors carrying away “specimens of bone, fish scales, and gastriliths (sic).” (1) As no fish fossils of any kind are known from the Carnegie Quarry these fish scales were being stolen from elsewhere in the Monument from exposures of the mid-Cretaceous marine Mowry Formation where isolated fish scales are abundant. In another incident, a local Jensen Boy Scout leader amassed a substantial collection of fossils from the Monument. This was a concern for park management and through negotiations he ultimately turned the collection back to Dinosaur. (1)

In 1934, NPS representative David Madsen wrote

“In the past tourists and even our own people visiting the quarry have destroyed exposed fossils by chipping off what they considered a souvenir. With thousands of visitors coming as anticipated, danger of destruction by vandals will become still greater.” (1)

This is an particularly interesting observation, because the phrase “even our own people” implicates NPS and other government officials visiting Dinosaur in the illegal taking of dinosaur bone trophies!

That souvenir taking was a serious problem early in the Quarry’s history is evidenced by this old photo.

Although the focus is on the man excavating fossils and the field jackets and crates around him, in the background one can barely make out a sign against the cliff. Although difficult to read, when enlarged its message becomes clear “PLEASE DO NOT MOLEST  BONES.”

The problem of fossil theft became so severe that David Madsen recommended that site Supervisor A.C. Boyle post signs prohibiting the taking of any natural specimens and that he should “refrain from taking parties to places where they will be able to remove specimens without being detected.” (1) The latter is significant because Boyle, as recounted in the my last and previous posts, was energetic and enthusiastic, in showing visitors the fossils and explaining the work underway at the Quarry.

Given that there was no NPS staff at the Monument, all responsibilities for interpreting the site fell to Boyle and his staff. This impacted the primary work of excavation to the point that David Madsen wrote in 1934 “…it would be impossible for [Dr. Boyle] and the workmen to do much work if their time was taken up explaining details of the work being done and acting as guides and police.” (1: 118) In that same year NPS representative H. Langley recommended to Boyle that “tourist traffic be discouraged at this time as it would prevent the workmen from doing their work properly.” (1)

Old trophies still occasionally pop up. In the late 1980s the Monument received an anonymously mailed package with a small piece of dinosaur bone and a note stating that the souvenir had been taken by the writer’s grandfather during a visit to the Monument in the 1930s. Now in his later years the grandfather had been feeling sorry for taking it and was sending it back with an apology.

Nor is this a problem unique to Dinosaur. Years ago, I saw an exhibit case at Petrified Forest National Park that contained small pieces of fossil wood that had been stolen and then returned with a number of letters of apology. The letter I remembered best was from a self-described “good Christian man” who recounted that he had found the pilfered petrified wood in his wife’s bra. I read the letter carefully for clues as to the circumstances under which this discovery was made, but no details were forthcoming. One is simply left to wonder and speculate.

Nor is it a problem unique to fossils. Haleakala National Park in Hawaii is well known for people mailing back souvenir pieces of lava illegally taken from the park. Some lament their bad fortune after stealing the lava --- jobs lost, illness, even death of loved ones. I feel sorry for someone who feels responsible for their child’s illness because they stole a small piece of lava. Then again, if their child hadn’t become sick they would probably have kept the lava in a kitchen drawer until someday someone asked “What is this piece of junk?” and then chucked it into a garbage can. The garbage dump is the final resting place for many such “priceless souvenirs”, be they rocks or fossils.

References

(1) Beidelman, R.G. 1956. Administrative History, Dinosaur National Monument. Unpaginated. (available on line at: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dino2/adhi.pdf

Photos:
NPS

THANKS

For the last 18 months I have been your on-the-spot cub reporter for the construction project at Dinosaur. But in truth I am just a lowly vertebrate paleontologist with little construction experience. I did build an awesome backyard skateboarding park, including quarterpipes, flyboxes, ramps, rails, and a really big halfpipe --- quite an accomplishment for me, but hardly real construction.

Yes, I made a small contribution as a member of the large team involved in the concept development and design of the building. However, like Blanche Dubois, I depended on the “kindness of strangers” to understand the details of the actual construction project and how it was carried out. So I need to give a special thanks to three guys who were in-charge and on-site for the entire project, Dan Cox (Advanced Solutions Group), Steve Elkins (Big-D Construction) and Justin Jones (Atkins).

Dan Cox, Advanced Solutions Group

Steve Elkins, Big D Construction

Justin Jones, Atkins

Even though their days were incredibly busy with overseeing and managing the project, these gentlemen were always cheery, willing to answer my questions, and took time to explain what part of the project was underway and its unique problems and challenges. They were kind enough not to laugh out loud as I referred to a piece of construction equipment alternatively as a GJL, LJG, and JGL. I’m still not sure which is the correct acronym. Then again, they can’t tell the difference between the posterior cervical vertebrae of Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Apatosaurus.  So the Universe remains in balance.

And by the way, Big-D Construction has really great, badass graphics on their t-shirts, to wit:

Dan, Steve, and Justin have all moved on to supervising other construction projects now and I wish them the best. However, constant reader, we have more to paleontology to explore, so stayed tuned.