1

Paleontological Society Officers President Patricia H. Kelley President-Elect William I. Ausich Past-President Peter R. Crane Secretary Carl W. Stock Treasurer Thomas W. Kammer JP Managing Editors Ann F. Budd Brian J. Witzke Julia Golden Jonathan Adrain Paleobiology Editors Bill DiMichele John Pandolfi Program Coordinator Mark A. Wilson Special Publications Editor Russell D. (Tim) White Education Coordinator Dale A. Springer Councilors Christopher G. Maples Nigel Hughes Student Representative Seth Finnegan Section Chairs Cordilleran Jeff Myers North-Central Steve Lo Duca Northeastern David Lehmann Rocky Mountain Robert C. Thomas Southeastern Steven J. Hageman South-Central David M. Rohr

www.paleosoc.org

Inside...GSA Information 2“Young” Paleo Meeting 3Treasurer’s Report 3The Graduate View 3Call for Nominations 4PalSIRP/Sepkoski Grant 5Golden Trilobite Award 5Boucot Grant 5PS/PA Agreement 6Grant-in-Aid Awardees 6PalSIRP Awardess 7Obsessed Amateur 8PS Lecture Program 10Book Reviews 16Conferences 27

Priscum is published twiceyearly, in March and Sep-tember, by the Paleonto-logical Society. Submis-sions are welcome. Pleaseforward articles, book re-views, announcements,and notes to: Peter Harries,Priscum Editor, Depart-ment of Geology, Univer-sity of South Florida, 4202E. Fowler Ave., SCA 528,Tampa, FL 33620-5201 orvia email at harries@chuma.cas.usf.edu.

PRISCUMThe Newsletter of the Paleontological Society Volume 10. Number 2 Fall, 2001

Fossils via Electrons andOther Innovations

by Patricia Kelley, PresidentSome of my colleagues

assume that, because paleontolo-gists study the past, we’re an old-fashioned, regressive bunch ofpeople. Not so! If anything, as

we approach the century mark, the vitality of thePaleontological Society is increasing through a hostof new ventures.

If you are reading this article, you know thatthe Paleontological Society has moved into the elec-tronic age. Welcome to our first online issue ofPriscum, edited by Peter Harries of the Universityof South Florida. Thanks, Peter, for taking on thischallenge! Online publication of our newsletter willallow us to disseminate information in a timely andcost-effective manner. (And if you’re like me, andjust have to have a paper copy, you can alwaysprint yourself one.)

Online Priscum joins the Journal of Paleon-tology and Paleobiology, which became availableonline this year through the BioOne consortium(http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=index-html). If your institution subscribes to BioOne, youhave full access to all articles; only titles and ab-stracts are available to non-subscribers. To en-sure full access by all PS members, the journalsare also available to you and your institution at astand-alone (“silo”) site (http://www.psjournals.org), which will be free throughout the rest of 2001.Check it out – you may enjoy online access (includ-ing browsing and search capabilities, and movingamong articles by clicking on references) so muchthat you will want to take advantage of an incred-ible offer: for only $10 for Journal of Paleontology($5 for Paleobiology), you can add an online sub-scription to your paper copy starting next year!Thanks to our journal editors for guiding the PSthrough the complicated process of going online.

Although the decision to publish electroni-cally has been the primary focus of PS Councilmeetings for the past couple years, your Societyleadership has been seeking additional ways toserve you better. The Society remains firmly com-mitted to its student membership (e.g., through ourGrants-in-Aid program and by not raising studentrates for dues and journal subscriptions). PS Stu-dent Representative Seth Finnegan has been work-ing to facilitate a student-mentoring program andto provide a venue for students and young profes-sionals to network better. We hope to better servemembers outside North America by increasing thevisibility of the Paleontological Society InternationalResearch Program (PalSIRP) Sepkoski Grants.

(continued on page 2)

2

Thanks to Councilor Chris Maples, we also havea PS Distinguished Lecturer, Andrew Smith, locatedoutside the U.S. And Councilor Nigel Hughes hasworked out an agreement with the Palaeontological As-sociation to provide reciprocal discounts on publica-tions to members of our two societies.

The Paleontological Society would like to findways to serve the avocational paleontological commu-nity better. Alan Goldstein of the Falls of the Ohio StatePark has been working with Society leaders to identifyneeds of the amateur community and ways that ama-teur and professional paleontologists can cooperate.Outreach beyond the paleontological community isbeing carried out effectively by Education CoordinatorDale Springer and her committee through publications(including the new booklet on Evolution and the FossilRecord, co-published with AGI and now on line at http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution), teacher workshops,and other venues.

Professional meetings are key to disseminatingresults of our research and to networking with oneanother. Thus, a significant PS goal is to participate inoffering high-quality programs at GSA and other meet-ings (e.g., the very successful recent North AmericanPaleontological Convention). GSA recently establishedan Associated Societies Forum, of which I am a mem-ber and through which we can make our needs knownto GSA. In addition, the Society continually tries toenhance our meetings (see Program Coordinator MarkWilson’s article on funding for PS-sponsored sessions).One of my goals has been to streamline the PS Busi-ness Meeting; thanks to the vitality of our profession,GSA is so jam-packed with paleontology sessions thatwe cannot afford the luxury of a protracted businessmeeting. Last year, we streamlined the meeting sig-nificantly, even eliminating the Presidential Address.I’ve had mixed feedback regarding this deletion, so I’dappreciate your comments on this experiment. (Actu-ally, I’d rather have a dance than give an address!)

The PS has a dedicated group of officers whoare here to serve you! Any ideas or suggestions arealways appreciated. Please email me at kelleyp@uncwil.edu with your thoughts and concerns. Andthanks to all the officers and members who serve thePaleontological Society in so many ways.

Paleontological Programs atthe Annual Meeting of the

Geological Society of America(November 4-8, 2001)

by Mark A. Wilson, PS ProgramCoordinator

Once again there will be more presentations inpaleontology than in any other discipline at the an-nual GSA meeting. We have scheduled over 250 talksand posters, starting with the short course on Sun-day, extending through six topical sessions, seven ses-sions of volunteered oral presentations, and threeposter sessions.

The Paleontological Society short course topicthis year is “Brachiopods”, organized by Sandy Carlsonand Michael Sandy. As with all our short courses,these presentations are designed to introduce non-

specialists to the topic. Sandy and Michael havebrought in several brachiopodologists who do not nor-mally attend GSA meetings, so the talks will be diverseand lively. Future PS short-course topics are “TheFossils Record of Predation” (2002, Michal Kowalewskiand Patricia Kelley) and “Bridging the Gap: Trends inOstracode Biological and Geological Sciences” (2003,Lisa Park and Alison Smith).

The six PS-sponsored topical sessions are:

Stratigraphic Paleobiology. Conveners: StevenM. Holland and Mark Patzkowsky.

Partnerships in Paleontology: Involving the Pub-lic in Collaborative Research. Conveners: PaulG. Harnik and Robert M. Ross.High-Resolution Geochemical Bioarchives: Rec-ognition of Signals and Implications for Evolu-tion, Paleoecology, and Paleoclimatology. Con-veners: David H. Goodwin and StephenSchellenberg.Evaporite Systems: The Geology, Paleontology,and Biology of Evaporite and Near-EvaporiteSystems in Both Terrestrial and ExtraterrestrialEnvironments (co-sponsored with the NASA As-trobiology Institute-Johnson Space Center). Con-veners: Susan J. Wentworth and Penny A. Morris.Insects and Terrestrial Arthropods in the FossilRecord: Are So Many Really Represented by SoFew? Convener: Robert E. Nelson.“Traces” of Soil Ecosystems through the Phan-erozoic: New Insights into Terrestrial Paleoecol-ogy, Paleohydrology, and Paleoclimate. Conven-ers: Stephen T. Hasiotis and Marilyn D. Wegweiser.

There are 179 paleontology oral and poster pre-sentations in the volunteered sessions at GSA. Theyinclude talks from every subdiscipline in our field, withtopics as diverse as systematics, paleoecology, extinc-tions, biostratigraphy, and evolution. We will all bekept very busy at this GSA meeting!

If you are considering a short course or topical ses-sion proposal, please contact the PS Program Coordi-nator, Mark Wilson (mwilson@acs.wooster.edu). Thenext opening for a short course is in November 2004.Topical session proposals for the 2002 GSA meeting(October 27-30, 2002, in Denver) must be submittedby the session organizers to GSA by January 17, 2002.PS sponsorship should be obtained prior to submit-ting a proposal to GSA. To facilitate consideration ofsponsorship by the PS Council, please submit ideas toMark Wilson by November 1, 2001 (especially if youwish to request funding for the session, see below).

PS Funding of Short Courses and TopicalSessions at Annual GSA Meetings

by Mark Wilson, PS Program CoordinatorIn March 2001, the Paleontological Society

Council approved a plan to partially support PS-spon-sored short courses and topical sessions at annualmeetings of the Geological Society of America. We rec-ognize the value of these events for our membershipand other scientists, and we would like to make themless burdensome to develop and also increase the di-

3

versity of participants. Short course organizers mayrequest up to $3000 per year to defray the travel ex-penses of visiting speakers on the program. Thesefunded speakers must be individuals who are not nor-mally expected to attend the annual GSA meetings,with the Council looking most favorably on individu-als from outside the geological sciences. Organizersmay apply to the PS Council for these funds at thetime they submit the short-course proposals, justify-ing the qualifications of the speakers and emphasizingthe educational value to our membership of the re-sulting presentations. The application need be only afew paragraphs accompanied by a proposed travelbudget. The organizer must be a member of the Pale-ontological Society to receive funding. In the samemanner, the PS Council has allocated up to $2000 peryear for PS-sponsored topical sessions at the annualGSA meetings. The rules are the same as for short-course funding, except that topical sessions may becompeting for the limited funding, and that no singlesession will receive more than $1000. This fundingprogram will be in place for the next three years, start-ing with the 2001 short course (Brachiopods) and the2002 topical sessions. At the end of this interval, thePS Council will reconsider the value of the programand the allocated amounts.

We always encourage short-course and topical-session proposals, and we are excited about the newideas and speakers this funding makes possible. Ifyou are considering a short-course or topical-sessionproposal, please contact the PS Program Coordinator,Mark Wilson (mwilson@acs.wooster.edu). The nextopening for a short course is in November 2004. Topi-cal-session proposals for the 2002 GSA meeting (Oc-tober 27-30, 2002, in Denver) must be submitted bythe session organizers to GSA by January 17, 2002.PS sponsorship should be obtained prior to submit-ting a proposal to GSA. To facilitate consideration ofsponsorship by the PS Council, please submit ideas toMark Wilson by November 1, 2001 (especially if youwish to request funding for the session).

tual funds, and 20% cash.Total income, excluding that from investments,

was $390,347. This included $306,890 from dues andsubscriptions to our journals, $30,463 from donations,$25,953 from page charges, $18,491 from Special Stud-ies publications, $4,076 from royalties, $3,519 frombank interest, and $955 from rental lists.

Total expenses were $365,628. A detailed list-ing of expenses were provided at the Annual BusinessMeeting and Luncheon at the Annual GSA Meeting inReno. Some of the more notable expenses included:$203,701 to print our two journals plus Priscum;$41,175 for editorial costs of the two journals; $38,231for Business Management of our journals and Societymemberships by Allen Press; $20,549 for Special Stud-ies publications; $13,500 for student research grants;$12,585 for PalSIRP grants; and $26,061 for overheadto operate the Society (meeting expenses, travel byCouncil members, insurance). This overhead cost wasonly 7% of total expenses.

Assets at the end of 2000 totaled $1,754,641,which was a decrease of $2,393 (mostly from depre-ciation of investments) from 1999. Investment alloca-tions were 40% stock mutual funds, 40% bond mu-tual funds, and 20% cash.

Total income was $359,376. This included$263,465 from dues and subscriptions to our jour-nals, $17,777 from donations, $28,179 from pagecharges, $11,980 from Special Studies publications,$4,871 from royalties, $3,037 from bank interest,$1,719 from rental lists, and $28,348 from investmentincome.

Total expenses were $365,351. A detailed list-ing of expenses will be provided at the Annual Busi-ness Meeting and Luncheon at the Annual GSA Meet-ing in Boston. Some of the more notable expensesincluded: $191,095 to print our two journals plus theMembership Directory; $45,000 for editorial costs ofthe two journals; $33,922 for Business Managementof our journals and Society memberships by AllenPress; $14,506 for Special Studies publications;$12,000 for student research grants; $13,112 forPalSIRP grants; and $27,448 for overhead to operatethe Society (meeting expenses, travel by Council mem-bers, insurance). This overhead cost was only 8% oftotal expenses.

Once again, I want to remind all Society mem-bers to please renew your journal subscriptions early,certainly by December 31 each year. Early renewalscould save the Society thousands of dollars in busi-ness management fees by Allen Press if we don’t haveto send out so many renewal notices plus stop andthen re-start journal subscriptions to late-paying mem-bers.

Bones, Baselines, and Biodiversityby Seth Finnegan, Student Representative

This is the first (though hopefully not the last)time that the student representative has been askedto write a column for Priscum. There are both advan-tages and disadvantages to this. On one hand, thiswill by definition be the best students rep’s columnyet. On the other hand, there is no precedent to whichI can turn for guidance. Since I have been informedthat this doesn’t count as a publication, I’ll try to mini-mize the arm waving, and I certainly won’t present any

Treaurer’s Report for Fiscal 1999and 2000

by Thomas Kammer, TreasurerYour Society is in strong finan-

cial shape. Assets at the end of 1999totaled $1,757,034, which was an in-crease of $75,765 (mostly from appre-

ciation of investments) over 1998. Investment alloca-tions were 40% stock mutual funds, 40% bond mu-

The “Young Paleo” Meeting at GSAAt the request of several students, there will be

a “Paleontology Students Gathering” at 3:30 pm onTuesday Nov. 6, following the PS luncheon. The pur-pose of this informal meeting is to provide an opportu-nity for students and recently graduated students tomeet one another and share interests and concerns.The gathering will be held in the banquet hall, at aspecific location to be announced during the luncheon(this will give easy access to the post-luncheon beerkeg!). If popular, this activity may become a regularlyscheduled GSA event.

4

evidence to back up what I say. I’ll focus instead onwhat is arguably my greatest strength as a writer:pontification.

Lacking any burning grievance to air or a dra-matic New Way of Looking at Things, I’m left with thethird major thematic cliché of column writing: MyThoughts on the Direction of the Field. Don’t worry,though -- I haven’t been in the field long enough tohave developed any grand, sweeping visions of the fu-ture. Rather, I’d like to call attention to an area inwhich I believe paleontology has only begun to makeits mark: the growing field of conservation biology.

As biologists struggle to develop strategies fordealing with the current biodiversity crisis, it is increas-ingly clear that neontological data alone are insuffi-cient to address many critical questions. Just as mod-ern studies of global warming are meaningless exceptin the context of well-established paleoclimatic pat-terns, efforts to assess the human impact on modernecosystems must establish “ecological baselines”against which to compare current data. To most (both?)of the readers of this column, this point will seem ab-surdly obvious. As paleontologists, we have a uniqueperspective on ecological change and biodiversity pat-terns, a perspective that we often take for granted.Though it is apparent to us that, in many ways, thepast is the key to the present, many neontologists areonly beginning to appreciate this.

Of course, this point is hardly an original one.Paleontology has been concerned with issues of Qua-ternary biodiversity change since the time of Cuvier,and the current concern over anthropogenic extinc-tions stems in part from the recognition that humansmay have been responsible for many Pleistocene ex-tinctions. There are now many paleontologists work-ing on issues related to the conservation and restora-tion of a variety of habitats, but I believe that we haveonly begun to scratch the surface. Recent advances instratigraphy, biogeochemistry and geochronology havegreatly improved our ability to resolve ancient patternsof ecological change. Paleontologists can now partici-pate in conservation planning, not just by offeringvague caveats about the transient nature of many eco-systems, but by offering hard data on how those sys-tems have changed in the past. Data of this sort giveus our best hope of separating anthropogenic effectsfrom “natural” change, and give us insight into howwe may prevent further damage and degradation

I am not suggesting that all new graduate stu-dents should stop what they are doing and go to workon Pleistocene reefs of Indonesia or mollusks of theCalifornia coast (I myself work on the Ordovician). Onthe contrary, the more we improve out understandingof a variety of ancient systems, the more insight wewill bring to our study of the Recent. I do, however,believe that it is the obligation of paleontologists, whohave so often complained of feeling marginalized or ir-relevant, to make sure that our voices are heard onthis most pressing issue.

Seth Finnegan is a graduate studentat the University of California, River-side. For his dissertation, he is study-ing the paleoecology of the Ordovicianradiations in the Great Basin.

Call for Strimple Award NominationsDo you know an amateur who has furthered

the field of paleontology? Please recognize that personby nominating him or her for the Paleontological Soci-ety Strimple Award.

The Strimple Award recognizes outstandingachievement in paleontology by amateurs (someonewho does not make a living full-time from paleontol-ogy). Contributions may be an outstanding record ofresearch and publication, making outstanding collec-tions, safeguarding unique paleontological materialsthrough public service, teaching activities in the areaof paleontology, and collaborations with others work-ing in paleontology.

Anyone, including other amateurs, may makea nomination. Nominators do not have to be membersof the Paleontological Society.

The nominations should include: 1) nominee’sfull name, address, phone number (and email if avail-able); 2) contact information for nominator; 3) certifi-cation by the nominator of the amateur status of thenominee; 4) description of the nominee’s achievementsin paleontology (not to exceed three pages); 5) three tofive supporting letters and other documentation, whichwill be bound and presented to the awardee.

Please submit nominations by February 1,2001, to William I. Ausich, Chair of the Strimple AwardCommittee (Dept. of Geological Sciences, 125 SouthOval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio43210. If you have questions, please contact WilliamAusich at the above address, call 614-292-3353, oremail ausich.1@osu.edu.

Call for the Paleontological Society Medal andSchuchert Award Nominations

The PS Medal and Schuchert Award recognizeexcellence in the pursuit and the study of paleontol-ogy. Recipients of the PS Medal must have achievedeminence based on advancement of knowledge in pa-leontology, whereas the Schuchert Award is given topaleontologists whose work early in their careers re-flects excellence and quality. There are no restrictionsplaced on nominees for the PS Medal; recipients of theSchuchert Award, however, are ordinarily under theage of forty when presented.

The nominations should include: 1) nominee’sfull name, address, phone number (and email if avail-able); 2) letter of nomination; 3) letters of support forthe candidate; 4) CV; 5) information about thecandidate’s research accomplishments and their im-pact; 6) professional outreach; 7) contributions otherthan research; 8) special honors received.

Please submit nominations by February 1,2002, to Carl W. Stock, Secretary of the Paleontologi-cal Society (Dept. of Geology, University of Alabama,Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0338). If you have questions,please contact Carl Stock (205-348-1883; FX: 205-348-0818; or cstock@wgs.geo.ua.edu) or Peter Crane (020-8332-5112; FX: 020-8332-5109; or p.crane@rbgkew.org.uk).

5

Fossils of Ohio Honored withGolden Trilobite Award

PS officers recently discovered that, in part dueto the hiatus in publication of Priscum, the Society hadfailed to announce the most recent Golden TrilobiteAward. The book Fossils of Ohio, published in 1996and edited by Rod Feldmann and MerrianneHackathorn, has been recognized by the Paleontologi-cal Society Council with a Golden Trilobite Award. Thisaward recognizes excellence in paleontological publi-cation, in this case of a general or popular book.

Rod Feldmann, now retired from Kent State (andformer PS President), served as editor-in-chief of thevolume. Merrianne Hackathorn is Senior Geologist andEditor at the Ohio Division of Geologic Survey; she wasmanaging editor for Fossils of Ohio. The book also hasreceived an award from the Association of Earth Sci-ence Editors. By coincidence, the volume is reviewedin the Book Reviews section of this issue of Priscum.

Belated congratulations to all those involved inproducing this fine book!

Boucot Research Grants Program EstablishedFor a number of years, Art and Barbara Boucot

have contributed generously to a fund earmarked forresearch grants to be given by the Paleontological So-ciety. This spring a formal agreement was signed withthe Paleontological Society and the details of the re-search grants program established.

In addition to donations already residing withthe Society, the Boucots have established the ArthurJames Boucot Research Fund with the Oregon Com-munity Foundation. The funds will be used to sup-port the Arthur James Boucot Research Grants pro-gram. According to the agreement, awards will sup-port taxonomic, morphologic, and biostratigraphicstudies “at the postdoctoral level and higher, exceptfor the occasional individual deemed to be unusuallywell qualified.” Applicants may be of any nationalityand need not be PS members. Awards will be madeannually, beginning when the Fund reaches a level tosupport an annual distribution of at least $10,000.

The Paleontological Society thanks Art andBarbara Boucot for their generous support of paleon-tological research.

Paleontological Society International ResearchProgram - Sepkoski Grants For 2002

by Ron ParsleyThe Paleontological Society is pleased to an-

nounce continuation of its small grants program forpaleontologists living in Eastern Europe and republicsof the former Soviet Union. For 2002, twenty-four grantsof US $500 will be awarded. These grants will be madedirectly to individuals and not to institutions. Granteeswill be selected by a committee of the PaleontologicalSociety based on the quality and feasibility of the pro-posed research and quality of past achievement. Con-sideration will be given to paleontologists of all ages.Awards are now called PalSIRP Sepkoski Grants in honorof Dr. J. John Sepkoski, Jr., founder of the program.Dr. Sepkoski died at age 50 in 1999.

Applications for a PalSIRP Sepkoski Grantmust include the following three items, all typed inEnglish:1. Cover letter, stating the applicant’s full name as it

appears on the passport, passport number, date ofbirth, institutional affiliation, address, telephone num-ber, FAX number, and especially the e-mail address.The letter should also provide names and addresses(including e-mail) of North American/European Com-munity (exclusive of former Warsaw Pact countries)paleontologists familiar with the applicant’s research;these persons will be used as references.

2. Research proposal, no longer than two pages, single-sided, providing a project title, a brief description ofproposed research, its significance, and the generaluses of the PalSIRP Sepkoski Grant funds. The sub-ject matter covered by grant proposals may be inany field under the discipline of paleontology. Ap-plicants should look over the Journal of Paleontol-ogy as a guide to acceptable topics. Appropriateancillary uses of Sepkoski Grant funds include (butare not limited to) salary support, domestic and for-eign travel, and equipment purchase. Requests forfield expenses, publication costs, attendance at sci-entific meetings, and related aspects to any of theseareas is acceptable. No detailed budget or account-ing is required for the $500 grant.

3. Curriculum vitae (C.V.) listing birth date, education,current professional position, and all published pa-pers, articles, and books. Additional information,such as employment history, awards, participationin international conferences and projects, etc., maybe included.

These three items should be sent by e-mail (inMicrosoft Word as a single attachment or plain-text)to the following address:

Dr. Ronald L. ParsleyPalSIRP Sepkoski GrantsDepartment of GeologyTulane UniversityNew Orleans, LA 70118 USAe-mail: parsley@tulane.edu

Proposals received prior to 31 March 2002 willbe considered for 2002 funding. Proposals receivedafter that date will not be considered. Proposals notwritten in English will be returned without consider-ation. Paleontologists living in the following countriesare currently eligible for PalSIRP Sepkoski Grants: all

republics of the former Soviet Union, including theBaltic States, Mongolia, and nations in Eastern Eu-rope (other than East Germany), including Poland, theCzech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria,Albania, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia.There is no limit to the number of times a paleontolo-gist may apply for a PalSIRP Sepkoski Grant but onlyone application, per year, will be considered. Appli-cants for the 2002 grant program are strongly encour-aged to contact their North American/European Com-munity referees by e-mail to determine their willingnessto act as recomenders. It is also suggested that appli-cants send along a copy of their proposal to their refer-ees for informational purposes. The PaleontologicalSociety asks all readers for their assistance in advertis-ing PalSIRP Sepkoski Grants. Please send grant appli-cation information to your colleagues in Eastern Eu-rope and the former Soviet Union.

6

Paleontology Society and PalaeontologicalAssociation Joint Agreements

by Nigel C. Hughes, Councilor-at-Large (Un-der 40) and Timothy J. Palmer, Executive

Secretary, Palaeontological AssociationAs a result of a recent agreement between the

Paleontology Society (PS) and the Palaeontological As-sociation (PA) we are pleased to announce a series ofagreements that will benefit the membership of bothorganizations. Benefits for PS members are: 1) PA of-fers its own members discounts on single purchasesof its outstanding Special Papers in Palaeontology se-ries. These discounts are generally about 50% of thecover price); and 2) PA members are entitled to a 25%reduction in the cover price cost of PA-published field-guides. PS members are now eligible for the same dis-counts (plus postage and packaging at cost).

The PA volume back list can be viewed at http://www.palass.org, and all orders should be madethrough Dr. Tim Palmer <palass@palass.org>,Palaeontological Association, IGES, University of Wales,Aberystwyth, Wales SY23 3DB, UK. Payment (personalcheck in dollars or Visa / MasterCard details - notAmex) should be made with the order.

Paleontological SocietyGrants in Aid Awards, 2001

During 2001, the awards committee, chaired by SteveHageman with members Danita Brandt, RichardHerbert, and Rick Lupia, awarded grants to 27 of 59applicants. They funded proposals from one of twoundergraduates, seven of 16 Masters candidates, and19 of 40 Ph.D. candidates. Additional informationabout the Grants in Aid as well as application materialcan be accessed at http://www.paleosoc.org/grantin.html.

The following students received funding:

Outstanding ($1000)Haidi Hancock James Cook University, AustraliaEarly Palaeogene foraminiferal and carbon isotope

stratigrapy, Dee Stream South Island, New Zealand

Distinguished ($500)Jenney Hall Louisiana State UniversityGlacial-interglacial variation of Li/Ca and δ6Li in fora-

miniferal tests from sediment cores, plankton tows,and laboratory cultures

Eugene Hunt University of ChicagoMorphological covariance through geologic time: Micro-

and macroevolution in the deep-sea ostracode genusPoseidonamicus

Brenda Hunda University of California, RiversideEvent bed deposition in the Cincinnatian Series: Impli-

cations for assessing micro-evolutionary changeswithin Flexicalymene

Karen Samonds SUNY at Stony BrookThe origins of the modern Malagasy vertebrate fauna

*Jocelyn Sessa University of CincinnatiThe dynamics of faunal turnover during the Middle De-

vonian of New York State

*Andrew Lee Purdue UniversityBony tissue microstructure of Centrosaurus humerii with

implications on forelimb posture and movement

David Sunderlin University of ChicagoPermian paleobotany and tectonics of the Farewell Ter-

rane in Denali National Park, AK

*Kenton Trubee The University of AkronOstracodes as paleoenvironmental proxy indicators:

characterizing the variability of non-marine ostracodefaunas on San Salvador Island, Bahamas

Funded ($500)Jeffrey Agnew Arizona State UniversityTaxonomy, taphonomy, and paleoecology of Neogene de-

capods crustaceans from temperate and tropicalAmerica

*Melissa Berke University of California, RiversideBiohermal mounds and the associated facies within the

Neoproterozoic Noonday Dolomite

Monica Carroll Virginia TechAnalyzing the environmental record contained in fresh-

water mussels: Applying paleontology to conserva-tion biology

Raul Esperante-Caamano Loma Linda UniversityTaphonomy of fossil whales in the Miocene/Pliocene

Pisco Fm, Peru Caamano

Aspen Garry Iowa State UniversityShark teeth bite: Unraveling the mysteries of bull shark

evolution

Alexander Glass University of Illinois at U-CPaleobiology of Hunsrück stelleroids

Wayne Henderson University of ChicagoLate Cambrian Saukiid trilobites and their implications

for paleogeographic and paleoenvironment reconstruc-tions

Jonathan Hendricks Cornell UniversitySystematic revision of the Pinecrest Conus complex

Russell House University of IndianaThe utility of epiboles in the identification of community

competition

*Gayle Levy University of GeorgiaThe influence of environmental change: The brachiopod

Sowerbyella rugosa in the Upper Ordovician KopeFormation of the Cincinnati Ohio area

**Jih-Pai Lin Tennessee Technological UniversityCambrian brachiopod faunal relationships between

North America and China

Vicky MacEwan University of ManchesterSiluro-Devonian terrestrial arthropods

*Pedro Marenco Univ. of Southern CaliforniaEarly Triassic gastropods in theoretical morphospace

Alistair McGowan University of ChicagoThe effect of the end-Permian event on Triassic am-

monoid morphological evolution

*Sara Pruss University of Southern CaliforniaReversed onshore-offshore gradient of stromatolite de-

velopment during the recovery from the end-Permianmass extinction

7

Rolf Schmidt University of AdelaideGeochemical signatures of bryozoans in enigmatic

Eocene environments

Allison Tumarkin University of PennsylvaniaEvaluation of bone surface textures as ontogenetic indi-

cators in Centrosaurine horned dinosaurs

Andrew Webber Unversity of CincinnatiMethodological advances in the use of faunal data for

regional high-resolution correlation in the typeCincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician)

* = MS students** = BS students

Sepkoski Grant Recipients for 2001 What follows is the name of the recipient, the titleof their project, and their home institution. Eachrecipient received $500.

I.G. Fõzy: Hungarian Natural History Museum,Budapest • Excavation of Late Cretaceous dinosaursand associated vertebrates in the Bakony Mountains,Hungary

Urszula Hara: Geological Museum, Polish GeologicalInstitute, Warszawa • Antarctic Cenozoic Fauna

Coralia-Maria Jianu: Muzeul Civilizei Dacice i RomaneDeva, Romania • New dinosaurs from Transylvania(Late Cretaceous, Romania)

Rimma Khodjanyazova: Institute of Geology and Geo-physics, Tashkent, Uzbekistan • Late Paleozoic calcar-eous algae from the Southern Ferghana (Central Asia)and their facial distribution

G.N. Kiselev: Department of Paleontology, St. Peters-burg University, Russia • Cephalopod assemblages fromthe Northern Gondwana (Northern Caucasus, WesternTien Shian, Tuva, Southern Siberia)

P. E. Kondrashov: Paleontological Institute, RussianAcademy of Sciences, Moscow • Paleocene-Eocene Mam-mals of Tsagan-Khushu and the P-E boundary inMongolia

Anna Kozlowska-Dawidziuk: Institute of Paleobiology,Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa • Evolutionarytrends in the retiolitid (Graptolithina)Gothograptus lin-eage of Baltica and Laurentia

Anna Kotasowa: Polish Geological Institute, UpperSilesian Branch, Sosnowiec • The Visean and Serpu-chovian plants from the Lvov-Volhynian basin, Ukraine

T. B. Leonova: Paleontological Institute, Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, Moscow • Biogeography and biostratig-raphy of the Permian ammonoids

Peep Männik: Institute of Geology, Tallinn TechnicalUniversity, Tallinn, Estonia • Silurian Conodonts andbiostratigraphy in Central Siberia, Russia

Minjin Chuluun: Department of Geology and Mineral-ogy, Mongolian Technical University, Ulaanbaatar •Tabulate corals from the Ordovician and Silurian ofMongolia

Tamara Nemyrovska: Institute of Geological Sciences,National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Kiev •

Problem of correlation of the Moscovian conodonts ofEastern Europe to the Atokan and Desmoinesian onesof North America and its possible reason

I. G. Nigmandjanov: State Committee on Geology andmineral Resources of Uzbekistan, Tashkent District •Position of a level Mid-Carboniferous boundary (bound-ary of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) in Middle Tien-Shan (Central Asia, Uzbekistan)

M. N. Ovechkina: Paleontological Institute, RussianAcademy of Sciences, Moscow • Upper Cretaceous cal-careous nannoplankton zonation and paleoclimatic con-ditions in the Campanian-Maastrichtian of the BorealRegion

P. Yu. Parkaev: Paleontological Institute, Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, Moscow • Shell muscle of the Cam-brian Molluscs and its significance for systematics andphylogeny

Zbynek Rocek: Geological Institute, Czech Academy ofSciences and Department of Zoology, Faculty of Natu-ral Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Repub-lic • Revision of the European Tertiary salamandridChelotriton

S. V. Rozhnov: Paleontological Institute, Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, Moscow • Russian- American field tripin the Cambrian of Yakutia (Northern Siberia)

A. A. Sabirov: Institute of Geology, Academy of Sci-ence, Dushanbe, Tajakistan • Upper Devonian-LowerCarboniferous foraminifers of the Shishkat section(Zeravshan Range), Tajikistan

A. V. Shumnyk: Institute of Geological Sciences, Na-tional Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Kiev • Cal-careous dinoflagellate cysts and coccoliths of Upper Cre-taceous-Paleogene sequence of the Northwest Black Seashelf

N. D. Sinitchenkova: Paleontological Institute, RussianAcademy of Sciences, Moscow • The European Meso-zoic mayflies

Jana Slavílková: Department of Paleontology, NationalMuseum, Prague, Czech Republic • Paleoecology andtaphonomy of Bohemian Llanvirnian trilobites

Andrei Soloviev: Geological Institute, Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, Moscow • Late Paleocene echinoidsfrom the Mangyshlak Peninsula

Svetlana Syabryaj: Institute of Geological Sciences,National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Kiev •Paleobotanical criteria of paleolandscape reconstructionon the territory of spreading Tertiary amber bearing for-mation on the northwestern slopes of Ukrainian Shield

N.E. Zavialova: Institute of Geology and Developmentof Fossil Fuels, Moscow, Russia • Fine morphology ofcordaite and early conifer pollen in connection with theevolution of Pinopsida

8

Notes From an Obsessed Amateurby Jack Kallmeyer

We All Start Somewhere“How long have you been doing this?”—A simple

question asked of many a serious amateur by begin-ning collectors. The answer is most commonly, “sinceI was a child.” A number of my professional friendsgive this same response. The beauty of childhood isrampant curiosity. Add to this an innate fearlessnessof the unknown and we have the ideal environment forlearning. Here in Cincinnati we sit on one of the bestexposures of Upper Ordovician strata in the world.Children in this area can’t help but find fossils in theirown yards. Here then, are the roots of a collector.

Then what? What happens next will be theresult of the child’s total learning experience.Children’s minds are sponges for soaking up informa-tion from their environment. Intelligent parents,whether educated or not, may encourage a child’s learn-ing experience by exposing them to the people andplaces with the knowledge they seek. Well-meaningadults can also give erroneous information. Childrenmost easily believe an adult authority figure. RobertPark states this concisely, “Small children are particu-larly open to new beliefs, accepting without questionwhatever they are told by adults” (Voodoo Science,Oxford University Press, 2000, p.36).Rocks in a Box

Many early collections are just so many oddlyshaped rocks in a box. I still have mine—a collectionof a handful of brachiopods, horn coral, and trilobiteparts all carefully coated with clear nail polish to pre-serve them—just like a real paleontologist. I supposeI hang on to these for purely sentimental reasons.Collections such as this are where many of us get ourstart. At this stage, we are novices and collectors—notamateurs. Admittedly, many collectors remain at thenovice level, choosing to covet fossils as some covetstamps in an album. For these people it is “the hav-ing” that is the goal and the enjoyment. For true ama-teurs, the goal is knowledge.Evolution in Learning: The Amateur’s ContinuingRole

The roots of paleontology began with amateursin the classical sense—serious students of the field whodid not derive their living from it. The early pioneersin paleontology were physicians, clergy, and other edu-cated members of the elite citizenry. None of thesepeople would be considered anything but amateurs intoday’s world. Yet their contribution to the science ofpaleontology cannot be disputed. How did these “ama-teurs” build the foundation for the science of paleon-tology? To a person, they were keen observers with aburning desire to understand the natural world. Thesepeople made meticulous collections, recorded obser-vations, and provided detailed descriptions of theirfinds. Today’s amateurs do much the same.

Professional paleontologists benefit from amutually beneficial relationship with the amateur com-munity. Amateurs have the time to spend in the fieldobserving and collecting not often enjoyed by busy pro-fessionals. Consequently, amateurs discover many newsites and fossils. Professionals have the education andtraining necessary to analyze and understand whatamateurs may have discovered. The two groups work-

ing together add to the collective knowledge of the an-cient world. Exchange of information with profession-als is a driving force for the amateur. Professionalswant to study important discoveries. Amateurs wantto know what they’ve found, how it lived, how it died,what was the world like “back then,” and so on. Aboveall, amateurs want to contribute to the science. Ex-change of information teaches the amateur, the collec-tor, and the novice alike. How does the child with abox of rocks learn?Further Advancement through Organization

Amateurs and professionals alike can benefitfrom association with organizations such as my group,The Dry Dredgers in Cincinnati, Ohio. There are manysimilar organizations throughout the country. We havebeen associated with the University of Cincinnati since1942. The group and its members have contributedspecimens or locality information to many of theMaster’s and Doctoral students at U.C. They have alsoprovided specimens for study to professionals acrossthe country and around the world. The Dredgers canboast of having a Strimple Award winner, the late Wil-liam White, Jr., and a winner of P.R.I.’s KatherinePalmer Award, Steve Felton.

The Dry Dredgers’ charter is to advance pale-ontologic education at all levels. We tailor our educa-tional programs to everyone from the general public tothe enthusiast. As public outreach, members presenteducational talks for schools and groups outside ofour meetings. The Dredgers produce “kits” of identi-fied local fossils that are made available through mu-seums and at schools, and we participate as identifi-cation experts both at local shows and at the Cincin-nati Museum Center. The Dry Dredgers web site(drydredgers.org) has provided a means to reach be-yond the local area. The web pages provide identifica-tion help for some of the more interesting fossils in thearea. Reviews of popular and professional books inpaleontology and evolution are included to encouragelearning by reading. We strive to provide scientificallyaccurate information on the web pages.

We are also able to contribute to education athigher levels. Monetary contributions are made an-nually to the Kenneth E. Caster Fund at U.C. for gradu-ate fieldwork. In addition to this, the Dry Dredgers’Paul Sanders Award is an annual grant in aid for re-search leading to publication. The Paul Sanders Awardis available to professionals, students, and amateursalike. Readers interested in applying should visit ourweb site at <http://www.geocities.com/drydredgers>for more details.

Cincinnati and the Dry Dredgers are fortunateto have at least five professional paleontologists in thearea. Most are contributing members at club meet-ings. We count a number of professionals outside thearea as part of our extended family as well. Further-more, Cincinnati has a first-class museum staffed withwell-known professional paleontologists. Through theirwork, the Natural History section of the CincinnatiMuseum Center is expanding the display area concern-ing fossils and evolution. Augmenting the existing IceAge exhibit will be a new Dinosaur Hall now underconstruction. The next major project is an OrdovicianHall that will showcase the local fossils and geology.Dry Dredgers are on the Museum’s planning commit-tee for this long-awaited addition. Although this mayappear as a blatant advertisement for the Dry Dredg-

9

ers, it is meant to illustrate what a dedicated associa-tion of amateurs and professionals can do. The com-bined approaches described above provide broad edu-cational opportunities including accessibility for thechild with the box of rocks.Regression through Misinformation

Cincinnati is world famous for the quantity andquality of Upper Ordovician fossils that practically fallout of the bedrock exposures—solid evidence for evo-lution. Cincinnati may soon be equally world famousfor contributing to the loss of 200 years of earth-sci-ence learning. The community awaits the opening ofthe Answers in Genesis’ creation museum and educa-tion center; a Christian fundamentalist-based museumthat will offer a slick, well-done alternative, “scientific”explanation of Earth history. Answers in Genesis isthe creation of Ken Ham of whom many of you may beaware. If you are not, Ham is an Australian ex-biologyteacher and a fundamentalist, literalist, young-EarthChristian. Needless to say, organic evolution is notwithin his belief system. The local Cincinnati newspa-per, City Beat, had a four-page article concerning Ham’sproject (Chris Kemp, September 14-20, 2000) entitled“Attack of the Missionary Lizards.” This serious ar-ticle covered all sides of the issues including concernsof community impact. Opening a section in the articleheaded “Biblical Scientists”, Kemp says:

Once in an all-too-infrequent while,someone comes along who makes youre-evaluate your relegious and scientificideologies and question your fundamen-tal beliefs. Folks like Copernicus, AlbertEinstein, and Ken Ham are good ex-amples. They’re all owed a debt thatwill probably never be collected.

You may want to read that again. Kemp’s statementequating Ham with Copernicus and Einstein is beyondabsurd. Yes, Biblical scientist, Ken Ham, will convinc-ingly show the ‘scientific’ proofs of a 6000-year-oldEarth, the Noachian universal flood, and the six-daycreation story. Kemp’s article also states that Hamnot only believes that dinosaurs were on the Ark butalso that they were contemporary with Jesus. Hismuseum will have more dinosaur models than any fa-cility in the United States.

So who cares? We all need to. Professionalpaleontologists and their amateur followers can domuch to counter this type of non-science. Coordinatedand continuing efforts of professional paleontologists,dedicated amateurs, and natural history museumsmust actively present true science to an undereducatedpublic. Remember that the kid with the box of rockswill believe what any adult in a position of authorityhas to say. Let’s do our part to help that curious childget the best Earth-science education possible.

Jack Kallmeyer is a graduate Mechani-cal Engineer currently in Consulting En-gineering. He has been president of theDry Dredgers since October of 1988.Jack was senior author of a paper pub-lished in Northeastern Geology and En-vironmental Sciences and an article inGeology Today. He has also co-

authored a paper published in Lethaia. Jack’s cur-rent research efforts may provide new information ontwo Cincinnatian crinoids. Among his speaking en-

gagements were the first Fossil Festival in 1996 (theonly amateur on the program), the Ohio Audubon So-ciety, the Cincinnati Nature Center, Dry Dredgers pro-gram speaker, and a number of K-8 schools. Combin-ing his photography skills with fossils, Jack has sup-plied slides of fossils to the Cincinnati Museum Cen-ter, the Tall Stacks festival in 1995, and has put themto use at club meetings to aid beginning collectors.

Earth Science Week Evolves*Earth Science Week, October 7-13, is an an-

nual grassroots effort sponsored by the American Geo-logical Institute (AGI) and its member societies. Theaim is to increase public understanding of the earthsciences. As geoscientists develop earth-science out-reach programs in their local schools and communi-ties, the collective impact of their efforts continues togrow. During Earth Science Week 2000, scores of cel-ebrations — including field trips, demonstrations, lec-ture series, film series, exhibits, school visits, and openhouses — took place in all 50 states, Australia, Canada,and at least 20 other countries. Eighteen AGI membersocieties and more than 100 state geological surveys,regional societies, academic geoscience departments,museums, libraries, and federal agencies hosted theseevents and activities. In addition, 30 state governors,the mayors of several cities, and former PresidentClinton issued proclamations and messages in sup-port of Earth Science Week.

This year, for the first time, Earth Science Weekhas a general theme, “evolution in earth history.” Wehope that you will use our poster to help students andadults gain a better understanding of one of the fun-damental underlying concepts of modern science –evolution. You can use the dramatic timeline and en-gaging activity on the poster to illustrate how muchEarth has changed through time. The Earth ScienceWeek information kit for 2001 includes a variety ofposters, bookmarks, and other materials that illustratethis concept. The kit contains a new 32-page Ideasand Activities booklet that emphasizes evolution inearth history through an array of activities about rocks,fossils, and geologic time – as well as information onthe upcoming PBS series, Evolution, which is to beaired in late September. Single copies of the Earth Sci-ence Week information kit are available at no chargefrom AGI. You may request a kit on the Earth ScienceWeek web site, www.earthsciweek.org; by phone, (703)379-2480; fax, (703) 379-7563; or by mail. Send yourrequest to Earth Science Week, American GeologicalInstitute, 4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22302.

*Editors Note: This was a press release written by AGI.The PS is helping to sponsor the ESW, and memberswill receive the poster mentioned in the second para-graph together with Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, is-sue 5.

10

The Paleontological Society DistinguishedLecturer Program

By Christoper G. Maples, CouncilorEach year the Paleontological Society selects

outstanding scientists whose works encompass a widevariety of paleontological topics as Paleontological So-ciety Distinguished Lecturers. Each Distinguished Lec-turer has national and international stature in pale-ontology, has traveled widely, and has published ex-tensively. Each is also known as an excellent speakerwho can communicate the interest and importance oftheir research topics. This program is intended to makeavailable lecturers for inclusion in departmentalspeaker series or other college and university forums.

The Paleontological Society Distinguished Lec-turers, topics, and short abstracts of presentations forthe 2001-2003 academic years are listed below. Addi-tional information is available on The PaleontologicalSociety homepage at: http://www.paleosoc.org/speakerseries.html. If your department is interestedin inviting one or more Distinguished Lecturer to yourinstitution, please contact the speaker directly. Al-though financial arrangements must be made directlywith each speaker, all Paleontological Society Distin-guished Lecturers have agreed to be available on anexpenses-only basis.

The Paleontological Society hopes that you takeadvantage of this opportunity. Paleontology is a dy-namic discipline, and these speakers will certainly con-vey the excitement and timeliness of our science. Ifyou have any questions regarding the PaleontologicalSociety Distinguished Lecturer program, please feel freeto contact me at: cmaples@indiana.edu.

ACADEMIC YEARS 2001–2002 DISTIN-GUISHED LECTURERS

Roger J. Cuffey Phone: 814-865-1293Department of Geosciences Fax: 814-863-8724412 Deike Bldg.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802E-mail: cuffey@ems.psu.edu

Bryozoan Reefs though Geologic TimeBryozoan-built reefs are scientifically intriguing be-cause they are rare; they represent an ecologic extremefor their phylum, and an exotic contrast to more nu-merous coelenterate-dominated reefs. Continuinganalysis of as many bryozoan reefs as possible is fur-nishing data on their systematic composition, construc-tional roles, paleoecology, and evolution. Trends dis-played thus far include widely fluctuating abundances,subordinal and specific compositions, compactness offramework, influence of surrounding sediments, andgrowth in both tropical and temperate waters. Mostnotably, their history is highlighted by trepostomes incrust-mounds in the early Paleozoic, fenestrates inmud-mounds and frame-thickets in the late Paleozoic,and cheilostomes in reef-veneers and crust-moundsin the Cenozoic. (Semi-technical talk for geologists,biologists, and related scientists.)

Dinosaur Travel in MongoliaVertebrate paleontologists traditionally have gone outand prospected new field areas in order to expand thehypodigm or database underpinning evolutionary un-derstandings. However, increasingly, value is also seenin re-visiting classic localities well-collected by earlyworkers. Recent geopolitical changes make it possiblefor paleontologists (individually or with expeditions) tore-visit Mongolian localities like Roy Chapman Andrews’Flaming Cliffs dinosaur-egg site, and to examine speci-mens mounted in the Ulan-Bataar museum. (Non-tech-nical general talk for both the public and scientists ofall kinds.)

Bryozoans, Battle Wreckage, and Artificial ReefsSinking hard materials to form the substrate for artifi-cial-reef growth has recently developed as a useful tech-nique in reef management and conservation. Discov-ery of sizeable bryozoan crusts on the 138-year-oldMonitor shipwreck, and extensive coral heads on 56-year-old sunken ships and planes in Truk lagoon, sug-gest the possibility of inadvertent artificial reefs even-tually developing at such sites. The introduction ofmetallic substrates is something new in earth and lifehistory, but much can be predicted for future growthby applying paleoecological principles from fossil reefs.(Speculative general talk for geologists, biologists, andhistorians.)

The Earliest Bryozoan Reefs and the Initial Bryo-zoan RadiationBryozoans first appeared early in Ordovician time.Bryozoan-built reefs developed immediately thereafter(by mid-Early Ordovician in China), and for a while(into the mid-Middle Ordovician in the Appalachiansand Mid-Continent) flourish alongside the oldest reef-building corals. These early bryozoan frame-buildersare characterized by strong or sturdy or strengthenedskeletal morphologies, but small colony size. In con-trast, corals soon developed symbioses with certainalgae, which resulted in much greater carbonate pro-duction, larger sizes, and eventual volumetric over-whelming of the other early reef-builders includingbryozoans. Later in geologic history, where local envi-ronmental conditions or mass extinctions decimatedcorals, bryozoan reefs reappeared, sometimes withsimilar features as their remote predecessors. (Tech-nical talk for paleontologists, geologists, biologists, andecologists.)

Brian T. Huber Phone: 202-786-2658Department of Paleobiology Fax: 202-786-2832MRC NHB-121Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History10th and Constitution Ave., NWWashington, DC 20560E-mail: Huber.Brian@NMNH.SI.EDU

Deep-Sea Record of the Asteroid Impact that Endedthe Dinosaur EraLife on Earth was dramatically disrupted 65 millionyears ago when an asteroid 10 km across slammedinto the Yucutan Peninsula, releasing an energy equiva-lent of 108 megatons of TNT. Many workers believethat extinction of numerous plants and animals, in-cluding the dinosaurs, was directly caused by thisimpact event. Yet others disagree, suggesting that the

11

mass extinctions began before the K/T layer and con-tinued afterward, and the impact event was just one ofmany extinction mechanisms at that time. Deep-seacores drilled from the ocean floor east of the Floridacoast contain evidence that helps resolve this contro-versy. Chalk sediments determined to be latest Creta-ceous in age are overlain by a 17 cm thick layer com-posed mostly of tektites, which are glassy globules ofEarth’s crust that melted in the blast and hardened asthey rained down over large areas of Earth. Shockedquartz and other mineralogic indicators of the blastalso occur in this tektite layer. Chalk sediments im-mediately above this tektite bed are composed mostlyof new species of planktic foraminifera that are a frac-tion of the size of Cretaceous species, and much lessdiverse. Very rare Cretaceous species also occur, buttheir sporadic occurrence, abnormal size distribution,and different geochemical composition demonstratethat these specimens were reworked from older sedi-ments. The abruptness of this biotic change leaveslittle doubt that the cataclysmic effects of the bolideimpact were the direct cause of the marine microfossilextinctions that have been observed worldwide.

Biotic and Paleoceanographic Changes During theMid-Cretaceous SupergreenhouseA growing body of evidence from northern and south-ern high latitudes has revealed that the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary interval (CTBI; ~95–92 Ma) was atime of the warmest global paleotemperatures the Earthhas experienced during at least the past 140 m.y. Newoxygen and carbon isotope records from a deep-seacore drilled in the subtropical North Atlantic fully cor-roborate the high-latitude records. The subtropicalbenthic foraminiferal oxygen isotope data indicate thatmiddle bathyal waters warmed from 16°C during themiddle through late Cenomanian to 20°C during thelatest Cenomanian (~95 Ma). This extreme warmingof deep waters may have caused a breakdown in thevertical structure of the water column, and could ex-plain the extinction of deep-dwelling planktonic spe-cies. On the other hand, sea-surface temperature es-timates, based on planktonic foraminiferal ∂18O values(corrected for salinity), remain steady throughout theCTBI, varying between 23 to 26°C. The presence ofvolcaniclastic sediments at the level of the warmestpaleotemperatures is consistent with previous sugges-tions that the CTBI was a time of anomalously highCO2 flux into the atmosphere and oceans during amajor phase of explosive volcanic activity and largeigneous province emplacement in the Caribbean andother regions worldwide. Further investigation of theCTBI is needed to establish whether increased pCO2can be accepted as the primary forcing mechanism forthe middle Cretaceous supergreenhouse.

Anatomy of an Early Cretaceous Oceanic AnoxicEventCretaceous “Oceanic Anoxic Events” (OAEs) can becorrelated globally in pelagic carbonate facies by posi-tive carbon isotopic excursions typically near or withindark marls that are enriched in organic carbon. Insome cases, OAEs are accompanied by biotic turnoveramong select planktonic, nektonic, and benthic organ-isms. The cause of OAEs remains uncertain despiteover two decades of intense study. Some authors sug-gest that tectonic events and widespread transgres-sions caused stagnation of deep waters and led to cre-

ation of a large number of salinity stratified marginalbasins. Others suggest that bottom water dysoxia re-sulted from intensified surface productivity that led torapid burial and preservation of the organic matter.An excellent record of an early Albian OAE 1b was re-covered from an Ocean Drilling Program site on theflank of Blake Plateau. Presence of large pyrite nod-ules, fine sediment lamination, total organic carbonvalues above 10%, and impoverished and dwarfedbenthic foraminiferal assemblages testify to the ex-tremely low oxygen content of the upper bathyal wa-ters during the peak of this event. Unlike other OAEs,however, benthic and planktonic foraminifera yieldsurpisingly enriched ∂18O values, suggesting that theupper bathyal and surface waters were relatively cool(~9 and 12°C, respectively) or highly saline. Plank-tonic foraminifer populations throughout the OAE 1bevent are characterized by their unusually small shellsize and low species richness, which is typical of mod-ern assemblages from upwelling environments. How-ever, species abundance changes across the black marlinterval are minor and the vertical carbon isotope gra-dient is not as high as vertical gradients typically foundin high productivity zones. Results from this studyillustrate that the primary factors that caused the Cre-taceous OAEs are still enigmatic.

Bruce S. Lieberman Phone: 785-864-2741Departments of Geology Fax: 785-838-9664 and Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of KansasLawrence, KS 66045E-mail: blieber@eagle.cc.ukans.edu

The Cambrian Radiation: Understanding Biology’sBig BangThe Cambrian radiation is a key episode in the historyof life when large animal taxa start diversifying in thefossil record. Geologically, the episode seems incred-ibly rapid, yet some evidence now seems to be accu-mulating that this may not be the case. What is thenature of the Cambrian radiation, what are the pro-cesses that might have contributed to make this eventwhat it was, what are the current paleontological de-bates about, and was the radiation really so fast thatit challenges Darwin’s view on the tempo of evolution?These are some of the topics that will be considered,with special reference to our ability to trace the evolu-tion of groups of species, and figure out what this cantell us about life 520 million years ago.

Natural Selection, Species Selection, and TrendsNatural selection is one of the fundamental mecha-nisms invoked to explain the trends seen throughoutthe history of life. This mechanism produces adapta-tions that govern how fit an organism is in relation toits environment. However, some have suggested se-lection processes need not solely be for the good of theorganism, but rather may be for the good of the spe-cies. The debate about whether this process, termed‘species selection,’ actually operates has been a par-ticularly rancorous one. The potential validity of thismechanism gets to the issue of what are the evolution-ary forces that drive trends. Examples from the fossilrecord and the extant biota are used to considerwhether species selection, and the increased propen-sity to speciate, govern certain groups’ success through

12

time or rather if such trends are best explained bychanges in developmental timing or by using standardmetaphors of organismal adaptation.

Species and Stasis: Causes and ConsequencesPunctuated equilibrium is based on the recognition thatspecies are stable throughout most of their millions ofyears of existence, and then diverge relatively quickly,in the space of tens of thousands of years, in small,isolated populations. The demonstration that punc-tuated equilibrium was a fundamental evolutionarypattern in the fossil record is one of paleontology’s greatrecent contributions to evolutionary biology. This con-tribution is significant for evolutionary theory becausewhether or not species are stable throughout most oftheir history potentially has great significance for ourunderstanding of the nature of evolutionary changeand adaptation. In this talk, the nature of species asmorphologically stable entities over many millions ofyears will be considered. Further, the processes thatmay contribute to this stasis will also be explored.

Charles R. Marshall Phone:617-495-2351Department of Earth Fax:617-495-8839 and Planetary Sciences20 Oxford StreetHarvard UniversityCambridge, MA 02138-2902E-mail: marshall@eps.harvard.edu

A New Paleontological Method for Estimating Timesof Origin, and Developmental Perspectives on theNature of Evolutionary InnovationsHere I explore two aspects of the ongoing “molecularrevolution” that have particular relevance to paleon-tology. The first concerns the attempt to reconcile theoften large discrepancies between molecular clock andfossil record estimates of times of divergence of evolu-tionary lineages, by estimating the stratigraphic rangesof species NOT preserved in the fossil record. I thenturn to give a paleontologist’s view of the revolution inour understanding of the mechanistic basis of devel-opment, key to understanding the variation upon whichevolutionary change depends.

More Realistic Ways of Quantifying the Incomplete-ness of the Fossil Record in Both Local Sections,and in Global Compilations.Existing methods for quantifying the incompletenessof the fossil record are based on statistical assump-tions that are often violated by real stratigraphic data.Here I outline a new (Bayesian) approach for quantify-ing the incompleteness of the fossil record, illustratedthrough an analysis of the trilobite extinctions acrossthe Marjumiid-Pterocephaliid trilobite biomere bound-ary. I will then turn my attention to a group effort thathas been working towards removing sampling biasesin Phanerozoic diversity curves.

Lisa E. Park Phone: 330-972-7633Department of Geology Fax: 330-972-7611University of AkronAkron, OH 44325-4101E-Mail: lepark@uakron.edu

Little Things in a Big Lake: What Ostracodes Can

Tell Us About Diversification in Rift Lake SystemsThe East African lake systems have long been knownas areas of megadiversity, particularly with respect tothe large, endemic species flocks that originated withinvarious lakes in this geologic and geographic setting.These aquatic island systems and their elevatedbiodiversity, are unparalleled for their potential to testhypotheses of comparative evolution on large scales.The sedimentary and fossil record of these lakes offersus the opportunity to resolve both evolutionary andecological changes in their biota at decadal resolution,over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Re-cent analyses of cichlid fish, thiarid molluscs, andostracodes show that diversification patterns are of-ten linked to environmental differences as well as inci-dences of multiple invasions and subsequent radia-tions in the lake.

By studying the long- and short-term changesin these lake environments via ostracodes, we can bet-ter understand paleoecological and speciation pro-cesses operating on many different temporal scales.Documenting and understanding what creates andmaintains this incredible diversity has important im-plications for the longer-term paleontological record,as well as immediate implications for conservation ofthese extraordinary biotic systems in the face of a widevariety of environmental threats that include siltationdue to the deforestation of the watershed, exotic spe-cies introduction and pollution from insecticides andfertilizers.

The Neogene of Africa: the Role of Environmentsin Terrestrial EvolutionEnvironmental change, particularly that related to cli-mate fluctuations, is widely viewed as an importantfactor in the evolution of Neogene terrestrial faunas.Paleontological and stratigraphic investigations in EastAfrica over the last five decades have added greatly toour knowledge of Neogene faunal evolution and ecol-ogy, including insights into the origins of the humanfamily and the character of the environments in whichthey lived. Most of these investigations have focusedon sedimentary sequences preserved in the extensionalbasins of the East African Rift (e.g., Olduvai, Laetoli,Lake Turkana, Tugen Hills Sequence, Omo and theAwash Group).

From these and other studies, various hypoth-eses have been forwarded to explain the changes re-corded in mammalian faunas (including Hominidae)in Africa during the late Cenozoic. The turnover pulsehypothesis (advanced by E. Vrba, 1980–1995) positsthat species origins and extinctions were initiated bydramatic climatic change (aridity and cooling) in Af-rica during the late Pliocene and again in the Pleis-tocene. The variability selection hypothesis (advancedby R. Potts, 1996–1998) suggests that oscillations, asevidenced in global and regional sedimentary records,were responsible for these significant changes in fauna.In the case of hominids, environmental fluctuationscould have had a formative impact on the origin oftoolmaking, brain enlargement, and other advances inhuman adaptability. In the case of large mammals,there are widely documented faunal turnovers duringthe Late Miocene and Plio-Pleistocene in Africa thatmay be due to regional and global climatic (i.e. envi-ronmental) change. By examining these records, thefundamental question posed by Darwin (1859) regard-ing the role of physical factors in biotic evolution can

13

be addressed.

Judith Totman Parrish Phone: 520-621-6024Department of Geosciences Fax: 520-621-2672Gould-Simpson 208, P.O. Box 210077The University of ArizonaTuscon, AZ 85721Email: parrish@geo.arizona.edu

Jurassic Park was not a JungleThe Morrison Formation, which extends from thesouthern Colorado Plateau into Montana, is what somepeople think of when they think of Jurassic Park—it isan extraordinarily rich source of dinosaur fossils. Con-flicting paleoclimatic interpretations of the formationhave confounded interpretations of the Morrison eco-system. Integrated work on the plants, dinosaurs, andsedimentary rocks of the Morrison Formation has madeprogress toward resolving this conflict. The vegetationof the Morrison Formation was predominantly herba-ceous, consistent with recent conclusions that someof the largest dinosaurs were probably grazers and lowbrowsers.

Comparison of Humid and Semi-AridPaleoecosystemsHumid and semi-arid ecosystems differ in the abun-dance and distribution of plant and animal remains.Humid climates more commonly provide favorable con-ditions for plant preservation than do semi-arid cli-mates, which makes understanding the vegetationparticularly challenging. However, there are some sur-prising similarities in the preservational modes and inhow the vegetation signature is recorded. A compari-son of humid paleoecosystems from the Cretaceous ofnorthern Alaska and semi-arid ecosystems from theTriassic and Jurassic of the Colorado Plateau illus-trates the differences and similarities.

ACADEMIC YEARS 2002–2003 DISTIN-GUISHED LECTURERS

Christopher A. Brochu Phone: 319-353-1808Department of Geoscience Fax: 319-335-1821University of IowaIowa City, IA 52242E-mail: christopher-brochu@uiowa.edu

Simultaneous Illumination - Phylogenetic Ap-proaches toward Crocodylian HistoryCrocodylians are often dismissed as “living fossils” littlechanged since they first appear in the Mesozoic. Al-though a limited number of morphotypes have arisenduring the group’s history, crocodylian phylogeny ismuch more dynamic than often acknowledged. A phy-logenetic approach reveals a complex biogeographichistory. By considering both fossil and molecular es-timates of divergence timing, the geographic distribu-tions of most extant crocodylian lineages require thecrossing of a major marine barrier at least once—forexample, three different lineages crossed the Atlanticduring the Late Tertiary.

Studies of diversity over time suggest thatcrocodylian diversity showed two diversity peaks—onein the Eocene, and another in the Miocene. A phyloge-

netic perspective reveals differences between thesepeaks. Clades with minimum origination dates in theCretaceous or Early Tertiary are morphologically uni-form, but geographically widespread. Crocodylian fau-nas during the early Tertiary tend to be phylogeneti-cally composite. In contrast, crocodylian faunas of thelater Tertiary tend to be more endemic. Climate changeis usually seen as the primary agent behind crocodyliandiversity changes over time, but increased separationbetween continental land-masses during the later Ter-tiary may have prevented widespread dispersal of spe-cialized clades, allowing multiple endemic radiationsto occur. This suggests that tectonics may be partiallyresponsible for an increase in crocodylian diversity earlyin the Neogene.

A phylogenetic perspective enhances our inter-pretation of temporal patterns, because the biogeo-graphic details recovered from the calibrated phylog-eny are not evident from counts of taxa over time. Andre-examination of curated specimens is critical for therecovery of these patterns, as taxonomic philosophieshave fluctuated over time, and published classifica-tions may not mirror phylogenetic relationships. (Talkcan be given for general, intermediate, and specialistaudiences)

The Science of SueThe skeleton of FMNH PR2081 (popularly known as“Sue”) is the largest, most complete, and best preservedTyrannosaurus rex ever collected. It reveals structuresthought to be absent from tyrannosaurids and otherderived theropods (such as a proatlas arch), but alsosuggests that some features thought to be present intyrannosaurids were not present at all (such as thebony sternum). There are several abnormalities, in-cluding healed fractures in the trunk ribs and fusedcaudal vertebrae that appear not to result from frac-ture. Exostotic bone in the fused caudals grew aroundcaudal muscular bands, preserving a natural mold ofthe tail musculature. None of the abnormalities onthe jaw are healed bite marks.

A high-resolution computed tomographic (CT)analysis of the skull generated 748 2-mm-thick slices.Inspection of both the raw slices and 3-D models gen-erated from them allowed the preparation team to seeobscured objects before they were manually exposed.These images reveal internal details not previouslyaccessible in intact tyrannosaurid skulls, such as theossified medial wall of the maxillary antrum and theinternal morphology of the pneumatic recesses, whichmay have communicated with pneumatic chambers inthe neck vertebrae. They also permit the creation of adigital endocast that goes beyond those made throughdestructive means by preserving nerve pathways allthe way through the braincase and internal details ofthe otic capsule. It reveals an interesting combinationof ancestral and derived features relative to the brainsof living dinosaurs and other archosaurs. The endocastconfirms the presence of a large olfactory nerve andreveals greatly enlarged olfactory bulbs relative to thosein other nonavian theropods, suggesting that smell wasemphasized in the sensory repertoire of Tyrannosau-rus.

A chevron bone was found during preparationthat fits between the first two tail vertebrae. The ab-sence of this bone was one reason “Sue” was thoughtto be female. A close examination of other criteria usedto sex dinosaurs reveals further interesting complica-

14

tions. (Talk can be given for general, intermediate,and specialist audiences)

Differing Temporal Expectations for CrocodylianPhylogeny: Molecules versus StratigraphyDifferent sources of temporal information—the strati-graphic distribution of fossils and molecular distancesbetween extant species—can yield very different esti-mates. These do not represent “conflict” in the samesense that different data sets may support differenttrees, as temporal estimates are limited by known in-completeness (the fossil record) and labile assumptions(a priori estimates of molecular evolutionary rate).Moreover, disparity may result more from failure toaddress the same phylogenetic question with differentdata sets.

Different temporal predictions for crocodylianphylogeny illustrate all of these points. In the mostfamous disparity, fossils have long been used to indi-cate a Mesozoic divergence between Gavialis gangeticus(the Indian gharial) and any other living crocodylian,whereas molecular distances have suggested diver-gences as recently as 20 million years. Reevaluationof the fossil evidence makes any divergence in the Ceno-zoic unlikely, and this disparity may result in largemeasure from an invalid assumption of clocklike evo-lution over the entire group. Other comparisons cali-brated by fossils - especially among caimans—suggestunreasonably high rates of molecular evolution, andindicate the presence of significant ghost lineages inthe fossil record. Addition of new fossil informationcan recalibrate hypothesized rates of evolution, andthe degree of revision can depend not only on the tem-poral distance between fossils, but on the distancebetween the relevant fossils and the Recent.

Finally, some indicated disparities stemmedfrom a lack of rigorous phylogenetic hypotheses forsome fossil groups. Molecular distances indicated aLate Tertiary divergence within the widespread genusCrocodylus, long thought to be an ancient group; closeexamination of fossils assigned to Crocodylus insteadsuggests a divergence among living Crocodylus no ear-lier than the Miocene. (Talk can be given for general,intermediate, and specialist audiences)

Lucy E. Edwards Phone: 703-648-5272U.S. Geological Survey Fax: 703-648-6953Reston, VAE-mail: leedward@usgs.gov

Coastal Plain Stratigraphy: It Isn’t Just Layers AnyMore (and Probably Never Was)Studies over the last two decades in the stratigraphyof the Atlantic Coastal Plain have shown that simplemodels of stratigraphic units (and their related aqui-fers and confining units) being thicker downdip andpinching out updip are seldom accurate. Discontinu-ous lenses of sediments are as common as simple con-tinuous layers, and wide thickness variations are thenorm. Current work in South Carolina has led me tospeculate that anomalous patterns of erosion preservedin Paleocene and Eocene sediments represent scourcaused by an eddy system of the predecessor of thepresent Gulf Stream. I will also bring up any new de-velopments in the ongoing study of the stratigraphy ofthe sediments filling the Chesapeake Bay impact struc-ture. (Semi-technical, for stratigraphers and hydrolo-

gists)

Biostratigraphy, Paleoecology, and Biogeography:What’s Signal? What’s Noise?Biostratigraphers love the lowest and highest strati-graphic occurrences of taxa (FADs and LADs). Butnot all FADs and LADs are created equal. In any givenstratigraphic succession, some taxa first occur becausethey evolved in that area at that time. Others firstoccur for purely ecological reasons or due to immigra-tion. Instead of bemoaning the ecological misfits, weshould use them, but not for biostratigraphy. The tech-nique of graphic correlation is explained. I demon-strate how it easily tests the hypothesis of synchroneity.Nonsynchronous FADs and LADs should immediatelybe excluded from further consideration for correlation.But they should not be excluded from the overall analy-sis. A diachronous event cries out forpaleoceanographic, paleoecological, or post-deposi-tional interpretation. Dinoflagellates from the Mioceneof Florida illustrate concepts such as climatically in-fluenced patterns of immigration. (Semi-technical, forgeologists and paleontologists)

Dinoflagellates: My Favorite FossilsDinoflagellates are organisms that cause red tides inmodern seas. The dinoflagellate Pfiesteria has beencalled the “cell from hell” by the news media. Dinoflagel-lates are common in the fossil record from the LateTriassic onward. In many instances, when the sedi-ments are too far downdip to have good pollen and toofar onshore to have a good calcareous microfossil as-semblage, dinoflagellates provide key biostratigraphicand paleoecologic information. (Not too technical, forgeologists and biologists, and interested amateurs—everyone will learn something)

Stanley C. Finney Phone: 562-985-8637Department of Geological Fax: 562-985-8638SciencesCalifornia State University—Long BeachLong Beach, CA 90840 USAE-mail: scfinney@csulb.edu

Is the Late Ordovician Mass Extinction an Artifactof Stratigraphic Resolution?The Late Ordovician mass extinction was contempora-neous with rapid advance and retreat of continentalglaciation in Gondwana. Integrated, multidisciplinary,high-resolution study of shelf and basin stratigraphicsuccessions in central Nevada and comparison withdata from other tropical paleo-plates indicate that,while habit loss and resulting pulses of extinction weredriven by rapid glacioeustatic sea-level and associatedoceanographic changes, extinctions were gradual,diachronous, and sporadic. The Late Ordovician wasa time of major biotic crises, but not of sudden globalextinction.

An Actualistic Model of Graptolite BiogeographyThe Finney-Berry model of graptolite biogeographyviews graptolite biogeography from a new perspective,focusing attention on the habitat in which graptolitesflourished rather than on the differentiation of faunasinto provinces and biofacies. It emphasizes the dy-namic and ephemeral nature of graptolite habitats, incontrast to previous models in which graptolite fau-

15

nas were segregated laterally by water-mass specific-ity or vertically by depth zonation into rather staticbiotopes. Moreover, the Finney-Berry model has im-portant implications with regard to dispersal, provin-cialism, and the nature of the graptolite record.

Gold, Graptolites, and the Paleogeographic Affin-ity of the Roberts Mountains AllochthonGraptolite faunas of the Pacific Province were first de-scribed in large part by Australian paleontologists ofthe late 19th and early 20th centuries, because grap-tolite biostratigraphy was critical for recognizing struc-tures and thus directing exploitation of the Victoriangold fields. A similar situation exists today in the CarlinTrend of north central Nevada where annual gold pro-duction approaches 5 million ounces. Gold is hostedlargely by Silurian-Devonian carbonate rocks of thelower plate of the Roberts Mountains thrust, but orebodies in surface outcrops of lower plate rocks havelargely been exploited. Future exploration efforts arenow in areas where lower plate rocks are covered bythe Roberts Mountains allochthon, composed of a thick,structurally complex, poorly exposed, deep-water,stratigraphic succession of Cambrian-Devonian age.Exploration efforts require that these rocks be mappedto determine depth to lower plate rocks and through-passing structures; geologic mapping is dependent onunderstanding the stratigraphic succession; and grap-tolite biostratigraphy has proven to be the most effec-tive means of reconstructing the stratigraphy and rec-ognizing distinctive stratigraphic intervals. Reconstruc-tion of the stratigraphic succession and comparisonwith the coeval rocks of the lower plate demonstratethat the Roberts Mountains allochthon is not an ex-otic terrane. Its stratigraphic succession accumulatedin deep-water outboard of the carbonate platform alongthe Cordilleran margin of Laurentia, and several dis-tinctive sedimentological event can be recognized inboth the basinal and platform successions.

Andrew Smith Phone: (0)207-942-5217Department of PalaeontologyThe Natural History MuseumCromwell Road, London SW7 5BDUKE-mail: a.smith@nhm.ac.uk

Events at the Cenomanian-Turonian Boundary: TheDissection of a Mass ExtinctionThe Cenomanian-Turonian boundary has long beenrecognized as an interval of major biotic change, andis coeval with one of the largest rises in sea-level tohave occurred in the post-Palaeozoic. The associationbetween mass extinction in the marine realm and sea-level change is well documented, but perplexing, sinceit seems implausible that sea-level change could actu-ally cause a major extinction. However, large scalecycles of sea-level change can and do alter the ratio ofshallow to deep marine continental shelf deposits pre-served in the rock record both regionally and globally.Events around the Cenomanian-Turonian boundaryin western Europe are reviewed in terms of geographi-cal and ecological patterns and a phylogenetic frame-work for sea urchins is used to investigate the roles ofsampling and extinction in deriving these patterns.This approach introduces a surprising degree of un-certainty about the size, duration and even the reality

of the mass extinction event.

Megabias in the Marine Fossil Record and Its Im-plications for Charting the Geological History ofDiversityPatterns of origination, extinction and standing di-versity through time are inferred from tallies of taxapreserved in the fossil record. This approach gener-ally assumes, however, that sampling of the fossilrecord is effectively uniform over time. Although re-cent evidence suggests that our sampling of the avail-able rock record has been very thorough, there is alsooverwhelming evidence that the rock record availablefor sampling is itself distorted by major systematicbiases. Data on rock outcrop area compiled for post-Palaeozoic sediments from western Europe at stagelevel show a strongly cyclical pattern correspondingto first and second order sequence stratigraphicalcycles, and changes in standing diversity and origi-nation rates over time-scales measured in 10s of mil-lions of years turn out to be strongly correlated withsurface outcrop area. Many of the taxonomic pat-terns that have been described from the fossil recordconform to a species/area effect. Whether this arisesprimarily from sampling bias, or from changing sur-face area of marine shelf seas through time and itseffect on biodiversity remains problematic.

The Paleobiology of EchinoidsEchinoids have a wonderfully complex endoskeletonthat is a trove of information for palaeobiologists. Theirskeletal ultrastructure provides a means of recon-structing soft tissue with confidence and themicroarchitecture of structures such as tubercles andpore-pairs can be analyzed in terms of their biome-chanical function. This talk will review the sorts ofevidence that can be called upon when trying to re-construct the autecology of fossil echinoids.

16

NEW BOOKS FOR REVIEWThis section of the newsletter includes lists of

books and brief reviews received by the Books ReviewEditor for the Paleontological Society. Volunteered re-views will be accepted if concisely written and of gen-eral interest. Books listed may be requested for reviewwith the understanding that the resultant review willbe ready for publication in time for the next issue ofPriscum. Contact the Book Review Editor: GregRetallack, Department of Geological Sciences, Univer-sity of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1272:gregr@darkwing.uoregon.edu

Adrain, J. and Edgecombe, G.D. 1997. SILURIANENCRINURINE TRILOBITES FROM THE CEN-TRAL CANADIAN ARCTIC. PalaeontographicaCanadiana, v. 14, 109 p.; $44.50 (paper).

Alexander, C. R., Davis, R. A., and Henry, V. J. (eds.)1998 TIDALITES: PROCESSES AND PROD-UCTS. SEPM Special Publication 61, 171 p:members $87.00; list $121.50 (cloth).

Berman, K. M. and Snedden, J. W. (eds.), 1999. ISO-LATED SHALLOW MARINE SAND BODIES:SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ANDSEDIMENTOLOGIC INTERPRETATION. SEPMSpecial Publication 64, 362 p: members $86.00;list $120.00 (cloth).

Bookstein, F. L. 1997. MORPHOMETRIC TOOLS FORLANDMARK DATA: GEOMETRY AND BIOL-OGY. Cambridge University Press, New York,435 p.: $34.95 (paper).

Claasen, C. 1998 SHELLS. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, 266 p.: $74.95 (cloth).

Culver, S. J. and Rawson, P. F. 2000. BIOTIC RE-SPONSE TO GLOBAL CHANGE: THE LAST 145MILLION YEARS. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge: $95.00 (cloth).

De Graciansky, P.-C., Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, T., andVail, P. R. 1998. MESOZOIC AND CENOZOICSEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY OF EUROPEANBASINS. SEPM Special Publication 60, 786 p.:members $125.00; list $175.00 (cloth).

Dewing, K. 1999. LATE ORDOVICIAN AND EARLY SI-LURIAN STROPHOMENID BRACHIOPODS OFANTICOSTI ISLAND, QUEBEC, CANADA.Palaeontographic Canadiana 17, 143 p: $62.00(paper).

Gensel, P.G. and Edwards, D. (eds.), 2001, PLANTSINVADE THE LAND. Columbia UniversityPress, New York, 304 p.; $65.00 (cloth), $32.00(paper).

Harbaugh, J. W., Watney, W. L., Rankey, E. C.,Slingerland, R., Goldstein, R. H., and Franseen,E. K. 1999. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS INSTRATIGRAPHY: RECENT ADVANCES INSTRATIGRAPHIC AND SEDIMENTOLOGICCOMPUTER APPLICATIONS. SEPM SpecialPublication 62, 362 p.: member $120.00; list$170.00 (cloth).

Harris, P. M., Saller, A. H., and Simo, J. A. T. 1999.ADVANCES IN CARBONATE SEQUENCESTRATIGRAPHY: APPLICATION TO RESER-VOIRS, OUTCROPS AND MODELS. SEPM Spe-cial Publication 63, 421 p.: member $105.50,list $148.00 (cloth)

Jin, J., and Zhan, R.-B. 2001. LATE ORDOVICIANARTICULATE BRACHIOPODS FROM THE RED

RIVER AND STONY MOUNTAIN FORMATIONS,SOUTHERN MANITOBA. NRC Research Press,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 117 p.: $C 42.95(Canada), $42.95 (elsewhere)(paper).

Kerans, C. and Tinker, S.W. 1997. SEQUENCESTRATIGRAPHY AND CHARACTERIZATION OFCARBONATE RESERVOIRS. Society for Sedi-mentary Geology, Short Course Notes v. 40, 130p.; members $34.00, $48.00 list (paper).

Kolata, D.R., Huff, W.D. and Bergström, S.M. (eds.)1997. ORDOVICIAN K-BENTONITES OF EAST-ERN NORTH AMERICA. Geological Society ofAmerica Special Paper, v. 313, 90 p. $46.00(paper).

Li Q. & McGowran, B., 2000. MIOCENE FORAMIN-IFERA FROM LAKES ENTRANCE OIL SHAFT,GIPPSLAND, SOUTHEASTERN AUSTRALIA.Memoirs of the Association of AustralasianPalaeontologists 22, 142p.; $A44.00 (Austra-lia); $A45.00 (elsewhere; both include postage& handling).

Lockley, M. and Hunt, A. P. 1999. DINOSAUR TRACKS.Columbia University Press, New York: $19.50(paper).

McGhee, G.R. 1999. THEORETICAL MORPHOLOGY:THE CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATIONS. Co-lumbia University Press, New York, 316 p.;$20.50 (paper).

Mikhailov, K.E. 1997. FOSSIL AND RECENT EGG-SHELL IN AMNIOTIC VERTEBRATES: FINESTRUCTURE, COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGYAND CLASSIFICATION. Special Papers inPalaeontology, v. 56, 80 p.: £35 (paper).

Montañez, I.P., Gregg, J.M. and Shelton, K.L. (editors)1997. BASIN-WIDE DIAGENETIC PATTERNS:INTEGRATED PETROLOGIC, GEOCHEMICALAND HYDROLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS. Soci-ety for Sedimentary Geology SEPM Special Pub-lication, v. 57, 302 p.; $101.00 (cloth).

Nowland, G. S. (ed.) PALEOSCENE: A SERIES OF PA-PERS ON PALEONTOLOGY REPRINTED FROMGEOSCIENCE CANADA. Geoscience CanadaReprints 7, 308 p.: $58.00 (paper).

Pinard, S. and Mamet, B. 1998. TAXONOMIE DESPETITS FORAMINIFÈRES DU CARBONIFÈRESUPÉRIEUR-PERMIEN INFÉRIEUR DU BASSINDE SVERDRUP, ARCTIQUE CANADIEN.Palaeontographica Canadiana, v. 15, 253 p;$72.50 (paper).

Reitz, E.J. and Wing, E.S. 1998. ZOOARCHEOLOGY.Cambridge University Press, New York, 455 p.;$80.00 (cloth), $34.95 (paper).

Rigby, J. K. and Chatterton, B. D. E. 1999. SILURIAN(WENLOCK) DEMOSPONGES FROM THE AVA-LANCHE LAKE AREA OF THE MACKENZIEMOUNTAINS, SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OFMACKENZIE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES,CANADA. Palaeontographic Canadiana 16, 43p.: $34.00 (paper).

Saller, A. H., Harris, P. M., Kirkland, B. L., andMazzullo, S. J. (eds.) 1999. GEOLOGICFRAMEWORK OF THE CAPITAN REEF. SEPMSpecial Publication 65, 224 p.: member $87.00;list $122.00 (cloth).

Schumm, S.A. 1998. TO INTERPRET THE EARTH: TENWAYS TO BE WRONG. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge (new in paperback): $19.95(paper).

17

Siveter, D.J. and Williams, M. 1997. CAMBRIANBRADORIID AND PHOSPHATOCOPICARTHROPODS OF NORTH AMERICA. SpecialPapers in Palaeontology, v. 57, 69 p.; £30.00.

Spellerberg, I.F. and Sawyer, J.W.D. 1999. AN INTRO-DUCTION TO APPLIED BIOGEOGRAPHY. Cam-bridge University Press, New York, 243 p.;$64.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper).

Strickberger, M. W. 2000. EVOLUTION (3rd ed.). Jonesand Bartlett, Sudbury, 721 p.: $74.95 (cloth).

Sturgeon, M.T., Windle, D.L., Mapes, R.H. and Hoare,R.D. 1997. PENNSYLVANIAN CEPHALOPODSOF OHIO. Ohio Geological Survey Bulletin, v.71, 260 p.; $12.00 (paper).

Taquet, P. 1998. DINOSAUR IMPRESSIONS: POST-CARDS FROM A PALEONTOLOGIST. (trans-lated by K. Padian). Cambridge University Press,New York, $24.95 (cloth).

Thurman, H.V. and Trujillo, A.P. 1999. ESSENTIALSOF OCEANOGRAPHY (SIXTH EDITION).Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey;527 p.; $61.33 (paper).

Wright, A.J., Young, G.C., Talent, J.A. & Laurie, J.R.(eds), 2000. PALAEOBIOGEOGRAPHY OFAUSTRALASIAN FAUNAS AND FLORAS. Mem-oirs of the Association of AustralasianPalaeontologists 23, 515p.; $A81.95 (Austra-lia); $A84.50 (elsewhere; both include postage& handling).

Zhuravlev, A.Y. and Riding, R. (eds), 2001, THE ECOL-OGY OF THE CAMBRIAN RADIATION. Colum-bia University Press, New York, 576 p.; $80.00(cloth), $40.00 (paper).

BRIEF BOOK REVIEWSPALEOECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS, ENVIRONMENTSAND EVOLUTION, by P.J. Brenchley and D.A.T.Harper, 1998; Chapman & Hall, London, 402p. ;$29.99 (paper).

The last general paleoecology book that I readwas that by Ager (1963), so it almost goes without say-ing that this book was a revelation. Of course, I haveseen some of the papers referred to in the text, but tosee them all brought together made this book very sat-isfying. As well as could be expected in a single vol-ume, it covers the gamut of paleoecological investiga-tion. Beginning with ‘Investigating the history of thebiosphere’ then proceeding through ‘Environmentalcontrols on biotic distribution’; ‘Taphonomy’; ‘Adap-tive morphology’; ‘Trace fossils’; ‘Fossils as environ-mental indicators’; ‘Populations and communities’;‘Palaeobiogeography’ and finally ‘Evolutionary paleo-ecology of the marine biosphere’ and ‘Fossil terrestrialecosystems’. The first chapter delves into definitionsand briefly explains how the Earth operates, while thelast two are brief chronological narratives of the his-tory of the marine and terrestrial biospheres. The re-mainder are self-explanatory.

Each chapter concludes with a series of sum-mary points, some suggested further reading and acouple of pages of references. The book is fairly wellillustrated, mostly with diagrams, charts and tablesdrawn from other works, many of which are by theauthors. Scattered through the book are ‘boxed’ ar-

ticles, mostly very brief summaries of one or two re-cent papers, which are used to illustrate by example,or to elaborate on aspects of the chapter concerned.

If there are any annoying aspects of the book,the worst is that it gives the impression that it washurriedly put together and that it was the victim ofless than optimum copy-editing. For instance: on p.154, the illustrations of various trace fossil classes donot tally with the text above. On p. 235, the illustra-tion of the sampling is not explained (why is Basilicusmostly but not entirely in brackets?) and the last para-graph says that a number of community types havebeen recognized, but only lists the characters of two.On p. 241-242, the text lists in bold type the sevendifferent trophic groups, yet in the adjacent table theyare listed in a slightly different order. Furthermore,this table is poorly organized. I suspect that it hadmargins and a grid when submitted, but lost theseduring the editing process, so that the top half is badlymisaligned and difficult to decipher. On p. 254, arelisted, from a paper by Alberstadt et al. (1974), severalstages of community succession, yet the adjacent dia-gram (apparently from the same source) omits the pio-neer stage, adds the colonization stage and renamesthe climax stage! Dodgy copy-editing is representedby the occasional misspelling, repetition of the definitearticle, omission of verbs and a peculiar reference tobushwalking in the Precambrian atmosphere, but theseare not frequent enough to engender outrage, simplymild amusement.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book because itopened my eyes to an enormous diversity of topics inpaleoecology and how they have expanded since mylast foray into a similar text a couple of decades or soago. Because of the array of topics and techniqueswhich make up paleoecology, any single volume canonly briefly cover each, but this book has attacked thisproblem in the best possible way, by giving an over-view of each and extracting boxed examples from theliterature. I suspect that it is a book which will bedipped into regularly when a quick grasp of the stateof play of a method or a paleoecological interpretation,or when an entry into the literature, is needed.

John R. LaurieAGSO, GPO Box 378Canberra ACT 2611Australia

TAPHONOMY: A PROCESS APPROACH, by R.E.Martin, 1999. Cambridge Paleobiology Series no.4. Cambridge University Press; 507 pages; hardback$100.00; paperback $ 44.95.

Efremov in 1940 not only coined the wordtaphonomy but also linked it with the study of ‘infor-mation loss’. Maybe Efremov’s paper and E.C. Olson’sadvertising of Efremov’s ideas in the USA has led tothe widespread assumption that taphonomy dealsmainly with information losses during death, decay anddisintegration. Authors like A.K. Behrensmeyer, S.M.Kidwell and M.V.H. Wilson in the 1980s were neededto teach us (again) that the study of the processes ofpreservation itself can provide a rich source of infor-mation. How modern in fact was Buckland’s famousresearch on the Kirkdale cave deposits long beforeEfremov! In his Reliquiae Diluvianae (1823) he usedtaphonomic arguments to explain the origin of thebones assembled on the Kirkdale cave floor. They were

18

not remains of carcasses brought in by the biblical del-uge, but the cave had been the den of antediluvial hy-enas and the assemblage of teeth and bones were theremains of their meals because the bones were mostlybroken and gnawed. He even did a ‘taphonomic’ ex-periment: he fed a fresh shinbone of an ox to a Capehyena that visited Oxford as part of a travelling collec-tion of animals. The hyena produced gnawed bone frag-ments similar to those in the cave. He also collectedwhite fecal matter in the cave and proved this to becomparable to feces of the Recent Cape hyena. ClearlyBuckland already knew about ‘information gain’ frombroken bones! (Moreover, the hyena den story helpedundermine traditional diluvianism - see Rupke’s “Thegreat chain of history”, 1983).

Instead of isolating taphonomy as a separatediscipline, Martin in his Taphonomy: A Process Approachgives it a central role in the study and interpretation ofthe fossil record as a source of environmental informa-tion. He has done an excellent job in single-handedlycombining information from about 1500 references (in-cluding ~100 books), a task nowadays usually onlycompleted in multi-authored books. The entire field oftaphonomy is dealt with. Starting with the founda-tions and methodology of taphonomy, chapters dealwith necrolysis, transport, abrasion, dissolution anddiagenesis of vertebrate, invertebrate and plant remains.Special chapters deal with such topics as bioturbation,time-averaging, exceptional preservation and the roleof (mega)cycles in preservation and biomineralization.Applied taphonomy and taphonomy as a historical sci-ence conclude this book. From these contents it isalready clear that this is the first time a book covers somany aspects of taphonomy as well as placing it insuch a wide context.

Martin’s zest to collect so much taphonomicinformation from the literature is incredibly useful: thebook forms an excellent source for references and it isreally up-to-date with a couple of references to 1999papers added in proof at the end of some chapters. Asthe author states in his preface, due to the interdisci-plinary character of taphonomy and the burgeoning lit-erature it is impossible for taphonomists to pay atten-tion to all relevant publications. We need reviews suchas the one Martin has written, just as Martin neededearlier reviews. However, reading Martin’s book onesometimes would like to see all this information some-what more ‘digested’; if the author had given summa-ries at the end of each chapter this would facilitate read-ing and strengthen the message of the book. However,from the preface we learn that Martin wanted, in somecases, to present contradictory data or interpretationsand have the readers decide for themselves. The bookis aimed at advanced students and professional earthscientists, paleontologists and biologists, but also thesemight wish to hear Martin’s opinion (at least I do). As akind of summary at the end of the book Martin addsten taphonomic rules to the ten published earlier byWilson and presented here in chapter one. I have someminor critical remarks.

Although I agree with the author on the impor-tance of bioturbation as a process in taphonomy, I don’tsee the direct relevance of derivation of mathematicalmodels for bioturbation. Do the 43 equations in thischapter help to convince the reader of the importanceof bioturbation? Second, despite many publicationson the role of predators in crushing shells (e.g. Vermeij,1987, Evolution and Escalation), shell fragmentation

in Martin’s book is still related only to physical factorsoperating in high-energy environments (Table 2.4). Iam quite convinced by my own studies in Recent low-energy environments such as the Ria de Arosa in Spainand the sheltered Dutch Wadden Sea that also thereshell fragmentation can be very high, not related tohigh energy but to high predation pressure. Thanksto quantitative data present for the Wadden Sea onboth predators, in particular birds and crabs, and onthe amount of bivalves they consume, I estimate thatat least 75% of the bivalves are crushed. This explainsthe high amount of fragments present in Wadden Seasediments (1994, Palaeontology 37: 181-202).Johannes Walther (1910, also cited by Martin) stressedthe role of predators based on his studies in the Medi-terranean Sea near Naples. Apparently it takes a longtime to integrate biological information into geology.

The book can be seen as a warning fortaphonomists to publish only in English if they wantto become incorporated in the mainstream oftaphonomic research. Less than 1% of Martin’s refer-ences are non-English papers (German and French).For example, we will not learn from this book what isgoing on in Russian taphonomic research nor becomeacquainted with the many taphonomic papers in Span-ish. Language barriers seem to be increasing in im-portance. This has apparently nothing to do withfranco-, germano- or other phobias as I once thought.However, it implies a serious ‘information loss’.

Despite these minor criticisms, I wish to con-gratulate Martin who produced a major up-to-date re-view of taphonomy. It forms stimulating reading, amust for all those interested in fossils and the pro-cesses that have led to their preservation, but for awider readership it should be a convincing plea for therelevance of taphonomy to the understanding of thenature of the stratigraphic record.

Gerhard C. Cadée,Netherlands Institute for Sea ResearchDen Burg,Texel.The Netherlands

PATTERNS AND PROCESSES OF VERTEBRATEEVOLUTION, by R.L. Carroll, 1997, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, $85.00 (cloth), $39.95(paper)

A century ago, vertebrate paleontologists suchas Edward Drinker Cope and Henry Fairfield Osbornactively promoted their own, somewhat idiosyncraticideas of evolution, based on their knowledge of the ver-tebrate fossil record. Fifty-five years ago, GeorgeGaylord Simpson published Tempo and Mode in Evolu-tion, which tried to show that the vertebrate recordwas consistent with the newly emerging Neo-Darwin-ian synthesis. Since that time, however, vertebratepaleontologists have not been major players inpaleontologically-inspired debates over evolution (es-pecially macroevolution and the punctuated equilib-rium-species sorting debates). Although the vertebratefossil record is not as dense and continuous as that ofmany invertebrates, our superior understanding ofmany living vertebrate groups would seem to be a solidfoundation for important insights into evolutionaryprinciples. When vertebrate paleontologists have beenparticipants in the evolution debates in recent years,they have mostly played a reactive role, defending

19

Simpson and Neo-Darwinism against the challengers.Thus, it is an important (and long overdue)

event when a prominent vertebrate paleontologist suchas Robert L. Carroll (whose 1988 tome, Vertebrate Pa-leontology and Evolution, is considered the successorto A.S. Romer’s definitive text) examines the vertebraterecord for its implications for evolution. As the dedi-cation to Simpson indicates, however, Carroll’s back-ground and biases are on the conservative side, with askeptical bias against many of the newer developmentsin evolutionary theory. This is particularly apparentin his criticisms of the punctuated equilibrium/mac-roevolution debate. In his first chapter, he introducesbasic ideas about macroevolution, and points out thatDarwin was wrong “in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populationsand species” (p.8). In the next chapter, he concedesthat “species that show little variability were obviouslyboth common and long lived. Fossils showing transi-tion between species are rare and confined to shortstratigraphic intervals. Few well-studied examples fromthe record of fossil invertebrates show a pattern of evo-lution such as that predicted by Darwin, with gradualand progressive change within and between speciesover long periods of time” (p. 26). It would seem fromthese statements that he has just agreed with the ba-sic ideas of punctuated equilibrium. Yet later in thechapter, he trots out the tired old arguments aboutincompleteness of the fossil record (ignoring the factthat stasis can be detected even in an incompleterecord), the difficulty in assessing the relative preva-lence of punctuation and gradualism (ignoring manyrecent examples that survey entire faunas), and thecomplaint that there is no mechanism to explain thelong-term stability of species (which is not a liability,but a major challenge suggested by the macroevolu-tionary debate - conventional mechanisms of homeo-stasis, such as balanced polymorphism, or environ-mental stability, are insufficient to explain the stabil-ity of species over millions of years through well-docu-mented climate changes).

He devotes the entire third chapter to review-ing examples of microevolutionary changes docu-mented in living species (especially the Galapagosfinches). Finally, in the fifth and sixth chapters, hediscusses the patterns of evolution in the vertebraterecord. Unfortunately, he confines his discussion pri-marily to late Cenozoic mammals, citing the summa-ries of Barnosky (1987, Current Mammalogy 1:109-147), Martin and Barnosky (1993, editors, Morphologi-cal Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America,Cambridge University Press) and Barnosky et al. (1996,in Paleoecology and Palaeoenvironments of Late Ceno-zoic Mammals, edited by K.M. Stewart, University ofToronto Press). Carroll focuses on the few examples ofgradual, anagenetic changes documented in these stud-ies, while the clear message from their surveys is thatthe majority of Pleistocene mammals that have beenstudied show either stasis or random non-directionalchanges that result in no net change or new species.When these cases are added together, non-directionalchange or stasis far outweighs gradual change in Pleis-tocene mammals. More importantly, the classic Neo-Darwinian studies he cites in Chapter 3 are aboutgradual change in direct response to climatic changes.What Carroll fails to notice is that even the directionalchanges in Pleistocene mammals are not correlatedwith the frequent climate changes through the Ice Ages,

and most species show no directional change throughmultiple climatic cycles. As Barnosky (1994, Histori-cal Biology 8:173-190) put it, “ climatic oscillations onthe multi-millennial scale may not stimulate specia-tion much.”

Nor is it true that the Pleistocene is the onlydensely continuous, high-resolution mammalian recordthat could be studied in the macroevolution debate.The Eocene-Oligocene White River Group of the HighPlains is equally dense and continuous on a timescaleof less that tens of thousands of years, and can also becorrelated with well known global climatic changes.Prothero and Heaton (1996, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclim.Palaeoec. 127:239-256) surveyed the entire White RiverChronofauna over a 20 million year span of strata andfound only a handful of gradual changes, and stasis inover 170 lineages. More importantly, those few gradualchanges, and almost all the episodes of speciation andextinction documented in this interval do not coincidewith known climatic events. In fact, during the largestclimatic event of the Cenozoic (as documented byplants, soils, snails, reptiles and amphibians), 62 outof 70 lineages of mammals continue unchanged, clearlydemonstrating that climatic change does not drive evo-lution or speciation in mammals.

Stasis is also prevalent in other areas wheredense, continuous records of mammals have beendocumented, such as the early Eocene Bighorn Basinof Wyoming. Detailed monographs by Bown (1979,Mem. Geol. Surv. Wyoming 2:151 p.), Schankler (1980,Univ. Michigan Pap. Paleont. 24:99-114), and Gingerich(1989, Univ. Michigan. Pap. Paleont. 28:97 p.) haveshown that stasis is prevalent among most of the taxaduring this interval (despite papers which feature thefew apparent examples of gradualism). Although notthat many complete faunas have been adequately sur-veyed, some exceptionally well sampled lineages, suchas horses, are replete with examples of stasis andbushy, branching speciation (MacFadden, 1992, Fos-sil Horses, Cambridge Univ. Press). Instead, Carrollfocuses on the gaps between lineages, and the few ex-amples of anagenetic changes within lineages (p. 69).

In the next chapter, Carroll reviews the recordof Pleistocene reptiles and amphibians, and must con-cede that they showed enormous stasis through theIce Ages. But then he tries to dismiss this fact withthe ad hoc statement that “this, however, can be seenas but one end of a spectrum of rates of changes, withcertain mammalian groups on the other. It in no waysupports Gould and Eldredge’s assumption that mostspecies are incapable of phyletic evolution” (p. 118).But if gradualism is rarer than Carroll admits, andreptiles and amphibians show nothing but stasis, thenthe spectrum is clearly weighted heavily toward sta-sis. This is exactly what Gould and Eldredge predicted.

Once these contentious issues have been cov-ered, Carroll does an excellent job of reviewing manyof the newer developments of evolution as exhibited inthe vertebrates. Chapters 8 and 10 examine the issueof evolutionary constraints, but Carroll does not con-nect this to the issue of stasis in species. Chapter 9summarizes conventional population genetics, whichseems somewhat out of place in a book which focuseson mostly macroevolutionary issues. Carroll is at hisbest when he discusses the many exciting discoveriesin development and embryology (Chapter 10), includ-ing the revolutionary implications of homeotic genes.Yet he fails to make the connection behind many of

20

these studies - that large-scale homeotic changes arejust the kind of macroevolutionary, “hopeful monster”,leaps in morphology that would lead to new specieswithout gradual change. Such macromutations wouldexplain the major changes in evolutionary Bauplänewithout intermediates, and their long-term stabilitysince the major phyla and classes first appeared. Hewrites (p. 263) “it is not possible to demonstrate thatchanges brought about by mutation in developmentalsystems have never produced significant jumps fromone phenotype to another. Many large gaps are knownbetween the morphology of ancestral and descendantlineages, but most can be attributed to the absence ofappropriate fossil-bearing beds in the intervening pe-riod”. That’s an ad hoc way to explain it, but suchlarge homeotic changes would occur so rapidly (possi-bly even in a single generation) that not even the bestfossil record would ever sample them. In this case,the support for the homeotic mutant-hopeful monstermodel would not come from the fossil record directly,but is supported by the prevalence of rapid changesfollowed by periods of stasis, and also by argumentsabout the prevalence of such changes in the livingfauna, and the inviability of many intermediate forms(Frazzetta, 1975, Complex Adaptations in EvolvingPopulations, Sinauer).

The book concludes with reviews of the manyexcellent examples of evolutionary transitions nowbecoming better documented in the vertebrate record(particularly the origin of tetrapods, birds, mosasaursand whales). The final chapter discusses major ex-amples of evolutionary radiation in the vertebraterecord, and briefly summarizes (but does not critique)research on plate-tectonic effects on evolution, and themass-extinction debates. Unfortunately, the latest dataon mass extinctions change so fast that this sectionhas become dated already.

In summary, Carroll has written a provocativebook that would be valuable for evolutionary biolo-gists and paleontologists who wish to review the cur-rent understanding of vertebrate evolution. However,the reader should be aware that Carroll approachesthe more contentious issues with Simpson-coloredglasses, and sees very little merit in most of the evolu-tion debates, because he misses the central points ofthe arguments, or sees only the cases that support hisbiases. A book such as this demonstrates that verte-brate paleontologists have too long been away fromthe “high table” and have been relegated to a role asminor players in the macroevolution controversy. Yetthe quality of their fossil record is sufficient that ver-tebrates should have a much greater say in how weview evolution in the future. Hopefully, future verte-brate paleontologists will take up this challenge.

Donald R. ProtheroDepartment of GeologyOccidental CollegeLos AngelesCA 90041

FOSSILS OF OHIO, edited by R.M. Feldmann andM. Hackathorn. 1996, Ohio Geological Survey Bul-letin 70, 577 p.; $18.00 (paper)

Ohio is in the heartland of American paleon-tology, with such well-known fossils as Ordovicianbrachiopods, crinoids and trilobites around Cincinnati,the remarkable Devonian trilobites of Sylvania, Devo-

nian fish from Cleveland and Pennsylvanian fish andamphibians of Linton. The 22 species of amphibiansfrom Linton, including Amphibamus and Ophiderpeton,are one of the most diverse assemblages of Pennsylva-nian amphibians known anywhere. Dunkleosteus andTitanichthys from the Devonian are two of the largestand most ferocious looking arthrodires known. I haveseen the distinctive black Phacops rana from Sylvaniaor gray Flexicalymene meeki from near Cincinnati inmuseum displays in Tokyo, Sydney and Milan, and inrock shops in London, Toronto, Beijing, Nairobi, andChristchurch. These Ohio fossils are internationalambassadors for North American paleontology.

Fossils are also in the hearts of many Ohioans,including dedicated members of the Mid-America Pa-leontology Society (MAPS), and this book is addressedto this largely amateur audience . Each chapter in-cludes much introductory material, and takes painsto introduce diagnostic characters of fossil species andeven keys. This is not to say that this is only a bookfor amateurs. The individual chapters were written byprofessional paleontologists. They give comprehensivespecies lists and numerous illustrations. It is an in-dispensable source for identifying fossils from Ohio,useful for amateur and professional alike. This bookbrought me up to date with the correct identificationsof a number of common Cincinnati fossils such as thecrinoid Pycnocrinus dyeri (no longer “Glyptocrinus”) andthe nautiloid Cameroceras inaequale (no longer“Endoceras”). Within my own specialty of paleobotany,the book includes Hans Kerp’s recent emendations ofPermian and Late Pennsylvanian seed fern leaves toAutunia and Rhachiphyllum (both formerly in“Callipteris”).

The book is overly thick for a paperback, andthe flimsy binding of my copy is already showing strain.This problem is exacerbated by wasteful use of spacefor plates and captions in the traditional style of pale-ontology, invented to overcome limitations of nineteenthcentury printing technology. A more engaging blendof text and images is now possible, and desirable.

All in all this is an indispensable reference forany one interested in fossils of the North Americanheartland, which of course are indigenous to rocks wellbeyond Ohio’s borders and into Canada, and now areleading a global diaspora of fossil collectibles. With itsvery reasonable price, it is exceptionally good value. Irecommend it highly.

Gregory J. RetallackDepartment of Geological SciencesUniversity of OregonEugeneOR 97403

COOL-WATER CARBONATES, edited by N.P. Jamesand J.A.D. Clarke, 1997: Society for SedimentaryGeology, Tulsa, Oklahoma. SEPM Special Publica-tion no 56; 440 p.; $79.00 (cloth, for members ofSEPM), $ 111.00 (cloth, non-members).

Thomas H. Huxley, in his famous lecture “On apiece of chalk” (1868), stated: “The language of thechalk is not hard to learn, not nearly so hard as Latin,if you want to get at the broad features of the story ithas to tell”. In this lecture he compares the composi-tion of the English chalk, with its numerousglobigerinids and coccoliths, with the recently discov-ered deep-sea Globigerina ooze and concludes that the

21

English chalk must be a deep-sea deposit (and thus,we may infer, a cool-water carbonate). Of course, hav-ing learned a little bit more of “the language of thechalk”, we no longer agree with all Huxley’s views, norwith his statement that “the language is easy to learn”,but still, reading his masterly lecture, we can under-stand that he was able to captivate his public.

Noel James explains, in his excellent introduc-tion to Cool-Water Carbonates, that traditionally ma-rine carbonates from the geological record becameviewed as warm-water deposits and present day car-bonate sedimentation was thought to be restricted tothe tropics. In the “golden age of carbonate research”(1950-1980), studies of Recent marine carbonates,therefore, concentrated around such pleasant areasfor diving as Florida, the Bahamas or the Great Bar-rier Reef. This view changed in the 1960’s when infor-mation was collected on present-day calcareous sedi-ments forming well outside the tropics, and it becameclear that carbonates could form at all latitudes aslong as input of terrigenous clastic sediment was low.I doubt whether the paper by K.E. Chave (1967, J.Geol. Education 15: 200-204) was the turning point asJames suggests. Already in the 1950’s the use of oxy-gen isotope ratios as a paleothermometer by Urey andEmiliani had indicated that the average temperaturein the Late Cretaceous was below 20oC, implying thatmost carbonates from that period must be of cool-waterorigin. Certainly the papers by A. Lees & A.T. Buller(Marine Geol. 13: 67-73; & 19: 159-198) in the early1970’s, also mentioned by James, were influential inchanging our views. Cool-water carbonates were dis-covered on the northwest European shelf as far northas Spitsbergen, off South Africa and New Zealand, butthe most extensive virtually pure carbonates werefound on the shelf off southern Australia. As a conse-quence, some fossil limestones also were reinterpretedas cool-water deposits. Lees introduced his two widelyaccepted skeletal-grain associations: a “foramol” fromtemperate waters and a “chlorozoan” from warm wa-ter. Foramol is mainly debris of benthic forams andmolluscs, as well as barnacles, bryozoans and calcar-eous algae. Chlorozoan includes significant contribu-tions of hermatypic corals and calcareous green al-gae. Noel James, and with him probably most En-glish-reading geologists, overlooked the fact that al-ready in the 1940’s part of the European Upper Creta-ceous carbonates were interpreted as “boreal” and thuscool-water deposits (e.g. by J.A. Jeletzky, published inGerman), differing in faunal composition from thewarmer carbonates from the Tethys area. Finn Surlyk’schapter on cool-water carbonate accumulations fromthe Late Cretaceous-Danian of the Danish Basin dealswith part of this Boreal Realm. Gabrielle Carannanteet al. in their contribution on Upper Cretaceous car-bonates from Italy and Sardinia explain that evenaround the warmer Tethys, open-shelf, temperate-typeforamol carbonates occurred. This book gives an up-to-date overview of our increased knowledge of cool-water carbonates.

In his introduction Noel P. James gives argu-ments to replace Lees’ now well-known terminology(foramol by heterozoan; chlorozoan by photozoan). Theterm photozoan association emphasizes the light-de-pendent nature of biota due to their photosymbionts.These are real warm-water carbonates (bottom tem-perature > 22oC). He subdivides heterozoan associa-tions (mainly biota not dependent on light) into sub-

tropical, temperate, sub-polar and polar, based on theirmineralogy and biota.

Of the 23 papers following James’ introduction,9 are devoted to modern environments (6 southernAustralia, 1 New Zealand, 2 northern Europe). Sevenpapers deal with Tertiary environments (mostly fromAustralia) and another seven with Meso- and Paleo-zoic environments, with a good mixture of Europeanand North American examples.

Many aspects of cool-water carbonates are cov-ered. I missed the role of shell-crushing predators inthe production of fragments of carbonate skeletons;very fine particles may be formed in this process as Ihave demonstrated (Palaeontology 37: 181-202). Fora discussion of the use of isotopic composition ofcarbonate-secreting organisms, I found the paper byHossain Rahimpour-Bonab et. al. informative. It showsthe many complications in using 18O/16O and 13C/12Cratios as proxies for temperature: different groups oforganisms give different results. I was delighted to seeAdeona, one of my “pet” bryozoans, secrete its arago-nite skeleton almost in equilibrium with its environ-ment. This bryozoan can thus be used inpaleotemperature studies, provided diagenetic alter-ation is absent. But does this hold for all Bryozoabelonging to different genera, families or orders, somenow extinct? Probably not.

Cool-Water Carbonates is a well-produced book,the illustrations are of high quality. (Stephen J. Gould- see his essay “Left snails and right minds” in Dino-saurs in a Haystack - may add fig. 7 of p. 145 to hiscollection of illustrations showing right-coiled gastro-pods as left-coiled). The book is a must for those work-ing on carbonates, and a rich source of informationfor all other geologists. Despite study for more than30 years, cool-water carbonates do not get the atten-tion they need. In a recent textbook (Sedimentary En-vironments, edited by H.G. Reading, 3rd ed., 1996,Blackwell) they are mentioned, but the chapter on car-bonate environments devotes >99% of its space towarm-water carbonates. Editors Noel P. James andJonathan A.D. Clarke hope to change this neglect. Icongratulate them on this book.

Gerhard C. CadéeNeth. Inst. Sea ResearchPO Box 591790 AB den Burg,Texel,Netherlands

EVOLUTION OF TERTIARY MAMMALS OF NORTHAMERICA: VOLUME 1. TERRESTRIAL CARNI-VORES, UNGULATES, AND UNGULATELIKE MAM-MALS, edited by C.M. Janis, K.M. Scott and L.L.Jacobs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,691 p.: $260.00 (cloth).

This long-awaited publication is destined tobecome a standard reference for many years to come.At the price, it had better be. It is primarily a taxo-nomic summary to generic level of large mammals inthe North American Tertiary (not including Quaternary,except for a very brief summary by Russell Graham)by an assembled multitude of specialists. Each chap-ter is very uniformly presented, surprisingly so for amulti-author volume, and includes reconstructions andillustrations of selected taxa, cladograms and rangecharts. An important feature is the consistent code of

22

localities, which gives the volume great cross-refer-encing capability. There is no chapter on the fauna ofthe Rattlesnake Formation (late Miocene, Oregon), butif you would like one (as I recently did), a list can eas-ily be extracted from this volume by looking for thelocality code (PN12) in each chapter.

The summary of North American Land Mam-mal “Ages” by Don Prothero is useful, but consideringthe way their radiometric ages and international cor-relation have bounced about in recent years, one won-ders how long it will be good. Duchesnean is nowrespectable and as old as middle Eocene. Chadronianis late Eocene. The Clarkforkian has withered to onlya half million years duration. The Pliocene/Pleistoceneboundary is at 1.8 Ma.

Another initial summary chapter by Scott Wingprovides an overview of paleobotanical evidence formammalian habitats. It is an impressionistic visionof vegetation, limited in its application to mammals,which commonly are found in different beds, and pre-sumably different habitats, than the fossil mammals.

Many changes in oreodont taxonomy are pro-posed by Bruce Lander, for whom such a perennialfavorite as Merycoidodon culbertsoni becomesProdesmatochoerus periculorum. The recommendedchange is based on a zealous interpretation of priorityand suitability of type specimens. A traditionaloreodont taxonomy has been offered by MargaretStevens (1996, cited in this volume), and the editorshave helpfully supplied an appendix of synonymousnames.

The volume is graced by a large number of spir-ited and attractive restorations mainly by Brian Re-gal, with some also by Marlene Donnelly, Ted Browne,Paula Denham, Henry Galiano, Larry Martin, WendyZomlefer, Rick Spears, and Margaret Stevens. Other-wise it is sparsely illustrated with line drawings of teeth,cladograms and range charts. The text, however, isconcise, authoritative and clearly presented. I foundit a pleasure to consult, but a chore to read.

As an essential reference this book belongs inevery geological library. The price will prevent its ac-quisition by many.

Gregory RetallackDepartment of Geological SciencesUniversity of OregonEugene OR 97403-1272

HIMALAYAN CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES, by P.A. Jelland N.C. Hughes, 1997, Special Papers inPalaeontology 58, 113 p.; $40.00 (paper)

This monograph is of the high quality that oneexpects from Special Papers in Palaeontology and be-gins with a detailed page of contents followed by theabstract. The introduction is mostly concerned withthe history of geological and biostratigraphic studiesof the Himalayan region and the challenges the regionposes. Following this is a detailed discussion of thegeologic setting of the region. The next section is onbiostratigraphy, and reviews various outcrop areas andcorrelates them. After this is a section on provincial-ism and paleobiogeography that discusses the confu-sion of the affinities of this region and provides solu-tions. A short section on computer restoration of tec-tonically altered specimens is next. The final and long-est section of the monograph (p. 18-105) is systemat-ics.

The Himalayas have long been a poorly under-stood, yet important, region for paleontological corre-lation. Past work has often produced more problemsthan solutions by over splitting species, and in somecases outright fraud. The Himalayas are a key areaallowing correlations between China, Kazakhstan andAustralia. But the remoteness of the region, its harshenvironment and structural complexity have madework in the region a slow process. This work helpsbring the Cambrian trilobites of the region into thetwentieth century.

The opening section is on the geologic settingof the region. This section is very interesting and im-parts many of the difficulties of working in an areawith such a high degree of structural complexity. Themost obvious difficulty is in correlating isolated out-crop belts. However, this section could have been im-proved by a map that included all of the place namesand regions used in the discussion. By carefully read-ing the text and cross referencing places it is possibleto find all of the areas discussed, but it was confusingat times. Other than this problem, the section dealswell with the difficult geology of the Himalayas.

Jell and Hughes have done a wonderful job ofproviding a biostratigraphic framework for the Cam-brian of the Himalayan region by placing it into theChinese sequence of zones. Before this revision, theframework of Himalayan Cambrian trilobite stratigra-phy was that of Reed in 1910 – even in papers pub-lished this decade. This work has allowed an accuratecorrelation between isolated outcrop belts that was notavailable before.

One of the fascinating aspects of this mono-graph was the removal of tectonic distortion in someof the specimens. The results look so good after thecorrections that if the plates did not provide before andafter pictures, it would be difficult to imagine how dis-torted the specimens were.

This section was followed by the systematicportion of the monograph. The descriptions of the taxaare clear and concise. The corrections for tectonic dis-tortion have allowed Jell and Hughes to synonymizemany taxa, producing a realistic picture of the diver-sity of the region. All 32 plates are beautifully photo-graphed and reproduced making examinations of thedescribed details easy and straightforward. Their qual-ity adds greatly to the utility of this monograph. Over-all this monograph is of very high quality, and I wouldrecommend it to all Cambrian trilobite workers.

Michael B. CuggySchool of Geography and GeologyMcMaster UniversityHamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8Canada

DINOSAURS OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALANDAND OTHER ANIMALS OF THE MESOZOIC ERA, byJohn A. Long. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,188 p.; $39.95 (cloth)

Of the making of dinosaur books, there is noend. Many of them like this handsome book have a“coffee table” format and are pitched at a popular au-dience. But “Dinosaurs of Australia and New Zealand”stands out for its intriguing subject matter, its highstandard of dinosaur art and its inclusion of technicaldata.

Australasian dinosaurs are intriguing because

23

they remain so incompletely known. This book color-fully and skillfully introduces a surprising diversity ofcreatures, often based on a single bone or fossil tracks.Among the many surprises are Early Cretaceousornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, ankylosaurs andneoceratopsians: all better known from much youngerCretaceous rocks in the northern hemisphere. On theother hand, Early Cretaceous Australian allosaurs andlabyrinthodonts were anachronisms long extinct else-where in the world. Also introduced is an Australianpterosaur pelvis probably not suited to bipedal loco-motion. The early Triassic therapsid Lystrosaurus mayhave been on every continent after all, with the discov-ery of fossil tracks in Australia. A variety of dinosaurbones are now turning up in Western Australia, farfrom the well-known sites of Queensland and Victoria.Among mammals, two monotreme species and a pla-cental are now known from a handful of Early Creta-ceous specimens. One can sense the excitement of re-search in an early phase of discovery, where new in-formation is still rapidly accumulating. Long’s book isquite up-to-date for 1998 and is littered with personalcommunications of work in progress.

Dinosaur art has long colored the way we lookat these beasts, and has now developed very high stan-dards indeed. Many of the reconstructions in this bookare outstanding, and include several by Peter Truslerand Peter Schouten made famous as Australian post-age stamps. Also notable are reconstructions of ma-rine reptiles by William Stout and Brian Choo. TonyWindberg’s memorable Aussie allosaur, snorting warmmist on a chilly fall morning, graces the dust jacketand an inside spread.

I am amazed that readers and reviewers balkat technical terms from igneous petrology, soil scienceor invertebrate paleontology, but acquiesce in suchlanguage as this- “the rodlike lesser trochanter is lowerthan the greater trochanter and separated from it by ashallow (or no) cleft, a very shallow anterior intercondy-lar groove distally and a thin ‘sheet-like’ lateralcondyle.” Perhaps it is acceptable because quasi-medi-cal. Nevertheless, many professionals will enjoy suchpassages that give important details, all set off in spe-cial sections headed “technical data.” Come to thinkof it, I have met a few six year olds (including my ownson at that age) who enthusiastically roll off nameslike Pachycephalosaurus. Some kids get a taste fortechnical jargon.

The book has few flaws. A spectacular pictureof a nearly complete pliosaur from Queensland isundescribed in the text. And there are other Mesozoicmillipedes than the ones found with Siderops. Longadvocates the idea that Late Cretaceous extinction ofdinosaurs was presaged by decline due to a concat-enation of deteriorating circumstances. My own fa-miliarity with the North American evidence on whichthis view is based (Australian and New Zealand recordsremain inadequate) inclines me more to extinction fromacid rain and other effects of asteroid impact. In thisdebate, however, we are both in good company.

All in all, this book is an exceptionally goodvalue for the price, an attractive and intriguing accountof discoveries in progress. It succeeds well both as awork of art for the general public and a technical ref-erence.

Gregory J. RetallackDepartment of Geological Sciences

University of OregonEugene OR 97403-1272

A SHORT HISTORY OF PLANET EARTH: MOUN-TAINS, MAMMALS, FIRE AND ICE, by J.D.Macdougall, 1996; John Wiley & Sons, New York,266 p.: $14.95 (paper).

A practicing paleontologist (I haven’t yet got itright) is perhaps the wrong person to review a booksuch as this. It is, as the cover blurb indicates, de-signed as an introduction for the lay reader. To incor-porate a history of the Earth in a single volume, for alay or any other audience, it is of course necessary fordetails to be ignored and perhaps even for uncertain-ties to be painted over. I am sure that this would be anirritation to many specialists, as it was to me, but thebook is not targeted at a professional audience, so per-haps we should suffer in silence.

The book is essentially chronological in arrange-ment with a few digressions. It begins with a chapteron ‘reading the rocks’, which contains a brief discus-sion of the time scale, classes of rocks, the structureof the earth and plate tectonics. From this we progressthrough the ‘Early Days’ of accretion and differentia-tion and a short discussion of the Archean. ‘Wonder-ful Life’ borrows a title from Stephen Gould, but thetopic predates that discussed by him; it is about theemergence of life in the Archean. We then move intothe Proterozoic before digressing into a discussion ofplate tectonics, geological correlation and radiometricdating. After the Cambrian Explosion, the Paleozoicand the Mesozoic we take another digression into glo-bal catastrophes (mass extinctions) before returningto the chronological trail with the Cenozoic and theQuaternary (the Great Ice Age). The final chapter ismore or less about the future and concentrates on thefinite nature of mineral resources as well as terrestrialand extraterrestrial hazards. A glossary and a shortsection on further reading follow.

To write a history of the planet requires a broad,if not detailed, knowledge of many disciplines over awide sweep of time, something that very few geoscien-tists possess. Therefore, to compile a book like thismost geoscientists would either depend on input fromcolleagues or from other printed sources. The lattercourse seems to have been the option preferred inMacdougall’s book. This creates an immediate prob-lem in that, because of the rate of change of knowl-edge near the end of the 20th century, books tend tobe rather dated as soon as they hit the shops. This isparticularly true in paleontology that seems to be un-dergoing paroxysmal paradigm perturbations un-matched for much of its history.

The book is, for the most part, fairly well writ-ten and I could detect no typographical errors (no doubtdue to the advent of spell checkers). However, there isthe occasional turgid and turbid sentence that requiresre-reading to gain understanding. There seems to bean underutilisation of figures, with a limited numberbeing used. In this regard, I wonder how a lay personwould understand the difference between a prokary-ote and eukaryote when there are no illustrations andwhen the glossary lists eukaryote as: “An organism withcells containing a nucleus, chromosomes, and otherinternal structures (eukaryotic cells). This type of celltypifies all organisms except the bacteria andcyanophytes”! This is poorly written and explains little.Furthermore, the development of the eukaryote cell

24

from prokaryotes is stated to have occurred when oneprokaryote “engulfed another, intending, it is presumed,to consume it. Instead, the engulfed cell carried on,living in happy symbiosis and being modified along theway”. Surely symbiosis preceded indigestion!

There are other problems with the paleontologi-cal side of the book, in part because of the reliance onsecondary sources. For instance, a figure is reproducedfrom Gould’s Wonderful Life that shows the famousBurgess Shale Hallucigenia upside down, an error whichwas corrected several years ago. Macdougall also seemsto be unaware of something rather closer to home; i.e.that Australopithecus was certainly bipedal, with thepelvis and leg structure of Lucy and the Laetoli track-way demonstrating this rather conclusively.

It may be because of my relative ignorance oftectonics that I found the best parts of the book to bethose that dealt with descriptions of the tectonic devel-opment of the Appalachians and Himalayas. I foundthem easy to read and straightforward enough to beable to easily visualize the processes involved. I sus-pect that this topic is one that Macdougall knows muchmore about, and it is not simply my ignorance thatmakes these portions of the book better than thosedealing with the history of life. I also found the ar-rangement of the chapters sensible, in that it was es-sentially chronological (befitting a history), with diver-sions into explanations of major concepts more or lessas they were required to continue the narrative. Insummary, I found the book rather disappointing in itsinexpert tackling of paleontological themes, but theremainder easy to read and informative.

John LaurieAGSO, GPO Box 378Canberra ACT 2601Australia

FOSSILIEN IM VOLKSGLAUBEN UND IM ALLTAG:BEDEUTUNG UND VERWENDUNG VORZEITLICHERTIER- UND PFLANZENRESTE VON DER STEINZEITBIS HEUTE, by E. Thenius and N. Vávra, 1996,Senckenberg Buch, Frankfurt, 179 p.; DM 38 (cloth).

Fossils have a strange fascination not only topaleontologists and paleobotanists, but through theages, also to most humans. Thenius and Vávra care-fully examine this long-time interest and infatuationfrom the perspective of modern paleontologists andpaleobotanists. This beautifully illustrated book isabout fossils in folklore and in our everyday life. Theauthors first explain the different ways fossils are pre-served and summarize the many groups of organismsthat are common fossils. Although the emphasis is onfossilization and fossils that have historical significanceand artistic uses, such as amber, vertebrate bones andammonoids, the excellent introduction is applicable toall fossils and is explained in simple terms that ama-teurs and beginning students will appreciate.

Thenius and Vávra illustrate and discuss thelong history and worldwide use of fossils to create andconstruct many imaginary creatures that were used soeffectively in early sagas and folklore, particularly Greekand Norse sagas. Extensions of these creatures intoforms with some familiar human or animal traits werecommon and resulted in the invention of many formssuch as unicorn horse-like forms, giants (based onmastodon teeth), dwarfs, one-eyed monsters, and anassortment of other wonders for the wide-eyed aston-

ishment of listeners and readers. Perhaps one of themost universal of these creatures is the dragon, someflying, others not, which appear in many culturesaround the world. Often used as a basis for sculp-tures in the form of griffons, gargoyles, and other statu-ary, they may perform useful duties as sculptured raindownspouts or water fountains, wall decorations andas signs of strength and bravery in heraldic coats-of-arms and flags.

The use of fossils has been widespread as aninspiration for works of art and many art forms. Fos-sils appear repeatedly on postage stamps, as decora-tive vases, boxes, and interest pieces, and their im-ages are copied on buttons and jewelry. Of course,fossiliferous limestones are widely used as buildingstones, paving stones, clock faces, wall facades, wall-facings in lobbies, boardrooms, and other parts ofbuildings, and as table tops and counters. The gor-geous luster of amber has long been used in necklacesand other jewelry. Early Homo sapiens quite faithfullycaptured in cave paintings the various animals thatthey hunted and probably used these paintings instory-telling and teaching. Some of this fossil art ispreserved in figurines on old coins and, more recently,in souvenir medals struck for special occasions andpurposes.

Included in the book is a well-written, concisesection of fossil fuels, their significance, and a shorthistory of how humans have used these fuels, how theywere located and excavated. In typical thoroughness,a glossary, very complete reference list, an overview ofthe classification of life, and an index complete thevolume.

Fossilien im Volksglauben und im Alltag is beau-tifully illustrated and a magnificent work of art. It pre-sents clear comparisons between a particular folkloreand the fossil that served as a source for that lore. Inaddition to its obvious interest as a collector’s discus-sion book, this lovely volume has many possibilitiesfor teaching and reference. It contains an excellentcoverage of how fossils, in such a great variety of ways,influence our cultural history and our everyday lives.Written in non-technical German, this readable text isideal for those who have been away from German for awhile, as it will refresh your language skills. You willbe captivated by this book with its many unique pho-tographs and illustrations.

June R.P. Ross and Charles A. RossDepartments of Biology and Geology (respectively),Western Washington University,Bellingham, WA 98233.

PALEONTOLOGICAL EVENTS: STRATIGRAPHIC,ECOLOGICAL, AND EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICA-TIONS: edited by Carleton E. Brett and Gordon C.Baird: 1997, Columbia University Press, New York,604 p.: $65.00 (cloth).

This welcome volume should be required read-ing for all paleontologists. It places great emphasis onthe need to understand the detailed sedimentary andstratigraphic deposits in which fossils occur and touse that information to interpret the broader signifi-cance of fossils and the fossil record. The papers clearlydemonstrate the advantages of extensive backgroundknowledge in sedimentology, biostratigraphy, andstratigraphy, as well as paleontology. They are divis-ible into: biosedimentary classification (4), Mid-Cam-

25

brian (1), Upper Ordovician (5), Lower and Middle Sil-urian (4), Middle and Upper Devonian (3), Pennsylva-nian (1), mid-Cretaceous (1) and Recent (1). It has arestricted stratigraphic and limited regional coverage.

The volume is divided into two parts. The firstnine papers are about relatively short-term geologicevents and how fossils are preserved and concentratedin thin sedimentary layers. The term Lagerstatten isused to identify a concentration of fossils in one or afew beds. Brett, Baird and Speyer recognize four typesof single event fossil Lagerstatten based on factors suchas mass mortality, rates of burial, types of sedimen-tary processes, and amount of transportation.Pemberton and MacEachern examine high-energytempestites. Five articles by Miller, Cuffey, Schumacherand Shrake, Holland, and Frey discuss various UpperOrdovician fossil occurrences. Johnson relates evolu-tion and ecology of Silurian pentamerid brachiopodsto particular water depth zones. Brett and Taylor in-terpret the famous Homocrinus beds of western NewYork and southern Ontario as instantaneously buriedcommunities. And Hickerson considers clusters ofMiddle Devonian trilobites on bedding planes as toolsfor recognizing widespread depositional events in Iowaand northwestern Illinois.

The second part of the volume (eleven papers)deals with longer-term events. The biostratigraphicinterpretations are well documented and they are goodexamples of using sedimentary data in conjunction withpaleontologic data. Eagan and Liddel explore MiddleCambrian stromatolites as bioevents. Loduca and Brettdiscuss the special circumstances of MedusaegraptusSilurian occurrences. Jeppson’s thoughtful paper onthe anatomy of the mid-Silurian Ireviken Event as ascenario for ‘Primo episode’ and ‘Secundo episode’events is a particularly welcome contribution to thevolume. Jeppson brings his wide interests in ocean-chemistry changes and their relationship to faunal cri-ses, and places them in a global context that he re-lates to Milankovitch obliquity patterns. Wolosz looksat Middle Devonian reefs, and McGhee examines LateDevonian faunal events. West, Feldman and Maplesdiscuss faunas of eight Upper Carboniferous event bedsin Kansas. Middle Cretaceous bioevents at differentscales are the subject of Sageman and coauthors.Rollins and West look at an event horizon on a recentbeach in Georgia. And Ausich examines encrinitebanks in the Paleozoic and Triassic.

Some terminology used in the volume poses aproblem. Brett and Baird use the tem ‘epibole” with adifferent meaning than its original definition. ‘Epibole’,according to the generally accepted definition (see AGIGlossary of geology) is (a) a synonym of acme-zone or(b) the deposits accumulated during a ‘hemera’. A‘hemera’ is (a) the geologic time unit corresponding toan acme-zone (Buckman, 1893); the time span of theacme, or greatest abundance, in a local section of thetaxonomic entity (Buckman, 1902); also the period oftime during which a race of organisms is at its apex ofevolution; or (b) as the AGI Glossary points out, a termthat is sometimes incorrectly applied to a biostrati-graphic zone (body of strata) comprising the time rangeof a particular fossil species.

Although Brett and Baird recognize that ‘epi-bole’ is an old term, they choose to redefine it ‘to de-note an unusual abundance of a taxon that is nor-mally rare to absent’. This is a completely differentdefinition and an inappropriate redefinition of an oth-

erwise well-understood term. Brett and coauthors havemisused ‘epibole’ in a similar manner in a number oftheir earlier publications. A new term for Brett andBaird’s concept is needed to avoid further confusion.They seem to be describing a ‘happenstance abun-dance’.

Paleontologists will find this an informative anduseful book. It brings together the need to detailedconsideration of sediments and the stratigraphic frame-work in which fossils are found. It includes excellentexamples, which are carefully interpreted. The writ-ing is clear and the discussion of complex topics iswell handled.

Charles A. Ross and June R. P. RossWestern Washington UniversityBellingham, WA 98225.

DINOSAURS-THE ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1997; andSupplement 1, 1999; by Donald F. Glut, McFarland& Company, Inc. Publishers, Jefferson (North Caro-lina) and London; 1076p. and 442p. respectively;hardback $145.00 and $60.00 respectively.

How does one bring together, in a comprehen-sive way, all we know about dinosaurs? Moreover, howcan one possibly compile a comprehensive list of alldinosaurs when every week a new discovery increasesthe number of the world’s dinosaur record? Perhapsthe answer is that it is not possible, as the task is fartoo reaching, never mind daunting, for one person, orpublisher, to undertake. Yet, Donald Glut, author ofthe far less ambitious The Dinosaur Dictionary, firstpublished in 1972, has risen to the occasion and hasproduced the most comprehensive overview of dino-saurs ever attempted.

The book has five principle parts. Part 1 is “ABackground,” which gives the reader information of“The Mesozoic Era” (the “Age of Dinosaurs”), and sec-tions on “Dinosaur Origins and Relationships”, “Birdsand Dinosaurs” (where he discusses Archaeopteryx,which is omitted in his “Dinosaur Genera” section, that,parenthetically, includes “Protoavis”), “Dinosaur Suc-cess,” and a review of the “ ‘Warm-Blooded’ versus ‘Cold-blooded’ Dinosaurs” and “Dinosaur Extinction.” In allthese sections, Glut provides a brief overview, touch-ing upon the salient parts of each. The result is abrief, but relatively balanced, presentation.

Part 2 is concerned with “Dinosaurian System-atics”, and here Glut presents a cladistic consensus ofthe higher taxonomic categories and the acceptedmonophyletic arrangement agreed on by most verte-brate paleontologists. Glut offers a cautionary notethat the systematic arrangement of taxa is ever chang-ing due to new discoveries and re-interpretation of data.

The “meat and potatoes” of this encyclopediais, unequivocally, Part 3 –“The Dinosaurian Genera”.Here we get a list, in alphabetical order, of all the dino-saurs known at the time of publication. Each dino-saur genus is discussed in enough detail to providethe reader with all the key facts pertaining to eachtaxon. Most entries include one or more photographsor drawings. Many of these illustrations have beenborrowed from the original sources, yet a number ofphotographs have been taken by Glut himself. Theresult is a cornucopia of visual vignettes intertwinedwithin the course of the text. Many of these illustra-tions, while not aesthetically pleasing, are nonethe-less very informative. The drawings and photographs

26

show the reader how complete, or in many cases, howincomplete, a number of the dinosaur holotype speci-mens really are.

Parts 4 and 5 are concerned with “NominaNuda” and “Excluded Genera” (from the Dinosauria),respectively. Although anticlimactic, these two sec-tions are, nonetheless, necessary in any comprehen-sive work such as this. A list of (institutional) abbre-viations, a glossary of terms (mostly osteological, ana-tomical and geological) and a hefty bibliography com-plete the volume.

Since its publication, this tome has been facedwith a conundrum: how to update or revise it to in-clude new dinosaur genera. The thought of revisingthe main work by inserting new taxa, in order to main-tain the alphabetical order, would be overwhelming.Fortunately, updated additions to the main volume willappear as their own “mini” volume, more like chrono-logical appendices. Clearly there are drawbacks to thisarrangement; however, the cost advantages to both thepurchaser and publisher are clear.

Now, who should buy this and subsequent vol-umes? Certainly libraries, amateur dinosaur enthusi-asts, teachers of introductory dinosaur courses (fornon-science majors), and even professional dinosaurpaleontologists will identify this work as a “must have”.I cannot overstate the amount of important informa-tion contained between the covers of this incrediblebook and its first supplement. While there are short-comings in some of the treatments of the dinosaur gen-era, these are certainly easily, and understandably,dismissed. On the whole this encyclopedia is an in-dispensable resource.

Robert M. SullivanSection of Paleontology and GeologyThe State Museum of Pennsylvania300 North StreetHarrisburgPennsylvania

GIDEON MANTELL AND THE DISCOVERY OF DI-NOSAURS, by Dennis R. Dean. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, New York, 1999, 290p.: $69.95 (cloth).

Gideon Mantell, the country doctor who namedIguanodon in 1825 and described much of the geologyand paleontology of the South Downs of Sussex, haslong needed a well-researched scientific biography.Mantell has found his champion in Dennis Dean, whocontributes a diligent and scholarly work that bringsout many aspects of Mantell’s long-neglected careerand its records, including a cache of materials in NewZealand that is given deserved recognition.

As the title of the book suggests, much of itsfirst half is devoted to the studies of fossil strata inEngland that eventually led to the discoveries of thegreat Mesozoic reptiles – not just dinosaurs, but ich-thyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and also the mo-sasaurs of Europe, as well as the fossil mammals inthe rocks that overlay them. Dean reminds us thatwhen Mantell first published Fossils of the South Downsin 1822, there was no geological system of rocks knownfor England, no idea of how old these rocks were, andonly the beginning sense that they could be lined upstratigraphically. Extinction was accepted but itscauses were unknown, and it was not accepted thatnew species could evolve. Mantell had a role in themost exciting time in the history of geology until the

discovery of plate tectonics. Whether he was an un-derestimated star, as Dean argues, or merely a bitplayer, as historians to date have maintained, is cen-tral to the book.

The discovery of dinosaurs is a difficult prob-lem to define. But then, so were the dinosaurs. Deanmaintains that Mantell was the most important figurein recognizing that the remains of these ancient quad-rupeds were reptilian, herbivorous, and different fromall other animals. Dinosaurs were not named until1842, when Richard Owen brought them outside andabove the status of other reptiles. The story beginsmore than 20 years earlier, when isolated teeth, frag-mentary limbs, and dissociated vertebrae of manyquadrupeds were emerging from quarries, collectedmostly by workmen. Megalosaurus and Iguanodon,the first two described animals that eventually turnedout to be dinosaurs, were first known from scraps thatrecalled the crocodiles and other large mysterious formsthat had been described by Cuvier in France as earlyas 1800. Cuvier, for want of a better assignment, hadincluded these anomalous French vertebrae with thoseof fossil crocodiles and gavials from the same area,and so it was natural for Mantell, William Buckland,and others to compare their English bones to those ofcrocodiles and lizards. But these men did not thenrealize that they were dealing with a completely newgroup, and Mantell was often as wrong about what hewas seeing as he was right. Cuvier was first shown acouple of Mantell’s worn fossil teeth by Lyell, and pro-nounced them from a rhinoceros, which devastatedMantell, who thought they were reptilian. EvenBuckland agreed that the teeth might have come fromoverlying mammal-bearing beds. But Dean shows thatLyell learned from Cuvier the next day that the baronhad second thoughts, and realized that they might bequite different from anything known. UnfortunatelyMantell does not seem to have known this at the time,and so the weight of Cuvier’s first impression held greatsway.

Eventually, however, Mantell sent a better se-ries of teeth to Cuvier, who suggested that they mightbe of a giant herbivorous reptile; and Mantell, visitingthe London collections, was advised by SamuelStutchbury to consult an iguana jaw. The rest is his-tory, perhaps, but circumstances suggest that othersseem all along to have pointed the impressionable anddeferential Mantell in the right directions. Cuvier mayhave been closer than anyone to recognizing dinosaurs,and was certainly the best scientist of the bunch; butultimately, it matters less who “discovered” the dino-saur than how the concept developed in its scientificand cultural setting.

On this point even Dean’s assiduous scholar-ship may not be enough to sustain the thesis ofMantell’s primacy. Mantell was only one of a numberof real or imagined rivals that Owen took pains to blud-geon politically and rhetorically throughout his longcareer. The main differences between Owen andMantell were that Owen was smarter and better con-nected, more ambitious, more aggressive, and moresuccessful. Mantell was a better writer and certainly abetter friend. Owen was a superb anatomist but nevera field worker; Mantell had strong local connectionsand much first-hand field experience, but was a lessassiduous anatomist. Both men could assimilate andexplain the work of others, but Owen could synthesizeprevious work into new paradigms for old questions,

27

whereas Mantell was clumsy at best with theory. Bothmen had ultimately unhappy home lives, but Mantell’swas far the worse. (Dean sparsely covers Mantell’slegendary neglect of his family, much of which wasunrecorded or later obliterated.)

Mantell suffered many reversals in his life, butDean refrains from analyzing character flaws that mayhave contributed to them. Dean’s book is interestingin part because it doesn’t accept the traditional view ofMantell but challenges it. The Mantell that emerges ismore gifted and original, his works more influentialand ground-breaking, his opponents overrated, hisinsights brilliant, his collections invaluable. Deancharitably recommends alternative assessments byAdrian Desmond, Nicolaas Rupke, and other scholars,though he largely dismisses their arguments. Perhapssome sympathy on all counts is warranted: it was adifferent age than ours, their issues and concerns werenot framed in our terms, and they were complex people.Mantell was scarcely better or worse than the others.

Despite some historiographic problems (Owenwas not sympathetic to the natural theologians, andhated being lumped with creationists) and outdatedstatements about current understanding of fossil ver-tebrates, this book is highly recommended, absorbingand readable, with fascinating details. (How many ofus knew that a portion of Mantell’s twisted spine wasdisplayed in the museum of the Royal College of Sur-geons until its destruction during World War II?) Themain drawback to this slim but informative volume isits price, which fits a trend that is rising progressivelyfaster than an academic’s budget.

Kevin PadianMuseum of PaleontologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON, PALEONTOLOGISTAND EVOLUTIONIST, by Léo F. Laporte. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York, 2000, 332 p.: $16.00(paper).

It hardly needs stating that G. G. Simpson is alegend. His name is attached to a vast number of aca-demic and popular papers and books (“He wrote 100papers in his first 10 years!” I was once told). Hebrought paleontology into the fold of the modern evo-lutionary synthesis. He vigorously opposed typologi-cal thinking in biology. But his presence is no longerliterally or intellectually immediate, in part becausemany of his contributions have become so thoroughlyintegrated into the paleontological corpus.

In his recent biography, George GaylordSimpson, Paleontologist and Evolutionist, Léo Laportepurposely takes as his subject not so much the manas his work. Laporte himself was trained as an (inver-tebrate) paleontologist and stratigrapher, and in thisbiography he has taken each of Simpson’s majorworks—beginning with his doctoral dissertation—andplaced it into its contemporary intellectual context. Inother words, Laporte’s goal is to explain why many ofSimpson’s works were so important in their time.

The ultimate result is an admirable compan-ion to Simpson’s own autobiography, Concession to theImprobable (1978). Although geared toward the (earth)scientific initiate, the vocabulary used in Laporte’s bookis not overly technical. A glossary is not provided, butmost technical terms, including dated terms like

“kinetogenesis,” are adequately explained in the text.The writing in Laporte’s book is neither as racy nor aspolished as that of some other recent biographies (e.g.,Desmond, A. and J. Moore, 1991, Darwin: The Life of aTormented Evolutionist, and Desmond, A, 1997, Huxley:From Devil’s Disciple to Evolution’s High Priest). Neverthe-less, reading the book is time well spent.

The first chapter is a “Biographical Introduc-tion” that chronicles the broad outlines of Simpson’slife and broader outlines of his achievements. Thechapter is a re-writing of a previously published ar-ticle by Laporte. The personal details of Simpson’s lifeprovide necessary context for later chapters. However,this first chapter is not as fully integrated with theothers as one might hope and reads as if it were merelyappended to the rest of the text. For example, despitethe introduction in chapter one, the reader is repeat-edly informed who Anne Roe was and when Simpsonwas married to her.

In chapter two, Laporte discusses the rise ofpaleobiology (by whatever name) as a field. In certainrespects, this is the least satisfactory chapter. Manyof Simpson’s seminal, biologically oriented papers arereviewed and their relevance to the growth ofpaleobiology is discussed. This aspect makes the chap-ter excellent as summary; however, Laporte’s deferralof fuller discussions of these subjects to later chaptersmakes for awkward and repetitious reading. I wouldrather have seen the entire chapter folded into the rel-evant parts of others.

Chapter three describes the crucial “Summerof 1924.” It was during this time that Simpson becameacquainted with W. D. Matthew of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, who later secured for him ajob following his graduation from Yale University. Thechapter contains a wealth of interesting detail not foundin Simpson’s autobiography, such as the primary mo-tivation for Matthew’s sending Simpson and others intothe San Juan basin (Matthew wanted to fill a gap inthe record of fossil horses).

Chapter four comprises a discussion ofSimpson’s preoccupation with the works of CharlesDarwin. Laporte charts the development of Simpson’sworldview from childhood Presbyterianism to teenageapostasy. Simpson’s copious writings about Darwinare examined with the aim of illustrating Simpson’sown beliefs. However, one of the goals set forth in thechapter is inadequately attained. Namely, Laportewishes to illuminate Simpson’s personal “ontologicaland epistemological views” (p. 73). It is true thatSimpson insisted on purely physical explanations forscientific questions, but this fact in and of itself doesnot characterize him a monist/materialist, nor is thisinsistence—virtually ubiquitous among practicing sci-entists—synonymous with logical positivism. Positiv-ism is a rather more complex epistemological position.In summary, Laporte does little to characterizeSimpson’s epistemology and less still his ontology,whatever those might have been.

In chapter five, Laporte turns to Simpson’s re-search in South America and the Paleocene of Mon-tana, including his statistical insights into populationsand the nature of fossil taxa. Anyone familiar with theCope–Marsh legacy, wherein even the slightest vari-ants were described as different species, will testify tothe importance of recognizing that fossil species werecomposed of variable populations. Chapter six thenbuilds on this background, demonstrating how

28

Upcoming Meetings of Paleontologic Interest2001Oct. 13-17 IGCP 458 - Triassic/Jurassic Bound-

ary Events: Mass Extinction, GlobalEnvironmental Change, and DrivingForces, South-west England Field Work-shophttp://www.pal.nhmus.hu/IGCP458/staudries_announce.html

Nov. 4 PS-Sponsored Short Course: Brachio-pods, GSA Annual Meeting, Boston, MA

Nov. 5-8 Technical Program, GSA Annual Meet-ing, Boston, MAhttp://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2001/index.htm

Nov. 10-11 The Florida Paleontological Society FallMeeting, Gainesville, FLfps@flmnh.ufl.edu

Nov. 21-24 European Palaeontological Association:3rd European Palaeontological Con-gress, Leiden, NLhttp://www.pal.nhmus.hu/EPA/leiden.htm

Dec. 15-19 Annual Meeting of the PalaeontologicalAssociation, Copenhagen, DKhttp://www.palass.org

2002Jan. 2-6 Society for Integrative and Comparative

Biology in Anaheim, CAhttp://www.sicb.org/meetings/2002/index.php3

Feb. 4-8 Forams 2002, Perth, AUShttp://www.geol.uwa.edu.au/forams/

Feb. 14-16 Taphos 2002, Valencia, ESPhttp:// paleopolis.rediris.es/paleontologia/Taphos2002/index.html

March 10-13 2002 AAPG/SEPM Annual Meeting,Houston, TXhttp://www.aapg.org/meetings/annual2002

March 24–27 GSA Northeastern Section Meeting,Springfield, MA

April 3–5 GSA North-Central – Southeastern JointSection Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky

April 11-12 GSA South-Central Section Meeting,Alpine, TX

May 7-8 GSA Rocky Mountain Section Meeting,Cedar City, UT

May 12-15 GSA Cordilleran Section Meeting,Corvallis, OR

July 6-9 The First International PalaeontologicalCongress, Sidney, AUShttp://www.es.mq.edu.au/MUCEP/ipc2002/index.htm

Sept. 12-22 I.U.G.S. - International Subcommissionon Jurassic Stratigraphy, Sixth Inter-national Symposium On The JurassicSystemhttp://www.dst.unito.it/6thisjs

Oct. 7-10 VIII Congreso Argentino de Paleon-tologìa y Bioestratigrafìa. Corrientes,ARGgarralla@arnet.com.ar

Simpson’s populational viewpoint eventually led to histheoretical work on evolutionary processes.

Laporte’s perspective of conceptual evolutionis particularly effective as he turns, in chapter seven,to Tempo and Mode in Evolution, often regarded as themost important of Simpson’s works. As Laporte ear-lier states, “The genesis of Tempo and Mode was itselfevolutionary, not revolutionary” (p. 29). In this chap-ter, he takes the major themes of Tempo and Mode andtraces their beginnings to some of Simpson’s early work.Other discussions include the importance to Simpsonof Dobzhansky’s works on genetics and evolution. Fi-nally, Laporte ardently opposes the notion that Tempoand Mode merely demonstrated that the fossil recordis consistent with the theory of evolution by naturalselection; rather, he argues, Simpson was both inte-grative and creative in his pursuit of making sense ofthe fossil record. In particular, as Mayr (1982, TheGrowth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inherit-ance, p. 608) also has noted, Simpson showed that al-though the known fossil record does not contradict neo-Darwinian theory, population genetics is by itself in-sufficient to account for widely varying rates of evolu-tion. Simpson’s original contributions were especiallyin trying to explain this latter observation.

Chapter eight follows Simpson as a “Mentor forPaleoanthropology,” from his early influence (promul-gating the modern evolutionary synthesis in physicalanthropology) through his later criticisms of anthro-pological works, especially as regards taxonomic prac-tices, on which Simpson had already demonstratedhimself an authority.

Simpson’s extensive works on biogeography arecritically examined in chapter nine. Laporte is an ef-fective apologist for Simpson’s early opposition to theidea of continental drift (prior to the geophysical rev-elations of the late 1960s). Chapter ten presents aunique analysis of Simpson’s use of diagrams. Here,Laporte argues that Simpson utilized “visual induc-tion” and “visual deduction” as species of reasoninganalogous to induction and deduction in mathemati-cal language.

The penultimate chapter describes the reasonswhy Simpson joined and left the several institutionswhere he worked during his long life, from the Ameri-can Museum to the Museum of Comparative Zoologyat Harvard University. It contains much personal de-tail that was omitted, understandably, from Simpson’sautobiography. In the book’s final chapter, Laporterelates the peculiar circumstances by which Simpson’snovella, The Dechronization of Sam Magruder, came tobe published and how the protagonist and his activi-ties mirror Simpson himself. As other authors havepreviously pointed out, the parallels between Simpsonand Magruder are intriguing.

In short, Laporte’s biography is enjoyable andinformative, despite some organizational difficulties.It correctly states that Simpson’s autobiography leftmany questions unanswered, and Laporte succeedsin throwing light into dark corners. His emphasis ontracing the strands of Simpson’s thought throughouthis career makes for an engaging and profitable read.

Krister T. SmithDepartment of Geology and GeophysicsYale UniversityNew Haven

29

Nov. 29-30 Reunión Anual de Comunicaciones dela Asociación Paleontológica Argentina.Diamante, ARGcidzucol@infoshopdte.com.ar