Showing posts with label paleontology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paleontology. Show all posts

Friday, January 4, 2008

The Irish Elk (neither totally Irish nor an Elk)...

Of all the extinct mammals I knew of as a child, Megaloceros was the most memorable. I remember turning the pages of a glossy picture book and seeing, for the first time, the huge antlers and strong body of the animal. I was in awe. When I visited the AMNH over my winter vacation I saw my first Megaloceros skeleton and I was no less impressed.

What's even more impressive is the amount of involvement Megaloceros has had in evolutionary debate.

Picture from http://www.arcticwebsite.com/

Megaloceros, or the "Irish Elk," was first described in 1697 by Thomas Molyneux, who,
being a man of his time, believed that it was extant. Eventually, the Irish Elk was used by Georges Cuvier to demonstrate that extinction did in fact occur.

Megaloceros was also used as an example in the theory of orthogenesis. Proponents of orthogenesis, according to Stephen Jay Gould, "claimed that evolution proceeded in straight lines that natural selection could not regulate. Certain trends, once started, could not be stopped even if they led to extinction." The antlers of the Irish Elk seemed to validate the theory. The animal evolved from smaller deer featuring small antlers and eventually, its antlers became so over sized that the deer could no longer function. Orthogenesis attributed the extinction of Megaloceros to the bulk of its head ornament. Unfortunately, modern creationists use the Irish Elk as an argument against natural selection.

The size of Megaloceros's antlers, according to Gould, can be attributed to allometry or proportional growth. He rejects the idea that the antlers outgrew their purpose. Gould says, "I believe that the supposed problem of "unwieldy" or "cumbersome" antlers is an illusion rooted in a notion now abandoned by students of animal behavior."

Gould proposed that the antlers were used for display. Their size was actually an advantage: larger antlers conveyed higher status and dominance. The increasing size of the antlers alternately caused an increase in the body size of the deer and, as Gould expresses below, also explains the morphology of the antlers.

As devices for display among males, the enormous antlers of the Irish Elk finally make sense as structures adaptive in themselves. Moreover, as R.Coope of Birmingham University pointed out to me, the detailed morphology of the antlers can be explained, for the first time, in this context. Deer with broad-palmed antlers tend to show the full width of their antlers in display. The modern fallow deer (considered by many as the Irish Elk's nearest living relative) must rotate its head from side to side in order to show its palm. This would have created great problems for the giant deer, since the torque produced by swinging the ninety-pound antlers would have been immense. But the antlers of the Irish Elk were arranged to display the palm fully when the animal looked straight ahead. Both the unusual configuration and the enormous size of the antlers can be explained by postulating that they were used for display rather than for combat.
I, for one, am thoroughly impressed with Gould's writing and thinking. His essays are packed with information and easy to read, though not dumbed down at all. My immediate reaction to his writing is to think warmly of him and somewhat idolize him. I understand that some people disagree with much of Gould's thinking and that many actively oppose him. I'd love to know more about it. What do you think of Gould? Why?

REFERENCES
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

In which I get my first copy of JVP...

Me: "Oh...this is so exciting! It's like paleontologist pornography!"

J: pointing to a figure in the journal..."Is that a coprolite?"

Me: "No...that's part of a skull."

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Tantrum

Oh my...if I had known that the process of going back to school was going to be so disappointing, I probably wouldn't have tried.

Since the first little seed was planted, my estimations on the cost of an education have sprouted all sorts of thorns and weird shit. My original estimate of 13,000 dollars per year looks wonderful compared to the new total of 21,000/yr. Were I receiving any free money, things would still look feasible. However, first degree has prevented me from getting any kind of federal grants and state scholarships. I'm on my own, and the more I learn about subsidized this-n-that and interest and compounded interest, the more I wonder if it's all worth it.

So that's the question. Is it worth it?

I have a hard time placing value on this. It's a dream. It has been since I was VERY little. And it's a dream that I got in the way of...and I don't know if I'll be okay with myself knowing that I wanted to do something and didn't do it because I'm afraid of everything. I've got another 50 to 60 years on this planet and dammit, I want to spend it talking about coprolites and procoelous vertebrae. It makes me happy...in a way I can't understand and don't dare to question.

What's the point in living if you're not doing what makes you happy?

Then again...many people live their lives in a state of misery...I'm fortunate to have (barely) enough money to live off of.

If I go back to school, I'm looking at at least 46,000 dollars in UNDERGRADUATE debt. I need help with this one.

Someone tell me what to do.