SUBSCRIBE VIA RSS
Taphovenatrix: Dinosaur Taphonomy PhD
  • News and Updates
  • About
  • Research
    • Publications & Outreach
    • Current Research
    • Past Research

New paper: bloat, float, and burial in dead crocs

21/8/2014

2 Comments

 
I've just published my first academic paper in the journal 'Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology', with my co-author Steve Salisbury. Our paper is called "Patterns of aquatic decay and disarticulation in juvenile Indo-Pacific crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), and implications for the taphonomic interpretation of fossil crocodyliform material." 
What is the paper about?
Essentially, the paper looks at what happens to crocodile carcasses when they rot, undisturbed in fresh water – whether the carcasses float (they do), how long they float for (about a month), whether parts of the body fall off while they float (a few ribs and hip bones do, but not much), and what happens after the carcasses sink (they crumple into a pile of bones, but parts of the skeleton still stay attached to one another). 

We also examined the difference between (1) crocodile carcasses buried in sand, versus (2) carcasses left in water to rot and buried once they sank, versus (3) carcasses left in water to rot and left unburied.

We were interested in how this applies to the fossil record: when we examine fossil crocodiles, can we tell where they died, and how long they were left to rot, and whether they were buried quickly or not?
More details: 'Bloat and float'
Here are some diagrams that show what happened. The carcasses bloated due to bacteria inside the carcass eating soft tissue and creating gases (I'm sure you've all seen swollen or bloated roadkill before, it's the same process). These bloated carcasses float in water, a phenomena (not surprisingly) called 'bloat and float'.
Picture
Side view illustration of carcasses in the experiment bloating, floating, and sinking. Image from Syme et al. (2014).
The carcasses stayed intact while floating (except for a few ribs and hip bones that drifted away thanks to fly maggots eating flesh), and sunk after about 32 days. Large portions of the skeleton stayed intact after sinking, but some portions separated from one another - for example, the whole left leg may have stayed intact, but disconnected from the rest of the body. 
Picture
Top-down photographs of one carcass as it decayed. You can see that while the carcass floated, the limbs, tail, and head stayed connected while slowing sinking below the water's surface. Once they sunk and we very gently drained water from the tank, the carcass looked a lot more disconnected! Image from Syme et al. (2014).
Burial: what difference does it make?
Part of the experiment was to determine the effect of burial on the carcasses. Two crocodile carcasses were buried in sand at the beginning of the experiment, and by the end of the experiment their skeletons looked like this:
Picture
Three crocodile carcasses rotted in fresh water, as I described earlier, but as soon as they sank they were buried in sand. At the end of the experiment, they looked like this:
Picture
And finally, three carcasses were left to rot in fresh water, and after they sunk, they were NOT buried. Here's what their carcasses looked like:
Picture
You can see that the carcasses buried at the beginning of the experiment look pretty much perfect – all the bones are connected and where they're supposed to be. That's not surprising, because the sand surrounding the body stopped anything from moving (there was an added complication as one of those carcasses actually floated up through the sand! But read the paper for more details).

The carcasses buried part-way through the experiment, as well as those not buried at all, look more similar to one another. Chunks of the skeleton stayed together, but other bits separated (disarticulated).
What are the most important conclusions?
The buried carcasses 'survived' the best, and much better than the other carcasses decaying in water. This is a little surprising, because the water was left undisturbed during the entire experiment: there was no water current, no large animals were allowed to scavenge the carcasses, etc. It was purely the action of floating and sinking that caused the bones to separate and move around.

What does this mean for fossil crocodiles? We might think that a really well preserved fossil might have resulted from a carcass being quickly buried, which is a fair assumption. But we might also think that a carcass left to decay undisturbed in fresh water could also be really well preserved and look the same as a buried carcass. The results from this experiment show that this is not the case for modern crocs, and therefore may not be the case for ancient crocs!

References
Syme, C. E., and Salisbury, S. W. 2014. Patterns of aquatic decay and disarticulation in juvenile Indo-Pacific crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), and implications for the taphonomic interpretation of fossil crocodyliform material. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 412:108-123. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.07.031
2 Comments

Obscure D.o.t.W: Ruehleia bedheimensis

4/8/2014

0 Comments

 
After a long hiatus, here's the next entry in 'Obscure Dinosaur of the Week'!

Name: Ruehleia bedheimensis
Etymology: In honour of the collector of the fossil, Hugo Ruhle von Lilienstern of Bedheim, South Thuringia.
Distribution: Late Triassic (Norian) of Thuringia, Germany.
Type Specimen: near complete composite skeleton lacking a skull.
Estimated size: ~6.5 m long
First described by: Galton, 2001a. Originally referred to Plateosaurus plieningeri HUENE, 1907-08 by Ruhle von Lilienstern et al. (1952).
Picture
Picture
Interesting fact: Do these fossils belong to many genera, or just one?
Normally, when a dinosaur is misidentified as the wrong genus or species, it is due to poorly preserved or very scrappy fossil remains confounding  the original identification. But in the case of Ruehleia bedheimensis, we have a nearly complete and well preserved fossil. So what went wrong?

It all comes down to identification and classification of specific bones.

Most animals with a backbone or spine (vertebral column) have sacral vertebrae: the part of the vertebral column that sits between the hips. Early dinosaurs had two sacral vertebrae, but some prosauropods had an extra sacral vertebrae, either being 'borrowed' from the tail end (caudosacrum - see below figure, bottom left) or from the head-end (dorsosacrum - see below figure, bottom right) of the vertebral column.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Top: Plateosaurus skeleton in right lateral view, with the sacral vertebral region marked by a red square, and two sacral vertebrae plus the caudosacral (mostly hidden behind the right ilium) coloured in red. Scale bar is 50 cm. Bottom: the two different ways some prosauropods had their sacral vertebrae configured; Bottom left: sacral vertebrae of P. longiceps in right lateral view, showing two sacral vertebrae (s1 and s2) plus a caudosacral (cs). Scale bar is 5 cm. Bottom right: sacral vertebrae of Jingshanosaurus in right lateral view, showing a dorsosacral (ds) plus two sacral vertebrae (s1 and s2). Scale bar is 5 cm. Figures taken from Galton et al. (2004).
Plateosaurus had two sacral plus one caudosacral vertebrae. But on closer inspection, some fossils assigned to Plateosaurus plieningeri were found to have two sacral plus one dorsosacral vertebrae (Galton, 2001b). By definition, these fossils with dorsosacral vertebrae could not belong to Plateosaurus, and instead had to belong to another prosauropod genus. And as there were some other different features in the hip and hand bones, it was decided that the fossil belonged to a completely new prosauropod genus, Ruehleia bedheimensis (Galton, 2001a).

So, not only can you find new dinosaur species or genera by going into the field and digging up new fossils, or by scouring museum collections for unlabelled or uncategorised specimens, you can also find them as well preserved fossils already assigned to a species and hiding in plain site!

Picture
Location of continents during the Late Triassic (Norian). The purple circle indicates the location of the modern day fossil. Image from the PBDB Navigator.
Picture
Simplified cladogram of all non-avian dinosaurs. R. bedheimensis was a plateosaurid plateosaur, within sauropodomorpha.
References
Galton, P. M., 2001a. Prosauropod dinosaurs from the Upper Triassic of Germany. In: Colectivo Arqueológico - Paleontológico De Salas (Eds.): Actas de las I Jornadas Internacionales Sobre Paleontología de dinosaurios y su entorno. Junta de Castilla y León, Salas de los Infantes (Burgos, España): 25-92.

Galton, P. M., 2001b. The prosauropod dinosaur Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha; Upper Triassic). II. Notes on the referred species. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève 20(2): 435-50

Galton, P. M., Upchurch, P. 2004. Prosauropoda. In Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., and Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria (second edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 232-258

von Lilienstern, R., Lang, H. M., Huene, F. v., 1952. Die Saurier Thüringens. Fischer. Jena, 42 p.
0 Comments

    About the author

    Dr Caitlin Syme is a palaeontologist studying the taphonomy (preservation state) of fossil non-avian dinosaurs, crocodiles and fish from the Winton Formation, Queensland, Australia. Think forensic science or CSI for fossils, and you're on the right track!

    Posts on this blog focus mainly on vertebrate palaeontology and taphonomy, as well early career researcher (ERC) productivity tips and insights.


    TWEETS

    Tweets by @taphovenatrix

    Search website

    Loading

    Blog topics

    All
    Data Management
    Dinosaur Comics
    Documentary
    Fossil ReadMe
    Funny
    Interesting Research
    News Articles
    Obscure D.o.t.W
    Palaeo Pondering
    Personal
    Ph.D.
    Pseudoscience
    Technology
    T Rex Trying


    Blogroll

    Chinleana
    DinoGoss
    Dinosaurpalaeo
    Dinosaur Tracking
    Love in the Time ofChasmosaurs
    Not Exactly Rocket- Science
    Palaeoblog
    Pharyngula
    PhD Comics
    Phenomena: Laelaps
    Prerogative of Harlots
    Pseudoplocephalus
    SV-POW!
    Tetrapod Zoology
    The Integrative Paleontologists
    The Mammoth Prairie
    The Professor Is In
    UQ Palaeo Blog

    Follow me!

    Academia.edu
    Mendeley
    ResearchGate

    Who's been visiting?


    Archives

    February 2018
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011


    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.