I'm sure it's not just restricted to my field of work, but there seems to be an alarming pattern of inventing or re-purposing taphonomic terminology in journal papers and text books across different decades and authors. In fact, it seems that the only terminology agreed upon is 'taphonomy'!

When an animal dies, the carcass usually lays at the surface (either subaerial or subaqueous), and may desiccate, decay, or be eaten by scavengers etc... until it is either completely obliterated, or buried. If it 'survives' to burial, then it may undergo further microbial decay etc... If it survives that, then it may become fossilised via, for example, infiltration of mineral rich groundwater into bone, and replacement of the organic fraction of the bone. All of the agents that act upon an animals remains, potentially destroying it, but sometimes preserving it, fall under the banner of taphonomy.

There are some authors who describe these taphonomic stages as pre-burial, burial, and post burial. Fairly straightforward. Or some call it pre-burial, biostratinomy and diagenesis. Or necrology, biostratinomy, and diagenesis. Or just biostratinomy and diagenesis. Or biostratinomy and fossildiagenesis.

Why can't we use the one set of standardised terminology? As a general rule, I think authors should use the terminology of their peers, or if that terminology seems defunct then propose why theirs is more suitable. But it can make for some very disjointed reading, and one cranky PhD student!

I started writing up my draft confirmation document about 3 weeks ago, so I can get my head around exactly what it is I want to achieve with this PhD. I'm leaning towards categorising the taphonomic processes at the site as either biotic (predation, microbial decay etc...) or abiotic (weathering, diagenesis etc...). I think I should class post-burial biogeochemical processes as abiotic, although the 'source' material is biological in origin. At least that makes sense at the moment. I'm sure it'll become more obvious as I do more reading.

Anyway, this should be a good start towards the first milestone in the UQ PhD program: Confirmation of Candidature. These posts may become more frantic/insensible as I get closer to this milestone, so stay tuned for the crazy!

Another interesting idea, along the lines of Dance Your Thesis and The Charles Prize for Poetry, is this challenge to write your dissertation as a haiku... Sounds like another fantastic way to procrastinate while telling yourself that, technically, it IS work related!

http://dissertationhaiku.wordpress.com/

I've looked at the first episode of Planet Dinosaur (by the same team who created Walking with Dinosaurs), and the CGI looks impressive! I also liked the method of showing bits of evidence: what the fossil material looked like, where it was found etc... There was even a simplified oxygen isotope graph in there! There aren't too many obvious errors, apart from stretching the truth a little here and there. It probably wouldn't make for a solid viewing experience if the entire doco was littered with 'probablys', 'maybes' and 'mights', but then the viewers won't know which postulations are backed up with (relatively) solid evidence and which aren't.

Planet Dinosaur appears to have much better CGI and walking mechanics than Dinosaur Revolution. I don't really care much about that stuff normally, but the anthropomorphication of the dinosaurs along with the over-the-top action WAM BAM! voice-over made me like Dinosaur Revolution less and less. Even the female

Who knows? As I continue to watch these shows/docos, my opinions might change...

I did it. I was afraid of accidentally breaking a precious fossil specimen, or leaving something in acid for too long and ruining it. But after some invaluable coaching, and a little bit of, "just get on with it, you'll be fine", I have taken responsibility for looking after the fossils coming out the Winton Formation concretions.

Its also, of course, very important for me to see the sedimentary structures (if any) surrounding the bones, and any taphonomic indicators of depositional environment and diagenesis.

I went to an excellent set of lectures today run by ThinkWell, which focused on how to  successfully complete a PhD, and how to turbo charge your writing. I think the second was the most useful to me, as I realised how much "work" I had been doing, instead of actual WORK.

For example, I've been reading a lot of papers, trying to get my head around concepts, then thinking to myself, "OK, now I'll start writing." I look at the Word template I've created, then decide, "I haven't read enough, I'd better read some more and wait until I fully understand all the concepts." The problem is, I'll never be able to fully comprehend and understand the concepts UNLESS I have a go at writing about them, then find out specifically what I'm missing!

From now on I'm going to dedicate at least 1 hour every morning to just writing, NOT reading, NOT editing, NOT formatting, but actual writing. Then I can continue brainstorming, reading papers, etc...

Thanks ThinkWell!

Having grown up with images of scaly featherless dinosaurs, I have to admit that its a little strange seeing my childhood favourites (Gallimimus, Struthiomimus, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor) re-constructed covered in feathers! And I'm still not quite used to it, even though the evidence for feathered dinos is quite clear. That is, until I saw these images today. Now it seems a lot more tangible, and lets be honest, pretty awesome!

Image from: McKellar, R.C., Chatterton, B. D. E., Wolfe, A. P., Currie, P. J. A Diverse Assemblage of Late Cretaceous Dinosaur and Bird Feathers from Canadian Amber. Science 16 September 2011: 333 (6049), 1619-1622. [DOI:10.1126/science.1203344]