SVPCA Experience!

Well the Symposium of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy (SVPCA) was last week: my first ever conference, and of course, first ever oral presentation. The conference was great. I had a fantastic week meeting people, learning about palaeontology, and getting ideas for my PhD. I got to meet some people I had had lots of email/social media contact with, which was nice, as well as some new people I had never talked to before.

My talk was on Wednesday, with pterosaurs being sandwiched between marine reptiles/crocodiles and dinosaurs: it was basically Mesozoic Wednesday. I went right before lunch, the first talk of the pterosaurs. It seemed to go well, although I was a bit terrified when I looked up to see several hands in the air after I finished. Fortunately, people were just very curious in what I did, asking good methodological questions, and being curious about what exactly I found. I had several people approach me afterwards asking me about my data, what I had found, and with ideas for future projects. All-in-all, I think my first talk was a success. Now I can start thinking about my next one, which will hopefully be at Rio Ptero 2013, the pterosaur conference in Brazil.

Most of the talks were excellent, with some bad ones and some great ones spread throughout. Most entertaining talk definitely goes to Jeff Liston, which had most of us laughing throughout his description of some fish fossils (followed up of course by the best auctioneer I've ever seen as he ran the auction Thursday night). As for my favourite talk in terms of content, I would probably say that Dave Hone's Protoceratops aggregation, which was very cool.

The conference in all was very interesting, but I was possibly more interested in the difference between men and women. The first day it became apparent to me that there weren't many women, so I started to investigate, and came up with some interesting numbers. I decided it was worthy of some investigation, so bear with me and my many graphs!

So this is interesting. Although 31% of the total people at the conference were female, only about 25% of presenters were female and males seemed to be much more willing to present their work than women were. Where are all the women? Well it's also interesting if you break it down into multiple author talks and posters. 

Of talks given with multiple authors, the presentations with females as an author increased as the number of authors increased, with few presentations being dominated by female authors. Of 13 talks with more than 5 authors, only 3 had 50% or more authors as females. Similar information is seen in posters with more than one author, although there were few posters to compare. 

What I was also interested in is the breakdown by area of study. I didn't go through everything, but for talks with the primary author being the one looked at, the numbers of female:male for each topic are as follows:

Fish 3:4

Palaeozoic tetrapods 1:2

Marine reptiles and crocodiles 0:8 (although one was presented by Lorna Steel, although the first author was male)

Pterosaurs 1:2

Dinosaurs 1:7

Birds 2:3

Mammals 6:8

I'm especially amazed by the difference between males and females in the marine reptiles and crocodiles, and dinosaur studies. Most other groups aren't statistically significant, while mammals has almost as many females as males. I know that there is a lot of discussion about getting women involved in science, and this was some definite evidence that this field is dominated by men. 

Come on girls! Start doing some science! I want the next conference to be more than 25% female! 

Thesis complete! Now SVPCA ahhh

Today, I submitted my MSc thesis. What a huge weight off my shoulders! Of course, shortly after I printed it, I discovered a mistake. Don't worry, it was minor. I had to resist the urge to re-print it. But now it is handed in and complete. No more work until... next week. Dammit.

On Monday, I'm off to the SVPCA annual meeting in Oxford, where I will do my first ever conference presentation titled "A novel approach to measuring pterosaur bone mass using CT scans". I will be presenting the results of my MSc research, co-authored by my supervisor Colin Palmer. I'm also hoping to get the first publication submitted shortly, but we'll see. Sadly, there are only 3 pterosaur oral presentations, and mine is first (how'd that happen?!). I'm really looking forward to the other pterosaur talks, which involve one on the really awesome Darwinopterus by David Unwin et al, and a small azhdarchoid from the Isle of Wight by Darren Naish et al. There are also a few posters on pterosaurs: a re-appraisal of Istiodactylus latidens from Calum Davies, a re-appraisal of British Jurassic pterosaurs by Michael O'Sullivan, pterosaur tooth anatomy by Steven Vidovic, and azhdarchid relationships by Mark Witton. Apparently no one from outside of the University of Portsmouth decided to submit a poster on pterosaurs since 3 are by UoP PhD students, and one is a staff member. What the heck? Share the love, guys! Speaking of guys, they are also all male... Interesting. Where are the females? I just noticed I'm also the only female pterosaur presenter.

I have to admit, I'm terrified to present next week. I have talked in front of a large number of people once in my life, and that was at my Mom's funeral. This is a little bit different. In that case, I was talking about my Mom. Who could tell me I'm wrong? Now, I have to get up in front of a room full of experts, where lots of people could tell me I'm wrong. AND it's right before lunch, when I'm sure most people would rather be eating. On the plus side, that may mean that no one will ask me questions. This isn't helped by the fact that there are a number of experts in my particular field in the room, including ones that I contradict in my talk. Mark Witton already gave me a heart attack by telling me I couldn't use his results in my presentation because I disagreed with him. He had me convinced that he was serious. (I'll get you back for that, Mark... you have been warned). Wednesday can stay away for now I think... But seriously, does anyone have any suggestions of what to do/not do at a scientific conference? Specifically while giving a talk? Have I mentioned that I've never even been to a real conference? Geez, whose idea was it to give a talk at a conference before going to one. Clearly that was a bad idea.

I've practiced my talk in front of a group of people once, and had some positive response. Plus, Colin took a look at it and gave me some suggestions. I'm hoping it goes well. But lets just say that I will be extremely happy once Wednesday is over.

Now that I'm done my thesis, you might ask what I am going to do with myself? Well immediately, I will start applying for scholarships. I have a PhD position at Bristol starting in January, but it's unfunded, so I'm in need of some way of paying for this. Most of the deadlines are from October-December, so that's what I'll be doing. At the end of October, I go home for a few months to spend with my family. My Mom passed away in January, so I'd like to go home and spend time with my family through that tough time (like her birthday, Christmas, and 1 year from her death). It won't be a happy few months, but at least I'll be with family. Then in January, I'll come back to Bristol and start my PhD. That's the plan anyways. If there's something I've learned this year, it's that nothing goes according to plan...

I'll post my thoughts on the conference when I get back next week!

Updates and All!

So my thesis is due in just under a month, and I have successfully sent a complete draft to my supervisor. He said he'd get it back to me tomorrow, and then we'll see how horribly bad it is. Not really surprisingly, I had a panic attack about getting it done in time, worked my butt off for a while, and finished it a month early. This is pretty much par for the course for me: ultra stress case assuming the worst, then getting it done early and doing ok on it. I still have a few figures to finish, but they are basically done. I basically just need to figure out a title and I'm done. Not sure how that happened exactly.

Update number 2
I finally got word that my abstract for SVPCA was accepted with no corrections, so it's official: I am giving my first ever conference talk in September. I am super nervous for it already, but I've heard the conference is really friendly and a good place to start out. I'm hoping it all goes well, and I don't make a fool of myself. My talk will be titled "A novel approach to estimating pterosaur bone mass using CT scans". It will mainly be about exactly what the title says, with some more detail on what my study found, especially with respect to using birds as pterosaur analogues and the internal structure of pterosaur wing bones as seen in CT scans. The talk will be co-authored by my supervisor, Colin Palmer, but I'll be the one getting up in front of the crowd and talking. 

Next step: work on my publication attempt! Of course, in order to get scholarships, I need publications, which is why Colin suggested I try to publish my preliminary results. I have been working on the paper for months, but because of many things (for example, a thesis to write), haven't submitted it yet. I'm hoping to get it submitted soon, maybe even before my thesis, but that will depend on how many corrections I have to make on my thesis. Hopefully I'll have a publication to put in my scholarship applications!

My side project: Jurassic Forest

Some of you may have heard of this before, or may know that I'm involved, but most of you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Two years ago, just north of Edmonton, Canada, an animatronic dinosaur park opened called Jurassic Forest. This is an entirely privately owned venture that focuses on being educational, and of course fun for kids of all ages. I was fortunate enough to find out about the park before it opened. Being an undergraduate student in palaeontology at the University of Alberta at the time, I thought maybe I could work as a guide or something so I gave them a call. To my surprise, they had no scientists employed at the time, and I was in the very lucky position of having been told about it and contacting them. And thus began a new and exciting chapter in my life.

Starting in May 2010 before the park opened, I worked on all things scientific and educational. I created signs for the forest ranging from decomposers to amphibians to, of course, dinosaurs. I made content for over 100 signs to be posted around the park, as well as edited material already made for signs and school programs. I was also responsible for training all of our guides, making sure they knew what they were talking about while walking through the trails. In July 2010 we opened to the public. It was an amazing feeling walking around and listening to what people were learning, and hearing the praise about this facility that I was so intimately involved in. We opened with a number of animatronic dinosaurs (about 40 if I recall), some more realistic than others, but most of them are somewhat life-size. It was pretty amazing. Jurassic Forest is set outside in a natural boreal forest, meaning the dinosaurs (and other creatures) are in a slightly more natural setting than in an indoor facility (although the plants aren't quite accurate). The creatures are set back from the paths in a non-frightening, more natural setting, like you may have seen millions of years ago. It's pretty cool.

An Apatosaurus (and Stretch the ostrich) set back in the trees

Jurassic Forest isn't open in the winter though, so we closed down in October 2010, and got ready for the new season. This was a fun winter. We did a major overhaul of all the school programs we had made previously, and made them much more applicable to the Alberta curriculum. In May 2011, we opened for our second season, with an addition: Spinosaurus. After a very rainy and unpleasant May, we had a great rest of the season. Unfortunately, in order to start my Master's in the UK, I had to leave Jurassic Forest in September. It was like my second home, and my second family, and I was sad to leave. But it was time to move on. A career in research doesn't happen while I'm wandering the trails talking to families apparently. I left for England sad that I had to leave Jurassic Forest, but determined to stay connected. I'm still working for Jurassic Forest, running their Facebook and Twitter (@JurassicForest) pages (you should follow us!). I thrive to keep things as scientifically accurate as possible, but still interesting for people. In June, we (they?) welcomed two more new dinos to the park: Pachyrhinosaurus and Troodon. This month, my newest side project has begun: a blog called Mesozoic Mondays where I talk about several aspects of the Mesozoic, each Monday. This is a pretty general, easy blog to follow. The goal is to teach people who may not know a lot about dinosaurs or the Mesozoic. It's been fun so far, but I'm always looking for suggestions and comments! If anyone wants to give me some suggestions, that would be awesome.

I really enjoy working for Jurassic Forest even though I'm in England now. It's a good chance to write about some things I'm really interested in that's not necessarily related to my thesis. It's also nice to be able to put my brain to use and talk about some things I've learned over the years! Anyone who is in the Edmonton region, I would definitely recommend a trip to Jurassic Forest, even if it's just for a walk in the park. It's pretty neat, and from what I've seen, much better than similar parks out there.

Why I may not move back to Canada any time soon

This is a bit of a change from my palaeontology-related posts, but this is something that is pretty important to any Canadian scientists, or anyone wanting to do science in Canada. This is why it is becoming more and more likely I'm not going to return to Canada as a scientist any time soon. 


In the past, people thought of Canada as being in the middle or slightly left-wing hippies that cared about the environment. Not so anymore. A recent story from the CBC looked at "How the world sees Canada", basically interviewing Canadians that live abroad, and are generally in high positions such as university professors. There are some good responses with Canada being a "best kept secret", "fascinating" and more. Unfortunately, it is not all good. Stories of our Public Safety Minister comparing environmentalists to "white supremacists" and "terrorists" and Canadian mining companies "ravaging community after community" in Guatemala. Even worse is when anything about funding or the environment comes up. The one that gets me the most, however, is from a professor in Hull, U.K:

My students, so obsessed these days with environmental themes, revered Canada as a country with more enlightened ideas about preserving the planet. Not any more. Now they talk of oil extraction, of the despoilation of the Arctic North and of Canada's characterization of its environmentalists as subversive.

That pretty much says it all. Canada went from being someone that cared about the environment, to pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol (without really trying to be a part of it), and very nearly denying climate change. Thank you Stephen Harper. On top of that, there is evidence that the Canadian government is keeping it's scientists quiet. Permission must be granted to speak to the media, and in any controversial case, that permission isn't granted. There are two prime examples of this: one with regards to a study on falling salmon stocks, and another on a hole in the ozone layer. Really? Muzzling scientists? I would not expect this from any western country, especially not Canada. Censoring what scientists are allowed to talk about is not cool. Not cool at all.

Now although the above stuff makes me mad, the main reason I may not return, is this: Canada is cutting a lot of it's science funding. A recent budget was passed by the federal government, which names many cuts to science including cutting government research jobs, getting rid of several government-funded research projects, and pollution control. They announced that they are going to scrap the Experimental Lakes Area, which has provided valuable information about acid rain and possible prevention methods. And to take the cake, all funding to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science has been axed. Completely. So has funding to the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory. Seriously guys? What are you doing! Furthermore, Harper has shown interest only in projects that have an industrial side, not pure science. There goes palaeontology. Last time I checked, there wasn't much of a palaeo industry.

Fortunately, Canadian scientists are not taking this lightly. According to the CBC, scientists are rallying today in what they call the "Death of Evidence". They are doing an old fashioned march up to Parliament Hill dressed in lab coats or black, to prove a point. I doubt it's going to do anything, but I'm happy to see it's happening, and sad I can't be there.

Basically as long as the Conservatives and Harper are in power, science funding is only going to get worse and worse, and since I'm not in a field that tends to get a lot of funding, that's bad news. It's bad news for all Canadian scientists, but it's even worse for purely experimental sciences. I once had a dream of returning to Canada to continue my research, but that dream seems to slowly be slipping away...

Thesis time and many thanks!

Well now I'm basically done all of my actual research, and I'm about to start writing my thesis, which will likely be the bane of my existence for the next 3 months. Yay! I've never written anything like this before and this should be interesting.

Giving credit where credit is due:
Just want to give some thanks to people that have helped me out along the way. My project is mainly (or entirely) supervised by Colin Palmer, who I owe a lot to. Not only has he helped me a lot in getting started as an academic, but he has been extremely patient with my lack of understanding math and physics, as well as helping me get through a very hard time when my Mom passed away. Not only that, but if it weren't for him, my project wouldn't be possible since he's responsible for getting most of the CT scans done that I am doing my research from. These scans include wing phalanges from the NHM (thanks to Lorna Steel I believe for doing those), and some specimens from Portsmouth that were scanned at Southampton (not sure who to thank, but blanket thanks to those responsible). I also have a set of scans from Mike Habib, so thanks to you as well. I've had some help from and discussions with Mark Witton, who has been great in sharing his data with me and supplying me with awesome pictures for talks and posters, Mike Benton, whose flexibility and understanding meant I could continue the project through a tough time, and lots of my MSc friends (Davide especially). And of course Josh for putting up with me whining about how I'm going to fail and (trying?) to teach me physics :)

This project has been great so far in teaching me basic pterosaur anatomy, more detailed physics and biomechanics (which I am horrible at), and getting my writing. I'm so glad I decided to do it and I'm hoping I come up with a publishable project at the end. I'm hoping to at least present what I have at SVPCA in September, and the pterosaur meeting in Rio in May (if I can figure out a way of being able to afford that).

Now to write!

How much did that pterosaur weigh?

So a forever perennial problem in palaeontology is estimating the mass of an extinct animal. It's important to know for about a million reasons including ecology, but it's especially important in terms of locomotion and biomechanics. There are of course several methods to estimating the mass of extinct animals, primarily focusing on dinosaurs. Recently, this made the news with the so called 'Dinosaurs and lasers' paper, which you can read about here. Of course, I'm more interested in the mass of pterosaurs, which I'm working on for my MSc thesis (kind of). In flying animals, mass is even more important because it largely dictates whether an animal is able to achieve lift or not. If it's too heavy, it's not flying. Period.

So how is pterosaur mass estimated anyways?
There are lots of different pterosaur mass estimates out there, and several different ways of doing it, but I'm going to focus on 3 (more like 2) main ways.

The first method relies on estimating the volume of the pterosaur, and multiplying it by a density. This was first done pre-computer and relied on estimating the volumes of different portions of the body on paper (by estimating how much muscle there would have been). Bramwell and Whitfield (1974) did this first for Pteranodon and multiplied the volume by an overall density of 1000 kg/m3, to get a mass of 16.6 kg. A similar method was used by Brower and Veinus (1981), but with a density of 900 kg/m3, to get a mass of 14.94 kg. This method is good for a first try, but there are some holes in it. It doesn't account for the huge variation in density between regions of the body, and it relies heavily on using birds as a modern analogue for pterosaurs... which is a big problem. But more on that another day perhaps (or check out Witton and Habib 2010 for details).

The second method is a lot like the first one, but it uses a computer programme to estimate the volumes. Henderson (2010) applied this method to many pterosaur genera, by making 3D computerised models of each animal. This method allowed him to apply a different density to different areas, such as a much lower density to the neck and skull, where there is heavy pneumatisation. He was also able to subtract the volumes of cavities such as the lungs from the equation. This gave him a mass of 18.6 kg for Pteranodon longiceps. He verified this method using birds, and found it was pretty accurate. However, it also relies heavily on the idea that birds are a good modern analogue for pterosaurs... no good!

The third method is definitely the most interesting in my opinion (although I might be biased since it's similar to my project). In birds and mammals, there is a relationship between the skeletal mass and the total mass (Prange et al. 1979). That's pretty cool since with fossils, we basically only have the bones. Mark Witton (2008) used this method to estimate pterosaur masses by first estimating the skeletal mass, then applying the relationship seen in birds to get the total mass. To do this, he first estimated the volume of each bone in a pterosaur skeleton by simplifying it to assume it is a geologic shape. For example, a wing phalanx (the long bones that make up the fourth finger and therefore the wing in a pterosaur) is assumed to be the shape of a cylinder. Knowing the cortical thickness, length, and radius, the volume can be calculated. Once the volume is multiplied by density, you have the mass of the bone! This method is good since it relies precisely on what you have in the fossil record: bones. However, again, it relies heavily on using birds as a modern analogue, and it does some over simplification. For example, a cortical thickness of 0.7 mm was used for the entire bone, when the thickness can very from 0.6-2.4mm in one section. Big difference.

Without saying too much about what I'm doing, I'm working on a new, more accurate method of estimating bone mass using CT scans. This has shown me that the cortical thickness can very A LOT within one bone (specifically a phalanx), and 0.7 mm is a pretty small number for the whole bone. Basically, I'm finding that the previous mass estimates for single bones are underestimated. And underestimated by a fair bit (although not as much as I had thought at first, which I was struggling to explain so I'm glad I figured that out). Does this mean that Witton's entire skeletal estimate is underestimated? Not necessarily... More likely it is further evidence that we can't directly use relationships seen in birds to estimate things in pterosaurs. They aren't the same! Just because a bird did it one way doesn't mean a pterosaur did. They are different animals! Stop assuming they are the same!

References

Bramwell, C. D. & Whitfield, G. R. 1974. Biomechanics of Pteranodon. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B 267, 503-81.

Brower, J. C. & Veinus, J. 1981. Allometry in pterosaurs. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, 1-32.

Henderson, D. M. 2010. Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional mathematical slicing. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 30, 768-785.

Prange, H. D., Anderson, J. F., & Rahn, H. 1979. Scaling of skeletal mass to body mass in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 113, 103-122.

Witton, M. P. 2008. A new approach to determining pterosaur body mass and its implications for pterosaur flight. Zitteliana Reihe B 28, 143-158.

Witton, M. P. & Habib, M. B. 2010. On the size and flight diversity of giant pterosaurs, the use of birds as pterosaur analogues and comments on pterosaur flightlessness. PloS One 5, e13982.