At the end of two weeks of drawing nonstop are 85 line drawings that don't come even close to a complete documentation of the skeleton! Why on earth am I smiling?! Photograph by John Scannella. |
Part A: Progress
Report
My trip to the MOR is now over and done with; in the end, I
completed 85 line drawings in two weeks and the revisions bumped the ms up to
1,273 pages. Each day was so labor intensive that I was left mentally and
physically exhausted to the extreme that I hadn’t the energy or motivation to
post updates.
After the first a full week of making illustrations, it was
clear to me that I had to narrow my focus on the articulated skull and exclude
the disarticulated bones in the cabinets. Despite appearances, the articulated
skull is in several sections that can be taken apart and reassembled. I want
this trip to be the last (or second last) time that happens in order to
minimize handling and stress upon the large, but delicate fossil. My plan was
to fully illustrate the skull in its articulated and disarticulated conditions before I left.
As history turned out, I was able to illustrate nearly the
entire skull and jaws, with the exception of much of the braincase and parts of
the lower jaws. One of the main benefits of this trip was getting a handle on
my weekly progress, which is approximately 43 line drawings a week. This will
help me plan my next visit, during which I plan to complete the skull and jaws,
and get a good start on the postcranium.
I approach each drawing in three steps, where (1) I draw the
outline of the bone, or the outline of a set of articulated bones with a heavy
line weight, (2) I then draw outlines of all of the damage, plaster, glue, and
epoxy with a thin line weight, and finally (3) I draw in the topography of the
bone with a light or medium weight line. In a collections room with diffuse
light, I wear a small headlamp to illuminate the specimen. To stave off
boredom, especially during the midafternoon, I usually have a maximum of three
drawings in progress. In most cases I find that drawing the actual anatomical
details gets accomplished very quickly, in contrast to drawing in all of the
damage. Since there was such a high volume of illustrations to make for this
project, I saved time by holding off the final task of varying the line weights
for home except for highly damaged bones such as (in this case) the premaxilla.
Part B: Rationale
& Justification for a Big Monograph
In this section I will answer the most frequent questions I
get regarding this monograph, with the goal to flesh out my aims for embarking on
this sizeable work, as well as that on Jane.
Q: Where do you plan
on publishing such a large work?
A: There are several online journals (e.g., ZooKeys,
Zootaxa) that do publish large works online, which is enabled by the digital
format. There are traditional print journals (e.g., Palaeontology, Journal of
Paleontology, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology) that publish large memoirs in
addition to their regular issues. And there are publishers that that will print
specialized works in book form (e.g., Springer). I therefore have several
venues to consider once the final manuscript is produced.
Q: Why not just break
up your monograph into several smaller articles? That way you can boost your
publication record.
A: To my mind, a monograph is a single coherent reference
work that saves fellow researchers the inconvenience of tracking down separate
articles, and personal experience has shown me that a single work (or set of
works between two covers) is simply easier to work with. I think the mode of
publication ought to benefit the audience more than the author. Put another
way, a monograph is a work that the reader can count on as delivering a maximum
amount of information content in a single location. That’s the whole point.
Q: Why such a huge
monograph on one species? Aren’t you just repeating previous works, like Brochu
(2003)?
Why not a huge monograph on one species? Let’s take an
honest look at the current landscape of publications on new dinosaur taxa: most
articles in the premier journals are 30 pages long or less, and each bone is
usually covered in a paragraph or two. How is that acceptable when we know that
bones aren’t that simple and there is a huge volume of literature behind most
groups of dinosaurs that needs adequate comparison with new fossils. I think
we’re in an unfortunate historical moment where less information is seen as
better than more; I suspect that this has more to do with publication costs of
printed media than anything else.
With regard to the specific project at hand I am describing
a growth series, which significantly bumps up the page length. This also helps
make the argument for a large work, not against it; a monograph provides the
opportunity to capture the variation of a taxon in detail. Again, my basic
argument is the same: maximizing information content is better than
minimization. Why leave people guessing?
The question of repetition strikes me as a little bizarre,
since the taxon I’m working on isn’t an adult T. rex; the question implies that there’s so little difference
between T. rex and its immediate
relatives that there’s no reason to treat any of them in detail. But that would
be to argue from ignorance of the tyrannosaurid literature, the history of the
group, and variation in the clade; we really don’t know that much about
tyrannosaurid osteology and variation, and we must take every opportunity we
have to enrich our knowledge if we are to have any hope of understanding their
biology and their place in Cretaceous ecosystems
I agree that Brochu (2003) is worthy of some discussion
here. That is an exemplary work, and I have used it as a template for the Two
Med tyrannosaurine monograph and for the Jane monograph. But it has to be kept
in mind that more taxa and more information has been published since that time
and we’re currently in a phase (perhaps perpetual) of catching up with new
knowledge. For example, I’ve drafted below a table contrasting the information
content of the maxilla in Brochu (2003) from that in the Two Med tyrannosaurine
monograph by comparing the number of subheadings that correspond to primary
osteological features. A quick glance shows a huge difference of information
content, showing that my effort isn’t redundant by any measure, but rather it
is complementary. The difference is primarily one of resolution. Also Brochu
(2003) takes care of the maxilla in about three printed pages, whereas in my
case, the maxilla is covered in 74 (double spaced) pages.
Brochu
(2003)
|
Two Med
tyrannosaurine monograph
|
General
form
|
General
form
|
Ventral
margin of lateral alveolar process
|
Ventral
margin of lateral alveolar process
|
Alveoli
|
Alveoli
|
Teeth,
number and shape
|
Teeth,
number and shape
|
Circumfenestral
foramina
|
Circumfenestral
foramina
|
Alveolar
foramina
|
Alveolar
foramina
|
Maxillary
nerve channel
|
Maxillary
nerve channel
|
Subnarial
foramen
|
Subnarial
foramen
|
Jugal
ramus
|
Jugal
ramus
|
Subcutaneous
surface
|
Subcutaneous
surface
|
Antorbital
fossa
|
Antorbital
fossa
|
Maxillary
fenestra, size and shape
|
Maxillary
fenestra, size and shape
|
Interfenestral
strut
|
Interfenestral
strut
|
Promaxillary
recess
|
Promaxillary
recess
|
Promaxillary
fenestra, position and shape
|
Promaxillary
fenestra, position and shape
|
Vestibular
bulla
|
Vestibular
bulla
|
Caudal
antromaxillary fenestra
|
Caudal
antromaxillary fenestra
|
Antorbital
fenestra
|
Antorbital
fenestra
|
Palatal
process
|
Palatal
process
|
Bony
choana
|
Bony
choana
|
Maxillary
antrum
|
Maxillary
antrum
|
Maxillary
antrum, medial wall
|
Maxillary
antrum, medial wall
|
Sutural
contacts
|
Sutural
contacts
|
-
|
Condition
|
Horizontal
ramus (excluding antorbital fossa)
|
|
Horizontal
ramus (including antorbital fossa)
|
|
Interdental
septa
|
|
Sulci of
the alveolar row of foramina
|
|
Subnarial
region
|
|
Joint
surface for the premaxilla
|
|
Premaxillary
buttress
|
|
Narial
fossa
|
|
Circumfossa
ridge
|
|
Teeth,
position
|
|
Dorsal
jugal process
|
|
Ventral
jugal process
|
|
Caudal
alveolar foramen
|
|
Joint
surface for the jugal
|
|
Nasomaxillary
suture
|
|
Ascending
ramus, lateral view
|
|
Maxillolacrimal
suture
|
|
Ascending
ramus, medial view
|
|
Antorbital
fossa, subordinate fossae and foramina
|
|
Maxillary
fenestra, position
|
|
Maxillary
position, form of edges
|
|
Maxilla,
medial surface
|
|
Interdental
plates, form
|
|
Interdental
plates, position and texture
|
|
Medial
alveolar process
|
|
Dental
pits
|
|
Joint
surface for the palatine
|
|
Palatal
process, form
|
|
Palatal
process, medial wall
|
|
Palatal
process, dorsal surface
|
|
Maxillary
sinus system
|
|
Maxillary
antrum, caudal region
|
|
Maxillary
antrum, epiantral recess
|
|
Intermaxillary
process
|
|
Intermaxillary
joint surface
|
|
Intermaxillary
process, foramina
|
|
Medial
surface above maxillary sinus system
|
It also has to be kept in mind how much our knowledge of
tyrannosaurid osteology has come since 2003. Since then, different authors will
describe features not mentioned by others, which has expanded the amount of
anatomy to write up. The number of phylogenetic characters published for the
clade is now well into the hundreds, which is additional incentive to expand the
osteological descriptions and to describe how each feature varies. Therefore, a monograph
that aims to capture all of that information will have a huge payoff for other
researchers in that the full range and hierarchy of variaton is captured, including phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and individual.
References cited
Brochu, C. A.
2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex:
insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed
tomographic analysis of the skull. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 7:
1-138.