Reducing a Monument - On the Ground Question

So the past two months have been super hectic, and the last week even more so. Between proposing monument management plans, BLM permit reports getting wrapped up, research, media, and of course my actual day job that pays my bills I feel like I haven't had a chance to get my feet under me and write. Fielding these media questions, though, has helped focus some of the thoughts going through my head. I generally, in my media discussions, tend to steer away from politics and focus on the science which might make for boring copy but keeps my employers happy. Anyway, one of the Frequently Asked Questions I've been getting from the Post, VICE, Salt Lake Tribune, Washington Post, National Geographic, and all the other outlets is, "what does removing the monument actually do?" That's a multi-faceted question without a super-easy answer, but I think it is worth tackling on multiple levels. Today, what that means from the standpoint of a monument without a monument management plan. This is kinda dry, but important. Please bear with me as we dive into the resource management aspect of this.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I am not a land manager either, nor do I speak for any of them. This is just the way I am seeing things and interpreting the various laws.

To begin with, fossils have been widely protected across all public lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 as "objects of antiquity," but are not explicitly called out in the law, so this protection has been up to some interpretation over the years. In any case it has been understood that for over 100 years fossil remains have some sort of "special" status beyond that of mere rocks or geological oddities.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/the-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm

The next major piece of legislation is the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and it has been widely mentioned in media recently (especially from the vantage point of those looking to defend the reductions). Interestingly, ARPA specifically excludes fossils from protection. From ARPA, 16 U.S.C. 470bb, Definitions, Section 3" Nonfossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in an archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age."
https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/fhpl_archrsrcsprot.pdf

Legislatively the most recent thing, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 does lay out specific protections and rules for fossils, including vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants. Each land management agency is tasked with coming up with PRPA-compliant management plan. Under PRPA, casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils found on the surface is allowed from public. The collection of vertebrate fossils requires a permit.
http://vertpaleo.org/The-Society/Advocacy/Paleontological-Resources-Preservation-Act.aspx

The two biggest issues, in terms of actual on-the-ground protection right now (instead of in a decade when there is a Monument Management Plan implemented and in the FR) is that some fossils are indeed no longer protected when a monument's boundaries are shrunk; specifically plant and invertebrate fossils (which are really important for interpreting the ancient environment and can be highly significant in and of themselves). Anyone can legally collect those now, whereas in the 2016 proclamation it said, " Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of the monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof." Those items were protected from collection then, and now they are not. Additionally the monument provides protection from development (specifically commercial development), whereas multi-use BLM lands require monitoring and mitigation of projects (roads, powerlines, mining, hiking trails, etc.) that might disturb fossil resources. The fossils do not have the same level of protection on multi-use BLM lands as they do as "objects to be conserved" in a monument where they are an explicit priority for management.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/proclamation-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument

Is it accurate to say that fossils have lost protections under the Trump proclamations? Yes. Some fossils are explicitly no longer protected in any substantive way (such as invertebrate fossils and plants), while others (vertebrates) retain their PRPA protections but don't enjoy a special status among the other possible uses for the land. So all fossils from an excluded area lose some protections, and some fossils lose virtually all of their protections. That nuance has been lost in many of the articles that have come out about some of our BENM work recently so I figured I would put this out there and hope that maybe those of you who are interested will find this post educational.

A Righteous Burning Anger

A view towards the Bears Ears from land cut from Bears Ears National Monument

So here we are. Some seven months after my last post and the sky has started to fall. In a massive in-and-out trip, President Trump flew into Salt Lake City and after mispronouncing "Grand Staircase-Escalante," he announced that he would be signing two executive orders to modify the boundaries of both GSENM and Bears Ears National Monument. After invoking god and promising to have cattle grazing on the land (which they already do!), Trump flew back to the East Coast to hide in Trump Tower or the White House or some underground bunker with floor-to-ceiling Twitter streams without ever visiting the lands which he just mauled like a rabid wolverine.

The proclamation modifying GSENM recognizes the importance of fossil resources to the monument and at least pays lip service to protecting those resources (though the reality on the ground is a bit different). I will leave the detailed explanations of those fossils and how these cuts damage them to others who have worked extensively in the area; folks like Josh Lively, Joe Sertich, and the late Mike Getty (who no doubt is spinning in his grave and spewing hellfire at the monsters responsible for this abomination).

The proclamation abolishing BENM and establishing two new monuments, however, is a completely different story. As stunningly moronic as it is reprehensible, the proclamation showcases a complete lack of understanding of both basic geology and the resources. Contradicting the GSENM modification, the BENM modification claims that paleo is now well protected all over, despite clear evidence to the contrary. The proclamation then goes on to say, "East of the Bears Ears is Arch Canyon, within which paleontologists have found numerous fossils from the Permian and Upper Permian eras." This statement is complete nonsense, as there is no Permian or Upper Permian era (the Upper Permian is a division of the Permian Period), and there are no fossils known from Arch Canyon (as I have previously discussed). The stunning ignorance of just this one statement is echoed elsewhere in this awful steaming pile of rubbish.

Expect more posts about this before the end of the year. I am furious right now. This righteous, burning anger will fuel my actions going forward. I'm not only not giving up, I'm going to help strike back. You should too. Join and donate to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Write your representative or senator, especially regarding the insidious HR 3990 that attempts to abolish the Antiquities Act as we know it. Bombard the Department of the Interior with letters and calls, but remember that the folks on the ground, doing day-to-day management are not the ones who your anger should be directed at. They are trying their best to do their job in a horrible and uncertain situation. Aim your fury at those sitting back in Washington D.C.

Remember this too: if you voted for Trump, you voted for this. You directly enabled this. I don't want to hear your half hearted apologies about how you don't agree with everything he does or whatever milquetoast platitudes you try to offer me. Trump and his people wrote a proclamation that basically says that I'm an idiot and none of my life's work matters. Let that sink in.

We all knew something like this was coming. We hoped for an asteroid or an outbreak of common sense, but neither happened. Now we rise like lions, or are lost like lambs. Rise.

"This court case will be like a Roe vs. Wade for monuments." - Jessica Ugelsich

A small part of a massive fossil bed, possibly one of the most important in the state of Utah, now cut from BENM

National Monuments, Paleo, and the Future

So Bears Ears is back in the news, along with every other national monument created under the Antiquities Act of 1906 for the last 21 years. Despite being a powerful conservation tool used by essentially every president since it was signed into law, its gains (especially, in a strange irony, with protecting traditional uses) have been called into question by a small minority of Americans who feel that national monuments pose some kind of existential threat to their person, family, or lifeway.

You may or may not have recently seen that President Trump recently issued an Executive Order setting up a review of the use of the Antiquities Act to create national monuments since 1996. Bookending this EO are two national monuments created with paleontological resources explicitly called out in their proclamations; Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Bears Ears National Monument. These two monuments alone protect around 3 million acres of public lands with rock records that span virtually all of the history of vertebrate life on land. Their status as monuments has allowed scientific research to flourish (as in the case of GSENM) or is poised to allow scientific research to flourish (as is the case in BENM). This of course ignores the countless other scientific discoveries made in the nearly two dozen other monuments created under authority delegated to the president by the Antiquities Act; for our purpose here we are going to be focusing on the two monuments in Utah created since 1996 that include paleontology resources in their proclamation.

Map showing GSENM and some of its paleontological resources, created by David Polly for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created by presidential proclamation in 1996 under President Bill Clinton. This new monument, and several others created at the time, were part of a new sweeping set of public lands classification changes encompassed in what is now the National Conservation Lands. Despite a dearth of fossils having been published from what is now GSENM it was suspected or known by some paleontologists that the outcrops in GSENM had yielded some novel animals (such as Parasaurolophus cyrocristatus) and the majority of possible fossil-bearing outcrops had not yet been explored. Reflecting this, the White House took steps to protect fossil resources.

Utahceratops gettyi skull from GSENM. Figure from Sampson et al., 2010

At present, over a dozen new dinosaurs have been described from the monument, with plenty more undergoing scientific write-up, publication, and review. Utahceratops gettyi, shown above, is just one of the thousands of spectacular fossil specimens that have been uncovered within GSENM, mainly from areas where detractors are hoping to remove monument protections.

Map showing BENM and some of its paleontological resources, created by David Polly for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

Bears Ears National Monument was created by President Barack Obama under the authority delegated to him by the Antiquities Act, just like Bill Clinton used 20 years earlier. Taking existing public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service, the new National Monument was created to safeguard traditional Native American cultural uses of the land, archaeological sites, and paleontological resources. Despite being a multi-year process that involved the state, land management agencies, local communities, various Native American tribes with ties to the region, and scientists like myself, this monument has been unceasingly attacked since the moment it was proclaimed with half-truths, lies, and an aggressive smear campaign by some of its more unprincipled detractors.

The oldest vertebrate tracks from Comb Ridge, BENM. From Gay et al., 2017.

In this climate of (some) local antipathy, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke came to visit Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. Some reports claim that he told local leaders that there would be some shrinking or rescinding of national monuments under review, including Bears Ears. If this is true, it would be a terrible tragedy, especially considering that these comments come before the public review period is even over!

Which brings me to the point of this blog. If you love science. If you love fossils. If you love public lands. You need to make your comments heard. This is especially important considering the comment period for Bears Ears is only open until May 26th, a ridiculously short period of time for people to comment!

Screenshot taken from https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001 at 9:32 AM MDT, 5/20/17

This is especially true considering that one of the only weekend days of the BENM comment period the site is down all day for maintenance! Not only is internet access spotty across rural Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, where there is lots of tribal support for BENM, but now the federal government has decided to have all-day maintenance on the comments site during one of the few weekend days that people may have time to write up comments or visit a location with internet access.

Once the site is back up and running this evening (if all goes according to schedule), please leave a comment in support of science and continuing protection for paleontological resources within BENM and all national monuments. I've included a draft of my comments if anyone is looking for a starting point.
Comment site: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001

Dear Secretary Zinke,

I am writing today in order to express my support for the national monuments currently under review by yourself and the Department of the Interior at the behest of President Trump. Not only do national monuments form a vital part of our nation's public lands, they provide meaningful and desperately needed protections for irreplaceable, scientifically valuable, and nationally significant paleontological specimens and research. Above and beyond what protections public lands have in place for fossil specimens, national monument status conveys additional scrutiny, and funding for research, education, and protection. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has produced dozens of scientifically important specimens since the monument was proclaimed in 1996; Bears Ears National Monument will do the same. Already scientists like myself are unearthing, studying, and publishing on amazing discoveries from within the monument. Reducing or rescinding the national monument status for BENM will irreparably hurt scientific efforts in the region and exposes these unique traces of the ancient past, that we all share as part of our national natural heritage, to damage and destruction by people who do not see a reason or find value in preserving and understanding the past. Fossil tell us about extinction and how environments change over time; the only evidence we have of many of these vast climatic shifts comes from the fossil record, including the Triassic-Jurassic transition within Bears Ears. I am calling on you and the Trump administration to fully support BENM and all other national monuments to the fullest extent and respect their existing boundaries under the authority they were proclaimed by powers vested in the President by Congress.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Gay, paleontologist and educator

Please take the time and leave comments in support of our national monuments and paleontology within them.

 

Bibliography Project Update

It has been a while and things have been busy. I wanted to post a note to let everyone know that the BENM Bibliography now has a live, downloadable spreadsheet available free to the public. I will continue to update the static text, but having the references in a spreadsheet format allows for some cool analysis of the publications as historical documents and allows us to see trends in research themes (which is part of my UFOP annual meeting talk coming up in late April).

Anyway, the spreadsheet is available here for anyone to use and will continue to be updated as I find more resources and new papers are published.

Next time on the PP Blog, a look at scientific accuracy in popular reconstructions of Dilophosaurus.

Red Canyon; Fossils and Silence

Red Canyon; Fossils and Silence

or: How not publishing data hurt fossil protection in the fight for Bears Ears National Monument

Some Background

          Okay everybody, gather 'round. Time for Uncle Rob to tell the story of Red Canyon. It is a magical place, with soaring red walls and seemingly endless badlands. Rocks from the Middle Triassic through the Early Jurassic are exposed in its depths, and numerous historic uranium mines, roads, and artifacts. Gorgeous, desolate, and isolated, Red Canyon is truly an amazing location and was rightly included in the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition's proposal for a Bears Ears National Monument. It was specifically excluded under Rep. Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative and was also dropped from the final Bears Ears National Monument boundaries.

Bears Ears National Monument Map - Department of the Interior

          Besides the odd isolate on the west side of the map (just east of Lake Powell), the Red Canyon/Moqui Canyon stretch of high deserts, plateaus, and canyons is not protected within the Monument boundaries. Why might that be? One reason is likely Energy Fuels' Daneros Mine, located in upper Red Canyon. The other reason might have something to do with paleontological discoveries that are more like tech "vaporware" than hard science at the moment.

Paleontology in Red Canyon

          I am not going to dwell long on current, ongoing projects in Red Canyon headed up by my friends and colleagues that have started in the last couple of years. For one that would be unfair and unethical since they are investing time and energy into their discoveries. For another, everyone involved in research in Red Canyon currently has a solid record of publishing their work. I am confident that any new discoveries that come out of the Red Canyon area will be properly published in the scientific literature.

          This is a tough subject to write about because the core of the issue are fossils that have never been published. This whole story exists, however, because these fossils have never been published. So I will not name institutions or people involved. I won't even really describe these fossils in any sort of detail because that would be inappropriate. Nonetheless, these fossils existence is known within the small community of paleontologists who work on the Triassic Period in western North America. The most famous are some small reptile skeletons, but other specimens played a role in this story. These specimens are far more interesting than I let on here but I don't want to say much more because the fossils are still undescribed. These reptile skeletons were discovered first back in either the 1960s or 1970s (depending on who is telling the story). They went to a museum back east where they have set ever since. They have been prepared, they have been seen by dozens of visiting researchers, and although they are remarkable they have never been described in a formal publication (or even in the "grey literature" as far as anyone seems to know). A couple of other scientific publications have come out of work done in Red Canyon but they were not describing anything new, unique, or spectacular for the most part: crocodylomorph scutes, phytosaur bones and teeth, etc. (Parrish and Good, 1987; Parrish, 1999). Not to say that these aren't important to document but they don't carry the scientific significance of a new species, for example.

Red Canyon on the Chopping Block

So why does this matter? Well, as I mentioned in my last blog post, I was asked to provide bibliographies of the paleontological and geological resources of the Bears Ears area. I was also eventually asked to go to Washington DC and present that information (and more) in person. I had produced, along with some of the conservation groups who I had been in contact with, a map highlighting several things. A modified version of this map is reproduced below.

Map of the Bears Ears Area before monument designation. Geologic data from Utah Geological Survey database.

          This map outlined both the Utah Public Lands Initiative and the Inter-Tribal Coalition's proposals, and overlaid both areas of known paleontological resources (red hashes in 1. Red Canyon, 2. Valley of the Gods, 3. Comb Ridge, and 4. Indian Creek) and areas pulled from the Utah Geological Survey's online public geologic map database showing where the fossil-rich Chinle and Morrison Formations are exposed (in green). This was done to highlight the potential for new discoveries in this region that has not been systematically explored by paleontologists. This is where I ran head-on into the realities of the wheels of power looking at the various conservation options. Anyone who says that this was a sort of midnight "swoop" into southeastern Utah without considering all the factors doesn't know how these proceedings work.

Publications Count

          This is probably the best "real-world" example of why publishing your finds matter. It might not be a priority to you. It might be a pain, it might take more time than you want, it might get caught up in the chaos of a job change or move. It doesn't matter; publish what you find. Is it all going to be flashy? Hell no. Does it provide useful data for your future colleagues or students in 10, 20, 50, 150 years? It sure does. Perhaps most broadly applicable here, does it provide people outside the science entirely with something solid to point to when trying to decide on the "value" of the land? You better believe it. Without anything concrete to point to about the nationally significant scientific value of Red Canyon, when lawmakers, bureaucrats, and administration officials asked how I could show the area needed protection I couldn't respond. At the Department of the Interior I was repeatedly asked to support my claims that paleontology needed to be protected and what areas were most significant. There are publications, preprints, and abstracts to support the scientific value of Indian Creek, Comb Ridge, and Valley of the Gods. There was nothing to point to for Red Canyon.

          This also brings up a point that my friend Jim has raised on Facebook. The proclamation language heavily favors the Triassic fossils from the region. Part of this is likely due to some of my experience bias creeping in; I mainly work in the Triassic. The majority of that, however, comes again from the published record. While there are hundreds (thousands?) of acres of Middle Mesozoic sediments exposed in the Bears Ears area (see the map above), almost nothing has been published on fossils from those sediments in the Bears Ears. Comparatively the Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic comprise the vast majority of the published record for the region. In meetings with the DoI, again, I was essentially told that knowing that something might be out there is nice, the government can't set aside this land from all other purposes based on a possibility. In setting up proclamation language we didn't ignore mid-Mesozoic finds; those projects have either been sidelined, ignored, or not started by our own profession in favor of work elsewhere. And I recognize that it is a tough balancing act. My work in Bears Ears has meant I haven't been following up on leads in other places. We all only have so much time, energy, and funding.

Conclusion

          Would scientists publishing in the 80s or 90s on the Red Canyon reptile material have made a difference? Would Red Canyon now be part of Bears Ears National Monument had these reptiles (and other, more recent but unpublished finds) become part of the published scientific record? That's a what-if game that has no right answer; its inclusion would still have to fight against powerful interests looking to preserve uranium mining in Red Canyon. I do know that it couldn't have hurt and its absence was the weakest point by far in all my efforts to get paleontology covered under a BENM or any legislative action. We shouldn't be publishing for solely political cynicism but sitting on scientifically significant fossils for 40-50 years should not be considered normal or acceptable. This is especially true in this age of rapid, rigorous peer review and digital publication. Sitting on specimens for that long hurts science, hurts future work in the area, and may even end up hurting the very place the fossils came from.

Works Cited

Instead of my usual works cited section here I am going to take this space to say I am going to be creating a Bears Ears Bibliography page here on the blog. This will be a core page here on the blog and will be added to as new papers either come to light or are published. They will be live-linked when possible. Expect this to go live in the first week of 2017. It will start with the bibliography I prepared for the White House so you can see (if you didn't get an e-mail from me before all of this) what I was working from. If you think something is missing and should be included after it goes live, don't hesitate to point it out!

Help Save Dinosaur Ridge!!!

Dinosaur Ridge Needs Your Help

Dinosaur Ridge, a tourist attraction where the first specimen of Stegosaurus was found is under threat to become a car dealership. I implore everyone, especially Colorado natives, to express their disdain with the commissioners who will vote on whether to approve the dealership. Here's the post from the Facebook page 'Save Dinosaur Ridge':

We need all of the commissioners getting letters -- as many as possible -- saying that we do NOT want car dealerships at Dinosaur Ridge. The email can be simple and straight forward. You can just say whatever is in your heart, in a civil way. Help the Commissioners hear the message:VOTE NO on the re-zoning to allow a car dealership at the intersection of Alameda and C-470.
Here are the contacts to write to:
Libby Szabo, District 1 Commissioner: commish1@jeffco.us
Casey Tighe, District 2 Commissioner: commish2@jeffco.us
Donald Rosier, District 3 Commissioner: commish3@jeffco.us
Please cc the Case Manager, Heather Gutherless, Hgutherl@jeffco.us

Trackway at Dinosaur Ridge

                             Edit: Here is "Save Dinosaur Ridge' most recent post: 

FOUR WAYS TO HELP SAVE DINO RIDGE TODAY:

(1)

WRITE A LETTER (and CC SaveDinosaurRidge@gmail.com)

Board of County Commissioners

c/o Heather Gutherless, Case Manager

100 Jefferson County Pkwy, Golden, CO 80419

In the letter, please identify yourself as a concerned citizen, and simply state that you oppose a car dealership at the intersection of Alameda and C-470. (“Please vote “no” on Jan 17 at the meeting decide whether or not to rezone land around Dinosaur Ridge.”) or longer and more personal.

The important thing is that the letter get to the Board NO LATER THAN Jan 10.

(2)

USE THE COUNTY WEBSITE SUBMITTABLE FORM to send written comments:

http://jeffco.us/bcc/contact/

(3)

MAKE A PHONE CALL TO THE BOARD:

303-271-8525 – Monday thru Friday – 7:30am to 5:30pm

The Case Manager is Heather Gutherless.

(4)

REACH OUT TO EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS via social media, or their own websites and email addresses

These links will help you know what district you live in, so that you can contact the commissioner who represents you.

It is fine to contact all three of them, but they are most interested in hearing from citizens inside their own districts:

http://jeffco.us/bcc/about/

http://jeffco.us/bcc/about/district-map/

LIBBY SZABO - District 1 https://www.facebook.com/Libby-Szabo-281879707870/ Website Submittable Form http://libbyszabo.org/contact/

Libby Szabo for JeffCo * P.O. Box 746048 * Arvada CO 80006-6048 * libby@libbyszabo.com * 720-260-4722

CASEY TIGHE - District 2 - https://www.facebook.com/tighe.casey *

http://www.tigheforjeffco.org/get-involved.html * casey@tigheforjeffco.org * 720-443-0619 *Tigheforjeffco@comcast.net

DONALD ROSIER - District 3 - https://www.facebook.com/donrosier/

drosier@rosierforjeffco.com.

Thanks to Tara Lepore and Ashley Hall for bringing this matter to my attention. Here is the Dinosaur Ridge website for those interested! http://www.dinoridge.org/

The Fight for Paleontology in Bears Ears

The Fight for Paleontology in Bears Ears

As many of you may have seen, on December 28^th, 2016, President Obama used the authority assigned to him under the Antiquities Act of 1906 by Congress to declare a Bears Ears National Monument. Now most of the public debate surrounding this area has focused on the wealth of ancient sites, artifacts, rock art, and tribal connections to the area. But the paleontological resources of the area are also highly significant. I had been following with interest and then growing alarm as various advocacy groups began pushing for additional protection for various cultural and scenic resources in the area. State legislators were talking about a public lands "Grand Bargain." Tribal leaders and conservationists were talking about a national monument. No one was talking about the paleontological resources of the area. This was a great concern to me since that has been my field area for several years now and an area I have been involved in and around for well over a decade.

Moonrise over Comb Ridge, where my work has focused for the last several years.

Pushing for Paleontology

                So I took action. I went down to Bluff in March 2016 to attend Friends of Cedar Mesa's Celebrate Cedar Mesa and agitate. I poked at people; organizers, legislators, BLM administrators, and conservationists. I made a general nuisance of myself and apparently it did some good. Though no Utah state or federal legislators ever got back to me, the folks involved with monument status began communicating about the fossils in the area. It started with simple descriptions of the paleo resources of the area. When I was asked to compile a bibliography of the same, though, that's when I think I opened lots of eyes. The bibliographic list of publications together ran for over 20 pages and left many mineral-geology resources off (as they were being dealt with elsewhere).

Looking west from Bluff at Celebrate Cedar Mesa 2016

                That is when things accelerated. In April I was brought down to Bluff to talk to folks from FoCM and The Wilderness Society about the importance of the area to paleontology and about the 300 million years of stories in the area, preserved in the rocks of the Bears Ears area. Some of this was eventually made into a video highlighting our personal connections to the area.

The video of the personal and deep-time aspects of the area, produced by TWS.

                Around this time I was also asked to draft language that would protect paleontology in a monument, should the president move forward with a monument. I would have been happy to have provided similar input to the PLI as well, but considering they barred non-San Juan County residents from participating in the Bears Ears portion it isn't surprising that they didn't contact me. A rumor also began circulating that Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior, would be visiting the region over the summer. I sent her a message inviting her to our field camp at Comb Ridge. While the invitation was turned down, I did get a response from her scheduling secretary; encouraging.

Increased Advocacy

                Over the summer the Secretary's travel plans firmed up and it became clear she would be visiting Bluff in July. I made the three hour trek down there and saw loads and loads of people. The line to get inside the community building in Bluff stretched back on itself multiple times in the heat and the organizers had set up an outside listening area. I patiently waited in line to get a number to speak. Despite arriving at (what I had assumed was) a decent time, I was unable to secure a seat inside. Instead I guzzled water outside with my friend Chris and listened to the first half hour of speakers come and go. The atmosphere was charged but no one was being too terribly rude. I got a text from an inside person and worked my way into the building where the atmosphere was more tense, more dense, but only slightly less hot than outside. 

View inside the Bluff Community Center. Photo by ReBecca Hunt-Foster.

                My number wasn't drawn as the day drew near its end but then the Secretary announced that she would be extending the meeting on account of all the people still in attendance. While several people had to leave, including Chris, most of the folks stayed. The Community Center did not seem to empty out, though as people from outside filled in the spaces. As luck/fate/random chance of the draw would have it, my number was called. In fact it was the second-to-last number called to speak. Like the Hamilton song says, I wasn't going to throw away my shot. Many folks had pre-written speeches in hand when they approached the mic but not me. I had an outline in my head and key ideas to touch on; I got up there and spoke based on that. I would like to think my lack of notes in hand and ease with the subject I was discussing helped but I cannot be sure.

Speaking to the panel in Bluff. Photo by David Rankin.

                After probably the most stressful two minutes of my career the meeting was essentially over. I helped pick up the best I could and chatted with folks from FoCM, TWS, the Utah legislature, and various friends before heading to a field camp just up the road. My conscience was clear at this point; I'd made my case to people who would make the decisions. I figured that my work was essentially done at this point.

Rob Goes to Washington

                As the summer progressed the Bears Ears radar went quiet for the most part. In September, though, things began to pick back up. I was asked for updated information to provide to the Administration and to speak around Colorado. Again, all of this was coming from the monument advocacy side; the PLI crowd still had not been in contact with me, though they had consulted with (and apparently not taken the advice of) other geoscientists who had been active in the Bears Ears area. Also in September the idea was broached to me by Scott of TWS of going to Washington DC and presenting to the White House, the Department of the Interior, and the USDA/Forest Service about paleo in the Bears Ears area. After a fair bit of stop-and-start action, along with an intervening paleontology conference, I ended up visiting DC for the first time ever on Halloween.

Yours truly standing inside the White House Council on Environmental Quality office.

                Having never been to DC before this was sort of a double whammy. Here I was, seeing historic buildings, sites, monuments, cemeteries, and departments for the first time but also going into these "Halls of Power" to meet with folks and talk about the land and science that is essentially my consuming passion. People asked if I was nervous going into this part. I wasn't, not really. I know the science, the landscape, the geology, and the region like the back of my hand.

                In the meetings questions came up about the publication record of certain regions, the relative rarity of certain resources, why certain areas on our map (more on that in a later post) weren't identified as "high potential", and what work was currently happening in the region (along with many others). These are questions I was able to answer but was also happy to be asked; it meant that the people in these departments were taking paleontology seriously and had done their background reading. I left DC knowing that the folks I had talked to were energized about paleontology and hopeful that their enthusiasm and the new information from me would be transformed into paleontology being protected in any future proclamation. Scott from TWS was likewise hopeful.

The Final Days

                After the election there was some serious concern among folks that despite all the legwork done by experts, advocates, and lawmakers on both sides of the issue that nothing would happen. Despite Rob Bishop et al. proclaiming that a Bears Ears National Monument would be a midnight monument, that the State of Utah would sue, etc., it was clear at the meeting (and from the amount of work that Bishop put in) that both sides of the issue wanted to see the area protected. There was frantic scrambling to make sure everything was in place should the President decide to act. In the midst of all this chaos some of my colleagues and I managed to put out a preprint on the first vertebrate traces from Comb Ridge, in the Bears Ears area. Everything was poised and ready but no one was really sure it was going to happen until it did. I got a call from an advocate about half an hour before the White House made the announcement; even then I was on pins and needles. Would paleo actually be protected?

                It is with great relief that I read the proclamation and saw that paleontology was explicitly called out and protected under the proclamation. Perhaps even more surprising (and gratifying) is that a large portion of the paleontology-specific text was mine. I had helped craft this. I had made a difference here. Before I got involved in the process no one on either side of the issue had considered paleontology in the region seriously. No matter what happens going forward we know that paleontology in the region will be protected. By explicitly mentioning it in the proclamation, the president has acknowledged that the resources are significant not only to the area but to the country as a whole.

The paleontological resources in the Bears Ears area are among the richest and most significant in the United States, and protection of this area will provide important opportunities for further archaeological and paleontological study. Many sites, such as Arch Canyon, are teeming with fossils, and research conducted in the Bears Ears area is revealing new insights into the transition of vertebrate life from reptiles to mammals and from sea to land. Numerous ray-finned fish fossils from the Permian Period have been discovered, along with other late Paleozoic Era fossils, including giant amphibians, synapsid reptiles, and important plant fossils. Fossilized traces of marine and aquatic creatures such as clams, crayfish, fish, and aquatic reptiles have been found in Indian Creek's Chinle Formation, dating to the Triassic Period, and phytosaur and dinosaur fossils from the same period have been found along Comb Ridge. Paleontologists have identified new species of plant-eating crocodile-like reptiles and mass graves of lumbering sauropods, along with metoposaurus, crocodiles, and other dinosaur fossils. Fossilized trackways of early tetrapods can be seen in the Valley of the Gods and in Indian Creek, where paleontologists have also discovered exceptional examples of fossilized ferns, horsetails, and cycads. The Chinle Formation and the Wingate, Kayenta, and Navajo Formations above it provide one of the best continuous rock records of the Triassic-Jurassic transition in the world, crucial to understanding how dinosaurs dominated terrestrial ecosystems and how our mammalian ancestors evolved. In Pleistocene Epoch sediments, scientists have found traces of mammoths, short-faced bears, ground sloths, primates, and camels.

- Proclamation establishing Bears Ears National Monument, December 28th, 2016 

                We are continuing our research in the area with two aggressive excavations scheduled for 2017 in the Bears Ears along with continuing high school field camp work, and I am glad that the administration was willing to listen to the concerns of scientists from around the country about this area and the importance of paleontology to understanding its history. Looking forward, this proclamation serves as a framework for future paleontological work in the region. Nearby Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has similar language in its proclamation. This language has enabled a flowering of scientific research across the Grand Staircase. Virtually all of the new dinosaur species coming from that area (>95% of them) have been described since the Monument was declared and the wording of the proclamation has allowed that to happen. Horned dinosaurs, duck-billed dinosaurs, and young relatives of Tyrannosaurus rex have all been named in the last two decades. Hopefully, with paleontology being singled out and protected in Bears Ears National Monument, a similar explosion in our knowledge of the past will occur here.

                There is still work to be done. The fossil-rich areas in and around Red Canyon, currently being worked by colleagues from the Museum of Moab and Appalachian State University, were excluded from the Monument. Of course, with the new administration coming in there are other questions about funding for this and other public lands. We have our work cut out for us. I am mostly happy but I am not content and complacent. More blogs will be forthcoming on this topic too - both about Bears Ears paleo and the process of making a monument.

                I would like to extend my tremendous thanks to all of my friends and colleagues. Field crews from SGDS and NHMU, under Andrew Milner and Randy Irmis were vital to me getting started in paleo in the Bears Ears, as was a GeoCorps internship with the BLM's Canyon Country District in 2013. Canyonlands Natural History Association, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and the Museums of Western Colorado have also directly made my work in this area possible. Conservationists Josh Ewing, Amanda Podmore, and Scott Miller listened when I started poking things with a sharp stick and ranting about paleo in the area. Thank you to all the folks who listened to me at the meeting in July in Bluff as well as in the offices of DC. All my colleagues who signed my letter that I pestered you about; many thanks! It made a difference. Thank you also to Randy, Jeff, and Kenshu for all the hard work getting the SVP to send a letter talking about the importance of paleo, regardless of how (monument vs. NCA) it would be preserved. Special thanks go out to Julie McHugh, Brian Engh, Tara Lepore, May Blueotter, Xavier Jenkins, and all the people who have been part of our Comb Ridge field crews. Many special thanks especially go to Jen McCollough and Abby Landmeier for all their support during this whole process. Now, prepare for more Bears Ears blogs in the coming year!

Portal to the Triassic in Bears Ears National Monument

Edited 12/30 to reflect more accurately how Bishop's PLI planning team interacted with other paleontologists.

Ceratosaurus Part 2: What do we actually know about Ceratosaurus teeth?

What you'll notice about both of these diagnoses, however, is that they contain little in the way of dental characters. Sure they both say the premaxilla only contains three teeth, but that is of little help if you are trying to ID isolated teeth. This brings me to the crux of this post in the first place

As I said in a previous post, "Teeth attributed to Ceratosaurus do turn up in the field, however, and are usually distinguished by the presence of ridges near their bases."

 Madsen and Welles (2000) found "longitudinal grooves" in the anterior dentary teeth of Ceratosaurus magnicornis (this is not listed in their diagnosis. Another tooth character is though: "the teeth are longer and stouter."), and also cited "persistent parallel grooves on the medial surfaces of the premaxillary teeth and the anterior three teeth of the dentary," in the etymology for C. dentisulcatus (this morphology is not listed as an autapomorphy in their diagnosis - though "teeth more massive" is). Later in their publication, however, Madsen and Welles (p. 35) do state that, "lateral grooves are diagnostic of the premaxillary and anterior three teeth of the Ceratosaurus dentary," when discussing Ceratosaurus sp. from Tanzania. In the next paragraph they discuss "lingual grooves" as being characteristic of Ceratosaurus. They point out that these grooves are not diagnostic to the species level. There are two problems with this: there is now only one recognized species of Ceratosaurus, and the holotype lacks premaxillary and anterior dentary teeth.

While Gilmore does use some dental-based characters, they are not tied to a specific tooth morphology and instead deal with the number of teeth in the various tooth-bearing bones.

So what do we actually know about Ceratosaurus teeth?

Plate 17, Figure 1 from Gilmore (1920), showing the right side of the holotype of Ceratosaurus

Plate 17, Figure 2 from Gilmore (1920), showing the left side of the holotype of Ceratosaurus

The holotype lacks the apparently diagnostic teeth of Madsen and Welles' C. dentisulcatus. As you can see from Gilmore, the left hand side of the skull features no anterior teeth. The right side is equally bleak when it comes to anterior dentition. So we are now faced with a tooth morphology that may be diagnostic (but not used in a formal diagnosis) of a junior synonym that cannot be directly be compared with the holotype.

Continuing to muddy (or clarify?) the waters is C. ?meriani, from the Late Jurassic of Switzerland. Madsen and Welles (2000) figure it and refer it to Ceratosaurus sp., and Mickey Mortimer over at the Theropod Database says, "It differs from Genyodectes and Ostafrikosaurus in lacking mesial serrations. As it is of identical size and found in temporally equivalent beds, I believe it should be called Ceratosaurus meriani." Well there are other teeth from the Late Jurassic that have fluting and lack mesial serrations. Specifically some teeth referred to Ceratosaurus from the Morrison Formation of the American West. But why are they referred to Ceratosaurus? It is the right size and shape and comes from the right aged beds...but that's usually not good enough to assign to a highly exclusive clade.

So let's sum up what we can say about the teeth of Ceratosaurus (and please chime in if I've goofed somewhere):

• Ceratosaurus nasicornis has no known premaxillary or anterior dentary teeth
• C. magnicornis has both premaxillaries preserved but, again, no teeth preserved in situ. It also lacks a dentary
• C. dentisulcatus preserves both an toothed premaxilla and dentary with the lingual surfaces of the premaxillary and anterior dentary teeth preserving apicobasal grooves.
• C ?meriani lacks mesial serrations and appears to preserve apicobasal fluting
• C. "stechowi" from Tendaguru has apicobasal fluting
• C. "sulcatus" from Como Bluff, Wyoming preserves apicobasal fluting
• Several teeth from the Mygatt-Moore Quarry have been referred to Ceratosaurus on the basis of apicobasal fluting.

So it seems that people are treating these apicobasal flutes (and in some cases the lack of mesial serrations) as diagnostic to Ceratosaurus. But apicobasal flutes are known in more taxa than just Ceratosaurus; several Triassic archosauriform tooth morphotypes possess them, as do temnospondyls, some phytosaurs, some early Jurassic dinosaurs (WFtP), spinosaurs, crocs, and gators. That's just tetrapods; I haven't wanted to dive deep into what sort of crazy dentition fish might have. As I understand it (though I don't have any sources right next to me at the moment) this adaptation would be useful for resisting strain on the tooth; basically the animal was punching through tough, wriggling stuff with its face. Understandable then that many things that eat tough prey would have this sort of adaptation.

Where does that leave us with Ceratosaurus? Well it leaves us with the possibility (not the certainty) that Ceratosaurus had apicobasal fluting on its anterior teeth. Certainly specimens with non-dental remains seem to suggest at least one species referred to Ceratosaurus previously had these flutes. I would urge caution, however, in assigning all Late Jurassic stout, fluted theropod teeth to Ceratosaurus. First off, the holotype doesn't have them, so the referral is based on previously referred specimens. That sort of secondary referral is done relatively frequently but it should give one cause for consideration. The second point is that we really don't have a good idea of the dental variation in other Late Jurassic theropods. We know the teeth of Allosaurus fairly well, but what can we say of the tooth structure at all major tooth positions in Torvosaurus, for example (especially considering derived megalosaurs, the spinosaurs, developed fluted tooth crowns as well)? Do we really know what the teeth were like in some of the mid-sized Morrison taxa as well? Since most aren't represented by good cranial remains we don't know what tooth variation is out there.

In closing, we can say that it is likely Ceratosaurus had fluted front teeth but because of problems with the type specimen and the plesiomorphic nature of dental fluting, the rampant homoplasy in tetrapod dentition in general, and the lack of information about other Morrison theropods' teeth it is unwise to assign isolated fluted teeth to Ceratosaurus at all. Hopefully descriptions of other Ceratosaurus specimens with preserved anterior teeth along with a better understanding of Morrison theropod tooth diversity will lead to more accurate diagnoses of these fluted theropod teeth.

Minor aside

Life happens. I've been off the blog game for almost the whole year but I am hoping to be back at it through 2017, especially in terms of blogging about our next publications we have coming out. I've also brought a couple amigos on board here at the Prehistoric Pub so we plan on at least not letting you all down too much this next year. Onward to the next paleo discovery!

Works Cited

Gilmore, Charles W. 1920. "Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus." Bulletin of the United States National Museum 110: 1–154.

Madsen, James H.; Welles, Samuel P. 2000. "Ceratosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) a revised osteology." Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 00-2. pp. 80

Introducing your new bartender, Xavier Jenkins!

Hi, all!
I'm new to prehistoric pub, and blogging in general. I figured that I'd introduce myself so you all can get to know me!

I'm Xavier Jenkins and I am a Freshman in Biological Sciences at Arizona State University. Throughout my entire life I've aspired to become a paleontologist, and in summer of 2015 I went on my first dig with paleontologist (and fellow blogger) Robert J. Gay.

                                     The Triassic Dream Team. Rob Gay, Tara Lepore, and I (Bottom right)
My research  has been focused on the paleoecology of the Chinle Formation of Utah, and I'll dig up anything I can there. Particularly, I want to get a better grasp on how these prehistoric monsters interacted with each-other, and I want to fully comprehend what this ancient environment looked like by employing methods such as screen washing to ensure that no fossil is left behind.

I am working on five or so projects relating to this research, including the description of new taxon and a mass mortality bone bed. I never thought I'd say this, but I've learned to love microfossils and I hope to be studying them for my professional career. Last summer, I worked as a Field Assistant at Comb Ridge and Fry Canyon with Robert Gay. Overall, I'm super excited to see what our research reveals! Every trip has revealed more and more, and now we got our self a bone-bed!

                              New taxon in the works. Look at those serrations! Scale=1 mm. Image is from Gay et al. 2016. 
In addition to doing research in the Chinle of Utah, I am working in an Ecology lab at Arizona State University, where I am studying the trophic levels of desert streams and the fish and invertebrates within. When I'm not procrastinating to study for my latest test I am either hanging out with my fiance, Madison, or I am playing Town of Salem with my friends and colleagues, Rob Gay and Nathan Van Vranken. I look forward to updating you all on our research, and I'll do my best to keep you entertained! Here's a link to our crew's latest preprint!

Ceratosaurus Part 1: The history of a predatory horned dinosaur.

Disclaimer: I promised you all a post about the teeth of Ceratosaurus. This is not that post. In reviewing the history of Ceratosaurus I found the post growing with background knowledge but no discussion of teeth. It make sense; there is backstory here dating back to Marsh in the 1880s! So I have decided to break this into two posts. The first post, this one, covers the history of Ceratosaurus research. The next post, out soon, will cover just the dental aspects of this charismatic animal.

Ceratosaurus, the "horned lizard," was cool beast, no doubt about it! Here we have a theropod with huge fangs that was over 20 feet long, and had bone studded armor along its back! And that is to say nothing about those flamboyant crests on its face; one sits above its nose and another one above each of its eye. It was initially described by Marsh back in 1884 and is relatively well known thanks to a number of specimens from across the American West, mainly in Colorado and east-central Utah. There are large animals, presumed to be adults, and smaller individuals (presumably juveniles) in our sample as well, so we should theoretically have a good grasp on what this animal was like. Let's take a look at the history of Ceratosaurus, starting after Marsh's initial publication.

Gilmore in 1920 redescribed Marsh's animal (thankfully!) and revised the diagnosis for Ceratosaurus. I have quoted him in full below.

Generic characters: Premaxillaries with three teeth; maxillaries with 15 teeth; dentary with 15 teeth; 9 cervical vertebrae plano-concave; dorsal vertebrae biconcave; 5 sacrals; distal caudals without special lengthening of prezygapophyses; pelvis coossified; pubis with closed obturator foramen; 4 digits in manus, first and fourth reduced; probably 3 digits in pes; dermal ossifications; abdominal ribs present.

Plate 17, Figure 1 from Gilmore (1920), showing the right side of the holotype of Ceratosaurus

Plate 17, Figure 2 from Gilmore (1920), showing the left side of the holotype of Ceratosaurus

This is a workable definition for the time but we know that some of these are not autapomorphies (things found only in one type of organism). In fact, some of these characters are ancestral for theropods, or even archosaurs. Still, we can't fault Gilmore. He was working with what comparative material he had at the time and did an excellent job. Perhaps most outstanding, even compared to papers being published in the 21st century, are his excellent illustrations of the material he is describing.

That same year (1920), Werner von Janensch published on several theropods recovered by German expeditions to the Tendaguru beds. The most famous of these is probably Elaphrosaurus bambergi, a medium sized ceratosaur subject to much speculation in the decades since. In this same publication Janensch commented on the presence of Allosaurus, which he later named Allosaurus tendagurensis (Janensch, 1925), though this has been suggested to be a carcharodontosaurid. Additionally, and relevant to the post here, he identified Ceratosaurus (?) sp., Megalosaurus (?) ingens, and Labrosaurus stechowi from the same beds.

The butt of Elaphrosaurus on display in Berlin during the 2014 SVP meeting.

Tibia, teeth, and dorsal vertebra of "Allosaurus tendagurensis", also on display in Berlin. Whatever it was, it was big.

 Janensch didn't illustrate his Ceratosaurus sp., which was based on three dorsal vertebrae, but he did illustrate his "Megalosaurus" ingens and "Labrosaurus" stechowi. These will be relevant to our discussion on the teeth of Ceratosaurus.

Figure 6 from Janensch (1920) with the tooth of  Megalosaurus (=?Ceratosaurus) ingens

Figures 7 & 8 from Janensch (1920) with a ?labial and basal view of the tooth of  Labrosaurus stechowi (=?Ceratosaurus sp.)

Work continued sporadically on the genus. In 1963 Jim Madsen and William Stokes presented at the Geological Society of America meeting in Provo about new material from the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry in central Utah. It was obvious that there was more to this animal than had been previously described. The last (so far) phase in new Ceratosaurus species came in 2000 when Madsen and Sam Welles named two new species: C. magnicornis and C. dentisulcatus. C. magnicornis was so-named from its large nasal horn, while C. dentisulcatus derives its specific name from grooves Madsen and Welles saw on the premaxillary and anterior dentary teeth; this taxon included the remains initially described in that 1963 abstract, while C. magnicornis was named from remains found in western Colorado.

Your faithful author with part of the holotype of Ceratosaurus magnicornis at Dinosaur Journey in Fruita, Colorado

In addition to coining two new species, Madsen and Welles looked over the material that had previously been assigned to the genus by other workers, including the material from Tendaguru. This was the most comprehensive review of all the material assigned to Ceratosaurus to date. Here's a summary of their findings.

• Ceratosaurus roechlingi (Janensch 1925) may be a very large Ceratosaurus but isn't diagnostic past Ceratosaurus sp.
• Labrosaurus stechowi is likely a junior synonym of C. roechlingi
• The Ceratosaurus vertebrae that Janensch (1920) identified as Ceratosaurus sp. are correctly IDed
• Labrosaurus meriani (Janensch 1920), based on an isolated fluted tooth from the Bern Jura, in Switzerland is referred to Ceratosaurus sp.
• Bones previously referred to Ceratosaurus from Oklahoma (Stovall, 1938) are indeterminate theropod bones at best
• Ceratosaurus sp. teeth from western Colorado are in fact correctly IDed
• Material collected by BYU at Dry Mesa, Colorado and Agate Basin, Wyoming, will be described soon and represent the largest known specimen of Ceratosaurus. As of 1999 the preparation of this specimen was complete.
• Megalosaurus ingens, sometimes referred to as Ceratosaurus ingens (Rowe and Gauthier, 1990), is too big to be Ceratosaurus
• Labrosaurus sulcatus, based on an isolated fluted tooth from the Morrison Formation of Colorado, is referred to Ceratosaurus sp.

Now some of these conclusions have held up while others have not been mentioned since 2000. Later workers, for example, don't discuss any non-North American Ceratosaurus sp. remains. There is probably a good reason for this; I will go into more detail about that on my next post. Other claims are somewhat odd (a junior synonym of a newer taxon that isn't diagnostic?). Even today, however, Madsen and Welles (2000) is the best review of all material historically assigned to Ceratosaurus.

2000 was a busy year for Ceratosaurus research. That year Brooks Britt and colleagues presented about new specimens of Ceratosaurus from Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists annual meeting; this likely includes the material that Madsen and Welles referenced in their publication as being held at BYU. While some of this information has made its way into later publications, for the most part these specimens remain undescribed to my knowledge.

As paleontology is an evolving science, new analytical tools are always being developed. The same year that Madsen and Welles revised our view of Ceratosaurus and Britt et al. clued us in to new specimens from Wyoming, Oliver Rauhut used modern phylogenetic techniques to define Ceratosaurus as part of his Ph.D. thesis. His found the following autapomorphies (taken from Rauhut (2000) by way of Wikipedia, since I don't have access to the original thesis).

• a narrow rounded horn core centrally placed on the fused nasals
• a median oval groove on nasals behind horn core
• a premaxilla with three teeth
• premaxillary teeth with reduced extent of mesial serrations
• chevrons that are extremely long
• a pubis with a large, rounded notch underneath the obturator foramen
• small epaxial osteoderms

Some of these characters still look good 16 years later, but some of them are a bit subjective, such as, "chevrons that are extremely long." This may be due to someone simplifying what Rauhut said for Wikipedia or it may reflect the long-term trend away from relative character states. Without having Rauhut's thesis I can't really say either way.

Breaking up this wall of text with a Ceratosaurus illustration. Image by DiBgd at English Wikipedia, CC BY 2.5

Rauhut (2000) wasn't the last word on the question of, "What is Ceratosaurus?" In 2008, Matt Carrano and Scott Sampson published a revised phylogentic analysis of the ceratosaurs. Since Ceratosaurus is kind of essential to understand if you're talking about a group of animals sharing its name, they came up with another revised diagnosis.

Ceratosaur with: (1) mediolaterally narrow, rounded midline horn core on the fused nasals, (2) medial oval groove on nasals behind horn core, (3) pubis with large, rounded notch underneath the obturator foramen, (4) small median dorsal osteoderms

As time passes you can see that the subjective characters have disappeared, such as the extremely long chevrons. Others characters are now better defined. We've arrived at what is essentially the definition we are using today in 2016 when we want to refer material to Ceratosaurus. Of course you may notice that this list is pretty small, meaning that most of the skeleton can't be used to identify individual bones. Carrano and Sampson (2008) do a couple of other interesting things in regards to the history of Ceratosaurus; they restrict the use of Ceratosaurus to North America (though without discussing the African material), and explain how the Madsen and Welles (2000) taxa are junior synonyms with no unambiguous autapomorphies. So from this point onward it is generally accepted that only one species of Ceratosaurus is valid, C. nasicornis, and that the genus Ceratosaurus is found only in the Morrison Formation of western North America, a point that Carrano et al. (2012) reiterate.

Juvenile Ceratosaurus partial skeleton on display at the North American Museum of Ancient Life. Photo by Zach Tirrell, CC BY-SA 2.0

Last, and most late-breaking, is a paper out today in JVP! In this paper Carrano and Choiniere discuss the arm of the holotype of Ceratosaurus from the US National Museum. The paper stays true to its subject and redescribes the arm, something the entire skeleton is in need of, as it has undergone de-mounting and additional preparation work. They found that, as many have suspected, the hand and arm of Ceratosaurus is most similar to those of early theropod dinosaurs like Dilophosaurus, and not as closely aligned with later theropods. Even from its fellow derived ceratosaurs, the Abelisauroidea, the hand and arm appear primitive - which would make sense considering its placement relative to abelisauroids in the theropod family tree. Carrano and Choiniere (2016) also show that Ceratosaurus didn't have a useless hand either. Although small and oddly shaped compared to contemporaneous Allosaurus, the hand of Ceratosaurus was still adapted to grasp items (though not to the same extent as other theropods). The lack of any preserved claws from across the Morrison associated with Ceratosaurus skeletons makes things even more difficult; was Ceratosaurus tiny-clawed, grabbing small prey items? Or did it have huge grappling-hook slashers, ready to grab on to passing sauropods? We just don't know.

Cast of the hand of the holotype of Ceratosaurus nasicornis. Note the lack of any preserved fingers. Photo by Smokeybjb, CC BY-SA 3.0

In conclusion, how can we sum up what we know of Ceratosaurus? Well there appears to be one wide-spread but relatively uncommon (compared to Allosaurus) species of Ceratosaurus that existed in western North America during the Late Jurassic. Variation that has led to different species in the Morrison Formation being named, such as Ceratosaurus magnicornis and Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus are best explained by individual variation and changes associated with the animal's growth. Other examples of Ceratosaurus may exist outside of North America but those specimens have not been rigorously examined since 2000. Numerous teeth from across western North America, Europe, and Africa have been referred to this animal, but most workers view the non-North American specimens as not part of the Ceratosaurus hypodigm. Are these referrals sound? For that, you'll have to wait until my next post!

Works Cited

Britt, Brooks, Chure, D. J., Holtz, T. R., Jr., Miles, C. A. & Stadtman, K. L. 2000. A reanalysis of the phylogenetic affinities of Ceratosaurus (Theropoda, Dinosauria) based on new specimens from Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20: 32A

Carrano, Matthew T., Roger BJ Benson, and Scott D. Sampson. 2012. "The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)." Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 10.2: 211-300

Carrano, Matthew T.  & Jonah Choiniere 2016. New information on the forearm and manus of Ceratosaurus nasicornis Marsh, 1884 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), with implications for theropod forelimb evolution. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

Carrano, Matthew T., and Scott D. Sampson. 2008. "The phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda)." Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 6.02: 183-236.

Gilmore, Charles W. 1920. Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 110: 1–154.

Janensch, Werner. "Über Elaphrosaurus bambergi und die megalosaurier aus den Tendaguru-Schichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas." Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 8 (1920): 226-235.

Janensch, Werner. 1925. "Die Coelurosaurier und Theropoden der Tendaguru-Schichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas". Palaeontographica, Supplement 7 1: 1–99.

Madsen, Jim H. Jr., and Stokes, William L., 1963, New information on the Jurassic dinosaur Ceratosaurus: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 73, p. 90 (abs.)

Madsen, Jim H.; Welles, Samuel P. 2000. Ceratosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda): A Revised Osteology. Utah Geological Survey. pp. 1–80.

Marsh, O.C. 1884. "Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs, part VIII: The order Theropoda" American Journal of Science 27(160): 329–340
Rauhut, Oliver. 2000. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropods (Dinosauria, Saurischia). Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Bristol [U.K.]. 440 pp

Rauhut, Oliver W. M. 2011. "Theropod dinosaurs from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania)". Special Papers in Palaeontology 86: 195–239.

Rowe, T., and Jacques Gauthier. 1990. "Ceratosauria." in The Dinosauria, Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmólska, eds. University of California Press. pp. 151-168.
Stovall, J. Willis. 1938. "The Morrison of Oklahoma and its dinosaurs." The Journal of Geology: 583-600.