I was recently part of the 5th Life Discovery – Doing Science Biology Education, a conference for science educators that is part of the Ecological Society of America. This year had a theme of “Microbiomes to Ecosystems: Evolution and Biodiversity Across Scale, Space and Time” and was hosted in Gainesville, Florida! There were a few local partners including iDigBio, UF Biodiversity Institute, Florida Museum, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. I’ve been working on a few projects with various iDigBio team members and their education and outreach coordinator, Molly, reached out to me to see if I would be interested in participating in the Life Discovery Conference.
The Life Discovery Conference header. A really interesting way to tie together all of the aspects of biology!
I was representing the Florida Museum, Thompson Earth Systems Institute, and the FOSSIL Project! The conference was held over two full days at a local hotel conference center. The first day had an opening keynote presented by the amazing paleontologist, Dr. Lisa White from the University of California, Berkeley. She spoke about all of the digital resources available through the University of California Museum of Paleontology website. Many of which I knew about because I had used them as a tool some time during my academic journey!
Dr. Lisa White presenting on Thursday morning of the conference on a variety of amazing projects to explore paleobiology, evolution, and biodiversity in deep time!!!
The keynote was followed by breakout sessions where we could go learn about different programs, activities, and/or resources that had been implemented or evaluated by educators. This was a lot of fun for me to listen in and engage with. I learned a lot about different programs or lessons that are available for a variety of topics. Then we returned to the main ballroom to do networking discussions on different topics. I was leading a discussion on ‘Teaching Evolution through the Fossil Record.’
In my session we went through a few different questions and talked about successes and challenges that had been faced in the classroom, such as: (1) Do you teach evolution in your classroom and is it met with resistance? (2) Do you already incorporate fossils into your lessons on biodiversity? Would you want to or could you more? (3) New and different ways to include fossils into your lessons. (4) Is geology content a barrier for you or your students? At the end of our discussion we were to determine three takeaways and three recommendations for the future.
One of the break out sessions was on planting science, an online mentoring program to help students engage with different aspects of plant biology!General takeaways
Fossils are important aspects of teaching evolution and biodiversity
Tangible and physical evidence such as fossils or the timeline where you walk through
Accessibility barriers in terms of cost of fossils and other tools
Recommendations
Finding community connections to help get fossils or content expertise
Exploiting online resources and technology to 3D print your own fossils
Using fossils to teach other subjects outside of evolution
After the discussion session, I had to run across campus for a meeting with the FOSSIL Project team. I missed one session of talks and lunch during my meeting but I was able to return to the conference for the last two sessions where people were sharing content and experiences. The conference adjourned shortly after that and picked up the following day first thing in the morning. I was part of the keynote panel that began promptly at 8 AM. This panel consisted of three early career professionals in related fields. We each gave 5 minute presentations on how our research incorporates large data sets and some information on outreach initiatives we have been part of. Following our presentations we fielded questions from the audience on our research, past experiences, and outreach events. It was a very successful hour and I was very fortunate to be invited to participate!
Overall the conference was a huge success. There were not many participants, maybe 100 at most. So it was a very small intimate conference and everyone had so many fantastic ideas and resources that I really learned a lot!
A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota
Robert A. DePalma, Jan Smit, David A. Burnham, Klaudia Kuiper, Phillip L. Manning, Anton Oleinik, Peter Larson, Florentin J. Maurrasse, Johan Vellekoop, Mark A. Richards, Loren Gurche, and Walter Alvarez
Summarized by Jen Bauer, Maggie Limbeck, and Adriane Lam, who also comment on the controversy below
What data were used?
Data used in this study were identified from a new site, which the authors call Tanis (named after the ancient Egyptian city in the Nile River Delta), in the layers of rocks called the Hell Creek Formation. This formation is famous amongst paleontologists because it contains lots of dinosaur fossils from the late Cretaceous (about 66 million years ago). In this study, scientists found a new layer of fossils within the Hell Creek Formation that is unlike anything paleontologists have seen before. Those who found the site examined the rock’s features and fossils, which includes densely packed fish fossils and ejecta from the Chicxulub meteoric impact. The Chicxulub impact is what caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, and finding a layer of rock that was deposited minutes to hours after the impactor struck Earth is a very rare and exciting find.
Methods
This study included a variety of approaches. The rock features (called sedimentology) and fossil features of the Tanis area and event deposit are described to determine what caused this deposit in the first place. The authors also identified other pieces of evidence to aid in better understanding the situation at hand. Ejecta deposits were described as well, in comparison to ejecta deposits that are found closer to the impact site in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
Results
Figure 1. The extremely well preserved fossils from the Tanis site. (A) Shows a partially prepared plaster jacket with partially prepared fossil freshwater fish. Next to an ammonite shell with mother of pearl preservation (that’s the pretty iridescent part that is enlarged). (B) Shows how the large amount of specimens were oriented in the rock and the inferred direction of flow estimated from the rock and fossils at the site. (C) Photograph taken in the field showing the tightly packed fish, fossilized in a clear orientation. This is figure 7 in the paper, click here to see the other figures.
Much of the sedimentology can be related to other aspects of the Hell Creek Formation in southwestern North Dakota that is an ancient river deposit that has some marine influence. In the Cretaceous period, central North America’s topography was very low which allowed for a seaway to form. This was called the Western Interior Seaway, and was home to a diverse number of animals such as plesiosaurs, mososaurs, large sharks, and ammonites. Several rivers likely drained into the Western Interior Seaway, much like the Mississippi River drains into the Gulf of Mexico today.
From studying the characteristics of the rocks within the Tanis site, the authors of the study concluded that this site was part of one of the rivers that drained into the Western Interior Seaway long ago. When the impactor struck Earth in the Yucatan Peninsula, it send huge waves (tsunamis) into the Western Interior Seaway and into the rivers that drained into the seaway. These huge waves pushed fish, ammonites, and other creatures into the seaway and into the rivers. The Tanis site is one such place where these animals that were pushed into the rivers were deposited and preserved. But not only were marine animals preserved at the site, but also land plants, such as tree limbs and flowers.
The fossils found in the Tanis deposits are all oriented in the same direction, indicating that they have been aligned by flowing water. The abundance and remarkable preservation of these fossil fishes and tree limbs suggest a very rapid burial event (the best preserved fossils are often the ones that experience very quick burial after death). The orientation of the fossils at the site along with the mix of marine and terrestrial life further supports that these fossils were deposited from very large waves from the asteroid impact disturbed this region.
Within the Tanis deposit there are also ejecta spherules, microkrystites, shocked minerals, and unaltered impact-melt glass. These are features that are commonly associated with the Chicxulub Impactor. When the impactor struck Earth, it was so hot it melted the underlying rock, sending tiny bits of molten rock into the atmosphere. These bits of molten rock quickly cooled and eventually fell back down to Earth, where today they are found all over the world. Today, these ejecta spherules and impact melt-glass all mark the huge end-Cretaceous mass extinction event that occurred 66 million years ago.
Why is this study important?
The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K/Pg) extinction event is one of the ‘Big Five’ mass extinction events (click here to read more about extinction). Like many extinction events, it is often difficult to determine the specific causes of mass destruction. However, the K/Pg extinction event is unique because scientists have many lines of evidence that a huge impactor struck Earth, sending clouds of ash and gas into Earth’s atmosphere. The new Tanis site that the authors uncovered preserves a snapshot into this catastrophic event.
This finding is very important because scientists know better understand what happened directly after the impactor hit Earth. In addition, several new species of fish have been discovered at the Tanis site, which will be important for additional studies about fish evolution through time.
Citation:
DePalma, R.A., Smit, J., Burnham, D.A., Kuiper, K., Manning, P.L., Oleinik, A., Larson, P., Maurrasse, F.J., Vellekoop, J., Richards, M.A., Gurche, L., and Alvarez, W. 2019. A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817407116
What’s all the commotion about?
It’s not every day that paleontologists make the national news, but this paper and the article written about it in the New Yorker (click here) caused a lot of commotion within the paleontological world. This is a great and potentially groundbreaking find, however, what caused the commotion was the sensationalist attitude of the New Yorker piece that left a lot of paleontologists uncomfortable. So what’s the big deal here? We break down a few (not all) of the issues with this article:
1. Breaking of Embargo
Although the published study is very exciting and will add greatly to our knowledge about the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event, the media hype around the study was handled very poorly for several reasons. All published studies go through peer review. This is when a paper is sent out to multiple other scientists who read the article and make sure that it is scientifically sound and is a good piece of science based upon other good science. During this waiting period while the paper is going through peer review or being finalized with publishers, the authors should avoid talking with popular media or publicizing their paper. When publishing in academia there is a period of time (embargo) where access to the findings of a paper is not allowed to the public. This is for a variety of reasons, having to do with copyright transfer, finances to support the journal or publisher, and more.
The New Yorker press article was released almost an entire week before being available for the community to examine. This means that the embargo was violated.
The reason embargos exist is to give journalists and the researchers they talk to some time to look at fresh findings and determine what the story is, whether it’s worth telling, and if there’s anything suspicious about what’s presented. – Riley Black (Slate article)
2. Paleontologists as Rough-and-Tough Dudes (and Unusual Folks)
The New Yorker article was also controversial because it framed paleontologists as belonging to a narrow demographic (read: white men who love the outdoors). Not all of us in paleontology are men, not all of us are white, and not all of us came into geology loving the outdoors (see the great diversity of folks working in paleontology on our ‘Meet the Scientist’ blog). Paleontologists have had to work very hard to break through the stereotypical conception of what we do and who we are, and this article did not help to address the great diversity of scientists working in the field of paleontology.
In addition, the New Yorker article only quoted and interviewed other male scientists, many of whom have been working in the field for decades. The article left out the voices of women and early-career researchers who have made valuable contributions to the field of paleontology. For more on this, read the Slate article by science writer, Riley Black “It’s Time for the Heroic Male Paleontologist Trope to Go Extinct”.
This article also reinforces the “lone-wolf” stereotype of geologists and paleontologists-a man going out west, few to no other people around, and spending his days looking for paleontological treasure. This image is perpetuated through the article because the author chose to continually highlight the privacy and secrecy asked by the De Palma. While this is certainly an attitude held by some paleontologists, the reality is that the majority of us work in teams. Time Scavengers is run by a large team of people and so is our research! Like working in any field, we all have our strengths and better science happens when we invite people to work with us who have different strengths and can help us.
Lastly, the article frames paleontologists in a not-so-flattering light. In one paragraph, the article states “…I thought that he was likely exaggerating, or that he might even be crazy. (Paleontology has more than its share of unusual people).” Firstly, what does unusual even mean? The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) fields are full of intelligent, diverse, and colorful folks from all walks of life. To imply that any one branch of science has ‘its share of unusual people’ is unfair and regressive.
3. Dinosaurs as the Star of the Show
Paleontology is not just diverse in terms of the people who work in the field, but also in terms of the different types of life that we work with. For example, our Time Scavengers team, we have folks who work with fossil plankton and echinoderms. In fact, most paleontologists work with invertebrates- animals that do not have backbones, or any bones at all. Some of the most foundational findings in paleontology are based on the fossil record of invertebrates and early vertebrates. Regardless, most of the public’s fascination lies with dinosaurs (we understand, they were gigantic, ferocious, and unlike anything that’s alive today).
However, this fascination with dinosaurs can lead to over exaggeration of studies and sensationalizing, which is exactly what happened with this article. The published study of the Tanis site only mentions one dinosaur bone out of all the fossils found. The real story here is about the wonderful assortment of fish, tree, and flower fossils, some of which are completely new to paleontologists.
Dr. Steve Bursatte, Paleontologist at University of Edinburgh commented on both the New Yorker article and the PNAS article on his Twitter account, click here to read more. He comments on the broken embargo and how the New Yorker article sensationalized the ‘dinosaur’ side of the story.
4. Proper Handling of Museum-Quality Specimens
The article that was published in the New Yorker raised a lot of concerns within the paleontology community regarding the handling and storage of the fossils that were found at the Tanis site. It is clear from the article that DePalma had a bad experience early on with fossils that he had loaned a museum not being returned to him, however, by maintaining control over the management of his specimens, it undermines those people working in museums who have degrees and years of experience handling fossil and other specimen collections. Anyone who has borrowed specimens from a museum knows the immense amount of paperwork that goes in on all ends to make sure the specimens leave a well documented trail.
Jess Miller-Camp, Paleontology Collections Manager and Digitization Project Coordinator at Indiana University commented on the New Yorker article and addressed her concerns as a museum professional, click here to read her Twitter thread. She comments on the process of loaning specimens to and from museums and proper ettiqute. Read her thread to learn more about this and why museums should be asked to comment.
In 1997, a T. rex nicknamed Sue was sold at a Sotheby’s auction, to the Field Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, for more than $8.3 million.
This quote is misleading. No museum would have adequate funds to secure Sue. The California State University system, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, McDonald’s, Ronald McDonald House Charities, and other individual donors aided in purchasing Sue for the Field Museum. The Field Museum rallied resources to ensure this valuable specimen remained in a public institution.
In addition to proper storage and archiving of fossils, one of the key tenets of any kind of scientific research is reproducibility– how well can other scientists replicate the results that you got. In paleontology, being able to look at the exact same fossils that another scientists looked at is a key part to reproducibility, as well as allowing the science of paleontology to advance. Whenever a paleontologist finds something they think is “new” to science, or is a really important find (special preservation, currently undocumented here, etc.) if you want to publish a paper on that fossil, the fossil needs to be placed in a public institution like a museum or a similarly accredited fossil repository. This way, future scientists are able to track down that fossil you published on and continue working on understanding it, or using it in other studies. Keeping fossils that are published on in museums is also critical because it ensures that that fossil has a safe place to be stored after being worked on and is less likely to be lost in an office or lab space!
5. Respecting the Land and Indigenous People
In the field of paleontology, people, who are more often than not white, venture into another country or a part of the ‘wilderness’ to find fossils and sites that are completely new and never-before-discovered or seen. These lands that contain fossils were owned by indigenous people long before Europeans arrived in North America, and were likely known about centuries before. Often, when sensational popular science paleontology articles are published, the authors leave out the voices of indigenous people and respect for their land. In the New Yorker article, there was no mention of the indigenous people that lived in the Dakotas, or how their ancestors perceived the dinosaur and fish fossils in the area. To frame amazing paleontological finds as being in desolate wastelands is harmful and erases the narratives of people who have lived in these lands for centuries.
For a more thorough discussion on this topic, click here to read the Twitter thread by Dr. Katherine Crocker.
Click here to read a article written by Dr. Roy Plotnick in Medium that also summarizes the issues and causes of commotion surrounding this astounding find.
The opening slide for the meeting! Everyone was set up at round tables in the main ballroom of the hotel conference area.Part of my new job is working on the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded FOSSIL Project that has created a social community that shares resources, help, and more on paleontology related ideas (myfossil.org). Every few years the funding group, Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) has a Principal Investigator (PI) meeting, to bring all of the project leaders together to share updates and brainstorm new ideas. I was selected as the FOSSIL Project representative to attend the event. This involved putting together a poster summarizing our project and what has happened over the past four years the project has been operating. I also included where we hoped to be heading in the future as we are working to make the platforms more community driven.
This was my first real dive into NSF. I had submitted several postdoctoral fellowships to NSF but never really engaged with program officers outside of emails or been in the audience of talks by different NSF staff members. The first day was primarily listening to different NSF staff explain and explore the various outlets of funding through NSF, the different programs to apply for funding, and the importance of the annual report. I took a considerable amount of notes because as an early career professional, it’s likely I will need to know some of these people and programs as I move forward in my career.
This was my first breakout session where we thought about informal learning in strange, or unusual, places.There were breakout sessions where we could explore specific things in more detail. The first session I attended was on identifying informal places where people have some time to engage in science content. There was a brief introduction to different projects going on right now and then we spent much of the remaining time in small group discussions. We shared our own experiences with conceptualizing and implementing programs in different places and then discussed other spaces where we could introduce people to science. Some of these include: sporting events, airports, bus stations, and much more! Places where people go on a regular basis that we could introduce some brief content into. The next session I attended was on three key components: identity, interest, and engagement. There was a recent task force that really dove into these three topics and interviewed members of the research field to get at the components from all viewpoints. If you are interested in learning more head to: Informal Science.
Here I am with the poster I made for the meeting.There was a poster session where we could explore the other AISL projects and network with potential collaborators. It was split into two sessions but I didn’t feel this was very effective because the rooms were sort of spread out and no one seemed to really stick to the schedule. So, I didn’t get to interact with as many people as I was hoping to but those that I did engage with were interested in the program and were very friendly. The final day of the event included a morning filled with small group discussions on broadening participation in STEM. I had a really interesting small group and we had a lot of interesting conversations about our projects and experiences.
Overall, this was a greatly informative experience for me. It was sort of a last minute trip but I really made the most of it and left with a lot of knowledge. I think getting to meet and listen to some of the NSF program officers really helped personalize them. It’s difficult sending proposals into the internet void and only having a few interactions with a staff member. Everyone I listened to and interacted with was very eager to help others succeed.
Not long ago I was invited to visit Dr. Gordon Hubbell’s personal collection and museum of modern and fossil sharks. Dr. Hubbell is a retired veterinarian who is a renowned shark expert. He has been on fossil collecting expeditions across the world. I’ve been fortunate to know many collectors with vast personal collections but Dr. Hubbell’s was on another level. He had a special room that was devoted to his specimens, preparation, and photography.
Wide shot of the main exhibit and specimen area.
There are curated specimens in display cases, that were designed specifically for Gordon’s fossil collection. The display cases each hold miniature exhibits on different aspects of sharks. For a non-shark expert, or even enthusiast, this was absolutely overwhelming. I like sharks, I think they are fascinating but I haven’t spent much time learning about them or exploring their fossil record.
Exhibit on shark vertebrae including detailed anatomy but with clear easy-to-understand diagrams and labels.Biogeography of megalodon teeth. All regions of the globe were included but not able to be captured in a single photo.Schematic representation of how shark teeth get replaced.
Comparison of fossil and modern sets of teeth. Notice the specific way the teeth curve.The group that I visited the museum with included a graduate student researching some of the fossil specimens in Gordon’s collection. Another phenomenal aspect about Gordon – he understands the utility of his collection in active scientific research. In this case, the student and his assistant were photographic a complete set of shark teeth – by complete I mean a set from the top and lower jaw of the animal. Gordon had many complete sets of fossil teeth, which is incredibly rare.
Souvenir shark tooth from Dr. Hubbell’s museum.I learned an incredible amount about sharks from their morphology (whole and just teeth), sexual dimorphism, geographic distribution, and some of the weird mutations that can occur in their teeth. But I think what was the largest takeaway is that Gordon wanted his visitors to learn and be excited about sharks. He didn’t have to make all of these incredible displays, he could have just pulled out specimens and I still would have learned a lot. But allowing the visitor to learn and ask questions about the content is much more effective and kept me engaged for a long time.
In addition to having one of the largest collection of shark remains, Gordon is also an artist. He sculpts animal life – modern and ancient. Some of these models were present in his collection and were so fun and lifelike that they really added to both my exploration of sharks and the exhibits. He even offers souvenirs on your way out – I got to take home an extinct mackerel shark tooth from Morocco that lived about 60 million years ago.
Take a virtual tour of his collection and museum here. Read more in the news about Gordon’s expertise and collection here.
Set of shark vertebrae sitting in under some of the displayed fossils. That is a six foot table.Fossil shark called Helicoprion that had a spiral of teeth coming of the front end of the face.Model created by Gordon of a complete Helicoprion whorl of teeth.Carcharodon hubbelli from Peru. Specimen was found by Dr. Hubbell and he subsequently donated it to the Florida Museum of Natural History, specimen number 226255.
Recently I was provided with an opportunity to travel across the world, from Tennessee, USA to Nagoya, Japan for the 16th International Echinoderm Conference. When presented with a fully funded trip to an international conference your first answer would normally be, “Yes, of course!” I had not originally planned to go on this trip because I had recently graduated and no longer had access to apply for departmental funds. I had planned other adventures for that weekend, a bit more localized and affordable.
Kōtoku-in in Kamakura where we spent a day exploring temples.
Unfortunately, my mentor and collaborator fell terribly ill the week that he was to travel to Japan and was no longer able to present our most recent work on understanding the taxonomy of blastoids. Being the only other co-author I was faced with a serious question – three days before I would have to leave the country. I am not an impulsive traveler. I like to spend time researching hotels, places to visit, and local historical sites. I like to spend time thinking and processing the whole thing. Having time to conceptualize the trip makes me so much more comfortable traveling.
The first slide of the conference.
I had to quickly weigh the pros and cons and make sure that I still had a valid passport! My initial thought was – no way can I go on this trip. I am one of those people that hates surprises and the thought of having to cancel plans, leave the country, and more in only a few days made me absolutely sick with anxiety. I told Colin, my advisor, that I would need one night to think about it and check to make sure I had valid travel documents. The next morning I decided that this opportunity to network with a global echinoderm community was too precious to not take the trip. I would be able to make new collaborations and rekindle my connection with old friends and colleagues. So, three days after the offer, I was off on a plane to Japan.
Scrumptious echinoid gonads! (the orange stuff)
To say the trip was last minute is an understatement. I was incredibly overwhelmed, had to fix up a talk that I had not prepared, and be away from my family for 10 days. That being said, I am beyond grateful for this last-minute opportunity, especially as a junior scientist that is looking to make new collaborations and network with peers. Also, who doesn’t want to eat echinoid gonads with a bunch of echinoderm workers?! It was an unforgettable experience.
I think the moral of this story is to take these opportunities, no matter how fast and unprepared you may feel. It was a whirlwind of a trip but not only did I learn a lot, I made valuable connections within the echinoderm community that I would otherwise have not made.
Group photo of most of the conference participants.
Outside of the Castillo de San Marcos along the beach. It’s quite an impressive and old structure!I was recently one of fifteen participants in a workshop. Most participants in this workshop are graduate students or recent graduates studying paleontology or biology. The workshop is a month long with very few days off. We had one two day weekend and decided it would be fun to be tourists and go to St. Augustine! St. Augustine is a very old city that is on the eastern coast of Florida and is home to Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.
a close up of my hand next to the coquina that was molded into a pillar. Abby next to that same pillar for a better scale! Most of the rock used for the buildings was coquina!We were incredibly excited to realize that much of the local stone work was sourced from local rock. This rock is called coquina. Coquina is a sedimentary rock that is made up of shell fragments! The coquina is from the Anastasia Formation that was deposited in the Late Pleistocene (around 2.5 to 0.012 million years ago). We spent a lot of time with our faces pressed into walls looking at what shelly creatures were preserved in the wall. The National Park Service has a nice write up explaining how creating the fort out of coquina was incredibly beneficial, click here to read more. Essentially, the rock did not break when the opposing forces began firing weapons and at the fort. Instead, the rock absorbed the shock and compressed when hit with cannon fire!
A group of scientists examining one of the coquina walls. This one was absolutely filled with nice sized oysters.We spent time exploring the fort, which had an amazing amount of rooms with some extraordinary details preserved. When I say the entire fort was made of coquina, I mean the entire thing. It was one of the most incredible things I have ever seen! There were rooms with barrel vaulted ceilings, tall arch like ceilings, some with carvings in the walls, and much more.
Underneath the boardwalk at the St. Augustine beach. These pillars were filled with organisms that stick on other things for most of their lives.After visiting the fort we spent time around the city exploring and being tourists. Then we decided to venture out to the beach. Remember, paleontologists study ancient life. This means many of us have training in biological sciences and get really excited about animal life! We got to the beach and some people hopped right into the water while others sat on the beach and read or took a walk along the beach. May and I decided to walk along the beach and we eventually came to these large pillars supporting a boardwalk.
A close up of some of the barnacles with my finger for scale! Some of them were quite large!These pillars were completely covered in sea creatures! Mostly oysters, other small clams, snails, and barnacles! Most notably were the large barnacles that were a beautiful pink/purple color! Barnacles are related to crabs and lobsters but look so very different. It is absolutely astounding that these creatures can be cemented to the pillars and live for periods during high tide. Not all of the animals were still alive that were on the pillars, especially those that were quite high up.
This is a great example of how we can better explore the world around us through the lens of different sciences! Geology that contain biological remains and lots of living organisms on the beach!
Here is a flyer from our workshop with the information for the institute that I am part of.
Part of my new job is as a postdoctoral associate at a newly developed institute: Thompson Institute for Earth Systems. This institute has a primary goal of helping translate the complex science done at the University of Florida as it relates to Floridians. This includes anything related to the environment and the primary Earth systems (life, land, water, air). Recently, the institute was awarded a large grant to pursue a project to get scientists into Florida classrooms. To help promote and share content we hosted a workshop at the annual Florida Association of Science Teachers (FAST).
My supervisor had submitted the proposal for this workshop but was also giving a lecture the day before on the larger project and suggested I run the workshop instead. The idea was to give a brief but useful content overview to the educators and then allow time for lesson plan development and questions. This was a surprisingly daunting task: I’m used to giving quick research talks on a very specific topic and here I was tasked with describing how global processes can affect Floridians.
Simplified diagram to show the processes of weathering and erosion. One of the major limiting nutrients is phosphorus, which is held within the rocks!
It took me an incredibly long amount of time to decide how I wanted to structure the talk. A colleague had suggested we play BINGO during the talk. I made BINGO cards for the teachers with terms that I would use during the content portion of the workshop. If someone got BINGO they would have to share the terms and describe how they are interconnected. One of the key points of the workshop was to exhibit how interconnected all of the spheres really are. The talk began with a direct issue here in Florida – sea level rise. NOAA has a sea level rise viewer where you can simulate what happens in a specific area when sea level rises. So I zoomed in to the area directly around where the conference was in Miami, Florida. The simulator starts at 0 and goes up to 6 feet, and unfortunately the average elevation in Florida is only just above 6 feet. I then walked the educators through the four basic spheres of Earth system and how we can visualize them here in Florida. This included how sea level rises, ocean circulation, erosion and weathering, cave and sinkhole (karst) features, greenhouse gases, and more!
The next portion of the workshop was designated to allow the teachers time to brainstorm ideas for a lesson or activity and to ask questions to content experts (the rest of our lab group and team was there in the room). There were some really great activities thought out and we were able to discuss ideas with the teachers for how we can better serve them as an academic institute. Overall, it was a great experience for me to share more information about Earth’s natural systems and foster discussions with educators.
Our tables are the first two on the right! It was never jam packed but there were over 1700 visitors to the museum in 5 hours!
National Fossil Day is a holiday enacted in 2010 to celebrate prehistoric life. Each year museums, institutes, and organizations plan events around understanding geology, paleontology, and Earth’s history! This year, I helped plan activities for the FOSSIL project and the department of vertebrate paleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History. The annual event has all the natural history departments and several local organizations set up as a knowledge fair. Adults and children can wander around to different tables to learn about Florida’s different animals, plants, and more!
View of the visitors at the museum for National Fossil day!
At the FOSSIL project table, we displayed real megalodon teeth, 3D printed teeth made of plastic, and digital teeth! On the myFOSSIL website you can look through a 3D gallery (click here) and move digital fossils around in your browser. We also had an app up that was developed by the iDigFossils group to estimate body size of the sharks based on their teeth! It was really fun and helped show the utility of the website!
A close up of my sticker! #NotADinosaur! My synapsid kin!
The vertebrate paleontology table had a modern turtle shell next to ancient fossil turtle pieces! The idea was you could select a piece of shell material and try to figure out where on the turtle shell the piece was fun. This was difficult with some pieces but others were very clearly the edge of the shell or contained ribs. As many of you may know, I am not a vertebrate paleontologist so I had to quickly learn as much as I could about turtles. Shout out to my friend Jeanette for teaching me how to identify turtle shell fragments the week before the event. Many of these turtle pieces were about 5 million years old and from areas around Florida! We also had a few jaws for people to look at different teeth and then play a matching game. The game had you match different animals and teeth, then we talked with the players about diet and how we can use differently shaped teeth to think about what food the animal was eating.
The entrance to the new Permian Monsters exhibit at the Florida Museum of Natural History.
I helped out at the two tables inside but outside we had a dig pit and wash pit stations. So one was where you would dig through sand to find different fossils and the other was where you would use a screen to sieve through material to find smaller fossils!
We had our National Fossil Day celebrations a bit early to coincide with the opening of a new exhibit, ‘Permian Monsters’. The Permian period is incredibly interesting because it was before dinosaurs when mammals were dominant and roaming the Earth. I was asked to be on the radio to describe the differences between dinosaurs and mammals in less than 30 seconds! At first I was thinking… what the heck am I going to say to these people but then I knew: ‘The major difference between these early mammals and dinosaurs is the amount of holes in their heads.’ The radio host lost his mind and then asked me a million questions after we were off air.
Right in the front door of the Permian Monsters exhibit was a giant eurypterid. I immediately requested a photo.
This was my first National Fossil Day at a new institution and I had a lot of fun! I hope everyone got to celebrate and share their love and knowledge for fossils!
Unique pelvic fin in a tetrapod-like fossil fish, and the evolution of limb patterning
Jonathan E. Jeffery, Glenn W. Storrs, Timothy Holland, Clifford J. Tabin, and Per E. Ahlberg Summarized by Jen Bauer
What data were used? The data were primarily gained from a single fossil specimen (with both pelvic fins) from the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) at Harvard University. But several have been described and are stored at the MCZ.
Figure 1: Pelvic region of the specimen from the the MCZ. (A) The original specimen and (B) the line drawing of the same specimen to better visualize the specific elements of interest. Here we can see both hind-find are isolated in different colors.
Methods: First the specimen had to be carefully prepared as the bones are still embedded in matrix. Any broken pieces of the fossil were glued back together. The fossils were imaged using a micro computed tomography (CT) scanner, which takes many fine images through the specimen using X-rays. The images can then be compiled and reconstructed in more complex 3D rendering programs. In this study, the authors used Avizo. The fossil specimens (real and digital) were examined thoroughly. These authors used the data collected from their thorough examinations and used it to explore developmental and evolutionary questions.
Results: The new data shows the general tetrapod pattern of a humerus (arm bone that connects to your shoulder) connecting with the forearm bones. In a phylogenetic, or evolutionary, context this provides additional information in the transition from fin limbs to tetrapod (animals with four legs) limbs we can easily recognize today – these are represented in the diagrams above the tree. The developmental comparisons of modern skeletons and allows the researchers to compare modern animal growth to these extinct forms. It is still unclear how the three bones came from the one (refer to the tree figure). The researchers ruled out a known protein can cause duplications of bones because each of these three bones is distinct, rather than having two of the same bone repeated.
Figure 2: Evolutionary history depicting the transition from fin to limb. The fore-fins/limbs are drawn on top and the hind-fins/limbs are on the bottom. Rhizodus is the genus of animal that is described in this paper and is found near the fin side of the tree.
Why is this study important? The three forearm bones in these pelvic limbs was an unexpected result from this study. It is quite different, even from the upper limbs in the same specimen and starkly different from other early finned fish. This study provides new evidence on the transition from fin to true limb. This specimen suggests that the fore-fins suggests that the mechanism of transition from fin to limb happens first in the fore-fins and later in the hind-fins.
The big picture: The fish to tetrapod transition has been well studied and is very important to understanding the evolution of most of terrestrial life. It is really difficult to find these specimens because they only preserve in very specific environments. This specimen is particularly important because it provides some new information that could help scientists reinterpret previously confusing results when the fore-fin/limb looks quite different from the hind-fin/limb in these more transitional forms.
Citation: Jeffery, J.E., Storrs, G.W., Holland, T., Tabin, C.J., and Ahlberg, P.E. 2018. Unique pelvic fin in a tetrapod-like fossil fish, and the evolution of limb patterning. PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810845115
Often one of the biggest challenges academics and scientists face is writing- namely, getting our research written up as a manuscript and published in an academic journal. We, as scientists, always commiserate about how hard writing is, and how we loath doing it, but I want to talk about a different aspect of writing and publishing that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough: collaborating with other scientists and working together as a team to get research published.
In the early years of academic publishing, it was very common for scientists to publish articles by themselves, or what is called a single-author manuscript. Today, however, the tide has changed, and it’s rare to find a published article with just one author! In fact, it’s not uncommon to find papers with more than 30 authors (such as those published that include an entire science tea, like a International Ocean Discovery Program expedition teams). Finding, working, and publishing with collaborators can be tricky, and at times seem daunting. However, if you know how to work as a team and navigate the collaborative waters, these partnerships will give back tenfold! In this post is some advice from some of the Time Scavengers collaborators on how to find, work with, and publish with scientific collaborators.
On Finding Project Collaborators
Jen: Start with people you know that are excited about similar ideas; these can be old lab members, peers or colleagues you have met along your career. For example, Adriane and I were in the same masters program and even though they parted ways to begin new paths as PhD students we kept in contact. So, starting this website was a simple task with two people in different fields who are passionate about educating the public. This connection has fostered further collaborations with Adriane and Sarah, who I found during her PhD program. We worked to create a web of scientists with similar drives but different technical toolkits. If you are new to a field, attending a large conference where you can be exposed to new people and ideas is a brilliant way to find new collaborators.
Adriane: Think of a collaboration with a colleague as you would any friendship: you want trust, clear and constant communication, and you want to have fun and be yourself with your friend! A collaborator is no different. When choosing who to collaborate with, make sure you get along with the person, and are able to have open and honest conversations with them. For example, Jen and I are great friends, and had a ton of fun together in graduate school at Ohio University. We have similar career goals, interests, and hobbies, and we can be totally goofy and honest with one another. For this reason, I knew we would make excellent collaborators building this website together.
If you are a graduate student, you are likely doing your projects on a tight timeline. For this reason, you need to be sure that your collaborator is someone who is willing to put time into the project so that it is finished on time. When collaborating with more senior scientists, make sure this person is invested in your success as a scientist. One of my dissertation chapters involves collaborating with a professor at another university across the country. I have worked all summer to pick foraminifera for stable isotope analyses, and when I have enough, I mail them to my collaborator who will analyze the samples in his lab. Some of my samples weigh almost nothing, which means they will be tricky to analyze. However, I communicated my concern to my collaborator, and he has been wonderful in working his geochemical superpowers to ensure most of my samples are analyzed correctly (of the ~300 samples I sent him, only ~15 were unable to be analyzed!). Most importantly, he has gotten my results to me within weeks of me mailing my samples to him, which has put me ahead of schedule to complete all of my analyses (this is a rare occurrence in graduate school). So, I have excellent results from my samples, and I’m ahead of my research schedule for this project because my collaborator is invested in my success and the success of my research.
Andy: I have two sets of collaborators, basically. As a graduate student I started collaborating mostly within my lab. My work with Chris Lowery (@CLowery806) has produced one paper, another in review, and a third building on the second, with an additional collaborator. We’ve also done a workshop together, and gotten each other talks, etc. Even though we’re directly competing for jobs at this stage in our career, it doesn’t affect our working relationship. That’s the kind of collaboration you should look for, one that makes both people better candidates for future jobs.
The second is with a couple of people. I was sitting at a wedding celebration for my then-supervisor, and another scientist and I started talking about work (as happens whenever you put two of us in a room together). She and I continued emailing, she brought in a friend who’d also been thinking about the same problem. These people have no connection to my lab, we’re just friends who are now working on grants and doing workshops together. We all bring different skills to the table, but most importantly we actually like each other. That makes working on projects easier. Working with people you don’t like sucks (this is also good advice for picking graduate advisors & postdoc supervisors).
On Working with Collaborators
Adriane: I can’t stress communication enough; this is THE MOST important factor when it comes to working with with collaborators. Bad communication can lead to assumptions, and well, you know what they say about assumptions. It can also lead to projects not being completed on time or people not understanding their role or responsibility within the project.
When you begin a new project with a collaborator or bring a collaborator on board to work with you, the first thing you should do is talk with them about your timeline, goals, and what everyone’s responsibility will be in regards to work done to complete the project. When I develop a new project with a collaborator, I like to outline the main hypothesis (or hypotheses) of the project, the methods, and the deadline for when each goal or analysis should be completed, and who will complete each goal or analysis. It is also a good idea to talk with your collaborator about how they prefer to share documents. Google Drive is my preferred method of sharing documents and writing papers with collaborators, but there are other options out there as well (e.g., Dropbox, Box, and Slack).
If I haven’t heard from my collaborator in a while regarding a project, I like to send them an email with the progress I’ve made on my part and check in with them. Like I stated earlier, it is very easy for all of us (students, postdocs, professors), to ignore one project for another. Sending an email to your collaborator and staying in touch is a good way to keep them motivated to compete their part of the project.
Andy: Skype or Google Hangouts are worth many emails when starting out and finishing. Depending on what you’re doing (workshops are very different than publications) but having every few month Skype meetings is well worth carving out the time for.
Adriane is correct, in the above, but optimistic. Best laid plans are wonderful, but all of the deadlines will fall apart. Don’t let that be discouraging. If you’re working with folks above the graduate level they’re managing students, writing papers and grants, teaching classes, and usually working on several other collaborative projects at once.
Jen: I agree with both Adriane and Andy and would like to add that you should maintain reasonable expectations. Somethings will go very quickly when you and other collaborators are really excited but you can’t shirk all other personal and professional responsibilities for a single project, that is unreasonable. Give yourself a flexible timeline but if you have set deadlines work within those confines.
Also, if something bothers you and you aren’t the PI or lead author say something anyway. You wouldn’t be on the project if the team didn’t value your input. Often times people get too close to their work and either lose sight of something or they implicitly understand the meaning but it may not always be clear to others.
On Publishing with Collaborators
Publishing with collaborators can be a tricky arena to navigate; Who will be the first author? How will the authorship list read? Does your collaborator even deserve co authorship on your paper? Does anyone else deserve co authorship? Different scientists may have different ‘rules’ pertaining to these questions, but here are some of our guidelines:
Who will be the first author of a study?
Adriane: Usually, the person that conceives the study and develops the hypothesis is the first author on a publication. There are exceptions to this, especially when a graduate student’s advisor helps the student conceive the study and leads them to develop the hypotheses. Outside of graduate school, the lead author of the study is the person who develops the project, invites collaborators, and does the majority of the writing and figure making.
Andy: When it’s a pair or group that works together frequently, then the first authorship can rotate. Sometimes there’s a handshake agreement that if the first authorship goes to one person on paper A, then it’ll go to the second person on paper B. This can lock you into a certain number of publications.
Jen: I agree with both Andy and Adriane and have used both techniques to determine authorship. Who is graduating first and in most dire need for publications can dictates authorship with rotations in the future as Andy said. Generally, it should be the person who conducted the most work on the project.
How will the co-authorship list read?
Adriane: This is a situation where communication is key. In a few of my projects, I have stated up front where my collaborator will fall in the authorship list. In other cases, the person that does the most work (after the first author of the study) receives second authorship, and so on. On other publications where everyone has contributed equally to the project, the authorship list is alphabetical by last name after the first author. However, this can cause issues if one (or more) of your collaborators feel like they have contributed more to the study, as alphabetical authorship allows nothing to be inferred about the contribution of the scientist to the study. Again, having open and honest conversations about authorship and how the authorship list will read early in the process is a great starting point.
Jen: This is also quite variable and field dependent. Sometimes names are all alphabetical, many times the PI of the lab is last indicating seniority, etc. I think there are effective and convoluted ways to describe and detail contributions per individual that lead to appropriate authorship lists. I generally tend to think in decreasing order of work contributed with the lab PI at the end unless there was no umbrella PI.
Who deserves co-authorship on your publication?
Adriane: My rule of thumb when it comes to co authorship is that whoever has contributed significantly to the study, i.e., you couldn’t have completed the project without them, deserves to be included as a co author on your publication. For example, I am currently developing a stable isotope record for the Tasman Sea in collaboration with my collaborator who is in California. Our geochemist at UMass who manages our stable isotope lab has been an essential part of making sure my analyses have ran properly in the lab. Therefore, he is being included as a co author on the study, even though he hasn’t helped to develop the hypotheses of the study or the methods. Without him, I wouldn’t have the data to even write a paper in the first place. Co authorship can also be offered to researchers who significantly contribute to the paper’s conclusions through discussions and suggestions of the data. However, this varies on a case-by-case basis. In these situations, I suggest using your intuition as to whether you think the study has been greatly enhanced through discussions.
I also have rules about who does not deserve co authorship on a study. If a person offers you off-handed advice, or you ask an outside researcher about a question pertaining to your study, this does not warrant co authorship on a paper. Scientists who have previously published data that you use in your study, whether that be in the form of a published thesis, dissertation, or journal publication, also does not deserve co authorship on your study. However, if you do use unpublished data from another researcher, you must absolutely include that researcher on your paper as a coauthor.
Jen: I wholeheartedly agree with Adriane. Significant efforts including but not limited to: data gathering, prepping, or analyzing and writing portions of the paper. Also, do not let people bully you into giving them co-authorship. If a related researcher wants to contribute to your body of work, fine. But just because they have strong ideas or opinions does not mean they get to commandeer your work.
