Madygenerpeton pustulatus: first description finally out

Schoch, R. R., S. Voigt, and M. Buchwitz. 2010. A chroniosuchid from the Triassic of Kyrgyzstan and analysis of chroniosuchian relationships. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 160(3): 515-530. [Abstract]

Madygen trace fossil paper

Voigt, S. and D. Hoppe. 2010. Mass Occurrence of Penetrative Trace Fossils in Triassic Lake Deposits (Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia). Ichnos 17:1-11. [Link]

Besides the exquisite soft body preservation of insects and tetrapods within some parts of the lacustrine succession, the Triassic Madygen lake shows a rich inventary of invertebrate trace fossils, studied by my colleague from Freiberg Sebastian Voigt.

The interesting point about these ichnofossil assemblages is that they demonstrate a certain differentiation of the lake ground in better and less well aerated zones, displaying different degrees of bioturbation and abundances of indicative ichnotaxa.

You can imagine that fresh water lake grounds only became inhabited stepwise after the conquest of land by animals, so these trace fossil assemblages mark a certain evolutionary level of lake ecosystems, otherwise rarely documented in detail from the Middle to Late Triassic.

Perception of deep time by geologists and biologists

Following the Darwin Year a colloquium lecture by zoologist Prof. Wolfgang Maier from Tübingen dedicated to "Darwin and deep time" discussed Charles Darwin’s role as a geologist who (among others) introduced the concept of deep time (a term later coined for million to several billion year long time ranges in geology) to biology.

Darwin did this by translating a hierarchy of (anatomical) similarity into a tree scheme that linked organisms from successive time slices with thousands of generations separating each two slices (see the scheme from Darwin’s "Origin of Species": [link]). The time slices can be related to certain units of the geological time scale.

Deep time correspondents in stratigraphy …

The problem of imagining time ranges far outside the scale of human experience has been approached by geologists with the method and concepts of stratigraphy: Strata of rock can be interpreted as a succession of time slices. Relative ages and age differences often manifest in an amount of rock which is loosely corresponding to certain a time span if similar rockforming processes are underlying. The relationship between the duration of a process and the amount of materal it creates can be inferred from direct observation of recent systems, allowing the assignment of absolute time (in years or millions of years) to a succession of strata. Given that long-term geological processes are rarely gradual, a more reliable absolute age is provided by radiometric dating.

If you would ask a geologist how he/ she percieves deep time I suppose he/ she would explain that it becomes clear from the slowness of present-day geological processes on the one hand and from the vast amount of products of such processes on the other hand.

… and phylogenetics

The evolution of organisms yields another approximation of deep time: The passing of time manifests in the hierarchical distinctness of living systems. Seeing how slow evolution works in a human being’s life span and how much change in anatomy/ biochemistry etc. must have occurred since last common ancestor of mouse and elephant or of mouse and lemon tree, leads to another way of percieving long time spans.

Regarding a certain distinctness and species richness of a group as a product of a certain number of character changes and speciation events (which is more or less well correlated with time) was probably enhanced by the more quantitative look at phylogenetics since the introduction of cladistics and molecular methods.

When I was attending a workshop on molecular paleobiology in 2008 specialists of that field were using the expression “(addressing) deep time problems” synonymous to phylogenetics of higher systematic groups, i.e. as the study of evolutionary changes that occurred deep down in the tree of animals and other organisms – opposed to let’s say the comparative analysis of human and neanderthal genomes or the radiation of Darwin finches.

The viewpoints of paleontologists…

But how do (present-day) paleontologists percieve deep time? You would expect them to share the view of both, phylogeneticists and stratigraphers, as most of them are taught at least a bit about both fields. However, for a paleontological fieldworker who employs the study of fossils as a means to understand and describe geological processes and paleoenvironmental contexts the flow of time is much easier grasped as a series of events preserved in a succession of rocks (and not as a phylogenetic tree scheme).

On the other hand, as a consequence of the so-called paleobiological revolution, you don’t need to be a field worker to contribute to the understanding of ancient organisms. In fact many aspects of paleobiology require mere laboratory and magazine work and you can spend a lifetime on that without ever considering rocks – naturally the perspective of such a modern paleobiologist on deep time will be strictly that of a phylogeneticist.

…can lead to conflicts?

These different perceptions on deep time and evolution are probably the background why cladistics was (and still is) met with some scepticism by “old school paleontologists” (or by “Eastern Europe school paleontologists”): Instead of considering all kinds of data for phylogenetic hypothesis-making I am supposed to use merely data from the (anatomical, molecular, etc.) comparison of organisms, as if evolution does not manifest in other ways in the geological record.

One could argue that it is possible to integrate other data, i.e. stratigraphic ages and palaeobiogeographical relations, in a cladistic analysis or at least in the discussion of its results, and so assure that hypotheses from the tree perspective on evolution are tested under consideration of independent data.

The idea to use time directly as a character in a parsimony analysis with consecutive time slices as character states may be epistemically unsound, as it is problematic to justify any kind of model assumption how time is weighted with respect to anatomical characters (and implicitly would this mean a post-hoc failure if proximity in time is regarded as indicative for degree of relationship?).

An a posteriori fit to other data – e.g. looking which of the equally parsimonious morphology-only-based time-calibrated trees has shorter lineages of no record (ghost lineages) – might be a better approach, but is still hard to swallow for some people who have problems with parsimony analyses on the basis of (too) small character samples (i.e. with inherent biases due to sample size/ character poorness or ambivalence of fossils).

Madygen News 2009

Expedition. This year's two month expedition to Madygen, Kyrgyzstan, ends in about a week. Rather than merely assembling more fossils the task for 2009 was to carry out further observations concerning the facies architecture and fine stratigraphy of the Madygen Formation - in fact to solve the evolution of the Madygen depositional environment throughout the time comprised by the Triassic sequence of the Madygen SW outcrop area.

Since the ways of communication between Germany and the Kyrgyz outback are difficult I didn't get much of an opportunity yet to talk to Madygen project leader Sebastian Voigt (my de facto chief who is still in the field). But from what I've heard the paleoenvironment is now well explained and some furthergoing approaches, e.g. comparing the conditions of Madygen to those of the other (few) terrestrial lagerstätten of the Triassic, are now feasible.

Symposia contributions and papers

- on the flora:

Moisan, P., H. Kerp, S. Voigt, C. Pott & M. Buchwitz (2009): Cycadophyte foliage from the Triassic Madygen Formation, SW Kyrgyzstan Central Asia. Terra Nova 2009/3:81-82. [Abstract Volume of Annual Meeting of the German Paleontological Society in Bonn] ... the respective paper is soon to come.

- on kazacharthran body and trace fossils: ... still in the review process.

- on fish:

Kogan, I., K. Schönberger, J. Fischer, S. Voigt & M. Buchwitz (2009): A nearly complete Saurichthys specimen from the Triassic of Madygen (Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia). Terra Nova 2009/3: 63-64.

A first note on this find will published at the end of 2009 in Freiberger Forschungshefte.

SVP poster on egg capsules and teeth of hybodont sharks, which have been discovered in 2008: Fischer, J., S. Voigt, M. Buchwitz & J.W. Schneider (2009): The selachian fauna from the non-marine Middle to Late Triassic Madygen Formation (Kyrgyzstan, Middle Asia): preliminary results. JVP 29 (3, suppl.): 95A-96A.

- on chroniosuchians:

Buchwitz, M. & S. Voigt (2009): Locomotion aspects of a chroniosuchid carapace. In: D. Schwarz-Wings, O. Wings & F. Sattler (eds.): 7th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Paleontologis - Abstract Volume. Aachen, 2009, p.14.

Buchwitz, M. & S. Voigt (2009): Phylogenetic and functional implications of the chroniosuchian osteoderm morphology. Terra Nova 2009/3: 25.

I'm trying hard to finish these manuscripts just now. The first description of the new chroniosuchid species, focussing on the skull features, is 'in press'.

- about the thing that must not be named:

Buchwitz, M., S. Voigt & J. Fischer (2009): Dorsal appendages of You-know-what reconsidered: aspects of development and the link to the evolution of filamentous integumentary structures. JVP 29 (3, suppl.): 72A.

...there is another longer manuscript putting some effort into the detailed description/documentation and a discussion of some rather modest model (... but I cannot really tell yet whether an 'accept' is feasible in the near future).

- on the depositional environment of the Lagerstätte Madygen and its tetrapod localities:

Voigt, S., M. Buchwitz, J. Fischer, P. Moisan & I. Kogan (2009): Lagerstätte Madygen - outstanding window to a continental Triassic ecosystem. JVP 29 (3, suppl.): 196A.

Buchwitz, M., S. Voigt, J. Hentschke & P. Moisan (2009): The Triassic Madygen Formation (Kyrgyzstan, Middle Asia) features a new tetrapod locality. Terra Nova 2009/3: 25-26.

...the latter poster introduces some (real) archosaur finds from 2008.

Questionnaire for Geobloggers(incl. Paleobloggers)

http://geoblogs.stratigraphy.net/survey/

The organisator is my former study colleage Lutz Geißler (now M.Sc. in geology), who is at the German forefront of publicising geoscience - with his web portals geoberg.de, geonetzwerk.org, and with his postcard/ poster/ online campaign "Wir sind überall." ("We are everythere!" - referring to the role geoscience plays in daily life/ for the satisfaction of basic needs).