T-Rex Hunter
A Jack Horner is an unlikely academic: his dyslexia is so bad that he has
trouble reading a book. But he can read the imprint of life in sandstone or muddy shale across a
distance of 100m years, and it is this gift that has made him curator of palaeontology at Montana State
University's Museum of the Rockies, the leader of a multi-million dollar scientific project to expose a
complete slice of life 68m years ago, and a consultant to Steven Spielberg and other Hollywood figures.
B His father had a sand and gravel quarry in Montana, and the young Horner
was a collector of stones and bones, complete with notes about when and where he found them. "My father
had owned a ranch when he was younger, in Montana," he says. "He was enough of a geologist, is a sand
and gravel man, to have a pretty good notion that they were dinosaur bones. So when I was eight years
old he took me back to the area that had been his ranch, to where he had seen these big old bones. I
picked up one. I am pretty sure it was the upper arm bone of a duckbilled dinosaur: it probably wasn't a
maiaosaur but closely related to that. I catalogued it, and took good care of it, and then later when I
was in high school, excavated my first dinosaur skeleton. It obviously started earlier than eight and I
literally have been driven ever since. I feel like I was born this way."
C Horner spent seven years at university but never graduated. "I have a
learning disability, I would call it a learning difference – dyslexia, they call it – and I just had a
terrible time with English and foreign languages and things like that. For a degree in geology or
biology, they required two years of a foreign language. There was no way in the world I could do that.
In fact, I didn't really pass English. So I couldn't get a degree, I just wasn't capable of it. But I
took all of the courses required and I wrote a thesis and I did all sorts of things. So I have the
education, I just don't have the piece of paper," he says.
D In Montana, in those days, everybody had the right to a college education.
His grades at high school had been terrible, at university, his advisers recognised that he was having a
hard time, and went on helping. The dean who kept readmitting him was to give Horner an honorary
doctorate years later. As a young non-graduate, Horner wrote to every museum in the English-speaking
world, asking for a job. Los Angeles County Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto made offers,
but he accepted a post as a technician at Princeton University because of Princeton, New Jersey.
E "We definitely know we are working on a very broad coastal plain with the
streams and rivers bordered by conifers and hardwood plants, and the areas in between these rivers were
probably fern-covered. There were no grasses at all: just ferns and bushes – an unusual landscape, kind
of taking the south-eastern United States – Georgia, Florida – and mixing it with the moors of England
and flattening it out," he says. "Triceratops is very common: they are the cows of the Cretaceous, they
are everywhere. Duckbilled dinosaurs are relatively common but not as common as triceratops and T rex,
for a meat-eating dinosaur, is very common. What we would consider the predator-prey ratio seems really
off the scale. What is interesting is the little dromaeosaurs, the ones we know for sure were good
predators, we haven't found any of them."
F Which is why he sees T rex, not as the lion of the Cretaceous savannah but
its vulture. "Look at the wildebeest that migrate in the Serengeti of Africa, a million individuals lose
about 200,000 individuals in that annual migration. There is a tremendous carrion base there. And so you
have hyenas, you have tremendous numbers of vultures that are scavenging, you don't have all that many
animals that are good predators. If T rex was a top predator, especially considering how big it is,
you'd expect it to be extremely rare, much rarer than the little dromaeosaurs, and yet they are
everywhere, they are a dime a dozen," he says. A 12-tonne T rex is a lot of vultures, but he doesn't see
the monster as clumsy. He insisted his theory and finding, dedicated to further research upon it, of
course, he would like to reevaluate if there is any case that additional evidence found or explanation
raised by others in the future.
G He examined the leg bones of the T-rex, and compared the length of the
thigh bone (upper leg), to the shin bone (lower leg). He found that the thigh bone was equal in length
or slightly longer than the shin bone, and much thicker and heavier. Which proves that the animal was
built to be a slow walker rather than fast running. On the other hand, the fossils of fast hunting
dinosaurs ALWAYS showed that the shin bone was longer than the thigh bone. This same truth can be
observed in many animals of today which are designed to run fast: The ostrich, cheetah, etc.
H He also studied the fossil teeth of the T-rex, and compared them with the
teeth of the Velociraptor, and put the nail in the coffin of the "hunter T-rex theory". The
Velociraptor's teeth were like steak knives: sharp, razor-edged, and capable of tearing through flesh
with ease. The T-Rex's teeth were huge, sharp at their tip, but blunt, propelled by enormous jaw
muscles, which enabled them to only crush bones.
I With the evidence presented in his documentary, Horner was able to prove
that the idea of the T-rex as being a hunting and ruthless killing machine is probably just a myth. In
light of the scientific clues he was able to unearth, the T-rex was a slow, sluggish animal which had
poor vision, an extraordinary sense of smell, that often reached its "prey" after the real hunters were
done feeding, and sometimes it had to scare the hunters away from a corpse. In order to do that, the
T-rex had to have been ugly, nasty-looking, and stinky. This is actually true of nearly all scavenger
animal. They are usually vile and nasty looking.
Fossil files "The Paleobiology Database"
Are we now living through the sixth extinction as our own activities destroy ecosystems and wipe out
diversity? That's the doomsday scenario painted by many ecologists, and they may well be right. The
trouble is we don't know for sure because we don't have a clear picture of how life changes between
extinction events or what has happened in previous episodes. We don't even know how many species are
alive today, let alone the rate at which they are becoming extinct. A new project aims to fill some of
the gaps. The Paleobiology Database aspires to be an online repository of information about every fossil
ever dug up. It is a huge undertaking that has been described as biodiversity's equivalent of the Human
Genome Project. Its organizers hope that by recording the history of biodiversity they will gain an
insight into how environmental changes have shaped life on Earth in the past and how they might do so in
the future. The database may even indicate whether life can rebound no matter what we throw at it, or
whether a human-induced extinction could be without parallel, changing the rules that have applied
throughout the rest of the planet's history.
But already the project is attracting harsh criticism. Some experts believe it to be seriously flawed.
They point out that a database is only as good as the data fed into it, and that even if all the current
fossil finds were catalogued, they would provide an incomplete inventory of life because we are far from
discovering every fossilised species. They say that researchers should get up from their computers and
get back into the dirt to dig up new fossils. Others are more sceptical still, arguing that we can never
get the full picture because the fossil record is riddled with holes and biases.
Fans of the Paleobiology Database acknowledge that the fossil record will always be incomplete. But they
see value in looking for global patterns that show relative changes in biodiversity. "The fossil record
is the best tool we have for understanding how diversity and extinction work in normal times," says John
Alroy from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara. "Having a
background extinction estimate gives us a benchmark for understanding the mass extinction that's
currently underway. It allows us to say just how bad it is in relative terms."
To this end, the Paleobiology Database aims to be the most thorough attempt yet to come up with good
global diversity curves. Every day between 10 and 15 scientists around the world add information about
fossil finds to the database. Since it got up and running in 1998, scientists have entered almost
340,000 specimens, ranging from plants to whales to insects to dinosaurs to sea urchins. Overall totals
are updated hourly at www. paleodb.org. Anyone can download data from the public part of the site and
play with the numbers to their heart's content. Already, the database has thrown up some surprising
results. Looking at the big picture, Alroy and his colleagues believe they have found evidence that
biodiversity reached a plateau long ago, contrary to the received wisdom that species numbers have
increased continuously between extinction events. "The traditional view is that diversity has gone up
and up and up," he says. "Our research is showing that diversity limits were approached many tens of
millions of years before the dinosaurs evolved, much less suffered extinction." This suggests that only
a certain number of species can live on Earth at a time, filling a prescribed number of niches like
spaces in a multi-storey car park. Once it's full, no more new species can squeeze in, until extinctions
free up new spaces or something rare and catastrophic adds a new floor to the car park.
Alroy has also used the database to reassess the accuracy of species names. His findings suggest that
irregularities in classification inflate the overall number of species in the fossil record by between
32 and 44 per cent. Single species often end up with several names, he says, due to misidentification or
poor communication between taxonomists in different countries. Repetition like this can distort
diversity curves. "If you have really bad taxonomy in one short interval, it will look like a diversity
spike – a big diversification followed by a big extinction – when all that has happened is a change in
the quality of names," says Alroy. For example, his statistical analysis indicated that of the 4861
North American fossil mammal species catalogued in the database, between 24 and 31 per cent will
eventually prove to be duplicated.
Of course, the fossil record is undeniably patchy. Some places and times have left behind more
fossil-filled rocks than others. Some have been sampled more thoroughly. And certain kinds of creatures
– those with hard parts that lived in oceans, for example – are more likely to leave a record behind,
while others, like jellyfish, will always remain a mystery. Alroy has also tried to account for this. He
estimates, for example, that only 41 per cent of North American mammals that have ever lived are known
from fossils, and he suspects that a similar proportion of fossils are missing from other groups, such
as fungi and insects.
Not everyone is impressed with such mathematical wizardry. Jonathan Adrain from the University of Iowa in
Iowa City points out that statistical wrangling has been known to create mass extinctions where none
occurred. It is easy to misinterpret data. For example, changes in sea level or inconsistent sampling
methods can mimic major changes in biodiversity. Indeed, a recent and thorough examination of the
literature on marine bivalve fossils has convinced David Jablonsky from the University of Chicago and
his colleagues that their diversity has increased steadily over the past 5 million years.
With an inventory of all living species, ecologists could start to put the current biodiversity crisis in
historical perspective. Although creating such a list would be a task to rival even the Palaeobiology
Database, it is exactly what the San Francisco-based ALL Species Foundation hopes to achieve in the next
25 years. The effort is essential, says Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, who is alarmed by current
rates of extinction. "There is a crisis. We've begun to measure it, and it's very high," Wilson says.
"We need this kind of information in much more detail to protect all of biodiversity, not just the ones
we know well." Let the counting continue.
Personality and Appearance
When Charles Darwin applied to be the "energetic young man" that Robert Fitzroy, the Beagle's captain,
sought as his gentleman companion, he was almost let down by a woeful shortcoming that was as plain as
the nose on his face. Fitzroy believed in physiognomy—the idea that you can tell a person's character
from their appearance. As Darwin's daughter Henrietta later recalled, Fitzroy had "made up his mind that
no man with such a nose could have energy". This was hardly the case. Fortunately, the rest of Darwin's
visage compensated for his sluggardly proboscis: "His brow saved him."
The idea that a person's character can be glimpsed in their face dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was
most famously popularised in the late 18th century by the Swiss poet Johann Lavater, whose ideas became
a talking point in intellectual circles. In Darwin's day, they were more or less taken as given. It was
only after the subject became associated with phrenology, which fell into disrepute in the late 19th
century, that physiognomy was written off as pseudoscience.
First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its
cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about
its owner's character—caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on. Once that snap
judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. People also act on these snap judgements.
Politicians with competent-looking faces have a greater chance of being elected, and CEOs who look
dominant are more likely to run a profitable company. There is also a well-established "attractiveness
halo". People seen as good-looking not only get the most valentines but are also judged to be more
outgoing, socially competent, powerful, intelligent and healthy.
In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met before to
rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in
silence. For three traits—extroversion, conscientiousness and openness—the observers' rapid judgements
matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance. More recently, researchers have
re-examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of
Stirling and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the
Michigan studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors. But when Little and Perrett re-ran
the experiment using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial
appearance and personality—though only for extroversion and conscientiousness. Little and Perrett
claimed that they only found a correlation at the extremes of personality.
Justin Carre and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada studied 90 ice-hockey players.
They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-to-cheekbone distance was unusually large relative
to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the number
of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from
behind and fighting. The kernel of truth idea isn't the only explanation on offer for our readiness to
make facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham,
Massachusetts, says that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. The snap judgement, she says,
is often an "overgeneralisation" of a more fundamental response. A classic example of overgeneralisation
can be seen in predators' response to eye spots, the conspicuous circular markings seen on some moths,
butterflies and fish. These act as a deterrent to predators because they mimic the eyes of other
creatures that the potential predators might see as a threat.
Another researcher who leans towards overgeneralisation is Alexander Todorov. With Princeton colleague
Nikolaas Oosterhof, he recently put forward a theory which he says explains our snap judgements of faces
in terms of how threatening they appear. Todorov and Oosterhof asked people for their gut reactions to
pictures of emotionally neutral faces, sifted through all the responses, and boiled them down to two
underlying factors: how trustworthy the face looks, and how dominant. Todorov and Oosterhof conclude
that personality judgements based on people's faces are an overgeneralisation of our evolved ability to
infer emotions from facial expressions, and hence a person's intention to cause us harm and their
ability to carry it out. Todorov, however, stresses that overgeneralisation does not rule out the idea
that there is sometimes a kernel of truth in these assessments of personality.
So if there is a kernel of truth, where does it come from? Perrett has a hunch that the link arises when
our prejudices about faces turn into self-fulfilling prophecies—an idea that was investigated by other
researchers back in 1977. Our expectations can lead us to influence people to behave in ways that
confirm those expectations: consistently treat someone as untrustworthy and they end up behaving that
way. This effect sometimes works the other way round, however, especially for those who look cute. The
Nobel prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz once suggested that baby-faced features evoke a nurturing
response. Support for this has come from work by Zebrowitz, who has found that baby-faced boys and men
stimulate an emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala, in a similar way. But there's a twist.
Babyfaced men are, on average, better educated, more assertive and apt to win more military medals than
their mature-looking counterparts. They are also more likely to be criminals; think Al Capone.
Similarly, Zebrowitz found baby-faced boys to be quarrelsome and hostile, and more likely to be academic
highfliers. She calls this the "self-defeating prophecy effect": a man with a baby face strives to
confound expectations and ends up overcompensating.
There is another theory that recalls the old parental warning not to pull faces because they might freeze
that way. According to this theory, our personality moulds the way our faces look. It is supported by a
study two decades ago which found that angry old people tend to look cross even when asked to strike a
neutral expression. A lifetime of scowling, grumpiness and grimaces seemed to have left its mark.