Fossil Reconstruction

Formulating plausible life styles for extinct animals will require three fundamental things from
you, (1) an open mind, (2) the ability to think in new and original ways, and (3) a healthy dose of
common sense. Finding a reconstruction for a particular extinct animal is not difficult; both the print
literature and the internet have numerous reconstructions. But as you will quickly discover,
reconstructions for a particular animal can be remarkably dissimilar.

One of the problems with descriptions of many extinct animals is that names must be used to
identify different body parts. But even applying a name to a structure (e.g., referring to a hard, conical
structure in a fossil as a tooth) produces implications about the function of that structure. To avoid a
biased description of a fossil, structures will be identified with terms in single quote marks. In other
words, calling a structure a ‘tooth’ suggests that this is a reasonable interpretation of the structure, but not
necessarily the only reasonable interpretation. As you reconstruct the animal, you will need to evaluate
the available evidence and decide which of the competing interpretations is most likely to be correct.
This means that you will need to find and read multiple sources regarding your fossil. The more sources
you find, the better you will be able to reconstruct the fossil.

Reconstructions
The purpose of this reconstruction is to highlight the connection between the form of an
organism, its role in the environment, and how well suited it is for that role based upon its characteristics.
Reconstructions of extinct animals consists of four components.

• Introduction: a brief overview of the organism being reconstructed, including general

characteristics, stratigraphic (rock layers) and geographic ranges, and taxonomic (classification)
affinities.
o This should include what information is discernable regarding the habitat, possible plant
and animal life present, and environmental conditions of the time period
• Previous Reconstructions: a concise review highlighting similarities and differences between
earlier reconstructions.
• Revised Reconstructions: a critical evaluation and synthesis of earlier ideas with additional
insights based on logical inferences
• References—the literature cited during the reconstruction
o 3+ sources are required for each individual rough draft, more are highly recommended.
o All sources must be sited using APA
o This includes any images, charts, diagrams
o Final collaborative paper must have 5+ sources
Format
• Standard 1” margins top and bottom
• Times New Roman font
• Title at top: 28 pt. font
• Place all contributing group members’ name under the title: 12 pt. font
• Utilize headings for the four components: 13 pt. font
 • Body of paper: 12 pt. font
• 1.15 line spacing
• Label each figure, table, chart, diagram and identify them with a citation
• Cite all sources in CSE style

Due Dates
• All Team Members Individual Rough Draft: February 22nd
• Combined Collaboration Final Paper: March 8th

Fossil Reconstruction Choices

• Amargasaurus -- a sail-necked sauropod?
• Beelzebufo -- a toad that preyed on juvenile dinosaurs?
• Chimaerosuchus/Malawisuchus --herbivorous crocodiles?
• Dakosaurus -- the crocodilian equivalent of a killer whale?
• Dinichthys -- a giant carnivorous fish with sharpened bones instead of teeth?
• Euchambersia -- a venomous therapsid?
• Gigantopithecus -- a giant ape with a panda-like lifestyle?
• Kronosaurus -- the plesiosaur equivalent of a killer whale?
• Microraptor -- a four-winged, flying theropod?
• Phorusrhacos -- a giant, flightless bird that secondarily evolved clawed arms?
• Propleopus -- a carnivorous kangaroo?
• Stomatosuchus -- a filter-feeding crocodile?
• Tanystropheus -- the archosauromorph equivalent of a construction crane?
• Terrestrisuchus -- a crocodilian greyhound?
• Titanoboa -- a snake capable of attacking elephant-sized animals?
• Thylacosmilus -- a marsupial saber-toothed cat?
• Uintatherium -- a saber-toothed herbivore?

Tips for Reconstruction

So how should you go about reconstructing an animal? Several precautions will help you as you
make your reconstructions and reduce the chances you will be mislead by errors in previous work.

• Consider the reliability of the information. Are the inferences based on actual data (= analyzed
numbers) or anecdotal observations? Just because something looks like a duck, swims like a
duck, and quacks like a duck, doesn’t mean it is a duck. Subtle differences between two animals
can have important consequences for their respective life styles.
• Make certain you use as many different sources of information as possible. You should be
particularly cautious when using information from the internet. If you do a web search on, say,
Tyrannosaurus, you will find thousands of sites. Surprisingly, most of these sites contain
information from only a very few sources (typically other websites). So what seems at first
glance to be a huge resource base is in fact, far more restricted. Further, many popular websites
(e.g., Wikipedia) provide simplified overviews of different fossil animals, but in their efforts to
make information more accessible tend to ignore controversial aspects of their reconstructions.
However, such websites do provide a good introduction to an animal with which you are
 unfamiliar. Use the links from references at the bottom of a Wikipedia page to find additional,
primary, credible sources if they are accessible.
• The Alabama Virtual Library will provide access to a limited number of original literature in
journals.
• One powerful avenue of investigation is the use of information from related organisms. For
example, if part of a fossil is missing, an examination of related fossils (e.g., in the same class, or
less helpfully, the same order) that are more complete can help in reconstructing the missing
parts. As an example, the forefeet of the early amphibian Ichthyostega have not, as yet been
found preserved in fossils. But by examining related amphibians, such as Acanthostega, it’s
possible to infer the likely appearance of the forefeet of Ichthyostega.
• Avoid becoming enamored with oft-repeated inferences, since the validity of a reconstruction is
not determined by mere repetition. Many reconstructions have a certain exotic attraction to them
and can produce a good deal of ‘chatter’ in the literature. This doesn’t mean the reconstruction is
correct, just that it generates an ongoing series of discussions.
• As you build your reconstruction, examine each inference for plausibility. Common sense is a
good (although not infallible) test of ideas. Make certain different aspects of your reconstruction
are consistent with each other.
• Discuss competing reconstructions in the literature and give reasoned arguments for selecting one
over the other. In some cases, there may not be enough information to produce a clear preference
for one reconstruction. In such cases this should be noted, along with types of information that
would be needed to evaluate the different reconstructions.
• Finally, the writing should be clear, concise and logically-organized. All references should be
cited.