Gideon Mantell (1790-1852): The Dinosaur Doctor

(doesn't he look dapper ladies?)

Gideon Algernon Mantell is perhaps best remembered for discovering Iguandon, one of the first dinosaurs to be described. This week, we will look closer at this South Saxon surgeon. Most of the information is derived from the book Dinosaur Doctor: The life and work of Gideon Mantell (Critchley, 2010).

 Gideon was born on 3rd February 1790 in the town of Lewes, East Sussex. His father, Thomas, was a shoemaker and his mother was Sarah Austen. He was the fifth child of nine, his older siblings being: Sarah (who died in infancy), Thomas, Samuel and Mary, and his younger siblings: Algernon, Joshua, Jemima and Kezia. 

 Gideon had an interest in geology at a young age and spent many days of his youth collecting fossils from the nearby hills. Unfortunately, due to bizarre religious rules, Mantell, being a Methodist, was not allowed to study at any of the local grammar schools, because they were only for Anglican pupils. As a result, he was sent to a dame school (a school run by women designed to teach the absolute basics) and later was accepted into John Button's Academy for Boys where he was taught arithmetic and geography and some over subjects like rhetoric that we don't have anymore. After this, he was sent to Westbury, Wiltshire, to continue his studies with his uncle George (this is likely to be because Button was becoming a bit of a radical and started saying things like "Down with the Monarchy!!!!!" which probably didn't go down too well with the Royalist supporters in Lewes). 

When he came back from Lewes two years later, he became an apprentice to a local surgeon, James Moore. Dr. Moore was also a keen naturalist and taught Gideon everything he knew about anatomy - both of humans and animals. Sadly, while he was an apprentice, his father, Thomas, died on 11 July 1807. But, you know what they say, always look on the bright side of life, and in this case, Thomas left Gideon enough money in his will so he could go to London and receive a Diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons.

 When he again returned to Lewes he entered into a partnership with his former mentor Dr. Moore. They were both kept incredibly busy by the many epidemics of typhoid, cholera, smallpox and other fun epidemics that were ravaging the countryside at the time. He was able to make quite a tidy sum, £750 a year. Whilst he had very little free time, he did continue his fossil collecting and in 1813 he established a correspondence with the English naturalist James Sowerby. He sent Sowerby many of his specimens which Sowerby then described and published. In recognition of Mantell's help, Sowerby even named an ammonite after him: Ammonites mantelli (now called Mantelliceras mantelli).

 In 1811, fellow amateur fossil collector Mary Anning discovered the fossil of a large crocodile (later identified as an ichthyosaur). The buzz surrounding this event prompted Gideon to become more interested in fossils and it gradually started to overtake his doctor duties (much to the chagrin of his patients I'd imagine). 

 On 4 May 1816, Gideon married 20-year-old Mary Ann Woodhouse. Since you needed to be 21 to marry, they needed her mother's permission and to obtain a special licence. Which they got.

 By 1819, Gideon was collecting fossils from a quarry at Whitemans Green near Cuckfield, West Sussex. In 1820, he found some very large bones, even bigger than the ones found by Buckland (I wonder if he put them on his wall and called them his Mantell-piece, ahahahahahahahaha...ha...no?...*clears throat* Moving on). Then, two years later, his wife, Mary, found some big teeth that could not be identified. He initially sent the teeth to the French anatomist Georges Cuvier who identified them as rhinoceros teeth (according to another geologist Charles Lyell, Cuvier told him that he made the initial identification after he had come home from a late party and when he had woken up in the morning he changed his mind and thought they were something different but didn't resend a message back to England. Considering he said this years later, it's likely he was just protecting his own ego - who wants to admit they're wrong?).

 Mantell next sent the teeth to Buckland who said they were fish teeth (how the jiminny he came to that conclusion is beyond me) but Mantell was eventually able to convince the scientific community he was right about it being something new. The question now was what was it going to be called. Mantell had previously noted its similarity with iguanas and in a letter to his friend William Conybeare, he intended to name it Iguanasaurus. Conybeare, however, didn't think that was a good name because it doesn't really indicate that it is different from the iguana, and suggested the names Iguanoides and Iguanodon instead. Mantell agreed and, in 1825, described the specimens as Iguanodon (and just like Buckland, he didn't give it a species name. That was added later in 1829 by Friedrich Holl: anglicus). 

In 1833, Mantell moved to Brighton but unfortunately, his best days were behind him. His medical practice went downhill as he spent so much of his money on his collection and even transformed his house into a museum open to the public (for free). This left him in a dire financial position. In 1838, as a last act of desperation, he sold his entire collection to the British Museum (now the Natural History Museum, where they still reside) for £4,000 (after his original price of £5,000 was rejected).

He then moved to Clapham Common, London where he continued to be a doctor, except this time with no fossil collection to distract him. Sadly, things went from bad to worse for Gideon. His wife, Mary left him in 1839. Later that year, his son, Walter, moved to New Zealand. And in 1840, his beloved daughter Hannah died aged 18. Feel sorry for him? It's about to get even worse. In 1841, Gideon was involved in a carriage accident. Somehow, he fell out of his seat, got caught in the reins of the horse and was dragged along the ground . He suffered a severe spinal injury which left him bent and in constant pain. Despite this, he continued to publish papers on prehistoric reptiles. In 1844 he moved to Pimlico, London and in the following year became addicted to opium, having used it as a painkiller for his back. This proved to be his ultimate downfall as on 10 November 1852 he took an overdose of opium, passed out and sadly died. Even to the end, he was loyal to science, as in his will, he requested that his spine be removed and studied to improve future pathology. This was indeed done and for a long time belonged to his arch-rival Richard Owen (who wrote a very mean obituary accusing Mantell of lacking any scientific knowledge and merely publishing what his friends had told him in conversation and personal letters) who kept it at the headquarters of the Royal College of Surgeons where it remained until 1969 when it was destroyed to make space.

 And so ended the life of Gideon Algernon Mantell. At the time of his death, 3 of his 4 children survived him: Ellen, Walter and Reginald. But his legacy lives on with many organisms that he named including:

Iguandon, Mantell, 1825 (an Ornithopod dinosaur)

Hylaeosaurus armatus, Mantell, 1833 (an armoured dinosaur)

Regnosaurus northamptoni, Mantell, 1848 (a Stegosaur, originally identified as a giant lizard)

Pelorosaurus conybearei, Mantell, 1850, genus only (a Sauropod dinosaur that Mantell originally wanted to name Colossosaurus until he realised that that name means statue lizard in Greek, so he named it Pelorosaurus, the monster lizard instead)

"Pelorosaurus" becklessi, Mantell, 1852 (another Sauropod although a different type to the original species of Pelorosaurus so really needs a new name)

Telerpeton elginense, Mantell, 1852 (an amphibian that is now synonymised with Lepterpeton lacertinum)

And there are a number of organisms named after Mantell including:

Mantelliceras, Hyatt, 1903 (an ammonite)

Mantelliceras mantelli, Sowerby, 1814 (an ammonite)

Mantellisaurus, Paul, 2007 (an iguanodont dinosaur)

Gideonmantellia, Ruiz-Omenaca, Canudo, Cuenca-Bescos, Cruzado-Caballero, Gasca and Moreno-Azanza, 2012 (an Ornithopod dinosaur)

The next biography will be about the guy who coined the word dinosaur: Richard Owen. But next week, we'll take a look at a frequently asked question, especially from children: Which was the biggest dinosaur?

See also:
More dinosaurs
More about Richard Owen

References:

Critchley, E. (2010) Dinosaur Doctor: The life and work of Gideon Mantell, Chalford: Amberley

Buckland, OUM J13505 and the start of a "great" story

The above image is specimen number OUM J13505, currently held in the Oxford University Museum. The bone was discovered in a quarry at Stonesfield, in Oxfordshire in 1815. The British geologist William Buckland (famous for coining the term "ice age", studying fossil dung and eating exotic animals), purchased the fossils and was immediately fascinated by them. In 1818 his French geologist friend Georges Cuvier visited him and informed Buckland that the jaw belonged to a giant lizard. They were then first mentioned in print by James Parkinson (the British surgeon who famously described Parkinson's Disease) in 1822.

Buckland finally got around to describing the material (more of it had been discovered since) in 1824. Buckland named the animal Megalosaurus the "Great Lizard" and believed it was some sort of giant prehistoric lizard, much like Cuvier (Buckland, 1824). Unfortunately, Buckland did not give it a species name, the current rules for naming animals not being in place until the late 19th century. A solution to this problem was proposed by Ferdinand von Ritgen in 1826 as he named the species Megalosaurus conybeari (Named after the English geologist and marine reptile specialist William Conybeare). However, he didn't provide an adequate description nor did he designate which specimen the species represents (this being another requirement in order for a species to be accepted). Therefore his name  is regarded as being invalid. The situation was finally rectified by Gideon Mantell (of Iguanodon fame) in 1827 who gave the animal its current name of Megalosaurus bucklandii (named after Buckland himself).

In the intervening 200 years, Megalosaurus has been used as wastebasket taxon. Pretty much EVERY European Theropod from Jurassic or Cretaceous age rocks has been regarded as a species of Megalosaurus at some point or another. This continued up until the 1980s, when palaeontologists came to the conclusion that European theropods were more diverse than just a single genus. Most of the extra species have since been reclassified but there are still hangers-on, and seeing as how they based on teeth (and in some cases just fragments of bone), it's unlikely they will ever receive much attention. There's also a funny story involving an alleged giant's scrotum, but I'll save that for another day as well a bit more information on how and where fossils are discovered. Next week will be our first biography: that of the Sussex geologist Gideon Mantell!!!

See also:
More dinosaurs
More about Gideon Mantell

References
Buckland, W. (1824) 'XXI. - Notice on the Megalosaurus or great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield', Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 2 (1), pp. 390-396, doi: 10.1144/transgslb.1.2.390

Mantell, G. (1827) Illustrations of the geology of Sussex, London: Lupton Relfe

Parkinson, J. (1822) Outlines of Oryctology: An introduction to the study of fossil organic remains, especially those found in the British strata, London

von Ritgen, F. (1826) 'Versuchte Herstellung einiger Becken urweltlichter Thiere', Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum 113, pp. 331-358

Comparative Anatomy - Are all Dinosaurs the same?

A lot of people when they hear the word dinosaur think of some giant, reptilian monster. However, dinosaurs were more varied than that and for this week, I want to compare three different genera: Compsognathus, Diplodocus and Allosaurus.

  

In order to do this, we'll look at their anatomy starting at the skull and finishing at the tail.

First the skulls. Compsognathus has a small but long and pointed skull with over 60 sharp, curved teeth. Diplodocus has a tiny head which is held at an angle. The jaws are weak with thin peg-like teeth. Allosaurus has huge jaws and a wide, hinged mouth with 70 dagger-like teeth. The massive, powerful head is held almost upright.

Next the necks. Compsognathus has a flexible neck that allows for quick movements. Diplodocus has a long, powerful neck. There is much dispute regarding sauropod necks. Were they held stiff and upright like a Giraffe's or were they flexible and low to the ground like a Swan's? Allosaurus had a thick, short and flexible neck that was built for power not agility.

Now the backbone. Compsognathus had pretty average vertebrae, nothing too exciting. Diplodocus' vertebrae were strengthened to prevent the massive body from collapsing under its own weight. Allosaurus had strong back muscles to support its body.

Next we journey to the forelimbs. In Compsognathus we see three clawed fingers, good for grasping prey (up until 2000 it was believed to only have two fingers). Diplodocus had five toes, the first being large and sharp and the others were padded like an elephant's (although this is disputed). Allosaurus has short, sturdy arms with three-fingered hands for grabbing and tearing.

Following that it is logical to look at the hindlimbs. Compsognathus had long, light-boned back legs for speed. Diplodocus had four pillar-like legs to support its weight. Allosaurus had three sharply clawed toes pointing forwards, a fourth toe pointing backwards to spread the weight and a reduced fifth toe.

Finally, we reach the tail. Compsognathus has a long tail, almost half the length of the body for balance. Diplodocus has a long, heavy tail to act as a counterbalance so it doesn't topple onto its face. This tail is also thin at the end and was probably used like a whip. Allosaurus' tail was long and muscular and was also used for balance.

And that's it. This was just meant to highlight the main body plans of dinosaurs. Part 2 (because no topic is ever finished) will look at another three body plans. Next week we will look more closely at perhaps the most important dinosaur fossil ever - OUM J13505.

See also:
More dinosaurs
More dinosaurian anatomy goodness
Skulls

Jurassic Park Part 1 - Can Dinosaurs be cloned?

As I'm sure you are aware, my favourite film is Jurassic Park (I've probably mentioned it ad nauseum - this is the last time I mention it (promise)). At the time, the idea of cloning dinosaurs to bring them back was pure fantasy, something that the scientific community were quick to point out. But, 20 years on, is it still fantasy or is there some truth to it? Let's find out!

 First of all what is cloning? According to wikipedia, cloning is the process of producing similar (this is an important word) populations of genetically identical individuals. The predominant method used is known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (or SCNT for short). This involves transferring the nucleus of an adult cell (known as a somatic cell) to an egg cell that has no nucleus. 

 In this picture of an animal cell, the nucleus is the big blue sphere. This is where the DNA is kept in Eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi and some other funky things like algae and amoebae). 

 Once the nucleus has been transferred into the egg cell, it is then observed. If the cell starts to divide normally, the cell is placed into the uterus of a donor mother. It is at this early stage the clone ceases to be exactly identical to the original because every time a cell divides, there is a chance the DNA can mutate. Also, only the nuclear DNA is transferred. There is also DNA in the mitochondria (singular, mitochondrion, the pinky capsules with wavy things in them in the above picture). The clone's mitochondrial DNA is obtained from the surrogate mother, again ensuring that the clone will not be exactly the same as the original. The mitochondrial DNA is used to determine which proteins an organism can obtain energy from in the form of food. As a result, they are very important.

 So this raises a few questions regarding dinosaur cloning. Has dinosaur DNA been recovered and what would we use as the surrogate mother?

 Let's look at the first question. Has Dinosaur DNA ever been recovered. The answer to that is no. There has been DNA recovered from blood-sucking insects from the dinosaur times, but it's only a few strands - impossible to know whether it's from a dinosaur, pterosaur, or even the insect itself. Besides, we would need a whole genome to be able to clone a dinosaur. However, dinosaur DNA from bones has been reported but it is extremely controversial. It all started in 1994 when three American palaeontologists, Scott Woodward, Nathan Weyand and Mark Bunnell, claimed to have found the DNA in bone fragments from the Blackhawk Formation in Utah. Woodward et al. did not identify which dinosaur the fragments came from (they weren't even able to prove they were dinosaur bones anyway and the pictures used in the paper are very bad quality). But the claim was there. 80 million-year-old DNA. The following year, S. Blair Hedges and Mary Schweitzer published a rebuttal, in which they were able to show that the "ancient DNA" was in fact human DNA that had contaminated the bone (maybe someone cut themselves while handling the bones?).
 However, later that same year, a group of Chinese scientists again made the claim of discovered DNA from dinosaur egg shells. Unfortunately, they published their findings in an obscure Chinese journal which no-one read and so it escaped the scientific community (An, et al., 2005, cited in Wang, et al., 1997). That was until 1997 when another group of Chinese scientists tested the DNA and, just like Hedges and Schweitzer, found the DNA to be contaminated - this time with plant and fungi DNA (Wang, Yan and Jin, 1997).
 And that's it. They're the only claims of Dino DNA I know of. It seems to have been a very 90s phenomenon. I suppose the discovery of all those dino-birds in the early 00s seems to have distracted the scientific community.

 The second question is a bit easier and at the same time harder to answer. The ideal surrogate mother would be another dinosaur but as they're largely extinct that could be a bit difficult. However, birds would be a good alternative. Unfortunately, the only way to know is to try it and since it would be impractical and unethical at the moment, we're probably never going to know.

 So, in conclusion, while cloning a dinosaur would not be impossible in theory, the lack of any genuine dinosaur DNA and knowledge of the biochemistry of dinosaurs prevents us from being able to achieve it. In part 2, I will look at another issue of Jurassic Park that gets a lot of nerds angry on the internet. The raptors. For next week's exciting outing, we'll be looking at the functional morphology of three different dinosaurs.

See also
More dinosaurs
More Jurassic Park

References
Hedges, S. B. and Schweitzer, M. H., (1995) 'Detecting Dinosaur DNA' Science, 268 (5214) pp. 1191-1192, doi: 10.1126/science.7761839

Wang, H-L., Yan, Z-Y. and Jin, D-Y. (1997) 'Reanalysis of Published DNA Sequence Amplified from Cretaceous Dinosaur Egg Fossil', Molecular Biology and Evolution, 14 (5), pp. 589-591

Woodward, S. R., Weyand, N. J. and Bunnell, M. (1994) 'DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments', Science, 266 (5188), pp. 1229-1232