Bass Strait Triangle

The Bass Strait Triangle is the name given to the area of water between mainland Australia and Tasmania. Since the 1790s, many ships and planes have gone missing in this area, much like its famous Caribbean counterpart, the Bermuda Triangle.

The most significant disappearances were the Sydney Cove and Eliza in 1797, HMS Sappho in 1858, an Airco DH.9A and the Amelia J in 1920, the Miss Hobart in 1934, a large number of RAAF bombers during the Second World War, a De Havilland Tiger Moth in 1972 and, the most famous of all, the Valentich Disappearance of 1978.

It is likely that the high numbers of incidents in this area are a result of human error, poorly designed craft and notoriously bad weather.

Tyrannosaurus rex Part 4: Palaeobiology

Finally. I finally get round to doing the final part of the Tyrannosaurus rex pages. This one will look at how the animal lived (or rather, how we think it lived).

Life History

Because of the number of fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex discovered, palaeontologists have a pretty good idea of the life of the dinosaur. From the fossils we have been able to see that T. rex probably lived into its late 20s (Erickson et al, 2004). We also know that T. rex experienced a major growth spurt during its life, growing from 1.8 tons at 14 to 6 tons at 18. Major teenage munchies then. After this period of major growth, the rate plateaus until old age. For example, only 600 kg separates 28-year-old Sue (the largest T. rex specimen discovered to date), a 22-year-old specimen discovered in Canada (Erickson et al., 2004). Other studies have confirmed this but some seem to suggest this plateauing occurred at a younger age, around 16 (Horner and Padian, 2004). Another study found that some individuals of Tyrannosaurus rex grew even faster, putting on an average 1800 kgs a year (Hutchinson et al., 2011). That's heavier than an average car! This sudden growth is likely to be due to physical maturity, as evidenced by a 16-20 year-old specimen discovered with medullary tissue in the femur, dubbed "B-rex". Medullary tissue is found only in female birds when ovulating (producing eggs), suggesting that B-rex was sexually mature (Schweitzer et al., 2005a). Further study has indicated that B-rex is 18-years-old (Lee and Werning, 2008). Other tyrannosaurs experienced a similar growth curve, however, because of their smaller adult size, their growth rates were smaller (Erickson et al., 2006). Over half of the Tyrannosaurus rex fossils found have been fully mature adults. This may be because juveniles had a low mortality rate, an incomplete fossil record or the excellent reason that fossil collectors are more interested in big, impressive bones rather than piddly little baby ones (Erickson et al., 2006). Or maybe it's because adults liked to live dangerously (Paul, 1988).

Sexual Dimorphism

Because of the sheer number of Tyrannosaurus rex fossils found, scientists have noticed that there appears to be 2 types or morphs, a robust morph and a gracile morph. Further analysis suggests that the robust morphs were female as suggested by the possession of wider hips (Carpenter, 1992) and smaller chevrons (pointy bits on the underside of the tail bones) (Larson, 1994), both interpreted as being adaptations for egg-laying.

Sounds like everything's pretty nailed down right? If only. The "females have smaller chevrons" idea was based on modern crocodiles and this was fine until someone discovered that not all female crocodiles have small chevrons. In fact, there was no correlation between chevron size and gender. This puts the Tyrannosaurus rex implication in doubt (Erickson et al., 2005). The most famous Tyrannosaurus fossil, "Sue" has turned out to have actually possessed a whacking great big chevron, despite being of the robust morph (Brochu, 2003).

So, back to the drawing board then? Not quite. Remember that B-rex specimen mentioned earlier? It possessed medullary tissue, which is used by modern female birds as a source of calcium for producing eggshells. Maybe that is a good indicator of gender? Unfortunately, B-rex is, so far, the only dinosaur know to have such tissue. But maybe if we compare B-rex with other specimens we might find other indicators?

Posture

Traditionally, Tyrannosaurus rex was depicted as standing upright, with the tail held low, kind of like a kangaroo. This idea originated from Joseph Leidy's reconstruction of the hadrosaur Hadrosaurus (Leidy, 1858, 1865). From then until the 1970s, most bipedal dinosaurs were reconstructed in this way. However, by the 1970s, palaeontologists realised that this was infeasible due to the excellent reason that this would have dislocated the hips and skull (Newman, 1970). However, this inaccuracy persisted in popular culture and the media until the release of Jurassic Park in 1993 (Ross et al., 2013).

Arms

Tyrannosaurus rex is well known for possessing very short arms. But why? That's a very good question. Originally, when it was first discovered. the only bone known was the humerus (Osborn, 1905). When the first skeletal reconstruction was shown to the public in 1915, Osborn based the forearms on the long, three-fingered ones present in the unrelated Allosaurus (Osborn, 1917). However, a year earlier, Lawrence Lambe described the short forearm of Tyrannosaurus' close relative Gorgosaurus (Lambe, 1914). This led to the belief that Tyrannosaurus had short forearms too, but this was not proven until the discovery of the specimen dubbed "Wankel rex" in 1989 (Horner and Lessem, 1993). "Sue" also contained complete forelimbs (Brochu, 2003). The first explanation given by Osborn, is that the arms were used as graspers during mating (Osborn and Brown, 1906). Maybe they were used to help lift the animal up from a prone position (Newman, 1970).

The most likely possibility, however, is that the arms were used to grab hold of struggling prey whilst the jaws did the business. This is based on the huge muscles present in the arms, 3 and a half times large than ours. The bones were also thickened to add additional strength. However, they were not very flexible, being limited to 40-45 degrees at the elbow, in contrast to a raptor's 88-130 degrees or a human's 165 (Carpenter and Smith, 2001).

Soft tissue

In 2005, the discovery of Tyrannosaurus rex bones with soft tissue preserved was announced. Blood vessels, bone tissue and even blood cells were found, with very similar structures to modern-day ostriches. However, it is currently unknown if any DNA is present so let's not start any Jurassic Park rumours yet (Schweitzer et al., 2005b).

Another big find in 2007 found, not just preserved tissue, but actual proteins. This is huge, as beforehand, palaeontologists presumed that fossils of this age have their proteins replaced with minerals. If more material of this nature is found, it could lead to the new field of palaeobiochemistry (Asara et al., 2007).

But, since 2008, there has been a debate over the veracity of the finds, beginning with Thomas Kaye and colleagues who argued that the proteins were actually the remnants of bacterial residues produced during fossilisation (Kaye, et al., 2008). Both sides have argued back and forth, with the last word being from Joseph Peterson and colleagues who demonstrated that they couldn't be from bacteria (Peterson et al., 2010).

I could sit here and talk about Tyrannosaurus for hours, but I think this will do. That wraps up the Tyrannosaurus series.

See also:
More dinosaurs
Tyrannosaurus rex Part 1

References
Asara, J., Schweitzer, M., Freimark, L., Phillips, M. and Cantley, L. (2007) 'Protein sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex, revealed by mass spectrometry', Science, 316 (5822), pp. 280-285, doi: 10.1126/science.1137614

Brochu, C. (2003) 'Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull', Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoirs, 7, pp. 1-138

Carpenter, K. (1992) 'Variation in Tyrannosaurus rex', in Carpenter, K. and Currie, P. (eds) Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives, pp. 141-145, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Carpenter, K. and Smith, M. (2001) 'Forelimb Osteology and Biomechanics of Tyrannosaurus rex', in Tanke, C. and

Erickson, G., Makovicky, P., Currie, P., Norell, M., Yerby, S. and Brochu, C. (2004) 'Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs', Nature, 430 (7001), pp. 772-775, doi: 10.1038/nature02699

Erickson, G., Lappin, A. and Larson, P. (2005) 'Androgynous rex - The utility of chevrons for determining the sex of crocodilians and non-avian dinosaurs', Zoology, 108 (4), pp. 277-286

Erickson, G., Currie, P., Inouye, B. and Winn, A. (2006) 'Tyrannosaur life tables: an example of nonavian dinosaur population biology', Science, 313 (5784), pp. 213-217, doi: 10.1126/science.1125721

Horner, J. and Lessem, D. (1993) The complete T. rex, New York City: Simon and Schuster

Horner, J. and Padian, K. (2004) 'Age and growth dynamics of Tyrannosaurus rex', Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271 (1551), pp. 1875-1880, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2829

Hutchinson, J., Bates, K., Molnar, J., Allen, V. and Mackovicky, P. (2011) 'A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny and Growth,' PLoS One, 6 (10), e26037, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026037

Kaye, T., Gaugler, G. and Sawlowicz, Z. (2008) 'Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms', PLoS One, 3 (7): e2808, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002808

Lambe, L. (1914) 'On a new genus and species of carnivorous dinosaur from the Belly River Formation of Alberta, with a description of the skull of Stephanosaurus marginatus from the same horizon', Ottawa Naturalist, 27, pp. 129-135

Larson, P. (1994) 'Tyrannosaurus sex', in Rosenberg, G. and Wolberg, D. (eds) Dino Fest. The Paleontological Society Special Publications, 7, pp. 139-155

Lee, A., and Werner, S. (2008) 'Sexual maturity in growing dinosaurs does not fit reptilian growth models', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (2), pp. 582-587, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0708903105

Leidy, J. (1858) 'On the bones of a huge herbivorous saurian near Haddonfield', Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 10, pp. 215-218

Leidy, J. (1865) 'Memoir on the extinct reptiles of the Cretaceous formations of the United States', Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 14, pp. 1-135

Newman, B. (1970) 'Stance and gait in the flesh-eating Tyrannosaurus', Biological Journal of the Linnean Society B, 2 (2), pp. 119-123, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1970.tb01707.x

Osborn, H. (1905) 'Tyrannosaurus and other Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaurs', Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 21 (14), pp. 259-265

Osborn, H. (1917) 'Skeletal adaptations of Ornitholestes, Struthiomimus and Tyrannosaurus', Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 35 (43), pp. 733-771

Osborn, H. and Brown, B. (1906) 'Tyrannosaurus, Upper Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaur', Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 22 (16), pp. 281-296

Paul, G. (1988) 'The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia', in Larson, P. and Carpenter K. (eds) Tyrannosaurus, the Tyrant King, pp. 307-345, Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Peterson, J., Lenczewski, M. and Scherer, R. (2010) 'Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs', PLoS One, 5 (10), e13334, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013334

Ross, R., Duggan-Haas, D. and Allmon, W. (2013) 'The Posture of Tyrannosaurus rex: Why Do Student Views Lag Behind the Science?', Journal of Geoscience Education, 61, p. 145, doi: 10.5408/11-259.1

Schweitzer, M., Wittmeyer, J. and Horner, J. (2005a) 'Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex', Science, 308 (5727), pp. 1456-1460, doi: 10.1126/science.1112158

Schweitzer, M., Wittmeyer, J., Horner, J. and Toporski, J. (2005b) 'Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex', Science, 307 (5717), pp. 1952-1955, doi: 10.1126/science.1108397

Hope Diamond

Pretty, isn't it? This is the Hope Diamond, also called the Tavernier Blue, a 45 carat cut diamond from India. But despite its beauty, it has a dark and sinister past.

According to legend, the diamond was cursed after being allegedly stolen from an Indian temple (the origin varies from story to story). The following owners of the diamond all met rather sticky ends:

Jacques Colet - suicide
Prince Ivan Kanitovski - killed by Russian revolutionaries
Mlle Ladue - murdered by her lover
Simon Mencharides - thrown from a precipice along with his wife and child
Abu Sabir - tortured in prison
Kulub Bey - hanged
Hehver Agha - hanged
Jean-Baptiste Tavernier - torn to pieces by wild dogs in Constantinople
Nicholas Fouquet - died in prison
Princess de Lamballe - torn to pieces by a French mob
William Fals - died bankrupt
Hendrik Fals - suicide
Francis Deaulieu - died in misery

Unfortunately, as romantic and exciting as this sounds, it seems that the "curse" was made up by the media in order to sell newspapers and enhance the mystique of the diamonds. In each case, the supposed victims fall into one of three categories: 1) they never existed, 2) there is no evidence they ever owned the diamond or 3) there is no evidence they died in the way described by the "curse". The earliest mention of the curse is from a newspaper in New Zealand in 1888. It's likely that this is where the story started. The diamond is currently being housed in the Smithsonian which, so far, has not encountered any ill fortune.

See also:
More mysteries

Universal's Monster Mash Movies (1943-2004)

By the 1940s, Universal Studios were not performing well. They couldn't compete with epic, ground breaking colour films like MGM's The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone With The Wind (1939) or Warner Bros.' The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). Then World War II hit and many actors and crew members were drafted and money and resources were limited. To save money and hoping to make quick cash, Universal pitted their most famous monsters together in a series of films that declined in quality with each successive outing - until a breakthrough comedy duo arrived on the scene and introduced us to the subgenre of comedy-horror.

We start off with a one-on-one battle between Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man in this 1943 movie directed by Roy William Neil and based on a screenplay by Kurt Siodmak. Who will claim the first victory?

Plot: A pair of grave robbers break into Lawrence Talbot's (Lon Chaney, Jr.) tomb to steal his valuables. In the process, they remove the wolfsbane that was buried with him, causing his dead body to transform into a werewolf and go on a rampage (I have no idea how that is even possible). When he returns to normal, he decides to see Dr. Frankenstein, in the hopes that the doctor has found a cure to his lycanthropism. While searching for the doctor, he bumps into Frankenstein's Monster (Béla Lugosi) who is about as useful as a water bucket made of paper. Talbot then finds the doctor's daughter Elsa (Ilona Massey) and Dr. Mannering (Patric Knowles) who agree to help Talbot...but Dr. Mannering seems to be more interested in the Monster.

My thoughts: This is a weak movie. Not well thought out. The first half of the movie which focuses on Talbot trying to track down Frankenstein is well made but once he finds the monster, it loses focus and becomes a generic mad scientist story complete with angry mob. Oh, and the fight scene doesn't happen until the last 10 minutes of the movie and consists of the Wolf Man jumping on the Monster and the Monster flailing his arms around. Chaney's performance is the only good thing about this movie. Lugosi was the worst. He was just awkward and due to an editing error, audiences were not informed that the character was still blind after the events of Ghost of Frankenstein and he had all of his dialogue cut (which is why in some scenes you can see Lugosi's mouth moving but not hear anything).

Well, adding the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster didn't quite work, what could Universal do next? Add Dracula to the mix of course! What we got was the 1944 movie House of Frankenstein (not to be confused with a 1997 film with the same name) directed by Earle C. Kenton and written by Edward T. Lowe, Jr. and Curt Siodmak.

Plot: Not sure it has one but bear with me. Dr. Gustav Niemann (Boris Karloff) has escaped from prison and wants revenge on the men who put him away. Helping him is his hunchbacked assistant Daniel (J. Carroll Naish) whom Dr. Niemann promises to give a new body to. Along the way they murder a travelling showman Professor Lampini (George Zucco) who just happens to have Dracula's (John Carradine) corpse. Dr. Niemann revives Dracula and orders him to kill Burgermeister Hussman (Sig Ruman). This plan works but they get caught and chased away (and Dr. Niemann kills Dracula, the asshole). They end up at Frankenstein's Castle where they encounter Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.) and proceed to revive the Monster. Oh, and there's a love triangle between the hunchback, a gypsy girl (Elena Verdugo) and the Wolf Man.

My thoughts: The best way to summarise is this film is with the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth". There is so much going on it's hard to keep track of the plot. Instead of having a couple of well-thought out plot elements, Universal decided to stick as many of them in as possible and hope for the best. Watch it if you're curious, otherwise don't bother.

After House of Frankenstein performed poorly at the box office, Universal decided to make one last effort at a serious horror movie with 1945's House of Dracula, directed by Erle C. Kenton and written by Edward T. Lowe, Jr.

Plot: Count Dracula (John Carradine) asks Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) to cure his vampirism. Edelmann agrees and begins a series of blood transfusions with the count (quite how that's meant to cure it, I have no idea). Coincidently, that very same night Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) turns up at Edelmann's door asking to be cured of his lycanthropy. Unable to be helped immediately, Talbot throws himself off a cliff but miraculously survives. At the foot of the cliff, Talbot and Edelmann find (surprise, surprise) Frankenstein's monster and brings it back to the castle. Also in the cave they find some magical plants that will cure Talbot. Meanwhile, the blood transfusions with Count Dracula go awry when Dracula decides he doesn't want to be destroyed anymore and instead his blood...somehow turns Edelmann into a Mr. Hyde character who slowly goes nuts? Sure, why not?

My thoughts: Better than House of Frankenstein but it still suffers from the problem of there being too much going on for a movie that's only about an hour long. Not much more to say really.

By 1948, interest in Universal's horror franchises plummeted. Comedy became the big thing. And so Universal decided to combine the two together in the first of five horror comedies to feature Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, directed by Charles Barton and written by Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo and John Grant.

Plot: Wilbur Gray (Lou Costello) and Chick Young (Bud Abbott) are two railway clerks who are tasked with delivering a special shipment to Mr. McDougal (Frank Ferguson), owner of a Circus of Horrors. The shipment in question turns out to be the coffin of Dracula (Béla Lugosi) and Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange). When the two monsters wake up and leave, Mr. McDougal believes Gray and Young have stolen them and have them arrested. They are then bailed out by a mysterious woman Joan (Jane Randolph) and find themselves in Dracula's castle with Wilbur's girlfriend Sandra (Leonore Aubert). Then, of course, the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.) shows up to complete the party.

My thoughts: Good film. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you'll enjoy this as a lot of the horror-comedy elements in this inspired the classic 1960s cartoon. It paved the way for many more, successful horror-comedies to come.

It would be 56 years before Universal decided to put their classic monsters in the same film: the Wolf Man, Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster (still no love for the Mummy but he had his own set of films instead), directed and written by Stephen Sommers in 2004.

Plot: Basically, Dracula wants to bring his children back to life by using the energy of the Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man. That's about it. Oh, and there's something about a family curse.

My thoughts: Meh. This is a good example of a movie that looks flashy and good but doesn't have much in the way of story or character development. If you have some time to kill go for it.

Next, we will be defiling ancient tombs and resurrecting dead princesses!

See also:
More horror

The 1492 Light Sighting

Christopher Columbus. The great explorer of the Americas. Not only did he bring two continents to Europe's attention (although he always believed he had found South-East Asia) he also saw something strange.

At 10pm, 11 October 1492, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, often believed to be near Watling's Island, a strange light was spotted in the distance by a number of crew members, including Columbus himself. The light was described as that of a candle, that moved up and down. The voyagers believed this to indicate land and followed the light to, what is now, Guanahani in the Bahamas. The identity and precise location of this light have been debated to this day.

One explanation is that it was a torch or other light brandished by a native American hunting, either on land or in a canoe on the water. However, Columbus' log mentions that the wind was very high and so this is considered unlikely. Another, more unusual explanation, is that the light could have been caused by bioluminescent protozoa that sometimes covers the rocks in the area. But, Columbus and his crew reported the light as being like a candle flame that moved, rather than an immobile glowing blob. Finally, a similar explanation could be the worm Odontosyllis enopla, a Caribbean species that glows during the mating season. But again, this explanation has a problem - Odontosyllis enopla only glows for a few days after the full moon and Columbus' log notes that the moon was only in its first quarter phase that night.

My thoughts: I have no explanation for this. Maybe they were mistaken or perhaps it was an optical illusion or a reflection in the water from something? Who knows?

See also:
More mysteries

Mysterious Mysteries

Here you will find all of the mystery posts on this blog, organised into rough categories:

Mysterious Disappearances
Chryse Island

Unknown Origins
1492 Light sighting

Paranormal Activity
Hope Diamond


Want something different? How about dinosaurs? Or horror?

Chryse Island

We begin our journey into the unknown with a mysterious island that disappeared in the 2nd century A.D. Called Chryse (cry-see), it was a small island off the coast of Lemnos that was said to have harboured an impressive temple dedicated to the deities Apollo and Chryse - the goddess Chryse is not mentioned anywhere else and her worship seems to have been confined to this island.

Our only sources of information on this island come from Sophocles (who very briefly mentions it in passing as the location where the mythical figure Philoctetes was bitten by a snake on his way to Troy) and Pausanias, an Ancient Greek explorer. Pausanias wrote that the island was destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami sometime before the 2nd century AD. Did this island ever exist? If it did, how come nobody else mentioned it? Many historians believe that Pausanias made it up and never visited many of the places he wrote about. Could Chryse be one of these fictionalised accounts?

However, there's just a little bit more. Some archaeologists believe that a sunken landmass off the coast of Lemnos, called Kharos Bank, may be the remains of this ancient island. However, investigations so far have proven inconclusive.

My verdict: I believe that Chryse Island never existed. It's most likely that Pausanias heard about it from some bloke down the pub and reported it as fact in his book. As far Kharos Bank, it just seems like a bunch of rocks at the bottom of the sea to me. But what do you think?

See also:
More mysteries