The Bare Bones – Updates & Corrections

The Bare Bones was a labor of love that took over 6 years to write and publish. Vertebrate paleontology is an ever-changing field, and I am only human, which means that since the publication of the book we have learned more about vertebrate evolution and I have discovered some mistakes. I am using this page to provide updates, clarifications, and corrections to my book.

–Last updated 8/15/2016 (Updates began on 3/9/2016)

  • On p. 93, Figure 6.2, the pectoral girdle for the placoderm is mislabeled. The top portion is indicated as the “scapula” and the lower portion is labeled as the “coracoid.” These should have been labeled “dorsal pectoral girdle” and “ventral pectoral girdle.” The pectoral girdle of placoderms is comprised of several different bones whose homologies to those of other jawed vertebrates are uncertain. For example, portions of the pectoral girdle in placoderms may be comprised of a cleithrum and clavicle (see Min and Schultze [2001] for a discussion of this issue). To simplify discussion, I did not go into these particular details in the book. In placoderms, the scapulocoracoid is present and the pectoral fin articulated with it, but is a smaller bone sandwiched within the pectoral girdle bones. The approximate position of the scapulocoracoid is correctly identified in the “Jaw Opening” portion of Figure 6.2. Min, Z. and H.-P. Schultze. 2001. Interrelationships of basal osteichthyans; pp. 289-314 in P. Ahlberg (ed.), Major Events in Vertebrate Evolution. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  • On p. 110, I mistakenly stated that great white sharks and Megalodon are members of Carchariniformes. They are members of Lamniformes, a close sister group.
  • Point of clarification. On p. 134, I say, “The pelvic fins, in their place directly ventral to the pectoral fins, serve a similar purpose, directing water under the teleost fish as it rapidly slows and creating a downward force to counteract the upward force generated near the tail (Drucker and Lauder, 2003).”
    • The citation should have been placed in a previous paragraph to indicate that Drucker and Lauder (2003) discuss the function of pectoral fin braking in teleost fish. Drucker and Lauder (2003) note that during braking, trout recruit fins caudal to the center of mass, possibly to inhibit this somersaulting. The airdam analogy with the pelvic fins is my analogy, not theirs.
    • It is Harris (1938) who discusses the function of pelvic fins in creating a downward force to counteract the rise and pitch of the fish, and this article should also have been cited in the book: Harris, F.E. 1938. The role of fins in the equilibrium of the swimming fishes II: the role of the pelvic fins. Journal of Experimental Biology, 15:32-47.
    • Drucker and Lauder (2003) show that the more ventrally located pectoral fins of rainbow trout, when used in braking, can create a large torque around the center of mass. Their data support a previously untested hypothesis by Breder (1926) that a somersaulting motion can occur when the pectoral fins are utilized for braking in some fish.
    • When I said “… the upward force generated near the tail,” it would have been clearer to say, “… the momentum of the fish.”
  • On p. 167, “All tetrapods have evolved some sort of eyelids, and have adapted portions of some of the eye-moving muscles to help them blink (Young, 2008).” Whereas the paper by Young (2008) (Young, G. C. 2008. Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye—Fossil Evidence. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1:427–438) is excellent, this was a mis-citation. The work by Zhu and Keifer should have been cited instead: Zhu, D., and J. Keifer. 2004. Pathways controlling trigeminal and auditory nerve-evoked abducens eyeblink reflexes in pond turtles. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 64:207–222.
  • On pp. 205-207, I discuss binocular vision in frogs. Although I cite Pough et al. (1998) and Liem et al. (2001) in regard to frog binocular vision (they discuss vision in frogs but not binocular vision itself), I should have cited Howard and Rogers (1995) instead: Howard, I. P., and B. J. Rogers. 1995. Binocular Vision and Stereopsis. Oxford University Press, New York, 736 pp.
  • On p. 218, the first sentence of paragraph 2 says, “Two intriguing aspects of Balanerpeton are …” This should say, “One intriguing aspect of Balanerpeton is …
  • On p. 258, I relay the story of bearded dragon intelligence by Kis, Hube, and Wilkinson (2015). I state, “… when beardies that had not been trained to open the trapdoor were placed in the same enclosure with those who were …” This is a misstatement. What I should have said was, “… when beardies that had not been trained to open the trapdoor viewed those lizards demonstrating the behavior on a TV screen …”
  • On p. 266, I erroneously attributed the lack of an external ear and the ability to hear in the tuatara to Pough et al. (1998) and Benton (2005). Although both texts provide ample information on the tuatara, neither discuss the ear in this animal. The correct citation should be Gans and Wever (1976): Gans, C., and E. G. Wever. 1976. Ear and hearing in Sphenodon punctatus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 73:4244–4246.
  • On p. 329, when referring to the sclerotic ring of birds, I state, “Birds rely to a great extent on the sclerotic bones to squeeze and distort their lenses …” This should have read, “Birds rely to a great extent on the sclerotic bones as a base from which eye muscles squeeze and distort their lenses …”
  • On p. 379 in Figure 18.11 and on p. 380, I state that among the features Deinonychus shares with birds is the presence of a furcula. Whereas Deinonychus must have had a furcula given its place on the dinosaur family tree (for example, its close relative Velociraptor certainly does), no specimens of Deinonychus have preserved a furcula. We now typically show Deinonychus with a furcula because it likely had one. See for example: http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/dinos/interactive/text_wishbone.html
  • On p. 446, I misspelled Megaconus as “Megaconodon.”
  • On p.460 I state, “… approximately 2 Ma, the land bridge that now connects North and South America formed …” The land bridge formed closer to 3 Ma, and more recent data suggests an even earlier connection prior to 4 Ma.