Dinosaur taphonomy

David Varricchio

MSU - Bozeman

This activity has been reviewed by 2 review processes

This activity was selected for the On the Cutting Edge Reviewed Teaching Collection

This activity has received positive reviews in a peer review process involving five review categories. The five categories included in the process are
- Scientific Accuracy
- Alignment of Learning Goals, Activities, and Assessments
- Pedagogic Effectiveness
- Robustness (usability and dependability of all components)
- Completeness of the ActivitySheet web page
For more information about the peer review process itself, please see https://serc.carleton.edu/teachearth/activity_review.html.
This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process. This review took place as a part of a faculty professional development workshop where groups of faculty reviewed each others' activities and offered feedback and ideas for improvements. To learn more about the process On the Cutting Edge uses for activity review, see http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/review.html.

This page first made public: Jun 4, 2009

Summary

Students collaboratively investigate a dinosaur site by gathering clues about the sediments and bones. The assigment provides practice in formulating hypotheses, distingushing evidence from intepretation, and some understanding of the inferences that can be made from the fossil record.

Paleoecology | College Lower (13-14)

Expand for more detail and links to related resources

Used this activity? Share your experiences and modifications

Context

Audience

The course is a 100-level science elective, largely taken by non-science majors.

Skills and concepts that students must have mastered

Students will have read a short section on taphonomy and have receieved a single lecture on taphonomy where the processes from death to discovery are covered.

How the activity is situated in the course

This is a stand alone exercise meant as a follow up to the lecture on taphonomy and preceeding coverage of dinosaur behavior.

Goals

Content/concepts goals for this activity

> practice with taphonomic concepts
> information and limitations provided by fossil record

Higher order thinking skills goals for this activity

> formulation of hypotheses
> distinguishing evidence from intepretations
> weighing differing viewpoints/interpretations

Other skills goals for this activity

> working in groups

Description of the activity/assignment

In preparation for this assignment, students have read a brief section in their textbook on the fossilization process as it relates to dinosaurs. In addition they will have had one lecture on taphonomy that briefly covers the processes that transpire from the death of a dinosaur until its discovery by a paleontologist. Students work in groups. Each group is given a quarry map of a dinosaur locality and no other information. The exercise is framed as detecive work, where the "scene of the crime" is represented by the quarry map. The objective is to gather clues to make an informed intepretation. Students can obtain additional clues, but to do so, they must formulate a hypothesis that can be tested by the information they seek. However, they only get to formulate 10 hypotheses. An untestable hypothesis wastes a potential clue. Once students have gathered all their clues, they are encouraged to discuss the significance. Students write up their own interpretation and its limitations individually. The exercise gives students practice with taphonomic data and both its potential and limitations; hypothesis formulation; and examining differing viewpoints as group discussions often lead to debates about what information would be most important.

Determining whether students have met the goals

There is no formal evaluation.
However, students each write up their own final interpretation and limitations. Additionally, there is generally a lot of discussion between students and instructors about clues during the exercise.

More information about assessment tools and techniques.

Teaching materials and tips

Activity Description/Assignment:Student assignment for Dinosaur Taphonomy (Microsoft Word 27kB May16 09)
Instructors Notes:

ADDITIONAL INFO:
More information on this exercise and examples of clues can be accessed through a powerpoint
found at http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/paleo/workshop09/program.html

For this activity I use two dinosaur sites:
1) Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry
Bilbey, 1999 (Gates, 2005)
2) Yale Deinonychus Quarry
Maxwell and Ostrom, 1995
I chose these sites because they are:
1) controversial with multiple interpretations.
2) have references with the needed clues.
3) relate to class lectures on behavior.
Additionally, within the classroom I prefer to have
adjacent groups(tables) working on different sites.

CLUE GATHERING:
Clues are on separate sheets of paper that provide brief descriptions of various site attributes.
For example, there may be sheets on the dinosaurs species represented, bone weathering, lithologies, sedimentary structures, bite marks, etc.
Students request information one clue at a time. To receive a clue, they must formulate a hypothesis and explain how a specific type of information would test that hypothesis. For example, they might propose the assemblage represents a mass mortality and request information on bone weathering. A hypothesis might be that if the dinosaurs died together at one time, their remains should show uniform weathering.
In practice, the exercise requires the instructor to provide some prompts/assistance to students in linking hypotheses with physical/observable information.

APPLICATION ELSEWHERE:
Suitable for any taxonomic group - mammals, trilobites, reef assemblages. Just get the right reference or make it up.
Perhaps suitable for general vert/invert. paleontology class where specimens unavailable.

References:
Bilbey, S. A. 1999. Taphonomy of the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in the Morrison Formation, central Utah—a lethal spring-fed pond. in Gillette, D.D., ed., Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah: Utah Geologic Survey, Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, p. 121– 133.
Perhaps a better/newer reference:
Gates, T. A. 2005. The Late Jurassic Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry as a Drought-Induced Assemblage. Palaios 20:363-375.
Maxwell, W. D. and Ostrom, J. H. 1995. Taphonomy and paleobiological implications of Tenontosaurus-Deinonychus associations. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(4):707 712.
Solution Set: