HOME | DD

Description

I’ve talked about some of the most confusing and controversial creative decisions in Walking with Dinosaurs, so it was only appropriate that I go on and discuss some similarly baffling decisions done in its sequels. On their own, none of them have the same amount of questionable choices that will leave even the paleontologically savvy agape as WWD on its own, but there’s still quite a few noteworthy ones, so let’s address one that has a more or less straightforward explanation.

I’m of course talking about their depiction of the strange Triassic reptile Tanystropheus as being capable of caudal autotomy (the ability to amputate its own tail) like some modern lizards, as shown in 2003’s Chased by Sea Monsters (or just Sea Monsters). Note that not all living lizards have this capability, varanids and snakes certainly don’t, and it’s not unique to squamates either, as tuataras and even some salamanders do it as well. There is a companion book called Sea Monsters: Prehistoric Predators of the Deep, written by Jasper James and Nigel Marven, but unfortunately, it’s just a fluff peace that simply repeats a lot of the same basic (and very erroneous) information given in the three-part series and offers no insightful information about the scientific reasoning behind the creatures’ portrayals. Interestingly, 2005’s The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life also does not bring up self-amputation in the Tanystropheus entry (implying there was doubt among Haines, James and their crew about its validity), but supplementary material is not needed here.

Now, Tanystropheus is such as bizarre diapsid that even to this very day, despite having a very rich fossil record with many well-articulated specimens, workers still butt-heads about its lifestyle (I’m inclined to think it was amphibious, one foot on land, one in the water), as well as the phylogeny of tanystropheids as a whole, with the general opinion nowadays being that they are archosauromoprhs of some sort (not to be confused with the more exclusive archosauriforms), though their exact position in this large and diverse group remains unclear (with some placing them in the potentially polyphyletic “protosaur” group), but there was an alternative (now largely abandoned) classification during the 20th century that suggested that these animals were actually lepidosaurs, meaning their closest living relatives are squamates, which was championed by German paleontologist Rupert Wild, a prominent figure in the research on Tanystropheus during the late 20th century.

Not only was he of the opinion that tanystropheids were stem-lizards but he even went as far as to suggest (circa 1973) that Tanystropheus itself was capable of caudal autotomy. He didn’t just hypothesize though, he specifically cited a specimen from the Besano Formation (which is rich in Tanystropheus fossils) that allegedly sported an autotomized tail, with the break-off point being at the 14th caudal vertebra (Tany has about 30 tail vertebrae if not more), and Wild cited what appeared to be fracture planes on said vertebra.

To quote and translate the paragraph from the book (page 54): “R. Wild has solved the description and comparison of the extensive material in an exemplary manner... from the wealth of his findings, only two specimens have been singled out as especially interesting. This includes evidence that the caudal spine was capable of autotomy from about the 14th vertebra. The end of the tail could thus be thrown off, as we know it from lizards....” And yes, the book refers to Tanystropheus and the related Macrocnemus as lizard relatives, following Wild’s interpretation of this group.

However, as far as I can see, this was a controversial pet theory of his, with little support from his colleagues. Others who have reviewed this specimen have generally rejected Wild’s interpretation, such as Silvio Renesto and Olivier Rieppel. The former has expressed strong skepticism toward the former theory, pointing out that no large diapsids are known to do this today and if Tany was aquatic, dropping its tail would seriously hinder its ability to propel itself through the water (as it lacked flippers), and also leave it unbalanced both in water and on land. Interestingly, Silvio Renesto is also listed as one of the scientific consultants for episode one of Sea Monsters (which has the Triassic segment), implying he had a change of mind regarding Wild’s...wild interoperation of Tanystropheus (cricket noises).

And there you have it. I’m honestly surprised so few people bring this up (I assume out of genuine ignorance), and it seems to be another example of WW’s M.O. of taking controversial (dare I say, unpopular) theories and showing them as fact, though for what it’s worth (if taken at face value) I’d still call this a more convincing theory that kaiju Liopleurodon or the European Utahraptor. Tanystropheus is already such a strange, perplexing and controversial animal, I think this particular aspect of its history, a theory purported by one of the most prominent paleontologists to study it back in the day and even having alleged “evidence” to support it, and which was endorsed in the animal’s most notable media appearance, deserves more recognition, as it is a very interesting tidbit in the long and convoluted story of this long-necked Triassic weirdo, which very much continues to this very day.

Description

I’ve talked about some of the most confusing and controversial creative decisions in Walking with Dinosaurs, so it was only appropriate that I go on and discuss some similarly baffling decisions done in its sequels. On their own, none of them have the same amount of questionable choices that will leave even the paleontologically savvy agape as WWD on its own, but there’s still quite a few noteworthy ones, so let’s address one that has a more or less straightforward explanation.

I’m of course talking about their depiction of the strange Triassic reptile Tanystropheus as being capable of caudal autotomy (the ability to amputate its own tail) like some modern lizards, as shown in 2003’s Chased by Sea Monsters (or just Sea Monsters). Note that not all living lizards have this capability, varanids and snakes certainly don’t, and it’s not unique to squamates either, as tuataras and even some salamanders do it as well. There is a companion book called Sea Monsters: Prehistoric Predators of the Deep, written by Jasper James and Nigel Marven, but unfortunately, it’s just a fluff peace that simply repeats a lot of the same basic (and very erroneous) information given in the three-part series and offers no insightful information about the scientific reasoning behind the creatures’ portrayals. Interestingly, 2005’s The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life also does not bring up self-amputation in the Tanystropheus entry (implying there was doubt among Haines, James and their crew about its validity), but supplementary material is not needed here.

Now, Tanystropheus is such as bizarre diapsid that even to this very day, despite having a very rich fossil record with many well-articulated specimens, workers still butt-heads about its lifestyle (I’m inclined to think it was amphibious, one foot on land, one in the water), as well as the phylogeny of tanystropheids as a whole, with the general opinion nowadays being that they are archosauromoprhs of some sort (not to be confused with the more exclusive archosauriforms), though their exact position in this large and diverse group remains unclear (with some placing them in the potentially polyphyletic “protosaur” group), but there was an alternative (now largely abandoned) classification during the 20th century that suggested that these animals were actually lepidosaurs, meaning their closest living relatives are squamates, which was championed by German paleontologist Rupert Wild, a prominent figure in the research on Tanystropheus during the late 20th century.

Not only was he of the opinion that tanystropheids were stem-lizards but he even went as far as to suggest (circa 1973) that Tanystropheus itself was capable of caudal autotomy. He didn’t just hypothesize though, he specifically cited a specimen from the Besano Formation (which is rich in Tanystropheus fossils) that allegedly sported an autotomized tail, with the break-off point being at the 14th caudal vertebra (Tany has about 30 tail vertebrae if not more), and Wild cited what appeared to be fracture planes on said vertebra.

To quote and translate the paragraph from the book (page 54): “R. Wild has solved the description and comparison of the extensive material in an exemplary manner... from the wealth of his findings, only two specimens have been singled out as especially interesting. This includes evidence that the caudal spine was capable of autotomy from about the 14th vertebra. The end of the tail could thus be thrown off, as we know it from lizards....” And yes, the book refers to Tanystropheus and the related Macrocnemus as lizard relatives, following Wild’s interpretation of this group.

However, as far as I can see, this was a controversial pet theory of his, with little support from his colleagues. Others who have reviewed this specimen have generally rejected Wild’s interpretation, such as Silvio Renesto and Olivier Rieppel. The former has expressed strong skepticism toward the former theory, pointing out that no large diapsids are known to do this today and if Tany was aquatic, dropping its tail would seriously hinder its ability to propel itself through the water (as it lacked flippers), and also leave it unbalanced both in water and on land. Interestingly, Silvio Renesto is also listed as one of the scientific consultants for episode one of Sea Monsters (which has the Triassic segment), implying he had a change of mind regarding Wild’s...wild interoperation of Tanystropheus (cricket noises).

And there you have it. I’m honestly surprised so few people bring this up (I assume out of genuine ignorance), and it seems to be another example of WW’s M.O. of taking controversial (dare I say, unpopular) theories and showing them as fact, though for what it’s worth (if taken at face value) I’d still call this a more convincing theory that kaiju Liopleurodon or the European Utahraptor. Tanystropheus is already such a strange, perplexing and controversial animal, I think this particular aspect of its history, a theory purported by one of the most prominent paleontologists to study it back in the day and even having alleged “evidence” to support it, and which was endorsed in the animal’s most notable media appearance, deserves more recognition, as it is a very interesting tidbit in the long and convoluted story of this long-necked Triassic weirdo, which very much continues to this very day.