Tuesday, 7 January 2020

Belated Game Review - Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey

When I joined the Corps, we didn’t have any fancy-schmanzy tanks. We had sticks! Two sticks, and a rock for the whole platoon – and we had to share the rock!
- Sergeant Avery Johnson, Halo 2 Anniversary

In the very first post of this blog I said I would also take a look at how videogame developers have imagined the prehistoric world. Consider that fulfilled with this post and similar ones I plan for the future. Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey is the first and hopefully not last game by indie-developer Patrice Désilets’ Panache Digital Studios and has been in development since 2014. It originally released for PC on August 27 2019, but since my computer is trash I had to wait until December 6 when the game was also released on PS4. I therefore call this post a belated review. 
Fig. 1: Ever looked at a painting like this and thought: “I want to experience this for myself”? Well, now you can, sucker!
Given how Désilets had previously worked on the Assassin’s Creed games (of which I have only played the first third of the third instalment) and the game had been in development for quite some time, some considerable hype seems to have built around it. For me personally however, the game only appeared on my radar very close to release and I only got seriously interested in playing it after watching some youtubers getting eaten by Miocene giant otters. I was therefore able to approach the game without any real expectations that could be disappointed. The original concept of the game was for it to have an episodic-content-structure in which you relive the most important moments of early human history, from the first hominin to the start of civilization. This was eventually changed and the game seems to have now been broken up into a trilogy, with this first instalment taking place during the first 8 million years of human evolution. While this post mostly tries to be a game review, I also want to be a bit experimental, just like the game, and treat it like a piece of paleoart, because that’s what it essentially is (unless you do not count videogames as art, but that is a discussion for another place). Videogames are rarely talked about on these types of paleo-blogs, perhaps because most games featuring prehistoric animals cause a paleontologist somewhere to cry (looking at you, ARK).

On a final note before we start, this article may include spoilers for the late-game, but I will try to mark these where possible so you can avoid them.

Part 1: Jungle Japes

There are not that many games set in the stone age, at least not many original ones. Most opt for a 10’000 B.C.-setting at the end of the last ice age, but these, like for example Far Cry Primal, seem to be more inspired by the Roland Emmerich movie than the actual time period, featuring some quite outrageous anachronisms. Other, less serious games, like Joe & Mac, go for a 1 Million B.C.-setting (by that I mean the Ray Harryhausen movie) with Frank Frazetta-style cavemen fighting dinosaurs. By his own account, Désilets was tired of these settings and went for something unique that was not inspired by pop-culture. As the opening cutscene tells us, we begin in the steaming jungles of Africa, a whopping 10 million years ago, which would be during the mid-to-late Miocene. Judging by the geography and time, the game world seems to be based on the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. We see the food-chain in full action, as we follow a fish getting caught by a Pelagornis, which lets it fall back into a river by accident. This scares a group of monkeys, which would have otherwise been attacked by a python. The fish gets caught again by a heron, which gets eaten by a crocodile, causing it to lose the fish as well. As we follow the dead fish further downstream, we see a crocodile getting attacked and killed by a black sabertoothed cat, before the fish falls down a waterfall. As we see the wide valley in front of us, the title card appears and tells us that this is volume 1 of the story, Before Us. At the foot of the waterfall, the fish gets grabbed by an ape, carrying its child on its back. With it he climbs up a tree to enjoy his food in peace, but a giant bateleur eagle appears, grabs the ape and violently kills it with a pluck to the head. The child the ape was carrying can flee however and falls down the canopy. Now it is all alone on the forest floor with all these predators around, as fear cloaks its vision.
Fig. 2: Just because a game is set in the stone age does not mean there can’t be terrifying dinosaurs. The opening cutscene seems to  be a direct reference to the real life Child of Taung, an Australopithecus which was found inside the fossilized nest of a bird of prey.
This is how you start the game. It gives you some tutorial-text, which tells you how to move and how to use your intelligence to scan the environment. With that you find a hiding spot and hide inside it. Your perspective switches to an adult ape still at the settlement who hears the child’s cry for help and your task is now to venture out into the jungle to rescue it. You learn to use your other senses, mainly hearing, and how to climb and swing from tree to tree. After you rescue the child, you bring it back to the settlement and a rather heartwarming cutscene plays. Everything that happens after this is up to you. Explore the area, eat everything in sight, bang rocks together, figure out the game’s mechanics… in the words of Scarface: The world is yours. The game will occasionally give you some short tutorial-texts (which you can turn off or read again in the Help-section of the pause-menu), but only for the most basic controls, like which button does which action and what the symbols on the UI mean. I believe these were also only added in a later patch. What you can do with this type of rock, which types of food can be eaten and which ones not, what animals are easily intimidated and which ones will eat you for dinner and so on and so forth is never told to you, instead you have to find that out yourself. Ancient humans did not have tutorials either, so why should you?

If that is too overwhelming for you, the game can give you mission objectives depending on the game-mode you’re playing on. These range from recruiting new apes into your clan, finding a mate and producing a baby to exploring certain spots on the map or intimidating a certain animal. These are optional and exist to help you understand what you can do and accomplish in the game. As this was my first time playing it, I naturally tried to follow these as close as I could. I ran into problems however when it came to the objective to explore a site where a small meteorite had impacted into the jungle. Actually finding the spot was not difficult, as it was quite obvious by the smoke column coming from it. The real problem was that there was a significant section of jungle and swamp between me and the meteorite that I had to cross. In the process of reaching it, I think I got eaten by the same crocodile about three times in a row, interspersed with sabretooth- and warthog-attacks. I was straight-up not having a good time and actually decided to restart the game about three times because I did not want to live with the consequences of my actions. On my final try I decided to tackle the problem in a smart way. With a child on my back, a spear in my hand and accompanied by an elder ape (I believe it was the child’s grandpa) that was also armed, I ventured out again to find this damned space rock. I still had bad luck. I was ambushed by a sabertooth and unable to dodge it in time. I got tackled onto the ground and could not defend myself. Adrenaline rushed through me as I would not only die again but also lose a child in the process, but the game let me immediately switch to the elder ape that came with me. With nothing but a sharpened stick in my hand, I ran towards the cat and, either by good reflexes or pure luck, finally managed to kill something. As the beast goes down with a violent stabbing to the stomach and eye and even with some punches to the face, I am overcome with great relief as I see my family-members badly bruised but still alive. Using two granite rocks I create a makeshift grinder and turn some horsetails into paste, which I give my grandson to stop the bleeding. It was this entire moment that finally made something click with me and I realized I was going to have a great experience with this game.

Part 2: Hominin see, hominin do

So what do you actually do in this game? From a gameplay-perspective, the closest thing I could describe it as is a mix of Spore, Saurian, Niche and perhaps the cancelled Peter Molyneux game B.C. The overarching goal is to move from 10 million to 2 million B.C. and in the process develop a tribe of hominids into something you might call humans. You can switch between all your tribe members, which you play from a third person perspective. A circle on the lower right of the UI shows you all the members of the tribe (except the one you are currently playing as), represented by points. This circle also shows you if any of your tribe-members are in danger, outside the settlement, following you, pregnant or carry a genetic mutation. At maximum you can have 18 tribe members, 6 elders, 6 adults and 6 children, each fulfilling different roles. The lower middle of the UI is a green circle, which doubles as your stamina-, health-, food- and water-meter and is limited by your life-expectancy. Lower left is a dopamine-meter, which also shows you if your ape is calm or alerted by danger. If you are alerted, you can run faster and intimidate animals, but it will drain your dopamine. If it drops to zero you will actually lose control over your ape and in a panic it will run back to the settlement. Upper middle of the UI is a clock that shows you the time of day. There is no map whatsoever and the game even gives you the option to play completely without UI to give you a better immersion.
Fig. 3: The user interface, very early into the game.
Controlling your ape is pretty straightforward for a third person game. Holding X makes you run or climb, releasing or tapping X makes you jump or grab objects. Circle and square are used for context-sensitive actions and triangle lets you use your senses to scan the area. You have three senses: Intelligence (basically seeing), hearing and smelling. Climbing, your main mode of locomotion at the beginning, is pretty fun and intuitive and the only good defence you have against predators in the early game. Just don’t climb too high or the eagle will get you. Climbing also is about the only thing you are really good at in the beginning, as the apes you begin with are a pretty pathetic excuse for humans. They look like a weird mix of chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla, they cannot walk bipedally, they can only eat plant-matter without getting sick, their stamina, dopamine and life-expectancy are low, their senses are limited, they cannot talk and their motor skills are too bad to alter most types of rock or wood. How do you advance with these prospects? Here the game functions similarly to an RPG. You unlock neuronal points on a braincell-skill-tree by doing certain tasks often enough. This is pretty situationally based, so while the game still technically shows evolution inaccurately as a goal-oriented process, you nonetheless just adapt to your environment, which does make it more realistic. For example, if you live in a place where you get attacked by animals a lot, you will eventually unlock a lot of neuronal points that allow you to better dodge or counter-attack them. If you live close to water and have to swim a lot, you will mostly unlock neurons that will improve your swimming. Actually unlocking the neuronal points does not automatically grant you the abilities however. You first have to unlock them using your neuronal energy. The amount of neuronal energy you have is displayed as a white orb inside the settlement circle in the lower right. You gain neuronal energy by performing actions in front of children. This is how the game simulates learning in primates. Monkey see, monkey do. While this is easy when you do things inside your settlement, when you go on expeditions you have to bring the children with you by carrying them on your back or belly if you want to gain energy. The amount of energy you get from this is pretty high, but you also run the risk of you and your child getting killed. Even losing one child can put a significant dent in your already low population. Thankfully you can craft weapons to defend yourself, but these are not your caveman-style spears, clubs or bows. The strongest weapons you will ever wield are a sharpened stick and an olduvai-style basalt chopper, but they get the job done. Many Machairodus died to give you this information.

Part 3: Homo: Combat Evolved

Of course you cannot realistically advance 8 million years by simply living on a day-to-day basis. The game features two ways with which you can go forward in time and advance your species: generational leaps and evolutionary leaps. To enter the menu for these you actually have to build a nest/bed first in which you have to lie down. Only here can you also access the previously mentioned skill-tree and use your neuronal energy to unlock new abilities. When you leap a generation, 15 in-game years pass. Your children grow up to be adults, your adults age into elders and your elders turn into a pile of bones. The downside of this is that you cannot bring all the unlocked neurons with you to the next generation. In general, the game only allows you to permanently lock as many neurons as the number of children you have in your tribe, which at maximum is six. The neurons you could not carry over you have to unlock again by gaining new neuronal energy, which many have understandably described as grindy at times. Personally I was never really that frustrated by it for some reason and towards the late-game, when you have already unlocked most neurons, it becomes a negligible issue. There are also ways by which you can fix more than just six neurons. Across the map there are a number of meteorites and gem stones. Finding them will grant you one additional point with which to fix neurons. Meteorites can even cause genetic mutations in case you are carrying a child with you. Meteorites are relatively easy to find, as they announce their presence through large smoke-columns, although these vanish after some time. Gem stones are usually hidden inside caves or on tall rock-towers and make their presence known by a faint, creepy whisper. 
Fig. 4: The neuronal skill-tree, very late into the game.
The second way of moving forward in time is the evolutionary leap. Throughout the game you fulfil evolutionary achievements, either by finding certain places and objects, killing animals or making them fight with each other. These achievements you can cash in during the evolutionary leap, as they will be converted into additional time you can jump forward to. The amount of children you have born also adds to the time-counter, while the amount of deaths you have caused will subtract from it. If you are doing well you can jump hundreds of thousands of years this way and once you hit certain time-markers you will evolve into new species known from the fossil record, which will grant you better stats and new abilities. The game also gives you an extra-challenge here, as you race in time against a red bar which represents the speed at which actual science says our lineage evolved. Can you evolve faster than our real ancestors? In theory it is possible to reach 2 million B.C. by just living in the same place all day and hitting the generational and evolutionary leap buttons repeatedly, and I have actually read about people who have played the game this way, but this is not only boring but will also make you lose this challenge. The game therefore greatly incentivizes you to go out there, explore the world and accomplish things. Evolutionary leaps will also unlock genetic mutations. Genetic mutations are neurons you cannot unlock the usual way. They can appear at random in a child when it is born and you are informed what the mutation does when it grows up into an adult, but you can only unlock the mutation’s abilities when they are carried by an adult or elder and you make an evolutionary leap. I did not realize this during the first couple of hours I have played, which caused me to severely lag behind in things like bipedality and omnivory.

Part 4: I bless the rhinos down in Africa

Let us talk about the world and the life in it a bit. The map is pretty huge and features a wide variety of biomes. I have seen many people who actually did not realize this when starting the game, even though the trailers already showed off some places. I guess this is because (when you play the beginner-mode) you start in the jungle, which is not only cluttered but also hard to get through, so most do not move far. Once you go past it, travelling becomes much easier, however. You find large lakes, caverns and woodlands and once you go past them you come to a wide and open savannah. Connected through a canyon, you can go from the savannah to a barren desert. At the easternmost end of the map you finally hit the African coast of the Indian Ocean. While the game’s graphics are not on the highest end of the current spectrum, they still manage to create a quite lively and beautiful world. There is a lot of detail, from tiny frogs that hop around in swamps to a river that starts out in the savannah and slowly dries out as it passes through the desert. The lack of any in-game map may make it difficult in the beginning to navigate yourself. However, despite lacking any man-made structures, the world has enough charismatic natural landmarks which can help you orient yourself. With your intelligence-sense you can also memorize certain locations. Another thing that helps is that the entire map is essentially placed inside a giant gorge/valley, so you can also use the gigantic stone walls for orientation. Each new biome comes with new plants, animals and hazards. When it rains in the jungle, you can run the risk of freezing, while an average day in the savannah can cause you to overheat. There are plants and other food which can help you prevent these effects, but it is up to you to find which ones have which effect.
Fig. 5: Me and my tribe on our way to Pride Rock to kill Mufasa. 
Now for the more interesting part: The animals. The game’s fauna is largely based on species from Miocene Africa, which so far, I think, is a first for any popular piece of media, let alone videogame. The Miocene is an epoch that is usually not well represented, even in paleoart, as the more bizarre-looking mammals of the Cenozoic lived in the Paleogene, while more familiar ice age creatures come from the Pleistocene. If you are a particularly big fan of the Miocene, this is the game for you. I actually learned about a lot of animals for the first time thanks to it. In general, the game represents animal-types one would also encounter in modern day Africa, but usually represented by extinct relatives. Instead of African elephants, you encounter the four-tusked Stegotetrabelodon, the rhino and hippo are Ceratotherium neumayri and Hippopotamus gorgops respectively, for hyenas we have Adcrocuta, for crocodiles we got Crocodylus thorbjanarsoni and instead of zebras you will encounter the three-toed Hipparion (whose coloration seems to be based on the recently extinct quagga, which is a nice detail). However there curiously are also some modern species, such as the African Rock Python, mambas and Dorcas gazelle, which I somehow doubt existed since 10 million years ago. Your main enemy in the game is the sabertooth cat Machairodus, which comes in differently colored variations to represent different species/sub-species. After every generational leap there will actually spawn a specific machairodont in the world, which has been nicknamed Stalker Cat by the community, as it can randomly ambush you at any moment unless you manage to kill it (which the game does not tell you). Killing or attacking enemies is a bit peculiar, as there is no actual way in the game to directly attack animals, perhaps as a reference to the fact that australopithecines are not thought to have been big game hunters yet. Instead you have to wait for them to attack you first, which makes you enter a quick-time event. To dodge, hold X and move in a certain direction away from the enemy. When you hear an audio-cue (a short chime), release X and you will dodge the attack successfully. To attack, you have to hold a weapon in your hands and do the same, but move towards the enemy. Most interactions in the game, like grooming or making tools, are based on a similar QTE mechanic where you have to hold a button and release it once you hear the audio-cue. It takes some time to get used to, but eventually muscle-memory will set in. The downside to it is that people with hearing-problems will probably have a harder time playing, so maybe there should be an option for a visual cue instead. If you are successful in your counter-attack, an entertainingly gruesome cutscene will play in which your hominid will violently stab and punch the animal to death. Maybe it is because I am a madman, but it gives you a satisfying feeling of catharsis, as most creatures in the game honestly deserve it. The great majority is openly hostile to you and either hunts you on sight for an easy meal or attacks you if you just violate their personal space too much. The catharsis-factor of the cutscenes is of course reversed when the counter-attack or dodge fails and the animal gets to kill you instead in graphic detail. For me the most disturbing death scene has to be when the eagle gets you, as it strangely reminds me of a similar one from Dead Space 2 of all things (the one where Isaac gets hammered to death by a Stalker). You can also make the animals fight each other, often for your own benefit. For example, one day as I was strolling through the savannah, as I accidentally walked next to a hyena-burrow. As they noticed and chased me, I ran away, but was not fast enough to outrun them. So instead I ran towards a nearby herd of water buffaloes, which dealt with the hyenas while I could escape. The cutscenes that play when two animals fight are also a bit disturbing, especially when you see the Stegotetrabelodon kill things. Despite being a herbivore I found it to be the most terrifying animal in the game.
Fig. 6: There is of course nothing more terrifying than man itself however…
There are a few things that can be criticized about the in-game fauna. For one, even though you yourself evolve into different species and technically move in time from the Late Miocene to the Early Pleistocene, the animals stay the same. Secondly, there are also (of course) some scientific inaccuracies, which ironically befall the modern species more than the fossil ones. Most, like the bateleur eagle and rock python, are simply oversized, likely to present a more serious threat to you. The most outrageous example is the Scolopendra-centipede, which you encounter in and around cave-systems. In real life it is about 30 centimeters long at most, but in the game it is roughly the same size as the pythons. It is in fact large enough to kill a sabertooth cat. Speaking of which, the game identifies its sabertooth as Machairodus giganteus, which is nowadays regarded as a dubious species and has been reassigned to the genus Amphimachairodus.The third and last point is that, despite the developers including species as obscure as the giant otter Enhydriodon dikikae, they mostly went for creatures that resemble modern species instead of also including more weird and interesting animals. This is Miocene Africa after all. Realistically, you should still be encountering chalicotheres, hyaenodonts, amphicyonids, deinotheres, primitive giraffids and weird gomphotheres. It is a really missed opportunity to not include at least some of these as animals you could encounter in the game. All that said, in the opening crawl that plays before the intro cutscene, the developers point out that they did not try to make an accurate depiction of a specific time and place, but rather create a generalized prehistoric setting as a playground for you to evolve in. It is also still cool to simply have a game where you can encounter and interact with obscure Miocene mammals. I still would have liked to mess with some chalicotheres though. 
Fig. 7: Bizarre Miocene mammals like Platybelodon, here restored by Zdenek Burian, unfortunately do not appear in the game, which is a bit of a shame.
On a last note regarding presentation, the music is quite good. It is largely a mix of African folk music with some synth(?) elements and seems to differ from biome to biome and time of day. It can get quite atmospheric at times. My only complaint is that it is not memorable enough, at least for me. Perhaps when it comes to ape-games I am simply spoiled by David Wise’s Donkey Kong Country soundtracks.

Part 5: Hominin Hijinxs  (Warning: Contains spoilers about the species you evolve into and the ending. May be skipped.)

When you start the game you begin 10 million years ago as a species that is simply titled “?” or The Missing Link. Based on the name and appearance, one presumes this to be the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (but read on). When you reach 9 million years ago, you become Sahelanthropus tchadensis. At around 7.2 you reach Orrorin tugenensis. At 5.3 you become Ardipithecus ramidus, at 3 million Australopithecus afarensis and at 2.5 Australopithecus africanus. When you reach 2 million years B.C. the game ends as you see your species evolve into Homo ergaster. Every new species brings with it a higher dopamine-, and neuronal energy-capacity than the previous one, as well as higher life expectancy. Most also bring new gameplay elements with them. Orrorin for example can control its emotional status, allowing you to run faster even when you are not in danger. Ardipithecus can slow down time using its concentration, while Australopithecus afarensis has higher heat-resistance. A cute detail is that, much like the other animals in the game, each species is given a nickname based on their respective type-specimens, such as Lucy, Toumaï or Ardi. The difference in physical appearance of each species is very subtle when compared with the one that comes before and after, but over time you will notice drastic changes. The Missing Link and Sahelanthropus look like how you would generally imagine an ape: knuckle-walkers, covered in fur and long faces. The sounds they make are a mix of stock chimpanzee-sounds mixed with what sounds like humans making monkey-noises into a microphone (although considering what you are playing as this maybe is appropriate). Orrorin is not much different, but the white of its eyes is now visible, which gives the facial expressions a sudden human touch in a very subtle way. By the time you reach Ardipithecus you probably evolved at least some degree of bipedality. Ardi has a bit less fur and some of the sounds it makes now start to resemble primitive words. Australopithecus afarensis follows this trend until you hit full uncanny valley with A. africanus. It is now hairless on most parts of its body, its face has almost-but-not-quite human proportions and its voice-commands sound like the beginnings of language. By this time you should also be fully bipedal and able to digest meat from animals. The changes will become most apparent to you in the ending cutscene, where we see all the stages you played as in a classic march of progress. It is ended by a pair of now definitely human-looking Homo ergaster, a male and a female holding a child, looking back on the hominids you played as, perhaps sentimentally, before walking off (unfortunately you do not get to play as H. ergaster, most likely as a sequel-hook). The game has many moments like these throughout it which are oddly touching and perhaps will make you think about what it actually means to be human. Every time you make an evolutionary leap, a short cutscene plays where we can see the new hominid being in a state of deep thought or confusion, as if he is pondering about what just happened. When you go to sleep you can see your hominid’s dreams in form of pictures floating above its head, which in their composition foreshadow the cave-paintings that will be created millions of years in the future. Even with the earliest species you play as, you can see heartwarming moments of hominids caring for their children, smiling to show happiness (in non-human apes smiling is usually seen as a sign of aggression), hugging newcomers to the tribe or comforting scared relatives. Interestingly you can also gain a lot of neuronal energy by simply examining the remains of your dead relatives, which may be a reference to the development of spirituality. It is notable that there is also no option to harm anyone of your own species, even though you can kill everything else in the game. We have come a long way from the very brutish and barbaric cavemen of past depictions.
Fig. 8: In general, the way Ancestors portrays early hominins is more similar to Zdenek Burian’s peaceful and naturalistic paleoart than other games, like, say, Far Cry Primal, which took more cues from Frank Frazetta. Pictured here is Burian's vision of Australopithecus gracilis. I once replaced a framed photo of my father with this picture and it took months until someone noticed.
Let’s get the gomphothere in the room out of the way: The line of descendancy the game shows is not exactly unproblematic. First and foremost, the timing at which you evolve into these species is a bit off. Sahelanthropus lived 7 million and Orrorin 6 million years ago, not 9 and 7 respectively (although of course the exact temporal range of species is hard to determine). Ardipithecus did exist around 5.3 million years ago, but under the species A. kadabba. A. ramidus came later. The game also follows the classic, but severely outdated “March of Progress”-style of depicting evolution, popularized by the Rudolph Zallinger painting from 1965. The game in fact uses it as its logo. The major problem with the March of Progress is that it portrays the evolution of man as a straight line of progress with us as the end-goal, while shoehorning species into our ancestry that should not belong there. Similarly, the game portrays some species as our ancestors, even though there is a significant chance they may not have been. While it is very likely that the genus Homo descends from Australopithecus (which brings a lot of nomenclature problems with it) and that the latter descends from or is closely related to Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus are a lot more controversial. Sahelanthropus may be an ancestor of hominins, but has also been interpreted by some as a female proto-gorilla. Orrorin could be an ancestor of Ardipithecus, but has also, very controversially, been argued to have been the direct ancestor of Homo, which would make Australopithecus a side-branch. It is also possible that Orrorin was just an unrelated case of convergent evolution. That you go from Australopithecus africanus directly to Homo ergaster is also a bit questionable. Shouldn’t Homo habilis or H. rudolfensis come somewhere in-between? A. garhi or A. sediba have also been argued to be more likely ancestors to Homo than A. africanus. That said, the line of descendancy the game shows is not necessarily wrong and I would not blame the developers in case it becomes outdated soon. Like most branches of paleontology, paleoanthropology is currently going through a large boom and is in constant flux. The major problem seems to be that we have way too many transitional forms and possible cases of convergent evolution, many of them living at the same time, to reconstruct the evolution of modern man as a species-to-species line with much certainty, unless we have DNA-evidence available. Speaking of which, molecular evidence has shown that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived about 7 to 5 million years ago. That you start the game 10 million years ago would therefore in fact mean that you are not just playing the ancestors of humans, but also of chimpanzees and even gorillas (our split with them was about 8 million years ago). The “Missing Link” you start as therefore cannot be the last common ancestor of humans and chimps, but would be closer in time to something like Nakalipithecus. Perhaps the game is aware of this, as the menus and UI call your fellow tribe-members “hominids”, a term that is nowadays generally used for great apes as a whole, instead of the more human-specific “hominins”. However, given how the two terms are often conflated in popular media, I am not sure if this was intentional. If it is intentional, the March of Progress-style the game goes for makes it miss an interesting opportunity for branching evolutionary paths by only portraying the human side of the story. What if I want to evolve into gorillas or chimpanzees instead? Similarly, wouldn’t it have been interesting to meet and interact with parallel human lines as you progress through the game, like Kenyanthropus or Paranthropus?
Fig. 9: Timeline of appearance of major hominin genera. Note that this does not directly imply a line of descent. Also note how many of them overlap in time.
All that said, the simple fact that the developers went for this part of human evolution and chose such obscure species is commendable, as is the very subtle attention to detail in how they look, act and evolve. The fact that there exists a videogame where you can play as an Ardipithecus and get eaten by a Pelagornis is simply amazing to me.

Part 6: In conclusion

In the end, what can be said about Ancestors? Is it a good game? If not, is it at least a good piece of paleoart? Personally, I had a lot of fun, but only after I fought myself through the very steep learning-curve in the beginning. Ancestors is extremely open-ended about how you can approach the game and learn its mechanics, but in order to best put you into the perspective of a prehistoric ape with no idea about the future, it does not easily give away its secrets. I found out that the best way to enjoy it is as an exploration game. It heavily rewards you for discovering and interacting with new things and even on my second playthrough I am still finding new stuff. The game is also not simply about reaching a goal, but about writing your own stories. I experienced intense life-and-death situations, like the Machairodus-attack I mentioned in the beginning, and moments where smart problem-solving helped me out of tricky situations, like the hyena-buffalo gang-war. I went on a long, exodus-like migration through the desert with my tribe to reach the peaceful coast. While walking through the woodlands I accidentally fell down a hole into a cave-system where I was confronted with a giant centipede. Out of pure fun I made a hyena follow me to a watering hole, just so I could see it get attacked by a crocodile. I raised children and rescued them from an angry hippo, armed with only a bone-club. I experimented with all kinds of tools to figure out the best way to crack and digest snake eggs. I singlehandedly killed an elephant with only sharpened sticks and a rock. Ancestors truly is an odyssey and much like Homer’s epic, it is the journey itself that counts, not the goal. Some of the most memorable gaming-moments I had in the last decade were made in this game and none of it was scripted. There is also good potential for replayability, as the game features two other modes next to the “story” one. In the survivor mode you start out alone 10 million years ago in a random location and first have to recruit other hominids before you can even form your tribe. Then there are user-defined scenarios where you can decide in which location you want to start and which species you want to play as.

And how well does Ancestors do as a piece of paleoart? Of course there are some inaccuracies due to artistic licence, but most, like the oversizing of the animals and the anachronisms of the hominid-species, as well as the goal-oriented evolution, were taken to benefit the gameplay. It is great that the fauna and even the proto-humans you play as largely consist of species that are rarely depicted in popular media, although there are some missed opportunities to show off some even more obscure or bizarre creatures. A lot of research did go into the game and I think it shows. For non-paleontology enthusiasts it will be a neat introduction to the Miocene epoch and perhaps to paleoanthropology. While the graphics may not be the highest, the presentation is great, as the world and animals feel alive and are full of subtle attentions to detail, as are the hominids you play as. While not 100% accurate, this is probably the most authentic video game depiction of a specific moment in deep time until Saurian will be released (and that will probably still take a while).
Fig. 10: Homo heidelbergensis, as illustrated by Zdenek Burian. If Ancestors ever gets a sequel, which I really hope it does, we may get to play as this species. While still controversial, it is generally thought that Homo sapiens descends from an African variant of H. heidelbergensis.
In conclusion, I really like this game, but I would perhaps not recommend it to everyone. The learning curve, especially in the beginning, is very high and you can get easily overwhelmed with all the new information. There will be times where the game may feel a bit grindy or slow and bad luck can lead to great frustration or even to the extinction of your lineage. It can be irritating that there is no way to directly attack animals or to manually save and the game arguably ends just when evolution starts to get really interesting. However, if you master the difficulties of the start, let the flow of the game be guided by your own curiosity, play at your own pace, explore everything there is to discover, are interested in human evolution or prehistory in general and hate big cats with a passion, then I believe you will have a great time going full homo in Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey.

Did I write this entire review just so I could make that joke? Yes. Do I regret it? Absolutely not.

Literary sources:
  •  Agusti, Jordi/Anton, Mauricio: Mammoths, Sabertooths and Hominids. 65 million years of Mammalian Evolution in Europe, New York 2002.
  • Anton, Mauricio/Turner, Alan: Evolving Eden. An Illustrated Guide to the Evolution of the African Large-Mammal Fauna, New York 2004.
  • Anton, Mauricio: Sabertooth, Bloomington 2013.
  • Burian, Zdenek/Spinar, Zdenek: Life Before Man, Prague 1972 (Revised Edition from 1995).
  • Gould, Stephen Jay: Wonderful Life. The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, New York 1989.
  • Müller-Beck, Hansjürgen: Die Steinzeit. Der Weg des Menschen in die Geschichte, München 1998 (4. Edition).
  • Naish, Darren: Tetrapod Zoology 1, London 2010 (2. Edition).
  • Schalansky, Judith: Die Verlorenen Welten des Zdeněk Burian, Berlin 2013 (Naturkunden 8).

Papers:


Online sources:


Image Sources:

  • Fig. 1: Anton 2013, p. 221.
  • Fig. 7: Burian 1972, p. 177.
  • Fig. 8: Burian 1972, p. 205.
  • Fig. 9: Wikimedia
  • Fig. 10: Burian 1972, p. 217.
  • All images of gameplay were taken during my own playthrough, using the PS4's capture-mode.

Thursday, 2 January 2020

The weirdest things people have thought about pterosaurs

Fig. 1: When people think of pterosaurs, they usually imagine a skeletal gargoyle, like in this Burian-painting, that could be right at home in a gothic castle.
"If dinosaurs are badly portrayed in movies, then pterosaurs have an even worse time!" is a quote that TV Tropes attributes to Dougal Dixon. Unfortunately, they do not provide a source, so I cannot confirm if he actually said that. If he did it would be highly ironic, as Dixon is known for his… less than ideal portrayal of pterosaurs in some of his books, such as The New Dinosaurs. Regardless of attribution or irony, the quote does hold a lot of truth. The portrayal of dinosaurs, while slow, has changed and is changing a lot in popular media. No longer are they cold-blooded, tail-dragging behemoths, but instead agile, bird-like creatures. There are even rumours about feathered dinosaurs finally appearing in the third Jurassic World movie (which is about damn time). Their close relatives, pterosaurs, on the other hand always seem to get the shaft. While actual science has greatly progressed on our view of pterosaurs, pop-culture has often not even attempted to do the same. The Pteranodons that appear in 2015’s Jurassic World barely evolved and still look like their 1930s counterparts would: Naked skin, leathery wings, bloodthirsty and able to grab people by their shoulders and carry them through the air. Arguably more than dinosaurs, pterosaurs are often viewed as fantastic, otherworldly creatures, more similar to gargoyles than to animals. In some ways they certainly were weird and if they survived into historic times I would argue we would have probably classified them as their own vertebrate class. On the other hand, a lot of this may be attributed to bizarre ideas people have had about them in the past and present, which were often popularized but had little connection to reality. In this post I want to present just some of these, mostly out of pure fun and curiosity.

Pterosaurs as flying marsupials

The fact that pterosaurs were reptiles was recognized as early as 1801 by French anatomist Georges Cuvier, father of vertebrate paleontology, in his description of the then newly discovered Pterodactylus. However, this did not stop others from giving their own interpretation of the bizarre-looking fossil from Bavaria. In a lecture form 1810, Samuel Thomas von Soemerring presented his conclusion that the fossil, which he called Ornithocephalus, was in fact a mammal very similar to bats or flying foxes and should be classified as intermediate between Mammalia and Aves. In his view, bats gave rise to birds and pterosaurs were the transitional form between them. His conclusion was largely based on a misinterpretation of the forelimb-bones and ignoring many of the reptilian characteristics of the skeleton, such as the jaw-joints. While Soemerring’s interpretation was dominant among German scientists for a while, it ultimately lost to Cuvier’s, thanks to his authority and good counter-arguments. It did however not vanish before giving rise to an even more bizarre idea: In 1843 English zoologist Edward Newman interpreted pterosaurs not just as mammals, but as flying marsupials more specifically. He even illustrated them with cute ears, fur and pouches.
Fig. 2: Pterosaurs as imagined by Edward Newman. Peter Wellnhofer seems to find the ears particularly endearing (Wellnhofer 1991, p. 28).
What I always found interesting about the mammalian classification of pterosaurs, from a “what if” perspective, is that in life they did in fact possess a very hair-like body-covering called pycnofibers (although recent studies suggest they may have been more similar in structure to primitive feathers). As early as 1831 Georg August Goldfuss actually discovered these pycnofibers in a fossil, but his claims were largely dismissed and ignored. They were instead reconstructed with smooth skin or scales for the longest time. That pterosaurs did in fact have pycnofibers was only conclusively proven in 1971 with the discovery of Sordes pilosus. Now the fun part is to imagine what would have happened if Goldfuss was actually taken seriously back in the day or if pycnofibers were discovered even earlier. It is not hard to imagine that these filaments would have initially been interpreted as true fur and that this would have given more fuel to the mammalian classification. Who knows how long it may have outstayed its welcome? It should nonetheless be mentioned that, despite finding pycnofibers, Goldfuss himself still classified pterosaurs as reptiles.
Fig. 3: An 1857 painting by Adolphe François Pannemaker, where we can again see a bat-like interpretation of pterosaurs.
While we are on the topic of alternate realities, Edward Newman’s idea of flying marsupials in general is a worthwhile discussion for fans of speculative evolution. It has been argued that marsupials generally cannot specialize their forelimbs to the degree other mammals can, as in the fetal state their offspring require grasping hands to climb from the vulva up the mother’s belly into the pouch. We do however know marsupials with strongly derived forelimbs, such as the now extinct pig-footed bandicoot Chaeropus, which possessed hooves on its hands. Then there are of course sugar gliders, which are basically the possum-version of a flying squirrel. There are also some groups that completely circumvent the usual reproduction by pouch, such as marsupial mice. Perhaps one day we may find a fossil marsupial capable of powered flight.

Pterosaurs as marine monotremes

Even more bizarre than the classification of pterosaurs as flying mammals is the interpretation given to us by Johann Georg Wagler in 1830. When Pterodactylus was first described in 1784 by Cosimo Alessandro Collini, he interpreted the forelimbs as membranous paddles and thought it was an aquatic creature. Wagler stuck with Collini’s conclusion and grouped pterosaurs together with ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs in a new vertebrate-class which he called Gryphi, literally Latin for griffins. Within Gryphi he also grouped the extant monotremes, the egg-laying mammals platypus and echidna. Similar to Soemerring he viewed Gryphi as transitional between birds and mammals, although if I interpreted his writing correctly he also saw them as directly ancestral to cetaceans. He especially liked comparing the head of Pterodactylus to that of a dolphin (Wagler 1830, p.64). I must admit, even though I am able to read the original German text, I am just as confused as you are. I guess he imagined that sea-birds evolved into aquatic pterosaurs, which then evolved into ichthyosaurs and monotremes. Out of the ichthyosaurs the whales arose, while mammals derived from monotremes. Or the other way around?

Fig. 4: Pterodactylus as reconstructed by Johann Georg Wagler. The feet and wings were imagined as paddles purely used to swim in a penguin-like fashion. The reconstruction of the skull seems to be based more on a dolphin than on the actual fossil.

Pterosaurs as the missing bird-dinosaur link

Closer to the mark than the previous two was English geologist Harry Govier Seeley when in 1901 he published Dragons of the Air. His book was actually the only major work focused entirely on pterosaurs until 1990(!) when Peter Wellnhofer published his Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs. Seeley called them Saurornia or Ornithosauria and saw them as the transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. He also argued that they were warm-blooded, which brought him into conflict with Richard Owen, who wanted to see them as inferior, cold-blooded reptiles. He was also one of the first to draw pterosaurs in a quadrupedal posture with erect limbs.
Fig. 5: The archosaur family-tree as imagined by Robert Bakker in 1986. He includes pterosaurs among Dinosauria, based on their ankles. He also grouped Ornithischia and Sauropodomorpha together in Phytodinosauria. While both views have largely fallen out of favour, they are still being discussed today from time to time. I apologize for crudely having to photograph the page, as my scanner has trouble handling books of this format without breaking their spine.
Today we know that birds directly descend from small theropod dinosaurs (in fact they still are dinosaurs) and that pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, even though the public sometimes treats them like “honorary dinos”. They nonetheless still are one of the closest sister-clades to dinosaurs, together comprising the larger archosaur-group Avemetarsalia/Ornithodira. Some, like Robert T. Bakker, have argued that pterosaurs should be included in the definition of dinosaurs, essentially making Ornithodira and Dinosauria synonymous. I honestly would not strictly oppose such a decision, although I believe it would go against a lot of current nomenclature laws. Anyway, if you want to be really technical, since birds are the closest living relatives of pterosaurs, you could get away with calling the latter stem-birds.

Pterosaurs could not fly

What is not an idea of outdated Victorian era science is the notion that some or all pterosaurs were not capable of powered flight, as even today one can still find people online who think they were just reptilian hang-gliders. As pterosaurs are extinct and a lot more ancient than birds or bats, prejudice demands that their style of flight must have been inferior to that of their successors. It was therefore often thought that they were not capable of actively flapping their wings and could not become airborne without help. Their number one method of taking off was imagined to be throwing themselves off sea-side cliffs and riding thermal winds. A variation of this is the idea that some pterosaurs, like Pteranodon or Quetzalcoatlus were so large that they simply could not get off the ground, an idea still alive in modern pseudoscience and on Reddit. The fact that the anatomy of these giant pterosaurs was still obviously adapted to flight (I mean, have you seen those wings?) and has no similarities to that of flightless birds is either ignored or taken as a sign that they were capable of flight, but only because atmospheric conditions or even Earth’s gravity were different in the past.
Fig. 6: Secondarily flightless pterosaurs are a popular motif in speculative evolutionary scenarios. The idea was largely popularized by Dougal Dixon’s The New Dinosaurs, where, in a world that never saw the End-Cretaceous extinction event, the lank roams the savannahs of Africa instead of giraffes. The idea may have unintentionally inspired modern proposals that azhdarchids were flightless.
All of that is of course nonsense. Pterosaurs were active, muscular animals with bird-style hollow-bones and air sacs, perfectly capable of powered and prolonged flight. Some sea-goers like Pteranodon may have relied more on gliding on thermal currents, but in the same way as an albatross or a pelican would, not a hang-glider. They certainly did not require cliffs or trees to become airborne. A big reason that lead to the assumption that giant pterosaurs could not lift off on their own was the idea that they were bipedal and would have taken off the same way birds did. We now know that they were quadrupeds and that their method of lift-off most likely closely resembled that of bats, which pole-vault themselves into the air with their powerful arms. This allows the membranes to immediately catch the wind. This is in fact a more efficient way of taking off than that of birds, some bats are even capable of taking into the air in a vertical direction like a helicopter. The combination of bat-style take-off with bird-style hollow bones and air sacs made it perfectly possible for a giant like Quetzalcoatlus to take off on its own, no cliff or alien atmosphere required. While such a creature may have existed, to this date there is no known pterosaur that actual paleontologists regard as flightless.

Pterosaurs could not walk

As if to further ridicule them, some researchers did not even grant pterosaurs the ability to walk on the ground. In 1974, basing their conclusion on earlier ideas, C. D. Bramwell and G. R. Whitfield argued that pterosaurs such as Pteranodon were not able to stand and instead helplessly flopped around on their bellies, shoving themselves forward with their hindlegs. The idea is perhaps comparable to how penguins sometimes slide across ice. Like mentioned earlier, they thought it could only become airborne by suicidally sliding itself off cliffs. This was just one of the weird ideas about pterosaur gait. Popular around the 80s was Kevin Padian’s notion that small pterosaurs like Dimorphodon walked bipedally and digitigrade, as if to mimic theropods. Chris Bennett expanded on this and hypothesized that big, short-tailed pterosaurs actually stood in an upright posture, in a disturbingly human fashion (or if you will like Rodan in the old Godzilla movies). These ideas soon became outdated in the 90s and 2000s as pterosaur-trace-fossils, namely Pteraichnus, were re-evaluated and it was realized that pterosaurs were plantigrade quadrupeds with erect legs and a gait similar to long-limbed mammals.
Fig. 7: Outdated ideas about pterosaur-locomotion as illustrated by Mark Witton. A is a Dimorphodon with a dinosaur-like gait as imagined by Kevin Padian. B is the utterly useless “Penguinodon” as imagined by Bramwell and Whitfield. C is Bennett’s Rodan-wannabe. D is the quadrupedal, bat-like posture as imagined by Wellnhofer. Based on what we know now, Wellnhofer got the closest, but today pterosaurs are imagined to have had an erect, non-sprawling leg-posture.

Live-bearing, bipedal Pteranodon

2005’s Oceans of Kansas by Michael J. Everhart is a great book that I recommend to anyone even remotely interested in the Western Interior Seaway. That said, there were a few bits while reading it that seemed odd. What particularly stood out to me was the chapter about pterosaurs, in which the author supports or speculates about outdated ideas while seemingly dismissing more modern evidence. I want to stress here that I read the second, updated edition from 2017. For one he still uses Padian’s 1983 paper to suggest Pteranodon was a biped and dismisses the Pteraichnus trackways as inconclusive, contrary to the consensus (Everhart 2005, p. 300 – 301). Even more egregious is how he acknowledges the discovery of Chinese pterosaur eggs in 2010, then dismisses them as only pertaining to small pterosaur species. Based on that he then goes as far as speculating that Pteranodon may have given live birth and cared for their young in pairs similar to frigate birds (Everhart 2005, p. 297). While of course this is just speculation on the author’s part, it is still weird to come to such ideas, given the evidence. The argumentation is essentially founded on saying that since we do not have direct evidence for Pteranodon specifically being an oviparous quadruped, this gives us a free-pass to wildly speculate. We have pretty conclusive evidence that all pterosaurs were quadrupeds and there is nothing that would suggest some of them were viviparous. It is also doubtful if they even cared for their young. While in popular media pterosaurs are often depicted as taking care of their young similar to birds, fossil evidence of buried eggs and fully developed hatchlings suggest otherwise. It is generally thought that pterosaurs reproduced in a way that I liken to “flying sea-turtles”. They dug a hole in the ground, laid their eggs in it, buried it and either left the offspring to their own devices or guarded the nest until hatching, similar to crocodiles. Soon or even directly after hatching, the flaplings (what pterosaur-hatchlings are called) were capable of flying and caring for themselves and were not in need of parental care. Of course this may not have applied to all pterosaurs, but the lack of evidence for other parenting methods does not give room to go as far as suggesting viviparous frigate bird-mimics.
Fig. 8: Like in this painting by Zdeněk Burian, pterosaurs are often imagined having taken care of their young, similar to birds. Fossil evidence for this is scarce however. On a side-note, if you ever played Ecco the Dolphin on the Sege Genesis/Mega Drive you may recognize this artwork, as the developers directly ripped it for one of their in-game sprites. 
On a last note, the idea that some archosaurs may have given live-birth has often cropped up on occasion (like in sauropods or the theropod Coelophysis), but so far nearly all prominent claims were able to be disproven, to the point where it is now generally thought that archosaurs are incapable of evolving viviparity. However, there is one archosaur-group, metriorhynchids, for which an argument can be made, as these were fully marine crocodylomorphs which were likely incapable of crawling back on land. It is interesting that pterosaur-eggs seem to have had flexible, leathery shells, more similar to the eggs of lizards, snakes or crocodiles than to those of dinosaurs. As squamates and synapsids have occasionally evolved ovoviviparity, or true viviparity in the case of skinks and mammals, leathery eggshells seem to be a prerequisite for this adaptation. It is therefore perhaps not impossible that some pterosaurs may have evolved forms of viviparity, but still highly improbable.

Edit: I have to add two things, which have been brought to my attention by helpful readers. First there is apparently a paper in which Everhart identifies an unusually wide pelvis in Pteranodon, which he sees as a sign for viviparity. He does not actually mention that in the book (at least not in the version I read), which makes the speculation seem way more out of left field. That said, a wide pelvis has also been used as evidence for viviparity in other archosaurs, like sauropods, without much success. It more likely means that Pteranodon just laid particularly large eggs (which does have interesting implications for parental care). The second thing is that the information about flaplings presented here is largely based on Mark Witton's book Pterosaurs from 2016. Since its release however more evidence has appeared for parental care and altriciality. In general, the question of parental care in pterosaurs is not a clear-cut consensus and parenting styles likely varied from species to species.

Skim-feeding pterosaurs

Rynchops is a modern genus of seabirds with unique jaw-adaptations. Their lower jaw is knife-shaped and a lot larger than the upper one. This allows them to literally plow the ocean-surface for fish by flying low. This is called skim-feeding and seems to be a very rare style of fishing among birds. Yet for some reason nearly every prominent pterosaur-group, from pteranodonts to dimorphodonts, thalassodromids and azhdarchids, has at one point or another been interpreted as skim-feeders. The most prominent example is Rhamphorynchus, the well-known, small, long-tailed pterosaur from the Solnhofen Limestone. Just think back to episode 3 of Walking with Dinosaurs. The idea of skim-feeding pterosaurs, which from the very start was based on wonky science, was dealt a fatal blow in the early 2000s, with numerous studies seriously investigating the idea. The most important one was a 2007 paper by Stuart Humphries and Mark Witton. They showed that the beaks of pterosaurs were so maladapted for skimming that some, like Rhamphorynchus or Thalassodromeus, would have dislocated or even broken their jaws if they attempted to skim-feed like Rynchops. It is far more likely that sea-going pterosaurs caught fish simply by dip-feeding or spearing them with their teeth rather than skimming. Some may have even swam after their prey.
Fig. 9: The great artist C.M. Kosemen once imagined what a pterosaur would look like if it had a similar style of feeding to Rynchops and called this speculative creation Anomalorhynchus. There is no real known pterosaur from the fossil record that actually looked like this.
The idea that most or all pterosaurs were fish-eaters is also one that is strangely widespread, perhaps being linked to the idea that they required cliffs and thermal winds to take off and therefore had to live close to the sea. In reality pterosaurs show adaptations for a wide variety of diets. Azhdarchids and thalassodromids were likely terrestrial predators of small animals, istiodactylids show adaptations towards scavenging, Pterodaustro was a flamingo-like filter-feeder, dimorphodontids and anurognathids were probably insectivores and campylognathoidids had jaws capable of chewing, which may have even allowed them to eat plant-matter on occasion.

David Peters in general

David Peters started out in the early 90s as a very talented paleoartist, perhaps with the potential to become the next Greg Paul. Around 1995 something went awfully wrong, however. As he was not a trained paleontologist, he designed his very own method of examining fossils… or more accurately photographs of fossils, as he has never directly worked with the fossils concerned. He calls it Digital Graphic Segregation and it basically amounts to just color-coding random artefacts on the photograph in photoshop, which Peters, powered by pareidolia, then interprets as genuine features of the fossil. Through this rather dubious method, Peters has come to conclusions that in ridiculousness put everything mentioned previously to shame. He thinks that pterosaurs were covered in a multitude of large ribbon- or feather-like scales or even anglerfish-like lures, that they were bipedal, that their wing-membranes were extremely narrow (I am reminded of dragonflies), that toothless pterosaurs actually had teeth, that they are closely related to Triassic weirdos like Longisquama and Sharovipteryx and that they actually descend from squamates, the reptile clade that includes lizards and snakes. He also thinks they were viviparous, giving birth to miniature adults with cartilaginous skeletons, and has identified some species as flightless or even as blood-sucking parasites. He does not stop at pterosaurs but has gone on to try and redefine the entire tetrapod family-tree, claiming that synapsids are close relatives of archosaurs, among other things.
Fig. 10: In 2008 C.M. Kosemen and John Conway tried to draw pterosaurs based entirely on David Peters’ skeletals and methods. This was the result. Left is supposed to be Pterodactylus and right Pteranodon, in case you couldn’t tell.
Needless to say, the scientific community does not take Peters seriously and his claims have never passed peer-review. Instead of taking this as a sign for introspection, Peters instead went for the common mix of Galileo Gambit and Dunning Kruger Effect, thinking that his methods are superior to everyone else’s and that he is not being taken seriously because established scientists are conspiring against him to protect their status. He therefore went online and presented his work on his two websites, ReptileEvolution.com and ThePterosaurHeresies.com. If you are googling an obscure, extinct reptile, like say Cosesaurus, there is a high chance that among the highest search-results will be a link to one of his websites. As Peters is a great artist with a good feeling for web-design, many unsuspecting people who do not know any better will read those, thinking he is an authority on these matters, and go on to be severely misinformed. Zoologist Darren Naish and paleoartist Nima wrote great articles summing up all the problems mentioned here far better than I could. I linked them below, so I definitely recommend you to go read them. Last I heard, Peters is currently more focused on mammals, claiming that multituberculates are rodents and that rodents are marsupials. Good luck with that.

Literary sources:

  • Bakker, Robert Thomas: The Dinosaur Heresies. New Theories Unlocking The Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction, New York 1986.
  • Everhart, Michael J.: Oceans of Kansas. A Natural History of the Western Interior Sea, Bloomington 2005 (Second Edition).
  • Owen, Richard: Geology and Inhabitants of the Ancient World, London 1854 (Facsimile Edition).
  • Seeley, Harry Govier: Dragons of the Air. An account of extinct flying reptiles, London 1901.
  • Wagler, Johann Georg: Natürliches System der Amphibien. Mit vorangehender Classification der Säugethiere und Vögel, München 1830.
  • Wellnhofer, Peter: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs. An illustrated natural history of the flying reptiles of the Mesozoic Era, New York 1991.
  • Witton, Mark: Pterosaurs, New Jersey 2013.
  • Witton, Mark: Recreating an Age of Reptiles, Marlborough 2017.

Papers:

Online sources:


Image Sources:
  • Fig. 1: Schalansky, Judith: Die Verlorenen Welten des Zdeněk Burian, Berlin 2013, p. 160 (Naturkunden 8).
  • Fig. 2: Wellnhofer, Peter: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs. An illustrated natural history of the flying reptiles of the Mesozoic Era, New York 1991, p. 27.
  • Fig. 3: Wikimedia
  • Fig. 4: Wikimedia
  • Fig. 5: Bakker, Robert Thomas: The Dinosaur Heresies. New Theories Unlocking The Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction, New York 1986, p. 456.
  • Fig. 6: Dixon, Dougal: The New Dinosaurs. An Alternative Evolution, London 1988, p. 34.
  • Fig. 7: Witton, Mark: Pterosaurs, New Jersey 2013, p. 66.
  • Fig. 8: Schalansky, Judith: Die Verlorenen Welten des Zdeněk Burian, Berlin 2013, p. 160 (Naturkunden 8), p. 159.
  • Fig. 9: C.M. Kosemen's old tumblr blog
  • Fig. 10: Why the world has to ignore ReptileEvolution.com by Tetrapod Zoology (Ver. 3).