Showing posts with label science humor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science humor. Show all posts

Friday, January 6, 2017

SCIENCE TRACKS: Scicomm Pamphlets to Spread the Science Fun

Happy 2017, Dear Readers!

Over the holidays I was at home, minding my own business - drinking tea, working on retooling the last publishable chapter from my dissertation, watching bad paranormal TV, and acting as a heated mattress for the kitty - when there's a knock on my front door.

Lo and behold, it was a door-to-door religious solicitor. Nowadays they are fairly high-tech: rather than try to hand me a pamphlet, his opening line was presenting his tablet/iPad and saying "Now watch this video and I'm sure it will help you answer some of Life's questions." My grandparents had a sign taped to their door that read "No solicitors, religious or otherwise. We have no time, patience, or money." Needless to say, they taught me well.

My response to these types of solicitations is polite but direct: I'm an evolutionary biologist, and my questions are already answered. I caught a very brief change flicker over the guy's face - something akin to a flare of anger - but he wisely turned around and left.

Naturally, I shared my experience with my Twitter friends.
I let my mind free-associate a bit after that. I briefly thought about how funny it would be if, rather than having religious solicitors, we had science solicitors, going door-to-door spreading the Science. Of course my brain immediately jumped to "Science doesn't preach: science provides learning opportunities."
The more my brain played with the idea, the more my brain liked it.
I have completed one pamphlet for what I'm calling Science Tracks: purely science communication pamphlets that can be used for any opportunity that arises for spreading the good word about all the awesome science that's out there. I may have been a little optimistic about getting more than one completed over the holidays. One big reason is that I don't want to use other people's photos for this without permission, and the only pamphlet I could complete using my own photos was OMFG* BIRDS! (no one who follows me is surprised), but it is a start of something that I would like to continue.
*Oh My Feathery Goodness

Here is the link to the first Science Tracks PDF, OMFG BIRDS! Hope you enjoy!

Here is a screenshot of the outside of the pamphlet:

Here's a screenshot of the inside of the pamphlet:

If you would like me to make a Science Tracks pamphlet for your study organism, please let me know!

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Time for Media to Call Birds What They Are...DINOSAURS!

Hello Dear Readers!

I've been playing catch-up after this summer's field work: organizing photos, email, restarting projects that had to be paused for field work, updating the CV, and - when there is time - getting our poor house in order after an almost three month absence!

I always have high hopes for humanity on returning from the field, and one of those hopes is that we'll have seen the last of lazy science communication by the mega-platforms (Discovery Channel, National Geographic, Animal Planet). I always think "Maybe, just maybe, they'll get it. They'll get that conscientious science communication is just as engaging, "grabbing", and simple as the amateur-hour male bovine fecal material we've seen with Shark Week, any monster hunting show, and mermaids.

This time Discovery Channel hit close to home with paleontology, and they did it by just lazily slapping "dinosaur" on a 2013 program focusing on marine reptiles....and they've done it many times. Brian Switek gives a great write up here. Any seven year old could tell you that marine reptiles aren't dinosaurs (and perhaps the large networks should think of consulting with their local primary schools before stamping "dinosaur" on anything that's a fossil), so I am not sure why these highly unprofessional mistakes keep happening.

As frustration is my muse, I decided to have a bit of fun with telling people what they actually can call a dinosaur: BIRDS.

Any and all birds that ever were, that ever are, and ever will be, are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not extinct, but visit our feeders and poop on our cars and patios daily.

I had fun with this on Twitter, and thanks to Storify I was able to collect all of the fun I and others had at rebranding birds as modern-day dinosaurs.

Here's the link to "We Don't Have to Call Everything A Dinosaur!"

Enjoy, and feel free to rebrand your favorite feathered friends as the dinosaurs they are! It's fun and scientifically accurate!

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Fool Me At All, Shame On You Always: How Not To Do April Fools' Day

April Fools' Day is tomorrow, and I am waiting with mild trepedation over what faux science gags I am going to see on the Internet. What I was not prepared for was to have someone actively try to recruit me to deceive the public in a pretty rotten way.

Let's be clear right from the start, Dear Reader: I love a good prank. I've been on the receiving end of many a gag courtesy of my colleagues. The most recent prank was having my office filled with toy spiders - we refer to it as The Spidering...this happened over a year ago, and I'm still finding spiders. We have a rather cute, so obviously over the top so as not to be taken seriously video that we're going to post tomorrow that is 100% fun, and in no way would ever be confused with real science. What we do not do, nay, what we REFUSE to do is to actively deceive the public with regards to fossil discoveries, fossil heritage appreciation, and fossil conservation.

Enter my phone conversation from Tuesday afternoon.

I'm out of town, picking up some supplies for the up-coming field season. My cellphone interrupts my browsing. It's a phone number from British Columbia. NOTE: As technologically slow as I am, I am pretty good at Googling phone numbers - I know exactly which organization made this call.

I will refer to the person on the other end as Skippy. Skippy was all excited to tell me of their great idea. There is a project that is going ahead somewhere in British Columbia (not in my neck of the woods), and those involved thought that a great way to get publicity would be to announce a fake dinosaur skeleton discovery as a result of said project. This plan was considered a good idea because, well, April Fools' Day. Skippy continued: they even wanted to get the public involved in submitting names for their new fake dinosaur find. Skippy was wondering if they could use our institution's name to lend their April Fools' prank credibility.

Dear Readers, guess how I responded. I think I was quite polite under the circumstances.

The first words out of my mouth were "Absolutely not!" I went on to say a version of this:

There is already a culture of mistrust in the general public towards science and scientists. The public is also deeply interested in fossil discoveries and news, and trusts that when such news is announced, it's for real. Faking a fossil discovery in British Columbia, using the name of a well-respected institution such as ours, would only serve to fuel such public distrust of scientists. There is no way that we could in good conscience take part in such a scheme.

I ended the conversation with Skippy by saying "And I had better not see our names anywhere near anything that you publicize." Skippy's response was "You won't be included," wording that makes me think that they are actually still planning to go ahead with this Scicomm Wrong.

Half-assed publicity stunts such as these give me nothing but anger and frustration. This is nothing more than manipulating people's natural curiosity about dinosaurs and fossils for a project that will do absolutely nothing to further their appreciation of their province's fossil heritage. There is no way that this can be spun as a scicomm opportunity: had our name been associated with this scheme, we would have lied to the public - April Fools' Day or no - and given them a reason to get excited about dinosaurs in British Columbia. People trust us, whether they consciously recognize that trust or no, to give them trustworthy and factual information about the fossil heritage in British Columbia.

I will not apologize for this: I respect and greatly appreciate the public's natural interest in their fossil heritage. For as long we are at the helm of our institution, we will never abuse that interest for the sake of tacky publicity.

British Columbia is only just starting to develop a cultural appreciation and respect for the province's fossil heritage. The idea that the public has a sense of ownership and pride over their province's heritage is not yet at the levels we see in Alberta, where fossils have been part of the cultural identity for decades. Being an institution operating in British Columbia and actively promoting a culture of pride and responsibility for fossil heritage resources is a serious business for us. We also rely on the goodwill of the public to be supportive of fossil heritage protection and conservation. We will not lightly throw that hard-earned trust away for the sake of a "joke".

Unfortunately for many of us scientists engaging in science communication about our respective fields, we are bombarded with examples of credible-looking fake-umentaries presented by organizations that are trusted by the public as providers of accurate information, all for the sake of publicity. Pick your favorite cryptozoology hunter show - my favorite examples are anything involving Bigfoot, which I have written about previously. Newsweek recently put out a special issue on Bigfoot. National Geographic has also jumped into the realm of presenting Bigfoot "research"Discovery Channel's Megalodon fakery. Discovery Channel's Mermaids fakery. These are all communication brands that have the trust of the public, and that trust is manipulated each and every time a fake-umentary or sensationalized show is presented as fact.

Public Service Science Announcement (PSScA): there is indeed such as thing as bad publicity, especially when it deliberately exploits people's science curiosity for the sake of clicks or views.

So, Dear Readers, I will be online this April Fools' Day, making sure that I keep track of this newest plan to exploit the public's love of fossils. I hope the group involved has had a sober second thought and will abandon this plan. Stay tuned.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Scientific Humor and the Woofen Poof

[UPDATE: Not to be confused with the Yale a cappella group, the Whiffenpoofs.]

Have you ever come across something in the scientific literature so hilariously bizarre that you have no idea 1) how or why it came into being in the first place, and 2) why you are not hearing about it until now? Rich recently found and purchased a paper of just such hilarity, and it tickled my humerus so much that I had to share.

Please allow me to introduce (or, if you are already acquainted with the plucky fellow, reintroduce) the bird Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis, also known as the Woofen-Poof.

Picture of a Woofen-Poof resting on a rocky outcrop in the Gobi Desert. From the 1928 Fotheringham monograph.
I can hear you loudly exclaiming "Oh come on! There is no way that's a real bird! There's no way that's an actual paper!" You would be both correct and incorrect: no valid taxon carries the name, but the papers do exist. Take a moment to wipe the snorted beverage off of your screen, and I'll present a summary and commentary of the Woofen-Poof, with tongue firmly in cheek. Don't worry - I'll make sure to distinguish fact from fiction in my summary.

FACT: If you hear me giggling each time you read Woofen-Poof, it's because I am.

The Woofen-Poof

FACT: The Woofen-Poof first made its scientific appearance in 1930, in Volume 5, Issue 1 of the Quarterly Review of Biology under "New Biological Books". Authors weren't stated, but it was presumably done by Lester B. Sharp and Cuthbert Fraser (see below: The People). Presented was a review of an obscure monograph on Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis as written by Augustus C. Fotheringham. It was stated in the 1930 review that "[c]opies may be obtained from Dr. Lester W. Sharp, N. Y. State College of Agriculture, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y.)", and that the Fotheringham article is a first edition of 500 copies. No date of publication was given in the review, but the monograph made available by Sharp has the publication date of 1928.

Cover of the Woofen-Poof monograph.
In this classic work, Eoörnis was documented by an expedition to the Gobi desert led by Brigadier-General Sir Cecil Wemyss-Cholmondeley, for which A. C. Fotheringham was scientific director. The following are some select photos from the field as presented in the monograph, and commentary summarized from the monograph and the 1930 review. These are not all of the images from this fantastic monograph, but they represent my favorites.

Scanned from the 1928 monograph.
First, the Woofen-Poof is figured (left) perching on a branch of Ginko biloba. Right is featured the nest of the Woofen-Poof. Note the majestic metallic sheen on the...er...um...plumage(?) of the Woofen-Poof, provided by the large oily glands the Woofen-Poof uses to groom itself. Woofen-Poofs are small birds, approximately 17 cm long from beak tip to tail tip, and have a wingspan of only 6 cm. It is a brown bird, except during mating season, when the female develops black speckles on the breast, body and tail feathers. The wings are in constant use despite their small size, and lack the proper joints to be folded when not in use.

The nest (right) is figured in the monograph, and describes the Woofen-Poof as a ground nesting bird that conceals its eggs among other similarly-sized spheroids. The nesting and breeding strategy are startling, as summarized in the 1930 review:
Quote from the 1930 review. Dr. Sharp's research focus in cytology is evident in several places in the Woofen-Poof monograph: there is an entire section detailing cytological studies of Eoornis.Sorry, male Woofen-Poofs: fertilization isn't required when you reproduce via parthenogenesis.

Ichnology also plays a role in interpreting the nesting biology of the Woofen-Poof. The Woofen-Poof had to stealthily hide its eggs among decoys because, according to the reptile Lepidosaurus obscurus (below), Woofen-Poof eggs are delicious.

FACT: Figure 18 almost killed me. I was staring, staring, staring...and then it came to me: the entire white object is the "fossil"! I believe someone (looking at you, Sharp and Fraser!) was having a little laugh at how fossils are interpreted. They may have also been poking fun at many of the pseudofossils that scientists are asked to identify. I've seen my fair share of "skulls" that are really just round rocks with a couple of "eye sockets". Figure 18 is a textbook case of how people see fossils using pareidolia.

As a completely humorous aside, I must respectfully offer an alternative hypothesis to that of the Lepidosaurus nest-robbing interpretation. The skeletal reconstructions of the Woofen-Poof do not show the fusion one would expect to see in the legs and ankles of a bird that never flexes them. It is possible that when the Wemyss-Cholmondeley Expedition encountered the Woofen-Poofs in the wild, that the hopping they observed was a behavioral reaction to intruders, much like the Killdeer injury display. All published images of Woofen-Poofs show a flat foot posture - they appear to retain this foot posture even in flight (see figures 23 and 24 below). If we look at the skeleton of the Woofen-Poof, shown in figure 20 of the monograph (below), the foot structure, toe proportions, and toe orientation are a close fit to the footprints shown around the Woofen-Poof nest.

Woofen-Poof skeleton. How this bird was supposed to hop in this pose without bill-planting into the sand is a mystery. 1928 monograph.

Real Ichnology: While Fotheringham interprets these tracks to be from a quadrupedal animal, he does not present information to support this idea. There is little difference between purported front limb prints and hind limb prints. Quadrupedal animals generally have a size and shape difference between the hand and the foot, even if it's a small difference. All of the prints around the Woofen-Poof nest are uniform in size and shape. Check out the spacing of the footprints. Birds have a short step length (called pace in ichnology) compared to the length of their footprints. [End real ichnology]

My hypothesis is that these are footprints of the Woofen-Poof, made as the nesting Poof walked up to the nest. Alternatively, Woofen-Poofs may have been brood parasites, with one Woofen-Poof laying her eggs in the nest of another unsuspecting nesting Woofen-Poof. This would give the parasitic Woofen-Poof all of the benefits of having reproduced, with none of the energy drain of raising the little baby Poofs. Keep this "hypothesis" in mind for the end of this post - we have news (teehee)!

While Woofen-Poofs (Woofen-Pi?) may look stoic and immobile, they are described as rapid and energetic fliers (they would have to be, with feet and legs like that). The 1930 review reports speeds of up to 600 km per hour! Figures 23 and 24 from the monograph demonstrate that photography of the Woofen-Poof was so difficult the expedition leader had to invent a new camera shutter.

Figures 23 and 24, from the 1928 monograph.

Photographing the Woofen-Poof is a perilous exercise. The expedition crew were often assaulted by agitated Woofen-Poofs, which would fly at them at full speed and attempt to impale the crew on their Woofen-Poofy beaks.

DUCK! I mean, POOF! An angry Woofen-Poof, from the 1928 monograph.

The Woofen-Poof has apparently existed at least since the Mesozoic, as proffered by fossil evidence of its food, as seen in figures 14 and 15 of the monograph.

FACT: I can already hear paleontologists chuckling at the caption for Figure 15 (right). The worms, Palaeolumbricus dubius, are really ammonites. The "worm" is also referred to in the 1930 review as the "now extinct Cro Magnon worm".

The Woofen-Poof is reported to appear as art on the walls of Cro Magnon cave, in an amulet of King Tutankhamen, and mentioned by both the Roman historian Eutropius and Marco Polo. No worries, archaeologists: there is something for everyone in the Woofen-Poof literature!

Fotheringham spends a great deal of time discussing the fascinating evolutionary history of the Woofen-Poof. The Woofen-Poof, being unique as all heck, is the sole representative of its genus (Eoornis) and its class, the Pterovelocidae.

FACT: Remember the taxonomic ranks from high school? "-idae" endings are for family-level groupings, while "-ia" endings are for class- level groupings. Fotheringham really should have called this group the family Pterovelocidae, or the class Pterovelocia.

Fotheringham discuss several anatomy and behavior traits that link the Woofen-Poof to Australia. The small wings and historical diet of "Cro Magnon worms" of the Woofen-Poof suggest anatomy and behavioral links to the kiwi. The monograph also states that the Woofen-Poof shares a beak pouch with the pelican. Since all occur(ed) in Australia, Australia is the logical evolutionary birth-place of the Woofen-Poof.

Fotheringham completely rejects the evolution scenario presented by his colleague, Adolf Weilder-Goesser. The scenario is this: 1. Woofen-Poofs have retractable eye stalks, 2. Snails and other molluscs have retractable eye stalks, 3. Woofen-Poofs are birds. Naturally that brings us to 4. Birds and molluscs have an evolutionary relationship. Fotheringham rejects this idea based on the different speeds at which these animals travel: snails are slow, while Woofen-Poofs are fast.

Now we reach the point where Fotheringham discusses why the Woofen-Poof has proven to be the most significant discovery in paleontology history. When first discovered, Pterodactylus and Archaeopteryx were cited to be "missing links" between reptiles and birds. These two fossils were important fossil missing links, but what if a living missing link could be discovered? TA-DA! The Woofen-Poof shares many features with pterosaurs, particularly Pterodactylus avioancestricus, this it firmly cements the bird + Woofen-poof + pterosaur link.
Pterodactylus avioancestricus. Figure 34 from the 1928 monograph. According to the monograph, the paper describing this great new pterosaur was in progress in 1928. I guess we're still waiting.

What is the future of the Woofen-Poof? Fotheringham details bleak information on the unique neurological condition of Woofen-Poofs: a priori reasoning (reasoning that stems from theoretical knowledge) and a posteriori reasoning (reasoning that stems from observations and experiences) are perfectly balanced. In other words, Woofen-Poofs can easily be rendered indecisive, even to their own detriment. In what had to be a heart-wrenching experiment to perform, a Woofen-Poof was placed an equal distance between two piles of food. Its neurological condition rendered the poor Woofen-Poof unable to choose one pile of food over the other, resulting in its eventual death by starvation seven days later. Even if the Woofen-Poof can overcome its quirky indecisiveness, it may die between the ages of seven and 35 years due to deterioration of the lumbar ganglion. Poor, poor Woofen-Poof.
An unfortunate Woofen-Poof, rendered indecisive (and dead) after seven days between two piles of food. I challenge you not to be moved to tears by this pitiful scene. Figures 29 from the 1928 monograph.

Who are these interesting cast of characters?

1. The People

Augustus C. Fotheringham

A Google search of that name comes up with all things Woofen-Poof. It also comes up with information on the botanist Lester W. Sharp, pioneer in cytogenetics. Given that the images show the Woofen-Poof is quite obviously a metallic model (pick your favorite - they're all ridiculous), there can be little doubt that Sharp and Fraser knew they were not fooling anyone in the scientific community: this was a science joke, and an obvious one at that. That didn't stop Sharp from having what looks like a tremendous amount of fun with the Woofen-Poof. The monograph contains many references to the cytogenetics of the Poof, and has a dry chortle at not only cytogenetics, but archaeology, paleontology, biology, psychology, and several other science specializations. That didn't stop people from using the Woofen-Poof as serious science (see below: The Hoaxed).

Brigadier-General Sir Cecil Wemyss-Cholmondeley, and the Wemyss-Cholmondeley Expedition

I don't think it will come as a surprise to learn that there was no person who bore that exact moniker. The name appears to contain parts of names of several real British generals and brigadiers, notably General Sir Henry Colville Barclay Wemyss (1891–1959), and Major-General Allan Cholmondeley Arnold (1893–1962). Alas, this means there is no Wemyss-Cholmondeley camera shutter, and no upcoming monograph on the fictional Pterodactylus aviancestricus.

2. The Hoaxed

Yes, someone took the Woofen-Poof seriously. A cringe-worthy article in Eugenics Review by Anthony Ludovici from 1933 cited examples of incest or consanguineous breeding in nature to support the "purification of [human] stock". One of these examples is our poor Woofen-Poof. I had hoped the article was satire, but that hope was dashed when I read the Wikipedia page for the author. Read the titles of his works ye mighty, and despair. I'll leave this here for anyone who wants to use it.

Eternal gratitude to Mammals Suck...Milk! for posting this gif. My quality of life has improved tremendously since.
Clearly the Woofen-Poof had made the academic rounds by 1933. I'm assuming that Ludovici didn't bother to contact Sharp to obtain a copy of the monograph, or else he would have realized the Woofen-Poof was not the best example to lend credence to his work. The alternative is that even if he did know, he may not have cared. Cherry-picking data, poorly researching data, and misrepresenting data to "prove" a pseudoscientific idea (and sometimes a scientific idea) isn't new. It would be simple to just laugh at the old-time racist (and elitist, and misogynist, and ableist...he was committed to being an unsavory character), but it's difficult to laugh when these beliefs are alive and squirming today.

Our New "Discovery" (a.k.a. Having more fun with the Woofen-Poof)

There have been no reports of the Woofen-Poof since its announcement in 1930. At the time of its description, the Woofen-Poof was thought to be restricted to the Gobi Desert. Fortheringham suspected the Woofen-Poof had a larger range than described in the 1928 monograph, and proposed Australia as the next logical place to search for this elusive bird.  However, in a groundbreaking discovery of the utmost scientific importance, we report the possible presence of the Woofen-Poof in northeast British Columbia. Allow me to present my evidence, Woofen-Poof style.

Yup. Totally 100% legit Woofen-Poof tracks in BC. Hey, why are you laughing?
This picture was taken today. There are three tracks in a single trackway of a small, three-toed trackmaker. These tracks most closely match bird footprints, but they do not match any known bird from the Peace Region. They are remarkably similar in shape to the prints that I interpret at Woofen-Poof prints. These prints do not display the reported hopping behavior, as these prints were made by a bird that was not under stress. Also, ammonites (or Cro Magnon worms of Fortheringham, 1928) the ancestral food of the Woofen-Poof, were present in BC during the Mesozoic. While this trackway does not 100% confirm the presence of a northern North American population of the elusive Woofen-Poof, we'll be keeping our eyes out for more evidence. Stay tuned!

Now to be serious.

Why am I so amused by this paper? It shows that scientists have a sense of humor, and have had a sense of humor for a long time. Science usually presents itself as serious business, and we spend a lot of time writing serious scientific papers. Our research has to be professional - we have to get the facts out so they are clear, because other people make real decisions that impact real people based on these studies. There's not a lot of room in these papers for puns, groaners, and Muppet Show antics. Sometimes I think non-scientists (and even a few scientists) forget that we're also human beings, and we're human beings who appreciate humor.

Social media is a great place to check out where scientists regularly poke fun at themselves and their craft. Hashtags such as #scienceamoviequote come up regularly. #scienceamoviequote quote falls under the category of the inside joke: scientists are making fun of their terminology, statistical tests, paper writing (and rewriting, and rewriting...), grant writing, committee posts, exam grading, and all of the other trials of academic life. These are jokes by scientists, for scientists. Since we all have had to deal with these issues, we poke fun at them with our colleagues to break down that feeling of isolation and frustration that inevitably results from working in a demanding field. The Woofen-Poof is an elaborate inside joke. A non-scientist has a very good chance of either not understanding that it is a joke, and/or taking it as a serious piece of scientific literature.

We also find the humor in events which have a broad appeal. Collecting our data can put in silly and embarrassing situations, as demonstrated by #fieldworkfail. Everyone can relate to getting a vehicle stuck, losing that important bit of equipment, or have an animal cause mischief. We also realize that some of the subjects we study may sound giggle-worthy (like genitals). Laugh away (we do), but mating and genitals are just as important to document as any other parts of an organism's behavior and anatomy, as we saw in #junkoff.

We also encounter those who abuse joking in science. There are still too many people in every discipline who express their biases towards junior and/or underrepresented groups, and then try to excuse their words as "just a joke" when they are later told they were being unprofessional (see Dr. Kate Clancy's "Jokes that Don't Work" and Hilda Bastian's "Just Joking?"). An easy rule: if the "joke" turns an underrepresented group and the issues they face into a punchline, it's not a joke. Treat people the way you would want to be treated if you were in their position.

Humor is a great outreach tool when used properly. A non-scientist may not completely understand why I need to (or would want to) spend a lot of time trekking through the wilderness looking for bird footprints, but they can appreciate how funny it is if I sink up to my waist in muck, or have my backpack attacked by my study subject.
This juvenile White-tailed Ptarmigan, a tiny alpine game bird, cheekily strutted up to my back pack and hissed at it. Photo by L. G. Buckley.
Humor can be a bridge connecting the general public with the scientific world. I think the people who are the most intimidated by the idea of science are those who don't know (and may not care) exactly what it takes to do the science. It's easy to reject something you can't feel any connection to. Science isn't a scary secret conspiracy, and the people who do science don't sit up nights thinking of ways to pull one over on the unsuspecting public. We do work, and that work is finding out as much about the natural world as we can so that we can better understand our place in it. That work, like any other work, has moments of joy and frustration, satisfaction and discouragement, hazard and humor. Scientists experience all of these moments as people, not papers. The serious paper is only one small part of the entire experience of conducting a scientific study. The more we talk about how we get to the final results, the less scary the process seems.

Has anyone else seen the elusive Woofen Poof?


References

Brief notices. 1930. New biological books. Quarterly Review of Biology 5(1):98-131. Check out pages 112-113 of this article.

A. C. Fotheringham. 1928. Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis. The Buighleigh Press, London, 1-34.