“The Deep Historical Roots of Development and Evolution: Dental Morphological Evolution”

Kate MacCord (Marine Biological Laboratory)

At the close of the 19th century, debate arose around the nature of mammalian dental morphological evolution. This debate, which pitted paleontologists against embryologists, surrounded two theories: the tritubercular and concrescence theories. The former was formulated by the American paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Henry Fairfield Osborn during the 1880s. The latter was proposed by the German embryologist, Carl Röse, in 1892. Both of these theories explained the morphological development and evolution of mammalian teeth, but did so in very different ways. Cope and Osborn’s tritubercular theory arose from fossil evidence and described a pattern of morphological transition over an evolutionary timescale. Meanwhile, Röse’s concrescence theory arose from embryological evidence and described how mammalian teeth formed on a developmental timescale. While the theories were not prima facie incompatible, the proponents of these theories saw their work as conflicting. This conflict lay not in the formal statements of either theory, but within assumptions about things like homologies, types, and the nature of the relationship between development and evolution that these researchers held as part of their scientific worldviews. This paper presents the history of this debate between proponents of the tritubercular and concrescence theories, and lays out how unstated assumptions led to conflict between two theories that were not logically incompatible. By tracing this history and teasing out the assumptions that were backgrounded in the research programs of Cope, Osborn, and Röse, this analysis will show the pivotal role that unstated assumptions can play shaping in the history of science.

“Where is the Cradle of Humankind? Geographical Assumptions in Fossil Debates”

Paige Madison (Arizona State University)

When anatomist Raymond Dart announced the stunning discovery of a fossil “man ape” from South Africa in 1925, his colleagues were skeptical. Dart’s fossil—a small primate skull he had nicknamed the Taung baby—defied contemporary theories of human origins; namely, the prevailing assumption that humankind had emerged in Asia, not Africa. Though this geographical assumption factored into the Taung debate over the next two centuries, it was almost never addressed. Ultimately, however, this assumption played a large role in the Taung fossil being swept aside as an uninteresting gorilla, rather than a human ancestor. It would be decades before Taung resurfaced as a potential human ancestor, precisely the “man ape” Dart had imagined.

This paper examines the role the underlying assumption of the geographical location of human origins played in the Taung debate in the mid-twentieth century. This issue of location was infused with political and cultural undertones that went unaddressed while playing a formative role. This paper will contribute to the growing body of literature that emphasizes the processes that render an object meaningful as it moves across borders and boundaries, from field sites to laboratories, and across continents and oceans. Rare and delicate scientific objects such as Taung that have the potential to shed light on a topic as personal as human history provide particularly useful example for revealing cultural and political tensions in the construction of scientific knowledge.

“Assumptions of Authority: How the Story of ‘Sue’ Enlightens a Contemporary Controversy in Paleontology”

Elizabeth Jones (University College London)

Dinosaur fossils are simultaneous sources of interest to paleontologists and the public for their scientific, entertainment, and commercial value. They are also a source of controversy. Scholars have documented the emergence of American paleontology regarding the role of fossil collecting as it evolved from an amateur to an academic practice. Scholarship has also discussed how the cultural or commercial value of fossils has caused competition between individuals and institutions. However, scholars have not addressed the contemporary controversy in America over fossil ownership with attention to how relationships between academic, amateur, and commercial fossil collectors shape paleontological practice. This talk focuses on the case of “Sue,” the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex ever excavated. Sue, discovered by the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research in 1990, was confiscated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, then auctioned and purchased for $8.36 million by the Field Museum with finances from McDonald’s and Disney. This talk explores the role of assumptions in paleontological practice involving issues of who has authority to access and analyze fossils, especially exceptional fossil finds with high media and monetary value. Through examination of legal and historical documentation, and oral history interviews with fifteen academic, amateur, and commercial fossil collectors, I use Sue’s story to demonstrate how assumptions of authority shape science. I argue that assumptions concerning authority are an underlying but unexamined cause of controversy affecting the production of knowledge in paleontology, not only in the case of Sue, but throughout the history of paleontology on a national and global scale.