Re: Bolides and Paleo. History

From
Date

My apologies to everyone seeing this stuff more than once... The
bolide topic was brought up by mail sent simultaneously to the
dinosaur list and PaleoNet (unfortunately version 6 of listproc makes
such cross-posting impossible to detect unless you run the system or
are subscribed to both lists...)  In any case, I've forwarded some of
the PaleoNet messages to dinosaur, and this response to dinosaur
seemed like it should go back here as well.

--
Mickey Rowe     (rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu)

  Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:00:28 -0500
  From: "King, Norm" <nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu>
  To: Multiple recipients of list <dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu>
  Subject: Re: Bolides and Paleo. History

  Mickey Rowe (04/03/96; 12:39p) forwarded a message from Norm MacLeod
  treating on bolide impacts, plus some interesting peripheral
  questions:
 
  > This recurring reference to extinctions as the hot paleo. topic of
  > the day is interesting all by itself... [snip] ...In reading the
  > pre-1972 paleo.  literature I don't get the impression that paleo.
  > in the '50's and '60's was dominated by single issues in quite the
  > same way. However, I must admit that my entire paleo. career has
  > been spent in the shadow of these two controversies and so I may
  > simply lack an appreciation for the detailed history and
  > significance of older paleo. controversies.  Did our science
  > change into somewhat of a "single issue" discipline in the '70's?
  > If so, why and has this been a good thing? If not, what were the
  > burning questions of previous times and did they burn as brightly
  > in the technical and popular literature?
  >
  >  Norm MacLeod

  I think Norm is referring to the maturing of our science.  In the
  50's and 60's, as well as before, people were still building the
  database of paleontology--we were still just discovering what's out
  there in the fossil record.  Prior to the surge of interest in
  science following Sputnik, paleontology was an esoteric pursuit (and
  it probably still is, by most people's opinions).  The first volumes
  of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology came out in 1953, under
  the guidance of R. C.  Moore.  George Gaylord Simpson wrote _The
  Major Features of Evolution_ in 1953.  In the late 50's, studies of
  Midcontinent cyclothems, including their faunas, were big (spurred
  by R. C. Moore, J. Marvin Weller, and H.  R. Wanless "the elder"),
  and Marshall Kay was explaining geosynclines and their faunas.
  Continental drift and plate tectonics were being mentioned
  tongue-in-cheek (poke, poke!) around 1960.  Alan B. Shaw wrote _Time
  in Stratigraphy_ in 1964, Willi Hennig published _Phylognetic
  Systematics_ in 1966, and Ernst Mayr published _Principles of
  Systematic Zoology_ in 1969.  These were all milestones in the
  development of modern paleontology, and they happened only in the
  50's and 60's.  There was much discussion of each of them when they
  were current.
  
  I attended many meetings of the Geological Society of America in the
  70's where sessions on sedimentology, or stratigraphy, or
  paleontology would draw a few dozen participants, and the sessions
  on plate tectonics would fill the biggest auditoriums available,
  with people sitting in the aisles and standing all around the room.
  Today, sessions on the K-T boundary are still popular, but are
  perhaps declining a bit now.  The dinosaur sessions draw good crowds
  (hundreds at national meetings), but 20 years ago there would have
  been no such sessions at all.  So, all areas in geology have seen
  single issues rise to prominence, then fall.
  
  Now the database for paleontology is larger and better known than
  ever before (that's profound!).  More people are now looking at
  larger questions, with a legitimate hope of eventually generating
  concrete answers.  And some of the questions concern much more than
  just paleontology.  Bolide collisions and their effects on the
  biosphere, for example; Greenhouse vs. Icehouse climates, and their
  effects on the biosphere; effects of orogenies on long-term
  atmospheric trends, hence on the biosphere.  These (and others) are
  critical questions that we know to ask today, and have a reasonable
  expectation of answering.  If we can, we may do quite a service to
  mankind, and it's worth the effort.  So, I don't think our science
  is going downhill because we are so sharply focussing on these kinds
  of issues.  Instead, paleontology can change its image from that of
  an esoteric pursuit by ivory-tower intellectuals to a science at the
  heart of our concerns over the future of the world.  Paleontology
  may be the most threatened discipline within geology now (yes,
  paleontology IS part of geology; always has been!).  Clearly, that
  isn't warranted.  Bring up some of these points the next time anyone
  questions the value of paleontology to society or to a geology
  program.

  Folks, you heard it here!
 
  Damn!--Why did I write all this?  I got work to do.


  *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
  Norman R. King                                       tel:  (812) 464-1794
  Department of Geosciences                            fax:  (812) 464-1960
  University of Southern Indiana
  8600 University Blvd.
  Evansville, IN 47712                      e-mail:  nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu