Interview with Mark McMenamin about his work and Triassic Kraken hypothesis
pc.sk: Could you, please, describe your main scientific interest, to introduce your work to our readers?
Mark McMenamin: My main scientific interest is the processes that led to the development of complex life on our planet. Therefore, my paleontological interests are very broad, extending from the Precambrian (Rodinia supercontinent) to the Cambrian Explosion to the Pleistocene (Homo tsaichangensis). My main research specialty is the Ediacaran fossils and fossils of the Cambrian Explosion.
pc.sk: In 1990 you coined a name for a supercontinent which was formed ~1 bilion years ago and was one of two greatest supercontinents in the Earth history. Why did you choose russian word "rodina - family" as a base for the supercontinent name Rodinia?
Mark McMenamin: I chose the Russian word root "rodina-family" for supercontinent Rodinia to honor the work of the great Russian geoscientists, and also to foster peace, mutual respect, and friendship between East and West.
pc.sk: Your hypothesis of Triassic Kraken brought up attention of media and scientific community in 2011. Idea of existence of inteligent life on Earth more than 200 million years ago is stunning. How and in which moment this idea came to your mind? We are interested in story about first moments when this hypothesis was created.
Mark McMenamin: I was very puzzled after my first visit to Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada. The presence of so many large ichthyosaur bones preserved in what are clearly deep water strata did not fit any model for the emplacement of large bones that was familiar to me. When I returned to our hotel in Reno, Nevada, I spent a long time studying the photographs I had taken that day at the site. Looking closely at the Specimen U photograph, it suddenly became clear to me that a ferocious predator--a large and highly inteligent deep water cephalopod--could help explain the anomalous accumulation of large ichthyosaur bones at the Berlin-Ichthyosaur site.
pc.sk: Unusual ideas have usually a very hard life. What was the response of scientific community to this one?
Mark McMenamin: The response to our Triassic Kraken hypothesis is also quite puzzling. First, the concept went viral on the science-reporting internet sites. Some of my colleagues got emotional and angry about the idea and were unable to give it proper evaluation. Perhaps they were jealous because of all the press coverage. Other, more thoughtful colleagues accept the Triassic Kraken idea and believe that it is likely to be correct, particularly the concept that a large and cunning predator must have killed the ichthyosaurs. There was a story about the idea in Nature magazine, and I appeared on the radio program Science Friday: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141356526/seeing-a-cephalopod-in-ancient-bones
pc.sk: It seems that the hypothesis has two main parts. First is that rows of vertebral discs fossils at Berlin–Ichthyosaur State Park can not be formed naturally. That such formation can be made only by some inteligent life. What are the main supporting arguments that discs can not be organized in this way by currents or similar natural agents?
Mark McMenamin: The vertebral disks do not form a hydrodynamically stable pattern, plus they are out of sequence with regard to their placement within the ichthyosaur skeleton. Currents could not have formed them into that pattern. Also, we located a second example of the Specimen U array, next to an ichthyosaur skeleton with ribs that had been cracked by bands of constriction. These are all very unusual features to observe on the Mesozoic deep sea floor. The best explanation is the action of a large cephalopod.
pc.sk: If the first part/hypothesis is convincing, then questions, who was that intelligent author of formation, appear. Why do you think that it was Kraken? Is Kraken the only candidate here?
Mark McMenamin: I will say two things about this. First, we are learning more and more about the amazing intelligence of the modern octopus. It is entirely plausible that such intelligence existed in the sea during the Mesozoic. Second, there were large cephalopods in the seas long before the first reptiles appeared, in fact, long before the first tetrapods walked on land. Cephalopods have had plenty of time to develop high intelligence, and compared to marine tetrapods like ichthyosaurs, they had a significant head start, so to speak, on the encephalization process.
Whether or not the legendary Kraken of Norse legends ever existed, or is still alive but has eluded capture so far, I do not know.
pc.sk: In 2013 you brought new arguments and fossils supporting the Triassic Kraken hypothesis validity. Have they convinced some skeptical paleontologists?
Mark McMenamin: The new evidence we presented included the second Specimen U-type array, an ichthyosaur with constricted and crushed ribs, and a possible fragmentary specimen of a large cephalopod beak. I believe that more people were indeed convinced after we presented the new evidence.
pc.sk: Comming to present days, to year 2015, has the Triassic Kraken hypothesis some new arguments or proofs?
Mark McMenamin: I am working on a new book for Springer with the working title Dynamic Paleontology. It will be finished in April 2016. There will be a chapter in this book on the Triassic Kraken, and how this creature fits into my concept of the development of complex life over time. This chapter will include new evidence bearing on the Triassic Kraken controversy. For example, my field expedition group has discovered an ichthyosaur coprolite, so we now know what the large ichthyosaurs were eating. We plan to present these new data at the Geological Society of America Meeting this Fall in Baltimore, Maryland.
pc.sk: In your opinion, which argument would be the final proof for or against the Trassic Kraken hypothesis.
What kind of argument would convice you that this hypothesis is not valid?
What would convince you of opossite, that this idea is finally fully proved?
Mark McMenamin: If someone were to demonstrate that the strata are in fact shallow water deposits (this was Charles Camp's originial idea) rather than deep water strata, then to my mind this would disprove the Triassic Kraken hypothesis. The ichthyosaurs would then represent a beach stranding or something similar. If other types of large marine reptile skeletons were found together with the Shonisaurus ichthyosaurs, this would also go against the hypothesis. One point in favor of the Triassic Kraken theory is the fact that all the skeletons belong to the same species. They were the deep divers that got into the territory of the Triassic Kraken and were attacked and drowned. Please be aware that there is no absolute proof in science. There is always room for doubt and for questioning results. That is how science works. If, however, we were to find more geometrical patterns made from icthyosaur bones in Nevada, then I would consider the Triassic Kraken concept to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Credit: Nobu Tamura
Mirko Oravec
Pavol Bobik
boj
MM