The Great Fossil Enigma (39 page)

In the spring of 1970, at the East Lansing meeting, Melton and Scott prepared to reveal all: “The sensational paper of the morning however was the one by W. Melton and Harold Scott on the progress they had made in studying the ‘conodont bearing animal' found in the Early Pennsylvanian of central Montana. Harold Scott presented the paper, reconstructed the animal, named parts, and proposed physiological functions for the parts. He suggested the conodonts are ‘stomach teeth' supporting a digestive organ. 3 specimens contain conodonts, but only one has the conodonts arranged like assemblages.”
¹⁷
By the repetition of structures, chemistry, knowledge of assemblages, and an awareness of “similar” creatures (like the famed near-vertebrate amphioxus), they had made sense of the flattened, seventy-millimeter-long, cigar-shaped animal. Their beast was “not comparable to…any living or fossil animal.” Its most standout feature was a distinctive black spot at its center. Above this was a triangular darkened patch within which the conodonts were found. This was the animal's gut, and in it the conodonts supported a filtering structure. From the animal's symmetry they imagined it “in almost perfect balance; very little energy would be required to move the animal in any given direction.” Melton and Scott supported their claims with a chart that gave percentage values to the accuracy of their interpretations. This revealed that they were certain of the orientation of the animal and that an organ holding the conodonts existed in the animal's gut. What they were uncertain about was the form of this structure. As they put it in the published account, “These facts, in addition to the generalized surviving shape of the animal, make it a distinct possibility that some ancestral conodont animal could have given rise to the vertebrates and possibly to the protochordates, though perhaps all protochordates had a common Cambrian ancestor.” The term protochordate was used to describe the non-vertebrate chordates such as amphioxus. In drawing these conclusions, Scott found British vertebrate paleontologist Bev Halstead's view that conodonts might belong to a filter-feeding, planktonic protovertebrate most useful.
¹⁸

Some delegates expressed skepticism, believing this was an animal that ate the conodont animal. Others felt the fossils were inconclusive. One of the doubters, John Huddle, imagined Melton and Scott were disappointed by these interpretations, but the two men showed no sign of this after the event. Melton was thinking about the animal's biology on the flight back, clearly having enjoyed himself. He wrote to Scott to suggest that the tail of the animal must have contained stiffening rods to enable it to swim. Its midregion would flex a little perhaps and the head area not at all. Melton's arguments were precise and informed by what they could see in the specimens. Clearly the animal was still developing, and this required reasoned speculation. Having rented his house to the incoming departmental chairman, Melton now returned to the field with sufficient monies to continue the work.

Scott could do little else but think about the meeting. Rhodes, who had written to him to congratulate him on his “excellent paper,” was now planning to produce a book to be published by the Geological Society of America and assumed their paper would be included. The date for submission was December 1, 1970, giving Scott and Melton an opportunity to benefit from the excavations that were shortly to begin. Scott, however, was rather less concerned about adding to what they knew, preferring instead to see the earliest possible publication. To that end he considered publishing the paper through his university. He told Rhodes he could have it, if it did not take two years to appear – in which case he would go elsewhere. He pressed for publication before mid-1971 and requested copious illustration.

If the conodont workers imagined Scott in a state of disappointment, they could hardly have been more wrong. He made no mention of any criticism, having evidently dismissed it as ill-informed. After the meeting, he received so much public attention that he could not have failed to feel a sense of triumph. A flurry of letters and cards requesting a copy of the paper arrived almost immediately from amateurs, professionals, and an interested public. Melton and Scott's paper had hit the media network, appearing in the national and local press across the country and attracting attention internationally.

One of these letters came from Springfield, Ohio, and concerned the illustration of the fossil possessed by Richardson. It was apparently drawn by the author of the letter. The headline in the Springfield paper had read “Missing Link,” which stimulated the writer to give the terms by which the illustration might be used: $30 per single use and $150 for full rights. Scott, no doubt with a little glee, responded that the illustration was “technically incorrect and cannot be used.” A cardiovascular professor heard of this “ancestor of primitive fish” in the
Denver Post.
As a leisure-time paleontologist excavating and publishing on ancient fish, he wanted to know more. He asked Scott for “technical information” and Scott replied, “It has about twelve fish characters and about an equal number of non-fish characters. Perhaps its single most interesting feature was its ability to produce calcium phosphate in the form of filter-feeding structures.” Scott said the paper describing the animal would be published in a year. The editor of
Perimeter
– “A Journal of Human Frontiers” that concerned itself with the sometimes wacky edge of science – had read about “the ‘minnow-like fossilized creature' which reportedly links invertebrate and vertebrate animals” in the
Washington Post.
He wished to publish a report. An author preparing a popular book on evolution, a schoolgirl in New Jersey, and a researcher in oral tissue had all read a similar announcement in the
New York Post
and sought further information. A reader of the
Oakland Tribune
in California – which reported “Another Link – 400 million years ago, simple forms of sea life grew tails and rudimentary backbones, and a Michigan professor thinks he has found a fossil of one that fills the gap between vertebrates and invertebrates” – believed he possessed similar material and offered to send it to Scott. Someone in Des Moines, Iowa, wrote to Scott thinking that Scott was probably the best person to identify the fossils in her table top. She sent photographs. A community college teacher in New York wanted a slide for teaching his general zoology class. A geology graduate drafted into the armed forces and serving in Vietnam was attempting to keep abreast of his science and wanted to know more.

The public had their curiosity pricked. As one put it, “The subject fossil find was reported in a local Washington newspaper about a month ago and ever since, like thousands of others I'm sure, I've found it difficult to contain my curiosity.” An avid consumer of
Scientific American
and
Natural History Magazine
, she had telephoned staff at the Smithsonian to get more information, but they knew nothing. The article itself, like all these articles, failed to mention the conodont, a term too arcane for mass consumption. But this reader was sufficiently perceptive to guess: “The newspaper article description sounded like a primitive amphioxus and I'm wondering if there is any relationship to that animal. Also, I'd be interested in knowing if Mr. Melton's find may turn out to be the long-suspected bearer of the conodont. I know that the conodont is thought by many to be a filter-feeding mechanism, and the newspaper account did say that the fossil under investigation has a plankton-straining digestive system.” Some had clearly been hanging on for further details in the popular scientific press. This was certainly the hope of a reader of the
San Francisco Chronicle
who understood that Melton was the finder and Scott the interpreter of the fossil. Scott answered all the enquiries and put most correspondents on a mailing list for the paper when it was published in 1971. Others asked for his
Micropaleontology
paper on blebs, which Scott had set up as successfully predicting Melton's find.

One interesting aspect to this sensation is that there were actually two sensations masquerading under the same façade. One concerned the long-term enigma of the conodont. The other concerned the discovery of a “missing link,” the “missing” suggesting scientific prediction and final resolution in the story of life. The idea of “missing links” had long existed in the popular imagination, most importantly in the search for human origins. It was an easy notion that could translate the arcane into the popular. Of course, the idea that the conodont animal might exist in that ambiguous borderland between vertebrate and invertebrate was also not new. In Scott's youth, if the animal was a worm, it was one with some vertebrate attributes. It was logical, then, to look for vertebrate and invertebrate characters. The truly bizarre nature of the animal did nothing to prevent this, though this way of seeing was entirely due to Scott's belief that this really was the conodont animal. It was those same reasons he had fired at Lange – most notably the presence of single assemblages in each of the animals – which meant these fossils could be nothing other than the animal itself.

Scott continued to work on the paper, correcting and rewriting sections in the light of the meeting, planning to enter the field on June 24. He had also got a handle on the budget and gave Melton instructions: $400 for a graduate assistant, $400 for expendable equipment and supplies, $1,033 for Melton's salary, $1,000 for food and living, $550 for truck rental, $1,000 “to pay for services rendered to the quarry man,” and $1,000 maximum for the rental of the bulldozer. Scott was now convinced that they could make better progress with a little nitroglycerine: “Believe me, Bill, a man who knows his business could blast that off almost layer by layer; and a great quantity of material could be quickly and readily examined.” He wrote to Jean Lower, who had evidently had had an accident, to wish her well. She responded: “My bruises are healing and the scar tissue is forming – at first my knuckles looked as if they have been completely skinned.” She continued: “The fish and other not yet identified critters (worms and plant material) are coming out rapidly and several specimens which closely resemble our animal but as yet, we have only the one smudge containing three different elements.”

Their relationship with Allen had not improved. They found themselves told off daily for covering up stacks of his good building stone, stone that Lower and her colleagues could not remember seeing. Horner believed “some guy from Lewistown made off with it.” The complaint meant that they might have to spend days uncovering that stone. Scott, who had formed his opinions on the basis of rumors and personal communications, remained doubtful of Allen, but Lower reassured him: “By the way, he does sell this stuff because I have talked with two people who have bought from him, so he is legitimate, at least that far.” Scott also tried to pay the $575 to Melton, wondering if through a little manipulation of receipts this might be possible, but it would require the quarry owner's involvement. And that relationship was still cold. Allen had, however, reluctantly done some blasting, but Scott felt the task required greater expertise and he made arrangements for an explosives man to visit the site.

At the end of July, the money spent, Scott planned the return of the truck. Melton told him that would be the end of the field season as he had already broken the axle housing on his own car. It had been a disappointing year. The fossils were interesting but not numerous, and now Horner had cut his hand badly and, after the stitches were removed, was told not to work for a week. Melton sent Scott what he had: “I found something that looks like a large beetle and some water mites about ½ to ¾” across. Finding ones that are recognizable makes it easier to explain some of the little blebs but not others.”

With Melton's family now moving back into their own home, Scott relented and found another month's truck rental. As he did so, problems with the quarry owner came to a head. These called for a telephone conference between Scott, Melton, Horner, and Lower.

None of this activity was being communicated outside their circle. Scott was upbeat, telling correspondents that they had found two more conodont animals during that summer's excavations. A little optimism was politically astute if he was to make another grant bid, but the reality was rather different. Melton wrote to Scott on the last day of August, “I am sending you the conodont that I found last week. It was a very frustrating summer. I had expected to find at least eight more conodonts and found only one real good specimen.” This recent find had come from exactly the same place Melton had found his previous fossils. It seemed to add to the detail that could be observed in the other specimens, and Melton postulated a respiratory function for some of the observed structures.

Melton had by then dealt with the quarry owner, who would “be no trouble any more.” He had “got the Bureau of Land Management to check his claim and it will be declared invalid.” He later said, “I had the land withdrawn from any mining use” at the recommendation of the Bureau, even though that organization would have liked quarrying to continue. To collect from the Bear Gulch strata on government land one would now need a collecting permit, but Melton had spoken to all the landowners in the area and reported “it will be all right to collect more if we want to.” Melton now began to count the fossil finds for reporting purposes. Among them were still unknown bits of potential: “I will send all of the bleb material to you. Some of it is larval forms of something, I am sure.” When the boxes arrived, Scott admitted that they were indeed very interesting fossils.