This article was downloaded by: [JJ Liston] On: 24 July 2013, At: 14:10 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ghbi20 Alfred Nicholson Leeds and the first fossil egg attributed to a ‘saurian’ J. J. Liston a b c d & S. D. Chapman e a Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Yunnan University , Kunming , People's Republic of China b National Museums Scotland , Chambers Street, Old Town, Edinburgh , EH1 1JF , Scotland, UK c School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol , Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol , BS8 1RJ , UK d Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow , Glasgow , G12 8QQ , UK e Department of Earth Sciences , The Natural History Museum , Cromwell Road, London , SW7 5BD , UK Published online: 18 Jul 2013. To cite this article: Historical Biology (2013): Alfred Nicholson Leeds and the first fossil egg attributed to a ‘saurian’, Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology, DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2013.809575 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2013.809575 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Historical Biology, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2013.809575 Alfred Nicholson Leeds and the first fossil egg attributed to a ‘saurian’ J.J. Listona,b,c,d* and S.D. Chapmane aYunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Yunnan University, Kunming, People’s Republic of China; bNational Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Old Town, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland, UK; cSchool of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen’s Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK; dInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; eDepartment of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK (Received 22 May 2013; final version received 26 May 2013) Discovered by the nineteenth century collector Alfred Nicholson Leeds, the first object to be described (1898) as a fossil reptile egg is a unique find from the Oxford Clay near Peterborough. It also comes from one of a very small number of Jurassic localities worldwide that can claim to have yielded a fossil egg. Given its historical and contemporary significance, this object is reassessed in the light of increased understanding of such objects. Data from scanning electron microscopy, computerised tomography, synchrotron imaging, X-ray diffraction and petrographic thin sectioning prove inconclusive. However, the presence of apparent external openings resembling angusticanaliculate pores – a pore type common only to certain types of dinosaur eggshell – in both size and sparseness of distribution prevents its summary dismissal as not being a dinosaurian egg. Keywords: Alfred Nicholson Leeds; dinosaur egg; Oxford Clay; Callovian Introduction specimens excavated by Alfred Leeds vastly exceeds The Alfred Leeds collection is one of the major fossil 1000 individuals, which includes the holdings of many marine reptile collections in the world (Liston 2006). It museums around the world that bought Alfred Leeds’ was assembled by the gentleman-farmer Alfred Nicholson material (usually simply marked ‘Oxford Clay, Peterbor- Leeds (1847–1917) from specimens retrieved from ,30 ough’) from the dealer Bernard Stu¨rtz of Bonn. These pits excavated in the Middle Jurassic (Callovian) Oxford figures serve to illustrate that Alfred Leeds was no casual Clay in the vicinity of Peterborough, England, by a variety collector, and had a very great familiarity with fossils from of brick manufacturing companies since 1874. The the Oxford Clay. Indeed, his understanding of the popularity of this clay with these companies was because distinctive nature of the fossil animals from the Oxford of its high-carbon content, which made the bricks Clay was often greater than that of his contemporary effectively ‘self-firing’, therefore significantly cheaper to professional peers (Young et al. 2013), and therefore it is manufacture and so more profitable to sell. From this worth respecting his opinion today, with regard to objects sudden industrial increase in excavation, a steady parallel that he identified as unusual within the context of his Downloaded by [JJ Liston] at 14:10 24 July 2013 exposure of fossils for collectors resulted. The ease with prodigious experience of excavation of the Callovian clay. which the clay could be washed from three-dimensionally Among the marine reptiles that form the bulk of his preserved vertebrate skeletons meant that the fossilised collection, there are more rare items, such as the remains animal remains could be displayed in the same way as of a pterosaur, dinosaurs (Noe´ et al. 2010) and the first contemporary zoological skeletons, rather than mounted in large vertebrate suspension feeders, which are the pioneers a limestone slab, as with many marine reptile fossils of the planktivorous niche occupied today by whale commonly available at the time to museums (e.g. from sharks, basking sharks and baleen whales (Liston et al. Holzmaden or Solnhofen). This preservation meant the 2013). skeletons lent themselves more to detailed study, and In 1898, Alfred Leeds sold another highly unusual enabled workers such as Lydekker (1889), Seeley (1889), fossil to the (then) British Museum (Natural History): Smith (1889) and most significantly Andrews (1910, 1913) accessioned as ‘an egg of a saurian’, NHMUK PV R2903 to describe many new taxa from Alfred Leeds’ collection. possessed only curiosity value, until the announcement of This resulted in type material distributed between more the discovery of dinosaur eggs in the Gobi Desert by the than 650 specimens at the Hunterian Museum (University American Museum of Natural History’s Third Asiatic of Glasgow) and more than 350 at the Natural History expedition to Mongolia in 1922, led by Roy Chapman Museum (London). The total number of vertebrate Andrews. In response, The Sphere in 1923 proclaimed that *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] The contribution of S. Chapman was authored as part of her employment and therefore copyright is asserted and retained in the contribution by The Natural History Museum. J. Liston waives his right to any copyright in the Article but not his right to be named as co-author of the Article. 2 J.J. Liston and S.D. Chapman these discoveries were nothing new, as the Oxford Clay had yielded a fossilised reptile egg in England some years earlier (A fossil reptile’s eggs unearthed in England 1923; Leeds 1956, p. 76). Thus, the claim to the first fossilised reptile egg had already been made. Eggshell fragments from dinosaur/reptile eggs had been found before; Philippe Matheron had described the first such remains from the south of France in 1859 (Buffetaut and Le Loeuff 1994). However, this claim was new because the Oxford Clay egg appeared intact and more or less complete. In 1928, Van Straelen published a review of fossil eggs, and figured the Oxford Clay specimen together with a description; however, he was cautious about referring to it as an egg (Van Straelen 1928). Again, in 1950, dinosaur eggs were reported from Figure 1. Sketch illustrating the three means of delivery of a ‘saurian egg’ into the Jurassic marine realm: simple recruitment Tanzania. In response, the British Museum’s William as per the works of Evans (2012) and Hayward et al. (1997); Elgin Swinton was commissioned by the Illustrated transportation in the floating corpse of a maternal animal and London News to do an article on the discovery (Swinton transportation by a flying reptile or ‘pteroportation’. Copyright 1950), within which he referred to the Oxford Clay ‘egg’ and courtesy of Robert Nicholls at www.paleocreations.com. and suggested that it might have been laid by an ‘amphibious dinosaur’. The Alfred Leeds’ curio has subsequently been reassess this specimen from the Oxford Clay with the aim overlooked for decades and continues to lack a satisfactory of clarifying its nature. identification. Although included in Carpenter and Alf (1994; no. 71 on p. 19) and Carpenter’s (1999; no. 16 on Materials and methods p. 260) checklists of finds, where it is listed as ‘camptosaurid(?) egg’, it has received little serious As a unique object within the collections of the Natural consideration since the work of Van Straelen (1928). History Museum (London), NHMUK PV R2903 was The reason for this may be due to the perceived subject to severe restrictions in terms of analyses. For unlikelihood of a fossil egg occurring within the marine example, no samples could be removed from the deposits of the Oxford Clay.