Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on October 30, 2015 The Woodward factor: Arthur Smith Woodward’s legacy to geology in Australia and Antarctica SUSAN TURNER1,2,3* & JOHN LONG4 1Queensland Museum Ancient Environments, 122 Gerler Road, Hendra, QLD 4011, Australia 2Department of WA-OIGC/ Applied Chemistry, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6102, Australia 3School of Geosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia 4School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia *Corresponding author (e-mail: paleodeadfi[email protected]) Abstract: In the pioneering century of Australian geology the ‘BM’ (British Museum (Natural History): now NHMUK) London played a major role in assessing the palaeontology and strati- graphical relations of samples sent across long distances by local men, both professional and ama- teur. Eighteen-year-old Arthur Woodward (1864–1944) joined the museum in 1882, was ordered to change his name and was catapulted into vertebrate palaeontology, beginning work on Austra- lian fossils in 1888. His subsequent career spanned six decades across the nineteenth to mid-twen- tieth centuries and, although Smith (renamed to distinguish him from NHMUK colleagues) Woodward never visited Australia, he made significant contributions to the study of Australian fos- sil fishes and other vertebrates. ‘ASW’ described Australian and Antarctic Palaeozoic to Quater- nary fossils in some 30 papers, often deciding or confirming the age of Australasian rock units for the first time, many of which have contributed to our understanding of fish evolution. Smith Woodward’s legacy to vertebrate palaeontology was blighted by one late middle-age misjudge- ment, which led him away from his first-chosen path. ASW’s work, especially on palaeoichthyol- ogy with his four-part Catalogue of Fossil Fishes, was one of the foundations for vertebrate palaeontology in Australia; it continues to resonate, and influenced subsequent generations via his unofficial student Edwin Sherbon Hills. Some taxa, however, have never been revisited. Australia was still virtually an unknown continent, at the connections and paths travelled to get those at least in terms of geology, in the late nineteenth specimens to him (summarized in Tables 1 & 2). century when Arthur Smith Woodward (ASW) The latter comprise what Klemun (2012) has termed entered the scientific ‘stage’ in London. There were the ‘Spaces in Between’, and address the circulation no trained vertebrate palaeontologists employed in of natural objects in those spaces between the place the budding colonies and territories at the time of collection and their destination. The problem for (Moyal 1986). Prior to his series of papers and the far Southern Hemisphere – Australasia and Ant- books documenting the Australian fossil fish fauna, arctica especially – is not only the shortage of scien- starting in 1890 and going through to the early tific people on the ground but also the terrible 1940s, only e´migre´ Paul Strzelecki from Poland tyranny of distance, measured as a cost in terms of (Turner 2011b), American visitor James Dwight either time or money, to get the specimens to the Dana (1848), Charles Moore of Bath, appointed right place for study (Vickers-Rich & Archbold Immigration Minister for Queensland (Turner 1991; Long 2000; Turner 2011a). Specimens from 1988), and Irish e´migre´ Frederick McCoy (1890) the Australasian region had to cross enormous dis- had made meagre direct contributions to the study tances to reach ASW. This consideration might of Australian Mesozoic and Palaeozoic fish (Long counter recent claims of those, such as the blogger & Turner 1984; Long 1995, 2011, see below). quoted below, who have assessed ASW’s reputation McCoy’s fossil fish works, sadly missing from on only one aspect of his work, the Piltdown Man Grey & Evans (2001), were largely small papers or debacle. This damning blog, which totally ignores single-page descriptions accompanied by large lith- his major contributions to vertebrate palaeontology, ographic illustrations within his Prodromus of the proclaims: Palaeontology of Victoria (McCoy 1874–82). Woodward was a powerful and influential figure at the Here we consider the content and character of time, though not a wise one. He gained a reputation for ASW’s Australian scientific contributions and look using his influence to marginalize promising younger From:Johanson, Z., Barrett, P. M., Richter,M.&Smith, M. (eds) Arthur Smith Woodward: His Life and Influence on Modern Vertebrate Palaeontology. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 430, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.15 # 2015 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on October 30, 2015 S. TURNER & J. LONG Table 1. Arthur Smith Woodward: Australian and Antarctic fish taxa studied Original name Date/Ref New name if any Acanthodes australis 1906a Acentrophorus? sp. 1908a to Promecosomina formosa (Woodward) Wade, 1940 (see Long & Turner 1984) Aetheolepis mirabilis 1895a scales noted by ASW in 1893 – see Appendix Apateolepis australis 1890e Aphnelepis australis 1895a Archaeomaene robustus 1895a Madariscus robustus (Woodward) Wade, 1942 Archaeomaene tenuis 1895a Atherstonia australis 1902a Belonorhynchus gigas 1890e Saurichthys gigas (Woodward) (Stensio¨, 1925) Belonorhynchus gracilis 1890e Saurichthys gracilis (Woodward) (Stensio¨, 1925) Belonostomus sweeti 1892 Richmondichthys sweeti (Etheridge Jnr & Woodward), Bartholomai, 2004 Ceratodus avus 1907b ‘cestraciont’ 1890e unknown, presumed hybodont shark Cladocyclus sweeti 1894 Cladocyclus? (Long & Turner, 1984); ‘indeterminate teleost’ Berrell et al., 2014 Cleithrolepis altus 1890e Cleithrolepis alta (Woodward) Wade, 1935 Cleithrolepis granulatus Egerton, 1890e, 1908a 1864 Coccolepis australis 1895a coelacanth indet. 1895a Ctenodus breviceps 1906 Delatitia breviceps (Woodward) Long & Campbell, 1985 Ctenolates avus 1902a Dictyopyge illustrans 1890e Dictyopyge robusta 1890e Dictyopyge symmetrica 1890e Elonichthys armatus 1908a Elonichthys davidi 1940b (but see Mitchell 1925) Elonichthys gibbus 1906 Novogonatodus gibbus (Woodward) Long, 1988 Elonichthys semilineatus 1908a Elonichthys sweeti 1906 Mansfieldiscus sweeti (Woodward) Long, 1988 Elopopsis marathonensis (Etheridge 1908b Woodward introduced the new genus name Jr, 1905) Elpisopholis dunstani 1908a Eoserranus hislopi 1908a Indian taxon used by ASW for comparison taxon in Australia Eupleurogmus cresswelli M’Coy, 1906 1890 Gosfordia truncata 1890e Gyracanthides murrayi 1906 Lepidotus souzai 1908a Brazilian taxon used by ASW for comparison in Australia Lepisosteus indicus 1908a Indian taxon used by ASW for comparison in Australia Leptolepis gregarius 1895a ¼ Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Arratia, 1997) Leptolepis lowei 1895a ¼ Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Arratia, 1997) Leptolepis talbragarensis 1895a Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Woodward) Arratia, 1997 Myriolepis latus 1890b Myriolepis lata (Woodward) Wade, 1935 Myriolepis pectinatus 1908a Myriolepis pectinata (Wade, 1931, 1935) Notopetalichthys hillsi 1941 ‘ostracoderm’ or ‘psammosteid’ 1921 ¼ Turinia antarctica Turner & Young, 1992 Palaeoniscus crassus 1908a Palaeoniscum crassus (Woodward) (re genus see Turner & Long 1987) Palaeoniscus feistmanteli 1890a Palaeoniscum feistmanteli (Woodward) (re genus see Turner & Long 1987) (Continued) Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on October 30, 2015 SMITH WOODWARD’S AUSTRALIAN WORK Table 1. Continued Original name Date/Ref New name if any Peltopleurus dubius 1890e Tripelta dubia (Woodward) Wade, 1939 (in Wade 1940) Pholidophorus australis 1908a to Promecosomina formosa (Woodward) Wade, 1940 (see Long & Turner 1984) Pholidophorus gregarius 1890b Platysomus summetrica 1908a Pleuracanthus parvidens 1908a Mooreodontus? (Woodward) sensu Ginter et al., 2010 Portheus australis 1894 Xiphactinus australis (Woodward) Bardack, 1962 Pristisomus crassus 1890e Pristisomus gracilis 1890e Pristisomus latus 1890e Sagenodus laticeps 1908a to Ceratodus avus (Woodward) Kemp, 1982b (see Kemp 1991) Semionotus australis 1890e Zeuchthiscus australis (Woodward) Wade, 1939 (in Wade 1940) Semionotus formosus 1908a Promecosomina formosa (Woodward) Wade, 1940 Semionotus tenuis 1890e Strepsodus decipiens 1906 Barameda decipiens (Woodward) Long, 1989 Urosthenes latus 1931 palaeontologists who he saw as a threat to his status, could access a copy, see e.g. Mather 1986) and and had an unscientific tendency towards self promo- more restricted monographs, such as Newberry’s tion, attaching himself to newsworthy discoveries (1889) Paleozoic Fishes of North America, or relied and burying others. He was eventually discredited by on popular literature such as Hugh Miller’s (1841) the Piltdown forgery (Bauwens 2012). The Old Red Sandstone. Australian-based scientists G. G. Simpson (1944) countered, cited the CFF as soon as it was available (e.g. Jack & Etheridge 1892, p. 296). The fact that it [Piltdown Man] was an out-and-out fake Here we record the details of ASW’s work chro- was not established until nine years after Sir Arthur nologically and stratigraphically and look at how died. This was the one great mistake in all of Smith he interacted with local workers. Prior to 2012, Woodward’s extremely voluminous work. He certainly his work in Australasia and Antarctica had not never