The Woodward factor: Arthur Smith Woodward’s legacy to … · 2017. 2. 8. · The Woodward factor: Arthur Smith Woodward’s legacy to geology in Australia and Antarctica SUSAN

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, Australia2Department of WA-OIGC/ Applied Chemistry, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6102, Australia

3School of Geosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia4School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,

Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia

*Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: In the pioneering century of Australian geology the ‘BM’ (British Museum (NaturalHistory): 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 orderedto 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 unitsfor the first time, many of which have contributed to our understanding of fish evolution. SmithWoodward’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 vertebratepalaeontology in Australia; it continues to resonate, and influenced subsequent generations viahis unofficial student Edwin Sherbon Hills. Some taxa, however, have never been revisited.

Australia was still virtually an unknown continent,at least in terms of geology, in the late nineteenthcentury when Arthur Smith Woodward (ASW)entered the scientific ‘stage’ in London. There wereno trained vertebrate palaeontologists employed inthe budding colonies and territories at the time(Moyal 1986). Prior to his series of papers andbooks documenting the Australian fossil fish fauna,starting in 1890 and going through to the early1940s, only emigre Paul Strzelecki from Poland(Turner 2011b), American visitor James DwightDana (1848), Charles Moore of Bath, appointedImmigration Minister for Queensland (Turner1988), and Irish emigre Frederick McCoy (1890)had made meagre direct contributions to the studyof Australian Mesozoic and Palaeozoic fish (Long& Turner 1984; Long 1995, 2011, see below).McCoy’s fossil fish works, sadly missing fromGrey & Evans (2001), were largely small papers orsingle-page descriptions accompanied by large lith-ographic illustrations within his Prodromus of thePalaeontology of Victoria (McCoy 1874–82).

Here we consider the content and character ofASW’s Australian scientific contributions and look

at the connections and paths travelled to get thosespecimens to him (summarized in Tables 1 & 2).The latter comprise what Klemun (2012) has termedthe ‘Spaces in Between’, and address the circulationof natural objects in those spaces between the placeof collection and their destination. The problem forthe far Southern Hemisphere – Australasia and Ant-arctica especially – is not only the shortage of scien-tific people on the ground but also the terribletyranny of distance, measured as a cost in terms ofeither time or money, to get the specimens to theright place for study (Vickers-Rich & Archbold1991; Long 2000; Turner 2011a). Specimens fromthe Australasian region had to cross enormous dis-tances to reach ASW. This consideration mightcounter recent claims of those, such as the bloggerquoted below, who have assessed ASW’s reputationon only one aspect of his work, the Piltdown Mandebacle. This damning blog, which totally ignoreshis major contributions to vertebrate palaeontology,proclaims:

Woodward was a powerful and influential figure at thetime, though not a wise one. He gained a reputation forusing 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

by guest on October 30, 2015http://sp.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/

Table 1. Arthur Smith Woodward: Australian and Antarctic fish taxa studied

Original name Date/Ref New name if any

Acanthodes australis 1906aAcentrophorus? sp. 1908a to Promecosomina formosa (Woodward)

Wade, 1940 (see Long & Turner 1984)Aetheolepis mirabilis 1895a scales noted by ASW in 1893 – see AppendixApateolepis australis 1890eAphnelepis australis 1895aArchaeomaene robustus 1895a Madariscus robustus (Woodward) Wade, 1942Archaeomaene tenuis 1895aAtherstonia australis 1902aBelonorhynchus gigas 1890e Saurichthys gigas (Woodward) (Stensio, 1925)Belonorhynchus gracilis 1890e Saurichthys gracilis (Woodward) (Stensio, 1925)Belonostomus sweeti 1892 Richmondichthys sweeti (Etheridge Jnr &

Woodward), Bartholomai, 2004Ceratodus avus 1907b‘cestraciont’ 1890e unknown, presumed hybodont sharkCladocyclus sweeti 1894 Cladocyclus? (Long & Turner, 1984);

‘indeterminate teleost’ Berrell et al., 2014Cleithrolepis altus 1890e Cleithrolepis alta (Woodward) Wade, 1935Cleithrolepis granulatus Egerton,

18641890e, 1908a

Coccolepis australis 1895acoelacanth indet. 1895aCtenodus breviceps 1906 Delatitia breviceps (Woodward)

Long & Campbell, 1985Ctenolates avus 1902aDictyopyge illustrans 1890eDictyopyge robusta 1890eDictyopyge symmetrica 1890eElonichthys armatus 1908aElonichthys davidi 1940b (but see Mitchell 1925)Elonichthys gibbus 1906 Novogonatodus gibbus (Woodward) Long, 1988Elonichthys semilineatus 1908aElonichthys sweeti 1906 Mansfieldiscus sweeti (Woodward) Long, 1988Elopopsis marathonensis (Etheridge

Jr, 1905)1908b Woodward introduced the new genus name

Elpisopholis dunstani 1908aEoserranus hislopi 1908a Indian taxon used by ASW for comparison

taxon in AustraliaEupleurogmus cresswelli M’Coy,

18901906

Gosfordia truncata 1890eGyracanthides murrayi 1906Lepidotus souzai 1908a Brazilian taxon used by ASW for comparison

in AustraliaLepisosteus indicus 1908a Indian taxon used by ASW for comparison

in AustraliaLeptolepis gregarius 1895a ¼ Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Arratia, 1997)Leptolepis lowei 1895a ¼ Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Arratia, 1997)Leptolepis talbragarensis 1895a Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Woodward)

Arratia, 1997Myriolepis latus 1890b Myriolepis lata (Woodward) Wade, 1935Myriolepis pectinatus 1908a Myriolepis pectinata (Wade, 1931, 1935)Notopetalichthys hillsi 1941‘ostracoderm’ or ‘psammosteid’ 1921 ¼ Turinia antarctica Turner & Young, 1992Palaeoniscus crassus 1908a Palaeoniscum crassus (Woodward) (re genus see

Turner & Long 1987)Palaeoniscus feistmanteli 1890a Palaeoniscum feistmanteli (Woodward) (re genus

see Turner & Long 1987)

(Continued)

S. TURNER & J. LONG



palaeontologists who he saw as a threat to his status,and had an unscientific tendency towards self promo-tion, attaching himself to newsworthy discoveriesand burying others. He was eventually discredited bythe Piltdown forgery (Bauwens 2012).

G. G. Simpson (1944) countered,

The fact that it [Piltdown Man] was an out-and-out fakewas not established until nine years after Sir Arthurdied. This was the one great mistake in all of SmithWoodward’s extremely voluminous work. He certainlynever knew that his Eoanthropus dawsoni was a hoax.I am happy that he did not know this. I am also dis-gusted that he is now remembered mostly for this onebig mistake and not for his thousands of correctlynamed and identified specimens in his hundreds of pub-lications [our emphasis].

We agree with Simpson’s view and so to balancethe sometimes-negative reviews of ASW’s work,we record his main scientific achievements inAustralian geology and palaeontology and assesstheir relevance today. Smith Woodward wrote 13major studies on the geology and palaeontology ofAustralian fossil fishes over a period of 50 yearsand his contributions to Australian and Antarcticpalaeontology are summarized in Table 1 and theAppendix. Figure 1 shows the major localitieswithin Australia that ASW worked on. He alsoused Australian data in other ways, including forat least three parts of his magnum opus, the Cata-logue of Fossil Fishes (CFF). Before the publicationof this work, the English-speaking world made useof Louis Agassiz’s (1833–44) major five-volumework Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles (if they

could access a copy, see e.g. Mather 1986) andmore restricted monographs, such as Newberry’s(1889) Paleozoic Fishes of North America, or reliedon popular literature such as Hugh Miller’s (1841)The Old Red Sandstone. Australian-based scientistscited the CFF as soon as it was available (e.g. Jack &Etheridge 1892, p. 296).

Here we record the details of ASW’s work chro-nologically and stratigraphically and look at howhe interacted with local workers. Prior to 2012,his work in Australasia and Antarctica had notbeen assessed historically, although contemporaryreviews can be found, and an appreciation of hislong-term and pervasive influence is well overdue(Turner 2012a). We hope to provide insights intothe factors that made him the pre-eminent palaeon-tologist for decades in Australia. The last fewdecades have seen a resurgence in the study of fossilvertebrates, and particularly fossil fish palaeontol-ogy in this region, with significant increases in ourunderstanding of the evolution of major groupssuch as the placoderms, sharks and ray-finned fishes(e.g. Long 2011). This modern research has beenbuilt on a strong foundation, including that providedby ASW’s work, and often necessitates revisitingthe scientific conclusions he presented.

Eminent and accessible

Until the end of the nineteenth century ‘great’ scien-tific men were mostly lacking from the homegrownscientific community in the farthest outposts of thegrowing British ‘Empire’. Although geological

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 1890bPlatysomus summetrica 1908aPleuracanthus parvidens 1908a Mooreodontus? (Woodward) sensu Ginter et al.,

2010Portheus australis 1894 Xiphactinus australis (Woodward) Bardack, 1962Pristisomus crassus 1890ePristisomus gracilis 1890ePristisomus latus 1890eSagenodus 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, 1940Semionotus tenuis 1890eStrepsodus decipiens 1906 Barameda decipiens (Woodward) Long, 1989Urosthenes latus 1931

SMITH WOODWARD’S AUSTRALIAN WORK



Table 2. List of Arthur Smith Woodward’s connections and co-workers in Australia and Antarctica helping to span the ‘spaces in between’, the long distance to the NaturalHistory Museum, London

Year Link/co-author Collector/sender Age Stratigraphy Site Taxa Artist Place

Pre-1888 Reginald Murray Late Devonian–Carboniferous

MansfieldVic

‘Fish’ MV

1888 Fred McCoy Late Devonian–Carboniferous

Mansfield Gyracanthides n.g.Rytidaspis murrayiGlyptolepisCosmolepides sweetiChiropalus lantreeiEupleurogmus cresswelliPteraspis? mansfieldensis

Dr Wild Ann RepMinesNHM

1880s Rev. Arthur WilliamCresswell

Late Devonian–Carboniferous

Mansfield fish MV

1880s George Sweet Late Devonian Mansfield fish MV

1890 Edgeworth David Bernard Dunstan Triassic NarrabeanGroup

GosfordNSW

CleithrolepisPristisomusSaurichthysGosfordia

Berjeau &Highley

NHMGSNSWAM

1892 Robt Etheridge Jr George Sweet Cretaceous RollingDowns

Qld Richmondichthys‘Belonostomus’sweeti

F. H. Michael NHMQM

1895 Mr Arthur Lowe ofWilberforce

Jurassic TalbragarNSW

‘Leptolepis’ lowei AM

1895 Charles Cullen Jurassic Talbragar GSNSW

C. S. Wilkinson Govt geologist NSW1902 Govt geologist NSW Permian

late TertiaryAtherstonia australisCtenolates avus

A. H.Searle

AM

1906 Nat Museum Vic. Board Mansfield Gyracanthides murrayi‘Elonichthys’Acanthodes

Dr Wild MV

Edward Pittman Govt geologist NSW Talbragar GSNSW1908 W. S. Dun Govt geologist NSW ‘Pleuracanthu’ parvidens NHM

GSNSW

1931 late Permian Urosthenes australis

1940 Mr John Mitchell late Permian NewcastleCoalMeasures

‘Elonichthys’ davidi Photo Mitchell1925

1941 J. A. WattGovt geologist EdwinSherborn Hills

‘Middle’Devonian

TaemasGroup

Notopetalichthys hillsi Photo

S.

TU

RN

ER

&J.

LO

NG by guest on O

ctober 30, 2015http://sp.lyellcollection.org/

Dow

nloaded from


emigres visited Australia, and a few stayed, mostrocks, minerals and fossils were sent back to the‘home country’ and, after its construction in thelate nineteenth century, especially to the premierVictorian geoscientific institution, the BritishMuseum of Natural History (BM(NH), now NaturalHistory Museum, NHMUK; e.g. Mozley Moyal1976; Strahan 1979; Mather 1986; Turner 1986,2011a; Fortey 2008). In the field of vertebrate palae-ontology, one man, Richard Owen, dominated theearly development of the subject in the Empire,and was later knighted for his ‘creation’ of theBM(NH), which opened in 1881 (e.g. Stearn1981). This ‘cathedral of science’ became thehome to almost all important Australian fossilsin the pioneering 150 years of Australian palae-ontology (Sheets-Pyenson 1988; Young 2015).Nineteenth-century discoveries of fossil fish weremade but, as noted above, scientific descriptions ofthese are relatively rare, and specimens sometimescame to grief as they crossed the ‘tyrannical’ dis-tance between Australia and the UK, at a time

when sea was the only means of transport betweenthem (Moyal 1986; Turner 1986, 1988, 2011a, b).

By the end of the century a young employeeat the NHMUK, Arthur Smith Woodward fromMacclesfield, Cheshire took over Owen’s formerrole of colonial scientific doyen. To the Australiancommunity especially, ASW became the font ofknowledge on vertebrate palaeontology. We can-not underestimate the importance of this far-flungexpert to the growth of geological knowledge inthe burgeoning late-nineteenth-century British col-ony and later after Australian Federation in 1901.By this time ASW had already prepared an auto-biographical extract, and awards, a knighthood andFellowship of the Royal Society were to come(Smith 2011, 2012). His role spanned five decadesin its direct influence (see the Appendix) and thework that he did has endured even though many ofhis taxonomic and geological assessments havebeen modified (e.g. Long & Turner 1984; Table 1).Reviews of his life and works were provided bySir C. Forster Cooper (1945) and ASW’s successor

Fig. 1. Locality map for major fossil fish research projects by A. Smith Woodward in Australia.




Errol I. White (1945), by E. S. Hills (1958) inAustralia, and several new assessments are pre-sented in this volume. Assessments of his fossilfish work were few until last year’s special sympo-sium celebrating the 150 years since ASW’s birth(e.g. Wade 1935; Turner 1982; Long 1991, 1995,2011, Forey 2004, 2015; Lopez-Arbarello 2004;Smith 2014), but in general his taxa have eitherstood up well to scrutiny or else have not been revis-ited until very recently, with new cladistic andmorphological analyses coming into play and theapplication of novel techniques such as CTscanning.

Feeling his feet at the ‘BM’

Even a brief look at his background (e.g. ForsterCooper 1945; Smith 2011) shows that ASW wasnot one of the chosen (aristocratic) few, but camefrom the provincial upper middle class. The Wood-ward family were prominent in the silk industry. Hisparents Edward Woodward and Margaret Smith hadfour children; Arthur was the oldest, born in Mac-clesfield, Cheshire on 23 May 1864. He grew intoa lively, intelligent boy who did well at school andin examinations, and showed an early grasp of sci-ence (Wymer 1999). However, despite attendingOwens College, Manchester in his mid-teens, andcoming under the influence of vertebrate palaeontol-ogist William Boyd Dawkins, ASW did not take adegree at this stage. Young Arthur Smith Woodwardwas, like so many of the Victorian-educated mid-dle class, competent and hard working and able totake and make the most of opportunities offered tohim (e.g. Allen 1976; Briggs 1983). His primeopportunity came in the form of an opening to jointhe scientific staff of the NHMUK in 1882 (Stearn1981; Smith 2011), and this led to his lifetimeemployment (Shindler & Smith 2015).

ASW came to London to begin his job just threemonths past his eighteenth birthday. Dr HenryWoodward (1832–1921), the Keeper of Geology,superintended ‘all, and he again – with the otherchiefs – is under the direction of Prof. Owen’.

Dr. Woodward said he had been wondering whether itwould not be better for me to change my name, but hethought by putting ‘Smith’ always in full with it therewould be no confusion.

As ASW reminisced further after his first day,

I am to be the special assistant of Mr. Davies, and thereis no-one else but us two in the Vertebrata Section.Dr. Woodward says that Mr. Davies, after being thereso long, knows a very great many things about the his-tory of the specimens that no one else does, and that ifhis assistant does not perpetuate all he can learn aboutthem these details will be lost to the Museum whenMr. D. leaves. Thus, he says, I can make myself in

time indispensable to the Institution, if I am able toobtain from Mr. D. all or part of this information (quo-tations from ASW’s first letter home to his mother:Townsend 1962).

In order to learn more about comparative anatomyand vertebrate palaeontology, ASW attended theSwiney Lectures given at the NHMUK by Scottishfossil fish expert, Ramsay Heatley Traquair (1840–1912) in 1883. George Swiney (1786?–1844) waseducated at Edinburgh University, whence he grad-uated M.D. in 1816; he left £5000 to the BritishMuseum to found a lectureship in geology, the lec-turer to be an Edinburgh M.D. ASW would often‘wrangle’ with Traquair later in his career but atthis stage he considered him his teacher, especiallyfor Palaeozoic fishes (Paton 2004).

Right at the beginning of his career, ASW fell in‘among the Invertebrata’, associating closely withMessrs Robert Etheridge Sr (1819–1903) and hisson Robert Etheridge Jr (1846–1920; Fig. 2b).Etheridge Jr joined the Geology Department in1878 to help with the packing and transportationof the NHMUK collection from Bloomsbury toSouth Kensington. In 1887 he left the Museum totake up the post of Palaeontologist to the GeologicalSurvey of New South Wales (GSNSW) and laterbecame Director of the Australian Museum (Dun1927; Strahan 1979; Walsh 1981; Sheets-Pyenson1988). In Sydney he would become one of ASW’sfuture, rare, co-authors (see Tables 1–3) and a per-sonal link between the far ‘spaces’ of scientific con-nection (cf. Klemun 2012).

After learning the basic tenets of curation in hischosen discipline and having passed his probation,ASW was put to work by the Keeper on the newlyacquired collections of fossil fish purchased fromSir Philip Malpas de Grey Egerton (1806–82) andhis friend Lord Cole, William Willoughby, 3rdEarl of Enniskillen (1807–86), in 1882 and 1883,and to undertake a major catalogue of NHMUK fos-sil fishes. This task set ASW’s major research objec-tives from this point onwards (e.g. White 1945;Stearn 1981; Forey 2004, 2015; Smith 2012).These two very important fossil fish collections con-tained many type specimens figured by Agassiz inRecherches sur les Poissons Fossiles (1833–44)plus many other specimens of the highest quality.Noteworthy is that Egerton was one of ASW’srare ‘predecessors’ in receiving colonial fish speci-mens from New South Wales (e.g. from the Rever-end William C. B. Clarke, ‘Father of AustralianGeology’; Egerton 1864; Moyal 2003; Young2011).

ASW asked for or was encouraged to take onthe Keeper’s daughter, Gertrude Mary Woodward(1854–1939), to illustrate this major work. Alreadyan experienced artist, for the next three decadesshe drew extensively for ASW, including the

S. TURNER & J. LONG



Fig. 2. A. Smith Woodward and some of his connections and co-workers in Australia and Antarctica:(a) A. S. Woodward, at a time of his maximum authority as fossil fish expert to the British Empire; (b) RobertEtheridge Jr; (c) T. W. Edgeworth David; (d) Reginald Murray; (e) George Sweet; (f) Sir Frederick McCoy;(g) Benjamin Dunstan; (h) William S. Dun; (i) Frank Debenham; (j) Edwin Sherbon Hills. Portraits from WikipediaCommons or by courtesy of NHMUK and Royal Society of Victoria.




Table 3. Arthur Smith Woodward’s journal strategy for scientific publication

Year Subject Journal Co-author Plates Figs Place

1888 Varanus priscusMeiolania

Annals & Magazine ofNatural History

London

1890 TriassicHawkesbury NSW

Annals & Magazine ofNatural Historyabstract only ×2

London


Geological Magazineabstract only

London


Report of the BritishAssociation for theAdvancement of Science(BAAS)

?

1890 Triassic chondrich., actinopt,sarcopt

Hawkesbury NSW

Memoir of the GeologicalSurvey of NSW

TWED 12 1 Sydney

1892 Cretaceous actinoptQld

Transactions of the RoyalSociety of Victoria

Etheridge Jr 1 Melbourne

1893 Triassic actinoptscales

Natural Science London?

1894 Cretaceous actinoptQld


1 London

1895a Jurassic actinoptTalbragar


PittmanTWED

7 1 map Sydney

1900 Permian shark WA Geological Magazine Review only London

1902a L Carb.Vic 1st

Geological Magazineabs only

London

1902b Carb./Tertiary actinopt NSW Records of the GeologicalSurvey of NSW

1 Sydney

1903a L Carb. GyracanthidesVic

Geological Magazineabstract only

London

1903b L Carb. Vic. Report of the BAAS London

1904 L Carb. Vic. Report of the BAAS

1906 Cret. Lungfishdino* Vic

Annals & Magazine ofNatural Historyabstract only

?

1906 L Carb.Vic acanthodianssarcopt

Memoir of the Nat. Mus. 11 3 Melbourne

1907b Cret. lungfishdino* Vic

Records of the GeologicalSurvey of Victoria

1 Melbourne

1908 Triassic actinoptxenacanths


W. S. Dun 4 Sydney

1909 tetrapod*Meso?

Records of the GeologicalSurvey of NSW

1 Sydney

1910 Cret. dino*megalosaurian

Report of the BAAS ?

1916 DevonianAustraliaAntarctica

Proceedings of theGeological Societyabstract only

1921 DevonianAntarctica

British Antarctic (‘TerraNova’) Expedition

1 London?

1931 Permian actinoptcoal NSW


1 London

1940b Permian actinoptcoal NSW


1 London

1941 Devonian placodermNSW


1 1 London

*See Milner & Barrett (2015).

S. TURNER & J. LONG



illustrations for all four parts of the CFF.Second-eldest daughter of Henry Woodward andSophia (nee Page), Gertrude’s work, formallynoted (by her father) in his preface to Volume IIIof the CFF (H. Woodward 1895), includes platesand reconstructions (e.g. Australian Cleithrolepisin Fig. 3) executed under ASW’s direction. Thiswas the start of their long working relation-ship and she later went on to illustrate his

palaeoanthropological papers. Sadly no portrait ofGertrude has yet been found (Turner et al. 2010).

The CFF is still in use over 100 years later.No Australian specimens were entered into Part Ibut it typifies ASW’s (and Gertrude’s) achieve-ment, with no less than 3620 registered specimensdescribed or mentioned covering 21 families, 80genera of the 104 included and 291 species (Wood-ward 1889a); this volume includes 15 woodcuts

Fig. 3. Triassic fishes from the Sydney Basin, Gosford site. Plate from Woodward (1890e): (a, b) bony fishMyriolepis; (c) lungfish Gosfordia; (d) Egerton’s (1864) Cleithrolepis granulata (J. A. Long photograph);(e) Cleithrolepis granulatus specimen from the Australian Museum; (f) Cleithrolepis granulata from Woodward(1895b), reconstruction by ASW and his illustrator Gertrude Woodward.




and 17 plates with 205 figures by Gertrude. Part IIwas published just 2 years later (Woodward 1891)and by that time ASW’s scientific reputation world-wide was assured (White 1945). Glowing testimoni-als poured in from eminent palaeontologists ofthe day, including: NHMUK Director EdwinRay Lankester (e.g. Lankester 1891), ASW’s men-tor Traquair in Edinburgh; A. Milnes Marshall ofOwens College, Manchester; John Strong New-berry of Columbia College, New York; TheodoreGill of the Smithsonian Institution; and EdwardDrinker Cope in Philadelphia (Smith 2012). Bythe 1890s, ASW was firmly established as one ofthe NHMUK’s vertebrate palaeontologists. Besidesnumerous papers (Smith 2011), ASW began tocontribute definitive texts, such as Woodward &Sherborn (1890), his own textbook (Woodward1898), and later the translation of the fish sectionof Zittel’s Textbook of Vertebrate Palaeontology(Woodward 1902a), books that became the stan-dard reference in all parts of the Empire. Perhapshis ‘northern’ English background also made himmore approachable to the new class of overseas pro-fessional and amateur scientists.

ASW rose rapidly to be Assistant Keeper of theDepartment of Geology in 1892, when he wasonly 28 years old. With his public service careerguaranteed, in 1894 he married Maud Leonora IdaSeeley (1874–1963), the daughter of fellow verte-brate palaeontologist, Harry Govier Seeley (1839–1909) and Eleanora Jane Mitchell of Bath. Maudwas well versed in the discipline of geology; shehelped him in all of his work henceforward. TheSmith Woodwards seem to have had a happy lifetogether, rich in experience and with a wide circleof friends and colleagues, many of whom were dis-tinguished in their own right. The NHMUK pro-vided little financial support outside of his salary,so ASW had to fund almost all of his own traveland accommodation costs. The Smith Woodwardsbecame well travelled and enjoyed field pursuitssuch as Geologists’ Association excursions (Smith2011). Nevertheless, ASW did not visit Australiaand so never did see the in situ preservation or strat-igraphy of the material he studied, relying instead onlocal knowledge (see below).

Some Australian-based workers, however, werenot so favoured, at least not in the scientificexchanges at this time in ASW’s life. Smith(2012) noted that, in a response to a paper publishedin the Records of the Australian Museum in whichnewly appointed Australian Museum ichthyologist,Irishman James Douglas Ogilby 1853–1925 (Ware2013) described a new species and (tentative) newgenus of herring (Ogilby 1892), ASW intoned,

If Mr Ogilby had not shared in that lamentable igno-rance of extinct animals so conspicuous in a certainschool of zoologists, he might have been spared the

discussion of a point that was settled more than fifteenyears ago; and, instead of adding to the burden of syn-onymy, he might have been able to contribute an itemto the broad philosophy of the subject. As a matter offact, the doubly-armoured herrings were discoveredin 1877 by Professor E. D. Cope, who established forthem the genus Diplomystus – a genus now so widelyrecognised that it has already found a place in the ele-mentary handbooks (Woodward 1892).

ASW then went on to elucidate the really importantpoint that Ogilby had completely missed, namelythat

Diplomystus is one of the earliest known types of her-ring, having a very wide range in space during the latterpart of the Cretaceous and the early part of the Tertiaryperiod. It was evidently a characteristic fish of thosetimes, and no trace of the genus at a later periodseems to have been recorded until the publication ofMr Ogilby’s recent paper (Woodward 1892).

ASW continued ‘The occurrence of Diplomystus atthe present day in the freshwaters of Australia is thusanother interesting case of the survival of ancienttypes in remote places of refuge’ (Woodward1892). Smith (2012) stated that ‘I am assured thatthe manner in which ASW criticised Mr Ogilbywould be unusual in the extreme in a publicationtoday’. This, of course, is not quite right as banterbetween scientists does go on, but it is clear thatOgilby’s paper had ‘hit a nerve’ with ASW.

In 1901, ASW became both Keeper of Geologyand FRS; in 1917 he was awarded a Royal Medalby the Royal Society, the premier scientific body.At this time, he was known for his imposing pres-ence and iron constitution (Stearn 1981, p. 236).With his position secure, for the next 23 years heworked on many major projects, including fossilfish from the farthest corners of the Empire (e.g.Woodward 1915).

Australian work begins

ASW’s first paper on Australian fossils, in 1888,was on endemic fossil reptiles from Queenslandand Lord Howe Island, namely the giant lizard Var-anus (¼Megalania) prisca and the horned turtleMeiolania oweni (see Milner & Barrett 2015). Thefirst reptile found in the earlier wave of colonizationwas originally described by Richard Owen (Rupke1994). ASW’s study was cited and discussed byJack & Etheridge Jr in their seminal Geology ofQueensland (1892: pp. 633, 649–651); such mega-lizards and turtles were some of the first obvi-ous finds on the Australasian continent (MozleyMoyal 1976; Moyal 1986). ASW’s paper, writtenas it was after some years in the department andafter many working on fossil fishes, is something ofan anomaly. Homegrown workers emerged shortlyafter this date and went on to tackle descriptions

S. TURNER & J. LONG



of the marsupial and reptile bones (e.g. Mather1986; Turner 1986, 2005) and so ASW did not fur-ther pursue this line of research on Australian fos-sils. With respect to Australian material, hestrayed ‘higher’ than fishes on only a few moreoccasions, with an article on a Triassic amphibian,a curatorial article on the NHMUK Diprotodon,and one of the earliest references to dinosaurs andCretaceous lungfish (Ceratodus) in Australia (seeAppendix; Woodward 1907a, b, 1909, 1910;Kemp 1991; Long 1998; Milner & Barrett 2015).

By the beginning of the second volume of theCFF, ASW had expanded his work beyond the con-fines of Britain and away from the agnathan and‘primitive’ fishes to understand those with a widerdistribution. His knowledge of Southern Hemi-sphere fishes began first with African material inthe 1880s (e.g. Woodward 1889b; Anderson 1999).

In 1890, Etheridge Jr, by then director of theAustralian Museum, and another Englishman, Wil-liam Sutherland Dun (1868–1934; then govern-ment palaeontologist; see Fig. 2c, h), assembled alist of Hawkesbury Series species within the SydneyBasin of New South Wales. With no one in Austra-lia up to the task, some of the best fossil fish speci-mens were sent to London for formal description.By this time, ASW was probably the most experi-enced fish palaeontologist in the world, and so wasthe most qualified person to write descriptions ofthe fossils. ASW had turned his attention to theNew World, especially to the antipodean continentsduring his early researches for the second volume ofthe CFF in the late 1880s. This research culminatedin a series of four abstracts and papers on the Austra-lian ‘Hawkesbury Sandstones’ fishes, firstly fromrocks outcropping in a quarry at Gosford, openedto obtain railway ballast (Woodward 1890a–d).Figure 2 shows portraits of some of the people inAustralia who assisted and worked with ASW, aswell as those collectors he named taxa for (seealso Table 2).

This first major monograph (Woodward 1890e),which encompassed the Hawkesbury ‘Series’ bonyfishes and a shark, was accompanied by a geologicalchapter by the young Tannatt William EdgeworthDavid (1858–1934; Fig. 2c), who had recentlydecided to apply for the vacant chair of geologyand palaeontology at the University of Sydney; hewas selected by the local committee, against thechoice of a London fraternity appointed by the uni-versity to review overseas applicants. Gardiner(1985) emphasized that ASW knew personallyalmost all those connected with the subjects inwhich he was interested and that he and TWED,Edgeworth David’s nickname (Branagan 2005),became friends as a result of this first collaboration.David (1890) put forward a sedimentological andpalaeontological summary to assist ASW; this was

based on some of the Welshman’s early stratigraph-ical work in New South Wales (e.g. see Branagan2005). At first ASW thought the Hawkesbury fisheswere Jurassic in age, but by the time he had submit-ted his monograph to the Memoirs of the GeologicalSociety of New South Wales (Woodward 1890e), hewas favouring a Triassic age, confirming the pres-ence of deposits from this period in the state.

This diverse fauna of 19 species consistingmostly of actinopterygians, with one indeterminate,probably hybodont, shark (‘cestraciont’; Turner2011b, 2012b, NHMUK original specimen stillundetected), and one lungfish, Gosfordia truncata,was the first significant fauna of this age recordedfrom Australia. The lungfish (Fig. 3c), furtherdescribed by Kemp (1991), was the first fossildipnoan to be found in Australia; its discovery con-firmed the long history of this group in the region(Ritchie 1981; Long 1991) and the relationshipto the living lungfish, Neoceratodus (‘Ceratodus’)forsteri, which had only relatively recently cometo light in Queensland in the late nineteenth century(e.g. Kemp 2012). Today we know that the fishfauna from the Terrigal Formation at Gosford is ofSpathian/Bithynian age (Anisian, early Middle Tri-assic). Figure 3 shows examples of the fishes men-tioned in ASW’s paper.

ASW revisited the Triassic fishes of NSW asother sites were discovered and more material wassent on the long sea journey to London. Hedescribed the fossil fishes Atherstonia australisand others from the St Peter’s sites in NSW (Wood-ward 1902b, 1908a). In his introduction to the CFFPart II (Woodward 1895b), ASW acknowledgesNew South Wales Government geologists, first thelate Charles Smith Wilkinson (1843–91; Branagan2005) and his successor Mr Edward F. Pittman(1849–1932; Johns 1976; Vallance 1988; seeTable 2). Further specimens from Triassic siteswere later added to the state geological collectionand described in further detail by the Dublin-bornReverend Robert Thompson Wade of Australia(1884–1967; see also below; Wade 1931, 1935,1940, 1942). More recently, the late Peter Hutchin-son revised certain Brookvale taxa (Hutchinson1973). Several of ASW’s determinations have with-stood the test of time, including the validity of hisgenera Apateolepis and Pristisomus.

Most significant was Smith Woodward’s (1908a)work on a ‘Lazarus’ xenacanth shark from the Syd-ney Basin (Fig. 4). ASW began looking at Triassicsharks in the late 1880s, publishing on the Britishxenacanth ‘Diplodus’ moorei (Woodward 1889c;Ginter et al. 2010). This led to his next major workon well-preserved xenacanth specimens emergingfrom the newly federated Australia. Some 20 sitesaround Sydney were quarried in the late nineteenthto twentieth centuries for shale and clay and are




known collectively as the St Peter’s brick pits orquarries. They proved a rich source of fossils,most collected by amateurs. Fish and amphibianmaterial collected from the ‘Hawkesbury Sand-stone’ by Benjamin Dunstan (1864–1933; Fig. 2g)in the 1890s, went to GSNSW (Fig. 4a), and illustra-tions were sent to ASW, who eventually described anew species, ‘Pleuracanthus’ parvidens, based on areasonably complete type specimen (Fig. 4c), partand counterpart and associated specimens (Wood-ward 1908a). This discovery was the first articulatedand oldest-known Triassic xenacanth at the time andthe first from the Southern Hemisphere. The findconfirmed that these sharks not only were large (pre-vious Triassic xenacanths were known only fromsmall isolated teeth, first discovered in Britainby Charles Moore some 60 years earlier; Duffin1978), but also had survived well into the Mesozoicat the far end of the world. Dunstan was in NSWuntil 1896, then came to Queensland from 1897 to1931 and joined the Geological Survey of Queens-land (GSQ), later becoming Government Geologistand then Director of that institution (Johns 1976).

When he died, his widow sold his remaining speci-mens to the NHMUK (Fig. 4b).

This xenacanth is only now being re-assessedbased on the original type GSNSW collectionand new material found by local collectors sincethe 1960s, including Anne Howie (Warren), AlexRitchie, Mike Turner and Steve Avery. Ginteret al. (2010) placed this taxon, based on teeth, intothe European xenacanth genus Mooreodontus, butwork on the fin spine as well as the teeth suggestsa more basal position (Turner 2012b).

ASW revisited these interesting Triassic faunaslater in life, writing short papers on xenacanthsharks (Woodward 1940a) and describing ‘palaeo-niscoid’ fishes from the Upper Permian NewcastleCoal Measures (Woodward 1931, 1940b).

On to Talbragar

Charles Cullen, who worked for the Mines Depart-ment of NSW, collected about 400 complete fishspecimens from a new site near Gulgong, NSW.He had followed up on the finds of a local man,

Fig. 4. ASW’s Triassic ‘Pleuracanthus’ parvidens: (a) re-discovered in GSNSW register in 2012 with entries forfurther type material. (b) NHMUK collection labels from one of Benjamin Dunstan’s 1927 paratype specimens.(c) Holotype Pleuracanthus parvidens from Woodward (1908a), a specimen set in concrete, now in GSNSWLidcombe and never sent to London; note: ASW saw the illustrations only.

S. TURNER & J. LONG



Arthur Lowe of Wilbertree, who first communicatedwith Charles S. Wilkinson FGS, at GSNSW (Bean2007; Beattie & Avery 2012). Wilkinson thenordered Cullen, the fossil collector, to proceed.The Talbragar Fish Beds, located about 250 kmNW of Sydney (NSW), are now known to be adeposit laid down in a limited freshwater lake thathas produced many hundreds of fossil fish since itsdiscovery in 1890 (e.g. Ritchie 1987; Turner et al.2009). The most abundant species is Cavenderich-thys talbragarensis (Woodward, 1895a) (Fig. 5),first named by him as three new species of the ubi-quitous genus Leptolepis, but later renamed andrevised (Bean 2007). ASW examined the bonyfishes and noted first the unusual nature of the scalesof one holostean (Woodward 1893), a fish he laterdescribed and named Aetheolepis mirabilis (Wood-ward, 1895a). ASW continued to make use of thispivotal fauna in his wider work, both in the CFFand later using Archaeomene as an exemplar ofthe ‘pholidophorids’ (Woodward 1942).

ASW’s fossil fish descriptions and analysis ofthe Talbragar fishes helped to confirm the presenceof Jurassic rocks and faunas in Australia (Wood-ward 1895a; Bean 2006; Beattie & Avery 2012).This conclusion was supported by the geologistsTWED, now Professor of geology at Sydney Uni-versity, and Edward Pittman. They assisted withbackground local geological material (Pittman &David 1895) and together made a trip to the areain 1895 to study the relationship between the FishBeds and other nearby rocks.

Wade (e.g. 1940, 1953) later traversed the globeto work on the Talbragar and Triassic faunas.Ritchie (1987) made a short assessment of some ofthe Talbragar bony fishes. In the last decade, muchnew work has been done by professional, studentand amateur palaeontologists working together(e.g. Bean 2007). The age of the fossil bed hasbeen determined as Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian)by radiometric (SHRIMP) dating of an ash falljust below the fish layer, as approximately 151 Ma

Fig. 5. The Jurassic teleostean fish Cavenderichthys talbragarensis (Woodward, 1895a): (a) top specimen inAustralian Museum collection; (b) reconstruction after Bean (2007).




(Bean 2006); numerous immature fish fossils in ahigher layer, perhaps the remains of a fish nursery,were probably killed by a further ash-fall from anearby volcano (Bean 2006, 2007).

Cretaceous of Queensland

In the early 1890s Smith Woodward began descrip-tions of the well-preserved fishes from the Creta-ceous limestones and shales of the ‘Rolling DownsFormation’ of central Queensland. In 1891 ASWjoined former British colleague Robert EtheridgeJr to describe a new Early Cretaceous bony fishfrom western Queensland from Albian marinedeposits; it was named Belonostomus sweeti Ether-idge & Woodward, 1892, for its amateur collec-tor George Sweet (1844–1920; MacCallum 1990,Fig. 2e), although a D. P. Ryan also found a finespecimen at Hughenden. This taxon extended ‘stillfurther the ascertained geographical range of thisgenus during Mesozoic times’ (Jack & Etheridge1892, p. 407). Bartholomai (2004) redescribed thisfish as an endemic genus Richmondichthys sweeti.

Using material collected by Sweet, ASW identi-fied Portheus australis (Woodward, 1894, p. 97 pl.x, fig. 1) from Clutha Station, near Hughenden andCladocyclus sweeti, taxa originally based on North-ern Hemisphere genera. The work was beautifullyillustrated with a plate by F. H. Mitchell. Work inthe late twentieth century on this and new materialby Lees & Bartholomai (1987) showed that one ofthese fish was endemic to Gondwana, and it wasreassigned to new genus, Cooyoo australis. Morerecently, Berrell et al. (2011, 2014) claimed to bethe first to describe Cladocyclus, and the specimen

that ASW described is now thought to be Teleostiincertae sedis (Table 1).

An example of how this long-distance co-operation took place can be seen by examiningtwo letters exchanged between ASW and Etheridge(Fig. 6). ASW does not ‘lay down the law’ and isquite happy to take criticism from his senior Britishcolleague. Of course until the mid-twentieth centurythere were few techniques to prepare the specimensand sending photographs was the norm. Until thedevelopment of the acetic acid preparation methodby Toombs (1948), ASW was necessarily a pioneerin Cretaceous bony fish research, with little compar-ative material, except perhaps from Brazil. Ether-idge Jr described the next Cretaceous fish fromAustralia (Etheridge 1905); ASW corrected bothits familial and generic status (Woodward 1908b)and later Bardack (1962) confirmed ASW’sassessment.

Into the Palaeozoic

A small band of homegrown amateurs appeared inthe Australian colonies in the late nineteenth toearly twentieth centuries; several of these helpedASW directly or indirectly with their collectingskills (Fig. 2; Table 2). Palaeozoic fish remainshad been found in the Drummond Ranges of centralQueensland as early as 1890 by the recently arrivedNottingham man Charles Tucker Musson FLS(1856–1928) and presented to the GSNSW MiningMuseum in Sydney. Etheridge Jr made preliminaryassessments of these with help from his friend‘Mr. A. S. Woodward’, to whom he sent drawings.

Fig. 6. Two 1904 letters of exchange between A. S. Woodward in London and Robert Etheridge Jr in Sydneyregarding research questions on Cretaceous fish (courtesy NHMUK Fossil Fish section archives).

S. TURNER & J. LONG



ASW confirmed that there were palaeoniscid scalesclosely resembling those from other Carboniferouslocalities (Jack & Etheridge 1892, p. 139). Thisfirst glimpse of Palaeozoic material led later to sev-eral expeditions in the same area (by the authorsand others in the 1980s–90s) and subsequentlyto one of the major Australian vertebrate finds ofthe twentieth century – the first-ever Carboniferoustetrapod in the Southern Hemisphere, within thepalaeoniscid-rich Ducabrook Formation (e.g. War-ren & Turner 2004).

Another Englishman (from Northampton),GSQ’s William Henry Rands FGS (1861–1914),was a self-taught vertebrate palaeontologist. Randsfound an almost complete palaeoniscid fish further

north in the Star Basin, Queensland and this identi-fication was also confirmed by ASW (Jack & Ether-idge 1892, p. 136). The lovely specimen, named‘Palaeoniscus Randsi’ by Etheridge Jr for its dis-coverer (Jack & Etheridge 1892, pp. 186, 296), isstill in taxonomic limbo (Turner & Long 1987).Nevertheless with ASW’s expertise, the presenceof Carboniferous strata in Australia was recognized.

George Sweet, the above-mentioned English-born amateur, was investigating fossils in the Mans-field district of NE Victoria for Irish-born Professor(later Sir) Frederick McCoy (1817–99; Grey &Evans 2001; Fig. 2f): both men had arrived in thecolony mid-century. Sweet was mine manager ofthe Brunswick Brick, Tile & Pottery Co. at

Fig. 7. Gyracanthides murrayi Woodward, 1906, from the Early Carboniferous Devils Plain Formation, Mansfield,Victoria: (a) plate showing holotype, from Woodward (1906); (b) isolated pectoral fin spine form Booroolitelocality (Museum of Victoria specimen VP10255); (c) reconstruction of fish, modified after Warren et al. (2000).




Mansfield and he built up an extensive fossil collec-tion and worked for McCoy from 1888 to 1895.McCoy (1890) in his short report on the fossilsnoted that Sweet had ‘generously placed time andexperience at disposal of the NMV [‘National’Museum of Victoria] at his own expense exceptfor some paid labourers’; plates showing the bestspecimens were drawn and made under McCoy’ssupervision by a Swiss(?) illustrator, Dr Wild (e.g.Fig. 7). ‘With great skill’, McCoy had selectednearly all of the more important specimens to bedrawn, although his preliminary determinationswere ‘for the most part erroneous’ (quotes Wood-ward 1906, p. 1). When McCoy died with thework incomplete, the beautiful lithographic plateswere sent by the Melbourne ‘National’ Museumof Victoria (NMV) Trustees to ASW in Londonfor him to finish the job. By the time of this firstmajor find of Australian Palaeozoic fishes, ASWhad already written about agnathans, placoderms,acanthodians and ‘sharks’ since he had completedhis study night classes in the early 1880s.

By 1902 ASW had made his first assessment ofthe material sent to him from Melbourne. Althoughhe would not have been happy with having platesalready drafted for publication without his scientificguidance, ASW accepted them to complete thedescriptions started by McCoy (Woodward 1902c,1906). Sweet (1889) had thought that the Mansfieldstrata were Late Devonian in age based on the lithol-ogy and aspects of the fossils and McCoy (1890) hadfollowed this; Smith Woodward (1906) disagreedwith Sweet and McCoy in thinking that the faunacontained elements seen in the Lower Devonian,Upper Devonian and the Calciferous Sandstones(Lower Carboniferous) series and demonstratedbased on his knowledge of gyracanth acanthodiansthat the fauna was Carboniferous in age (althoughmodern reassessment favours latest Devonianagain; Turner et al. 2005). ASW (1906) comparedthe fauna with taxa better known from the NorthernHemisphere, including the new acanthodians (nowclaimed as stem-chondrichthyans or osteichthyans)Gyracanthides and Eupleurogmus, and a new spe-cies of Acanthodes (see Table 1, the Appendix).Of these Australian taxa only the genus Gyracan-thides (Fig. 7) is accepted as valid today, havingbeen revised by Warren et al. (2000) and Turneret al. (2005); the other taxa are currently regardedas nomina dubia. Gyracanthides murrayi, then theonly known articulated species of this large unusualacanthodian, was especially noted by Woodward(1903, 1904) for its similarities to the NorthernHemisphere taxon Gyracanthus. ASW used the spe-cies name given in McCoy’s manuscript in honourof the geologist and early collector Reginald Augus-tus Frederick Murray (Branagan & Vallance 1974:Fig. 2d), who came to Australia during the gold

rush in 1855, joined the Geological Survey of Victo-ria as a 16-year-old and went on to write an impor-tant treatise on state geology (Murray 1895).Gyracanthides is now considered to be a wide-ranging genus with its possible origin and wide-spread occurrences throughout Gondwana regionsin the Middle Devonian (e.g. Aztec Siltstone, Ant-arctica), with Gyracanthus appearing later in theLaurentian regions following the major continentalcollisions of the mid- to Late Devonian (Long1993; Turner et al. 2005).

The other fishes in this fauna are all assigned toOsteichthyes. ASW readily placed all of these spec-imens into well-known Northern Hemisphere gen-era but in new species, including the rhizodontStrepsodus decipiens, the lungfish Ctenodus brevi-ceps and the basal actinopterygians Elonichthyssweeti and E. gibbus. Subsequent revision of thisfauna has seen these species reassigned to newendemic genera (Table 1). The large rhizodontwas redescribed as Barameda decipiens using newmaterial, and this genus was one of the first rhizo-dontids to have its skull, cheek and palate describedin detail (Long 1989; Long & Ahlberg 1999). Thisgenus has featured prominently in many majoranalyses of osteichthyans, sarcopterygians and,in particular, tetrapodomorph relationships (e.g.Johanson & Ahlberg 1998; Jeffrey 2002; Longet al. 2006; Holland & Long 2009; Friedman & Bra-zeau 2010; Lu et al. 2012). Other rhizodontidremains from the district were described by Garveyet al. (2005) and Holland et al. (2007b), includingerection of a new smaller species, Barameda mitch-elli (Fig. 8a). The lungfish was redescribed by Long& Campbell (1985) as Delatitia breviceps. Theidentification of the palaeoniscoid taxon Elonich-thys in Australia was refuted by Long & Turner(1984) and these fish were then referred to twonew endemic Australian taxa, Mansfieldiscus(Fig. 8b) and Novogonatodus (Long 1988). Hollandet al. (2007b) further described Novogonatodusbased on a new specimen with a complete skullroof and cheek. The fauna from Mansfield is consid-ered highly significant as one of the best preservedand diverse faunas of this age from anywhere inthe Southern Hemisphere, with strong links toimportant tetrapod-bearing faunas in the NorthernHemisphere, such as Red Hill (Turner et al. 2012).ASW’s acanthodian work was noted by Miles(1973), but it was not until the 2000s that all ofthe Australian and other Gondwanan material wasre-examined and compared with that of classicalNorthern Hemisphere Coal Measures gyracanths(e.g. Warren et al. 2000; Turner et al. 2005).

One of Henry Woodward’s children, his onlyson, Harry Page Woodward, went to Western Aus-tralia in 1883. In 1886 he described a major, fasci-nating find from Late Palaeozoic rocks: a fine

S. TURNER & J. LONG



toothwhorl of Helicoprion (‘Edestus’) davisii fromthe ‘Permo-Carboniferous’ (now known to be EarlyPermian) of the Gascoyne River (H. Woodward1886). Sadly, no details of the site are known and nofurther examples have come to light (Turner 1993;Long 1995, 2011). ASW subsequently reviewedhelicoprionids (e.g. Woodward 1900, 1903).

Towards the end of his scientific life ASWdescribed further Australian Palaeozoic actinoptery-gians discovered during a mid-twentieth-centurywave of coal mining activity. The first of thesewas Urosthenes latus from the Permian UpperCoal Measures of Lithgow, New South Wales(Woodward 1931). Later, ASW named a ‘palaeonis-coid’ ‘Elonichthys’ davidi (see Long & Turner1984, p. 242 for note about the genus) based on aspecimen found by John Mitchell (1848–1928) ofNewcastle Technical College from the Upper

Permian Newcastle Coal Measures of Taroo inNew South Wales in honour of his late friendTWED (Woodward 1940b) and fulfilling Mitchell’s(1925) intention. These taxa have not been revisited.

Last but not least

The Revd William B. Clarke was the first to recordfossil fish remains from the Burrinjuck area ofNew South Wales in 1878 (Fig. 1, Taemas; a bonein limestone collected by local squatter, HamiltonHume, and a fish spine sent to Egerton, notedabove; see Moyal 2003, p. 1138; Young 2011).The discovery by C. A. Sussmilch of Sydney Tech-nical College of a fossil lungfish skull near oldTaemas Bridge on the Murrumbidgee River wasreported by Etheridge (1906); this was then the old-est record and another important example at the time

Fig. 8. Reconstructions of osteichthyans from the Early Carboniferous Devils Plain Formation, Mansfield, Victoria:(a) Barameda mitchelli (Holland et al., 2007a), artwork by Peter Schouten; (b) Mansfieldiscus sweeti Long, 1988(from Long 1995, artwork by J.L.).




of a Devonian dipnoan. The significance of the Tae-mas skull resulted in it becoming the holotype of thenew genus Dipnorhynchus when ASW encouragedupcoming Australian researcher Edwin SherbonHills (1906–86: Fig. 2j) of Melbourne Universityto tackle the description of this lungfish (Hills1933, 1941). Dipnorhynchus eventually becameknown from many additional skull finds, whichhave made a valuable contribution to our under-standing of earliest dipnoan neurocranial anatomy(Campbell & Barwick 1982).

A further Burrinjuck fish skull was collected bystudent Mr J. A. Watt of Sydney University aroundthe same time, and this was sent by the NSW Gov-ernment Geologist to London for examination byASW. He exhibited this specimen at the GeologicalSociety of London (Woodward 1916) but did notdescribe it until 25 years later, during his retirement.He named it Notopetalichthys hillsi in honour ofSherbon Hills, and this was the first formal descrip-tion of a placoderm fish from Burrinjuck (Wood-ward 1941) and the first known petalichthyid to bedescribed from Australia. Sherbon Hills citedASW’s (1916) paper in his first paper on Devonianfishes in 1932. Thus, it is possible that ASW’s lasttaxonomic work may have been prompted by thearrival of postgraduate Hills in London when hecame to tackle his doctorate (Turner & Long1989). In the preceding two decades ASW hadclearly been preoccupied with the Piltdown materialand his rising interest in palaeoanthropology (e.g.Reader 1981). Notopetalichthys remains a validand important genus of Early Devonian petalich-thyid placoderm (Long & Turner 1984; Turner &Long 1989). Today the Taemas–Wee Jasper fishfauna includes the most diverse assemblage of itsage (Pragian–Emsian), with over 70 known spe-cies of thelodonts, sharks, placoderms, acantho-dians, lungfishes and other primitive osteichthyans(Young 2011).

Antarctica

In the latter stages of his working life at theNHMUK, ASW described fish from the BritishExploring Expedition to Antarctica, the first Devo-nian fish from the continent (Woodward 1921).A young Australian geologist, Frank Debenham(1883–1965; Walsh 1993, Fig. 2i), joined CaptainScott’s ill-fated Terra Nova expedition in the sum-mer of 1911–12. He collected rocks from erraticmaterial that bristled with the macro- and micro-remains of armoured fish from a site near GraniteHarbour; the original material was found in thedebris left behind by ice melt from the Mackay Gla-cier (e.g. Long 2000). A New Zealand expedition in1957–58 traced the origin of this deposit further

inland to Mt Suess, and since then several expedi-tions have expanded the known areas of Devonianfossil beds (see Willis 2007; Stilwell & Long2011) and recovered many significant fossils(Young 1989a), including thelodonts (Turner &Young 1992), acanthodians (Young 1989b; Burrowet al. 2009), antiarchs (Young 1988), arthrodires(Young & Long 2014), sharks (Young 1982) andosteichthyans (Young et al. 1992; Long et al. 2008).

ASW had recognized eight different types offish, three of which were named as new species(Woodward 1921). He made a reasonable stab atthe taxonomy, identifying what he thought were‘ostracoderms’, possibly psammosteid remains – areasonable assumption given the associated placo-derms that clearly spoke to him of the Late Devo-nian given the current knowledge of the NorthernHemisphere Old Red Sandstone fishes. ASW alsorealized that this grouping of fish species was essen-tially identical to those found in contemporaneousDevonian deposits in Britain, North America andEurope. This was the first time this assemblagehad been recognized in the Southern Hemisphere,providing a hint at the ancient connections of thecontinents that later investigations would reveal(e.g. Turner & Young 1992; Turner 1997; Stilwell& Long 2011). However, ASW himself did notleap to any palaeobiographical conclusions. Fromthat later work, we now know that ASW illustratedthe first thelodont scales from Gondwana, wherethey are now known to be widespread throughoutthe Devonian (Turner 1997). After study of the orig-inal specimens and further material from later expe-ditions, Turner & Young (1992) described Turiniaantarctica from the Devonian Aztec Siltstone,where it is associated in the Givetian to early Fras-nian(?) with bothriolepid placoderms (e.g. Young1989a).

Importance of people

One of ASW’s earliest associations was with Edge-worth David (TWED); he later taught the nextgreat palaeoichthyologist on the continent, RobertT. Wade, who went to the University of Sydneyin 1901 and graduated with Honours in Geologyand Mathematics (BA, 1905; MA, 1924). Between1925 and 1929 Wade collected hundreds of fossilfish from the Brookvale brick pits: he sent some tothe newly retired ASW, but decided to continue hisown studies in vertebrate palaeontology followingthe award of a grant from the Australian NationalResearch Council. Wade entered Clare College,Cambridge, gaining his PhD in 1931 (Walsh1990). He returned to Australia to collect more spec-imens and sold his own collection of AustralianMesozoic fishes to the NHMUK, the Trustees of

S. TURNER & J. LONG



which published his memoir, The Triassic Fishes ofBrookvale, New South Wales (Wade 1935). Wadepublished six papers on Triassic and Jurassic fishesin the Journal and Proceedings of the local RoyalSociety between 1930 and 1953 (see above). Hisvaluable descriptive work enlarged on that of ASW.In the modern era, ASW’s Triassic bony fish workwas utilized to assess the identifications of isolatedscales from Queensland (e.g. Northwood 1999).

The only Tertiary Australian fish studied byASW was the bony fish ‘Ctenolates’ avus fromMiocene diatomite at Nimbin, NSW (Woodward1902b), now placed in the genus Macquaria (seeUnmack 1997), based on comparison with conge-neric fish from the Darling–Murray river system.Sherbon Hills (1946) provided further work onsuch fish, describing Maccullochela from the east-ern Australian diatomites (Long & Turner 1984;Turner & Long 1989). Hills visited the Smith Wood-wards at Haywards Heath while a PhD student andsigned Lady Smith Woodward’s famous tablecloth(ESH to ST pers. comm, August 1986; Gardiner1985; Milner 2015).

As noted above, Devonian fish became the sub-ject of Hills’s PhD and he worked on some of thematerial that had been sent earlier to ASW, withthe latter’s encouragement (Hills 1932). Hills wenton to inspire the next generation of fossil fishworkers (e.g. Turner & Long 1989), includingJudy Sullivan and Gavin Young; Sullivan workedfor a Masters degree (unpublished) on the gyra-canths (Turner et al. 2005); Young went on tostudy Smith Woodward’s Antarctic material andother Palaeozoic fish (see citations above andYoung 2015).

Outreach

ASW travelled widely and attended many scientificmeetings. In 1909 he was President of the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Science(BAAS) meeting, which was held in Canada. Inhis address (Woodward 1909), he mentioned theevolution of fish and distribution, including refer-ence to Australian fish between the Upper Car-boniferous (having recently finished the work ongyracanth acanthodians) and the Triassic (with thexenacanth and actinopterygian volumes completed;Woodward 1906, 1908a).

The one opportunity ASW might have taken tovisit Australia occurred with the mid-1914 BAASmeeting, which was held in Melbourne. He didoffer a presentation on Scottish Late Devonianfishes but it seems likely that the expense, his Keep-er’s responsibilities and his new ‘passion’ for palae-oanthropology prevented him from attending. Therewas a great deal of interest in his Piltdown finds atthe BAAS, however, especially when the Talgai

skull from the Darling Downs in Queensland wasassessed at the meeting by TWED (Branagan2005; Allen 2010). As a result of missing this meet-ing, ASW did not get to describe the fine new Trias-sic amphibian recently found in the Sydney Basin.Instead it went to D. M. S. Watson at UniversityCollege London, although the skeleton was laterdonated to the NHMUK (cf. Milner & Barrett2015, and see Young 2015 for a bid for the returnof the specimen). ASW was awarded the 1914Clarke Medal of the Royal Society of New SouthWales for his contributions to Australian geology.

Broader philosophical questions

What were ASW’s thoughts on Darwinian evolution(e.g. Woodward 1885) and on Wegener’s continen-tal drift hypothesis and the position of the southerncontinents? He did ‘see’ the similarities acrossGondwanan continents, as reflected in his namingof some Australian fossils in relation to generaalready found in South Africa, such as Atherstonia(Woodward 1889b). Moreover, he did regard someof the Australian taxa as almost identical to thosefound in Britain, such as Gyracanthides and Gyra-canthus, although McCoy (1890) had already recog-nized this similarity. When it came to Antarctica,ASW had framed the taxa he named in relation to‘northern’ ones, just as most palaeontologists dowhen they transfer their thinking from the NorthernHemisphere to the Southern; only later did endemic‘Gondwanan’ features become more apparent. By1935 he was espousing continental drift ideas,and was an early exponent of this theory in Britain(cf. Le Grand 1988), and this can be seen also inhis more cosmopolitan thinking in his paper onthe beginnings of teleosts (Woodward 1942; seeAppendix).

G. G. Simpson (cited in Gardiner 1985) summa-rized ASW’s achievements by saying that he wasindisputably best known for his voluminous anddetailed studies of fossil fishes, and consideringalso that ASW’s book on fossil vertebrates (Wood-ward 1898) was for its time the best available inEnglish for students. ASW’s oeuvre of c. 600works speaks for itself and few can match his com-mitment and sustained energy for science, althoughhe was perhaps not driven by any particular ideol-ogy, such as religion (in contrast to his contempo-rary von Huene; Turner 2009) or Darwinism.Interestingly, like other driven men, ASW had fewco-authors (Fig. 2; Tables 2 & 3). ASW’s methodol-ogy does not accord with today’s high-tech andcomputer-driven analysis of fossils; rather he wasa slow thinker who liked to look at objects fromseveral viewpoints. He preferred to place the fossilson a windowsill and ponder all aspects of them




(Forster Cooper 1945). ASW’s publication ‘strat-egy’ was also not one that would be espousedtoday, nor would it fit today’s ‘publish or perish’attitude; he did not target so-called ‘top journals’,but preferred to link work to an audience with anappropriate journal type (Table 3). Perhaps thisaffected his promotional aspirations; maybe heshould have chosen such important contemporaryjournals as the Royal Society’s Proceedings, espe-cially after gaining his Fellowship.

Others contributions in this volume will putASW’s attempts at anthropology into perspective(Dean et al. 2015). What ASW thought of as hisgreatest triumph was the announcement in Natureon 5 December 1912 of early Pleistiocene hominidremains from near Lewes, Sussex, but this wouldultimately prove to be the body blow to his reputa-tion, albeit posthumously. His later career was over-shadowed by his work on Piltdown Man, whichultimately sullied his scientific reputation – hewas ‘led astray’ (Stearn 1981, p. 235). Putting therecord straight, Reader (1981) noted that, as Keeper,ASW had the remit for all palaeontology and anthro-pology in the NHMUK and Wymer (1999) notedthat ASW was devoid of a sense of humour andthis may have provided a motive for the hoax. Didthe knighthoods received, ASW’s in 1924 andthose of his contemporary and sometime supporterssuch as Arthur Keith in 1921 and Grafton EliottSmith (the not-quite establishment Australian) in1934, reflect a shade of patriotic pride in the convic-tion that the ancestor of man was an Englishman(Reader 1981, p. 70)? ASW’s prestige and statusgave Piltdown Man respectability. As noted bySimpson (1944), ‘That was of course long beforethe discovery that “Piltdown Man” was a hoax’.We will emphasize that ASW spent his last 2–3 years in blindness, but Maud encouraged, tookdictation, edited and organized his last book pub-lished in the very apt ‘Thinker’s Library’ on TheEarliest Englishman (Woodward 1948), whichwas finished the day before he died (Maud Wood-ward in Preface). Although ASW’s Piltdown workproved a failure, it did touch all parts of the Empire,influencing and inspiring people as far away asHeber Longman in Brisbane – a budding verte-brate palaeontologist and keen follower of ASW(Turner 2005).

The growth in knowledge of natural history inthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cannot beimagined without reference to objects or specimensand their circulation. In all corners of the globenatural objects were collected and transportedto knowledge centres, moved between locationsand added to collections. Closely related to theseactivities is the establishment of scientific ‘spaces’– how knowledge concerning distant entities isproduced: apart from museums, this question

encompasses the different cultural activities ofacquiring, gaining, preserving, documenting, curat-ing, understanding, promoting and mediatingobjects. Until the point when the collected objectsreach a museum location, they undergo a varietyof cultural transformations; they cross physicallythe vast space between the field and the museumor other institutions. The ultimate inclusion ofobjects in a museum display or whether they aregiven a new taxonomic name often rests on thevagaries of this space, the ‘space in between’ (Kle-mun 2012). In the case of Australia this has alwaysmeant a long and difficult ‘birth’ as the country andits rocks are often difficult of access, then a similarjourney through the space between the Australianlocality and the destination (in ASW’s case theNHMUK). Whatever the scenario, a variety of dif-ferent skills and actors were involved in the acquisi-tion and circulation of Australian objects (Table 2).These ‘spaces’ include not only the scientists, butalso the different forms of packing and preparationtechniques, the instructions transmitted (by wordor letter), and the documentation and letters accom-panying the journey (e.g. see the labels on Dunstanspecimens; Fig. 4b); these items (the ‘paper-trail’)were often lost in the long-distance transport or dis-carded by later generations of museum workers,especially if untrained. These intangible and tangi-ble aspects of knowledge production played a con-siderable role in ASW’s work because he neverwent to Australia himself; he was the hub of receiptacross the thousands of miles that allowed theunfolding of so many strands of Australia geology(Table 3). Further work could be done on thisfront by analysing the museum registers and lettersthat passed between the colonial directors andNHMUK or later to ASW in his retirement home,but that is another story.

Conclusions

Arthur Smith Woodward left a lasting legacy for thegeology and palaeontology of Australia, notably inthe discipline of palaeoichthyology with the firstdescriptions of many Palaeozoic and Mesozoicchondrichthyans and osteichthyans, and the use ofthose fish to date economically important rocks inAustralia (see Tables 1–3 and the Appendix). Hiscontribution to Australian palaeontology is some21 genera and species ranging from the Devonianto Tertiary and to the Devonian of Antarctica, withfour major monographs written on Carboniferous,Triassic and Jurassic faunas (see the Appendix).He had a broad knowledge of all fossil fish groupsthanks to his curatorial training and research workfor the Catalogue of Fossil Fishes; ASW thusbecame the focus for all of the fossil fish in the

S. TURNER & J. LONG



‘British’ world and they passed to him through timeand space, enabling him to gain a global perspective.

The Australian oeuvre comprises a relativelysmall percentage of the .600 papers and articleshe wrote on fossil fish and other aspects of verte-brate palaeontology, but the Mesozoic results in par-ticular (spanning 1890–1940) include several newtaxa and influenced the understanding of easternAustralian geology (Table 1; Appendix).

In his powerful position as researcher and thenKeeper of Geology at the NHMUK he control-led the influx and aided the identification of sci-entific specimens from the far corners of theBritish Empire, including Australia and Antarctica.Although he never visited the far Southern Hemi-sphere, he inspired the next generation of Austra-lian fossil fish workers, Wade and Sherborn Hills,the latter in turn proving pivotal in the careers oflate twentieth century students and researchers.Reassessment of the work that ASW began goeson today. We can only speculate whether or notASW would eventually have made a journey tothe Australo-Pacific region: perhaps if his eldestchild had lived, ASW might have done so. Hisson, Cyril Randolph Woodward, Assistant Magis-trate serving in the Borneo Public Service, diedtragically of septicaemia aged 24 in 1924 (White1945; Ruth Niblett pers. comm. July 2015), theevent coinciding with, and perhaps even contribut-ing to, ASW’s retirement and removal from theNHMUK ‘stage’.

Why did ASW not write his own biography?Up to a point he did, both in manuscript form andvia his own compilations of his papers, as did hiswife with her unpublished manuscript (M. S. Wood-ward n.d.; Smith 2011, 2012; Smith & Shindler2015). Supporting Oldroyd’s (2012) claim, ASWwas more famous ultimately for his ‘dabblings’in palaeoanthropology. The Piltdown ‘affair’ haspiqued many biographers’ interest, people whootherwise would not have cared about his scientificwork.

Anatomist and palaeoanthropologist Sir ArthurKeith (1948) said of ASW:

My friend . . . died at Hill Place, Sussex, on Saturday 2,1944; he had entered his 81st year . . . he had labouredat BMNH for 41 years. . . . His career was crowdedwith one discovery after another; how full these yearswere is vividly illustrated by the fact that the merelist of additions he made to the knowledge of histime occupies 24 pages of The Proceedings of theRoyal Society’. [Our underlining.]

Sir Arthur Smith Woodward has for 60 years beenthe victim of a myth – that of Piltdown Man –and thus his hagiography has been a ‘functional,emotionally loaded culture of remembering’, almosta ‘fossilized life’ sensu Klemun (2013). Here we

hope to have reconsidered this eminent life and‘fleshed’ out the ‘living fossil’ of ASW by showinghow he should be considered for more than his ‘BigMistake’. ASW’s achievements helped to unravelAustralian geological history with his contributionsto stratigraphy across three states and the evolution-ary history of vertebrates in general. ASW’s statusas Vertebrate Palaeontologist to an Empire is wellillustrated by the 50 years of work that he carriedout on Australian problems.

We give many thanks to Mike Smith, NHMUK EarthSciences, who inspired this study when ST worked at theNHM in December 2011 to February 2012. There shefound a volume of ASW photographs in the Fossil Fishlibrary, which led to a look at ASW’s life, a lecturegiven at the 34th International Geological Congress inBrisbane and a poster at the 150th anniversary symposiumin celebration of Smith Woodward’s birth. Mike and theNHM Librarians gave much archival support; JohnClark, Oxford University, helped source photographs; theTom Vallance Database and Ruth Niblett provided bio-graphical detail. We thank also two reviewers and editorPaul Barrett for comments that improved the manuscript.The paper is dedicated to Guy Alexander Thulborn(1986–2012), for his research assistance and help withlogistics for the IGC and palaeontological contributions,and to our esteemed colleague David Oldroyd (1936–2014), inspiring historian, both sadly missed.

Appendix

Arthur Smith Woodward’s contributions to

Australasian geology

ASW, in a 53-year span, considered Australian and Antarc-

tic fish/lower vertebrate/tetrapod specimens in around 30

books and papers covering Palaeozoic to Pleistocene fos-

sils (see also Milner & Barrett 2015).

(1) 1888. Note on the extinct reptilian genera Megala-

nia, Owen and Meiolania, Owen. Annals & Maga-

zine of Natural History, Series 6, 1, 85–89.

(2) 1890a. On the discovery of a Jurassic fish-fauna in

the Hawkesbury Beds of New South Wales.

[Abstract.] Annals & Magazine of Natural History,

Series 6, 6, 423.

(3) 1890b. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury Series

at Gosford, New South Wales. [Abstract.] Annals

& Magazine of Natural History, Series 6, 6, 423–

424.

(4) 1890c. On the discovery of a Jurassic fish-fauna in

the Hawkesbury Beds of New South Wales.

[Abstract.] Geological Magazine, Decade 3, 7,

565–566.

(5) 1890d. On the discovery of a Jurassic fish-fauna in

the Hawkesbury–Wianamatta Beds of New South

Wales. Report of the British Association, 60

(1890 for 1889), 822.




(6) 1890e. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury Series at

Gosford, with Geology by T.W. Edgeworth David.

Memoir of the Geological Survey of New South

Wales, Palaeontology, 4, xiii + 57 pp., 12 pls, 1

text-fig.

(7) 1891. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British

Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W.

Part II. Elasmobranchii (Acanthodii), Holocephali,

ichthyodorulites etc. London. xliv + 567 pp., 16

pls, 58 text-figs.

(8) 1892. Doubly-armoured Herrings. Annals &

Magazine of Natural History, Series 6, 10, 412–

413.

(9) 1892 (with R. Etheridge, Jr). On the occurrence of

the genus Belonostomus in the Rolling Downs For-

mation (Cretaceous) of central Queensland. Trans-

actions of the Royal Society of Victoria, 2, Part 2,

1–7, pl. 1.

(10) 1893. [Aetheolepis scales] Natural Science, Lon-

don, 3, 449: see Cat III, p. 157.

(11) 1894. On some fish-remains of the genera Por-

theus and Cladocyclus, from the Rolling Downs

Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Queensland.

Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series

6, 14, 444–447, pl. 10.

(12) 1895a. The fossil fishes of the Talbragar Beds

(Jurassic?). Memoir of the Geological Survey of

New South Wales, Palaeontology, 9, xiii + 31

pp., 7 pls, 1 map.

(13) 1895b. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British


Part III. London. xlii + 544 pages, 18 plates. 45

text figs.

(14) 1900. Reviews. Helicoprion – spine or tooth? Geo-

logical Magazine, Decade 4, 7, 33–36.

(15) 1901. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British


Part IV. London. xxxviii + 636 pp., 19 pls, 22

text-figs.

(16) 1902a. On Athersonia australis and Ctenolates

avus, two new species of fossil fishes from

New South Wales. Records of the Geological

Survey of New South Wales, VII, 2, 88–

91 + pl. XXIV.

(17) 1902b. Preliminary note on a Carboniferous fish

fauna from Victoria, Australia. Geological Maga-

zine, Decade 4, 9, 471–473.

(18) 1903a. On a Carboniferous acanthodian fish, Gyra-

canthides. [Abstract.] Geological Magazine, Dec-

ade 4, 10, 512–513.

(19) 1903b. Preliminary note on a Carboniferous fish-

fauna from Victoria, Australia. Report of the Brit-

ish Association, 72 (1902), 615–616.

(20) 1904. On a Carboniferous acanthodian fish, Gyra-

canthides. Report of the British Association, 73,

662–663.

(21) 1906a. On a Carboniferous fish fauna from

the Mansfield district, Victoria. Memoir of the

National Museum Melbourne, 1, 1–32, pl. 1–11,

3 text-figs.

(22) 1906b. On a tooth of Ceratodus and a dinosaurian

claw from the Lower Jurassic of Victoria, Austra-

lia. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series

7, 18, 1–3.

(23) 1907a. On a reconstructed skeleton of Diproto-

don in the British Museum (Natural History).

Geological Magazine, Decade 5, 4, 337–339,

pl. 15.

(24) 1907b. On a tooth of Ceratodus and a dinosaurian

claw from the Lower Jurassic of Victoria, Austra-

lia. Records of the Geological Survey of Victoria,

2, 135–137, pl. 14.

(25) 1908a. The fossil fishes of the Hawkesbury

Series at St Peter’s; with note by W. S. Dun.

Memoir of the Geological Survey of New

South Wales, Palaeontology 10, i–v + 1–30

pp., 1.p 1–4.

(26) 1908b. On fossil fish remains from Snow Hill and

Seymour Island. Wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse

der Schwedischen Sudpolar-Expedition 1901–

1902, III, Geologie und Palaontologie (1916) 1–

4, 5 figs, 1 pl. (see Harrington 1965).

(27) 1909. On a new Labyrinthodon from Oil-Shale at

Airly. Records of the Geological Survey of New

South Wales, 8, 317–319, pl. 51.

(28) 1910. On remains of a megalosaurian dinosaur

from New South Wales. Report of the British Asso-

ciation, 79 (1909), 482–483.

(29) 1916. [. . . Devonian fish remains from Australia

and the Antarctica regions . . .] Abstracts of the

Proceedings of the Geological Society (1915–

1916), 65–66.

(30) 1921. Fish-remains from the Upper Old Red Sand-

stone of Granite Harbour, Antarctica. British

Museum (Natural History), London, British Ant-

arctic (‘Terra Nova’) Expedition 1910, Natural

History Report Geology, 1, 51–62, pl. 1.

(31) 1931. On Urosthenes, a fossil fish from the Upper

Coal Measures of Lithgow, New South Wales.

Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series 10,

8, 365–367, pl. 14.

(32) 1940a. The affinities of the Palaeozoic pleuracanth

sharks. Annals & Magazine of Natural History,

Series 11, 5, 323–326.

(33) 1940b. A palaeoniscid fish (Elonichthys davidi, sp.

nov.) from the Newcastle Coal Measures, New

South Wales. Annals & Magazine of Natural His-

tory, Series 11, 6, 462–464, pl. 17.

(34) 1941. The head shield of a new macropetalichthyid

Fish (Notopetalichthys hillsi, gen. et sp. nov.) from

the Middle Devonian of Australia. Annals & Mag-

azine of Natural History, Series 11, 8, 91–96, pl. 1,

1 text-fig.

(35) 1942. The beginning of the teleostean fishes.

Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series 11,

9, 902–912, 7 text-figs.

S. TURNER & J. LONG



References

Agassiz, J. R. L. 1833–44. Recherches sur les PoissonsFossiles. Neuchatel et Soleure, Imprimerie de Petit-pierre, 5 vols.

Allen, D. E. 1976. The Naturalist in Britain – A SocialHistory. Pelican, Harmondsworth.

Allen, J. J. 2010. The curious history of the Talgai skull.Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 20, 4–7.

Anderson, M. E. 1999. History of the discovery of fossilfish in Southern Africa. In: MacRae, C. (ed.) LifeEtched in Stone. Fossils of South Africa. GeologicalSociety of South Africa, Johannesburg, 13.

Arratia, G. 1997. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylog-eny. PalaeoIchthyologica, 7, 1–166.

Bardack, D. 1962. Taxonomic status and geological posi-tion of the Cretaceous fish Ichthyodectes marathonen-sis. The Australian Journal of Science, 1962, 387–388.

Bartholomai, A. 2004. The large aspidorhynchid fish,Richmondichthys sweeti (Etheridge Jnr and SmithWoodward, 1891) from Albian Marine Deposits ofQueensland, Australia. Memoirs of the QueenslandMuseum, 49, 521–536.

Bauwens, J. 2012. http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/new-dinosaurs-from-old-draws.html [lastaccessed 8 November 2012].

Bean, L. 2007. The Talbragar Fish Beds uncovered. Aus-tralian Age of Dinosaurs, 5, 44–55.

Bean, L. B. 2006. The leptolepid fish Cavenderichthys tal-bragarensis (Woodward, 1895) from the TalbragarFish bed (Late Jurassic) near Gulgong, New SouthWales. Records of the Western Australian Museum,23, 43–76.

Beattie, R. G. & Avery, S. 2012. Palaeoecology andpalaeoenvironment of the Jurassic Talbragar FossilFish Bed, Gulgong, New South Wales, Australia.Alcheringa, 36, 451–465.

Berrell, R. W., Alvarado-Ortega, J., Yabumoto, Y. &Salisbury, S. W. 2011. Ichthyodectiform fishes (Tele-osti: Ichthyodectoformes) from the mid-Cretaceous ofthe Eromanga Basin of central-west Queensland, withcomments on the validity of Cladocyclus sweeti,Woodward, 1884 [sic. in err.]. In: Trinajstic, K.(ed.) 13th Conference on Australian Vertebrate Evolu-tion, Palaeontology and Systematics, Abstracts. Geo-logical Survey of Western Australia, Records 2011/9, 19.

Berrell, R. W., Alvarado-Ortega, J., Yabumoto, Y. &Salisbury, S. W. 2014. The first record of the ichthyo-dectiform fish Cladocyclus from eastern Gondwana: anew species from the Lower Cretaceous of Queens-land, Australia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 59,903–920.

Branagan, D. F. 2005. T. W. Edgeworth David. A life.Geologist, Adventurer, Soldier and ‘Knight in theOld Brown Hat’. National Library of Australia,Canberra.

Branagan, D. F. & Vallance, T. G. 1974. Murray,Reginald Augustus Frederick (1846–1925). Austra-lian Dictionary of Biography. Melbourne UniversityPress, 5, National Centre of Biography, AustralianNational University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murray-reginald-augustus-frederick-4280/text6923[last accessed online 14 July 2015].

Briggs, A. 1983. A Social History of Britain. Penguin,Harmondsworth.

Burrow, C. J., Long, J. A. & Trinajstic, K. 2009. Disar-ticulated acanthodian and chondrichthyan remainsfrom the upper Middle Devonian Aztec Siltstone,southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Antarctic Science,21, 71–88.

Campbell, K. S. W. & Barwick, R. E. 1982. The neuro-cranium of the primitive dipnoan Dipnorhynchussussmilchi (Etheridge). Journal of Vertebrate Palaeo-ntology, 2, 286–327.

Dana, J. D. 1848. Fossils of the Exploring Expedi-tion under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N.,a fossil fish from Australia, and a belemnite fromTierra del Fuego. Annals & Magazine of Natural His-tory, 2, 149–150 & American Journal of Science, 5,433–435.

David, T. W. E. 1890. Stratigraphical note on the fish-bedat the Railway Ballast Quarry, near Gosford. Memoirsof the Geological Survey of New South Wales, Palae-ontology, 4, vii–x.

Dean, C., de Groote, I. & Stringer, C. 2015. ArthurSmith Woodward and his involvement in the study ofhuman evolution. In: Johanson, Z., Barrett, P. M.,Richter, M. & Smith, M. (eds) Arthur Smith Wood-ward: His Life and Influence on Modern VertebratePalaeontology. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 430. First published online October 20,2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.3

Duffin, C. J. 1978. The importance of certain vertebratefossils collected by Charles Moore: a scientific per-spective. Geological Curators Group Newsletter, 2,59–67.

Dun, W. S. 1927. Obituary Robert Etheridge, JuniorPalaeontologist, 1887–1895; Curator 1895–1917;Director and Curator, 1917–1920, with full publica-tion list. Records of the Australian Museum, 15, 1–10.

Egerton, P. 1864. On some ichthyolites from NewSouth Wales, forwarded by the Rev. W. B. Clarke.Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London,20, 1–5, http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1864.020.01-02.07

Etheridge, R., JR. 1905. Description of the mutilated cra-nium of a large fish, from the Lower Cretaceous ofQueensland. Records of the Australian Museum, 6,5–8.

Etheridge, R., JR. 1906. The cranial buckler of a dipnoanfish, probably Ganorhynchus, from the Devonian bedsof the Murrumbidgee River, New South Wales.Records of the Australian Museum, 6, 129–132.

Etheridge, R., JR. & Woodward, A. S. 1892. On theoccurrence of the genus Belonostomus in the RollingDowns Formation (Cretaceous) of central Queensland.Transactions of the Royal Society of Victoria, 2, Part 2,1–7.

Forey, P. 2004. The spawning of the Fossil Fish collec-tion. Set in Stone, 2(3). NHM London, 11–13.

Forey, P. 2015. Smith Woodward’s ideas on fish classifi-cation. In: Johanson, Z., Barrett, P. M., Richter,M. & Smith, M. (eds) Arthur Smith Woodward: HisLife and Influence on Modern Vertebrate Palaeontol-ogy. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,430. First published online October 19, 2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.1



http://sciencythoughts.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/new-dinosaurs-from-old-draws.html







http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/murray-reginald-augustus-frederick-4280/text6923






http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.3


http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1864.020.01-02.07








Forster Cooper, C. 1945. Arthur Smith Woodward,1864–1944. Obituary Notices of Fellows of theRoyal Society, 5(14), 79–112.

Fortey, R. 2008. Dry Store Room No. 1. The Secret Lifeof the Natural History Museum. Harper Collins,London.

Friedman, M. & Brazeau, M. D. 2010. A reappraisalof the origin and basal radiation of the Osteichthyes.Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30, 36–56.

Gardiner, B. B. 1985. Lady Smith Woodward’s table-cloth. The Linnean, 2, 11–14.

Garvey, J. M., Johanson, Z. & Warren, A. 2005. Rede-scription of the pectoral fin and vertebral column of therhizodontid fish Barameda decipiens from the LowerCarboniferous of Australia. Journal of VertebratePaleontology, 25, 8–18.

Ginter, M., Hampe, O. & Duffin, C. 2010. Vol. 3D.Paleozoic Elasmobranchii. In: Schultze, H.-P. (ed.)Handbook of Paleoichthyology. Verlag Dr FriedrichPfeil, Munchen.

Grey, M. & Evans, A. (eds) 2001. McCoy Special issue.The Victorian Naturalist, 118, part 1, 1–234; part 2,1–327.

Harrington, H. J. 1965. Geology and geomorphologyof Antarctica. In: van Mieghen, J. & van Oye, P.(eds) Biogeography and Ecology in Antarctica. DrW. Junk, The Hague, 1–71.

Hills, E. S. 1932. Upper Devonian fishes from New SouthWales. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,London, 88, 850–858, http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1932.088.01-04.26

Hills, E. S. 1933. On a primitive dipnoan from the MiddleDevonian rocks of New South Wales. Annals & Mag-azine of Natural History, Series 10, 10, 634–643.

Hills, E. S. 1941. The cranial roof of Dipnorhynchus sus-smilchi (Eth. Fil.). Records of the Australian Museum,21, 45–55.

Hills, E. S. 1946. Fossil Murray cod from diatomaceousearths in New South Wales. Records of the AustralianMuseum, 21, 380–382.

Hills, E. S. 1958. A brief review of Australian fossil ver-tebrates. In: Westoll, T. S. (ed.) Studies of FossilVertebrates. Athlone Press, University of London,86–107.

Holland, T. & Long, J. A. 2009. On the phylogeneticposition of Gogonasus andrewsae Long, 1985, withinthe tetrapodomorphan clade. Acta Zoologica, 90,285–296.

Holland, T., Warren, A., Johanson, Z., Long, J.,Parker, K. & Garvey, J. 2007a. A new species ofBarameda (Rhizodontida) and heterochrony in therhizodontid pectoral fin. Journal of Vertebrate Paleon-tology, 27, 295–315.

Holland, T. M., Long, J. A., Warren, A. & Garvey,J. M. 2007b. Second specimen of the lower actino-pterygian Novogonatodus kasantsevae Long, 1988from the Early Carboniferous of Mansfield, Victoria.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 118,1–10.

Hutchinson, P. 1973. A revision of the redfieldiiformand perleidiform fishes from the Triassic of Bekker’sKraal (South Africa) and Brookvale (New SouthWales). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural His-tory), Geology, 22, 233–354.

Jack, R. L. & Etheridge, R., JR. 1892. The Geologyand Palaeontology of Queensland and New Guinea.James Charles Beale, Brisbane & London.

Jeffrey, J. E. 2002. Mandibles of rhizodontids: anatomy,function and evolution within the tetrapod stem-group.Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, EarthSciences, 93, 255–276.

Johanson, Z. & Ahlberg, P. E. 1998. A completeprimitive rhizodont from Australia. Nature, 394,569–573.

Johns, R. K. (ed.) 1976. History and Role of GovernmentGeological Surveys in Australia. A. B. James Govern-ment Printer, S. Australia.

Keith, A. 1948. Foreword. In: Woodward, A. S. (ed.)The Earliest Englishman. The Thinkers Library No.127. C. A. Watts and Co., London, ix–xii.

Kemp, A. 1991. Australian Mesozoic to Tertiary lung-fishes. In: Vickers-Rich, P., Monaghan, J. M.,Baird, R. F. & Rich, T. H. (eds) Vertebrate Palaeon-tology of Australasia. Pioneer Design Studios inco-operation with Monash University PublicationsCommittee, Melbourne, 465–496.

Kemp, A. 2012. The World of Lungfish. A Personal Per-spective. Limited edn. Self Press, Brisbane.

Klemun, M. 2012. Introduction: ‘moved’ natural objects –‘spaces in between’. Journal of History of Science &Technology (JOHOST), 5. University of Lisbon,Lisbon, 9–16, http://johost.eu/vol5_spring_2012/marianne_ klemun.htm

Klemun, M. 2013. ‘Living fossil’ – ‘fossilized life’? –reflections on biography in the history of science.Earth Sciences History, 32, 121–131.

Lankester, E. R. 1891. [Review of] Catalogue of FossilFishes. Nature, 43, 577–578.

Le Grand, H. 1988. Drifting Continents and Shift-ing Theories. The Modern Revolution in Geologyand Scientific Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Lees, T. & Bartholomai, A. 1987. Study of a LowerCretaceous actinopterygian (Class Pisces) Cooyooaustralis from Queensland, Australia. Memoirs of theQueensland Museum, 25, 177–192.

Long, J. A. 1988. New palaeoniscoid fishes from the LateDevonian–Early Carboniferous of Victoria, Australia.Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeon-tologists, 7, 1–64.

Long, J. A. 1989. A new rhizodontiform fish fromthe Early Carboniferous of Victoria, Australia, withremarks on the phylogenetic position of the group.Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 9, 1–17.

Long, J. A. 1991. The long history of Australian fossilfishes. In: Vickers-Rich, P., Monaghan, J. M.,Baird, R. F. & Rich, T. H. (eds) Vertebrate Palaeon-tology of Australasia. Pioneer Design Studio, Mel-bourne, 337–428.

Long, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Palaeozoic Vertebrate Biostratig-raphy and Biogeography. Belhaven Press, London.

Long, J. A. 1995. The Rise of Fishes. 500 Million Yearsof Evolution. University of NSW Press, Sydney.

Long, J. A. 1998. Dinosaurs of Australia and New Zealandand other animals of the Mesozoic Era. University ofNSW Press, Sydney.

Long, J. A. 2000. Mountains of Madness. Allen & UnwinPress, St Leonards, NSW.

S. TURNER & J. LONG






http://johost.eu/vol5_spring_2012/marianne_klemun.htm




Long, J. A. 2011. The Rise of Fishes. 500 Million Years ofEvolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti-more, MD.

Long, J. A. & Ahlberg, P. E. 1999. New observationson the snouts of rhizodontid fishes. Records ofthe Western Australian Museum Supplement, 57,169–174.

Long, J. A. & Campbell, K. S. W. 1985. A new lung-fish from the Lower Carboniferous of Victoria. Pro-ceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 97,87–93.

Long, J. A. & Turner, S. 1984. A checklist and bibliog-raphy of Australian fossil fish. In: Archer, M. &Clayton, G. (eds) Vertebrate Zoogeography & Evolu-tion in Australasia (Animals in Space & Time). Hespe-rian Press, Western Australia, 235–254.

Long, J. A., Young, G. C., Holland, T., Senden, T. J. &Fitzgerald, E. M. G. 2006. An exceptional Devonianfish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins.Nature, 444, 199–202.

Long, J. A., Choo, B. & Young, G. C. 2008. A newbasal actinopterygians fish from the Middle DevonianAztec Siltstone of Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 20,393–412.

Lopez-Arbarello, A. 2004. The record of Mesozoicfishes of Gondwana (excluding India and Mada-gascar). In: Arratia, G. & Tintori, A. (eds) Meso-zoic Fishes 3 – Systematics, Paleoenvironments andBiodiversity. Verlag Dr Friedrich Pfeil, Munich,597–624.

Lu, J., Zhu, M., Long, J. A., Zhoa, W., Senden, T., Jia,L. & Qiao, Q. 2012. The earliest known stem-tetrapodfrom the Lower Devonian of China. Nature Communi-cations, 3, http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2170

MacCallum, M. 1990. Sweet, George (1844–1920). In:Australian Dictionary of Biography. Melbourne Uni-versity Press, 12, 149–150.

Mather, P. (ed.) 1986. A Time for a Museum. QueenslandMuseum, Brisbane.

McCoy, F. 1874–82. Prodromus of the Palaeontologyof Victoria. Geological Survey of Victoria, J. FerresGovernment Printer, Melbourne.

McCoy, F. 1890. Report on palaeontology for the year1889. Annual Report of the Secretary of Mines, Victo-ria for 1890

Miles, R. S. 1973. Articulated acanthodian fishes from theOld Red Sandstone of England, with a review of thestructure and evolution of the acanthodian shoulder-girdle. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural His-tory), Geology, 24, 111–213.

Miller, H. 1841. Old Red Sandstone or, New Walks in anOld Field. W. E. Nimmo, Edinburgh & J. M. Dent &Co., London.

Milner, A. 2015. Lady Smith Woodward’s table cloth. In:Johanson, Z., Barrett, P. M., Richter, M. & Smith,M. (eds) Arthur Smith Woodward: His Life and Influ-ence on Modern Vertebrate Palaeontology. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications, 430. First pub-lished online October 22, 2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.5

Milner, A. & Barrett, P. M. 2015. Woodward’s contri-bution on fossil tetrapods. In: Johanson, Z., Barrett,P. M., Richter, M. & Smith, M. (eds) Arthur SmithWoodward: His Life and Influence on Modern

Vertebrate Palaeontology. Geological Society, Lon-don, Special Publications, 430. First published onlineOctober 27, 2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.13

Mitchell, J. 1925. On Elonichthys davidi, in occasionaldescriptions of N.S.W. Permian fossils. Linnean Soci-ety of NSW Proceedings, 50, 435–437.

Moyal, A. 1986. ‘A Bright and Savage Land’. Scientists inColonial Australia. Collins, Sydney.

Moyal, A. 2003. The Web of Science: The ScientificCorrespondence of the Rev. W. B. Clarke, Australia’sPioneer Geologist (2 vols). Australian Scholarly Pub-lishing, Melbourne.

Mozley Moyal, A. (ed.) 1976. Scientists in NineteenthCentury Australia (A Documentary in History). Cas-sell, Australia.

Murray, R. A. F. 1895. Geology and Physical Geographyof Victoria. Government Printer, Melbourne.

Newberry, J. S. 1889. The Palaeozoic Fishes of NorthAmerica. US Geological Survey, Monographs, 16,1–340.

Northwood, C. 1999. Actinopterygians from the EarlyTriassic Arcadia Formation, Queensland, Australia.Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 43, 787–796.

Ogilby, J. D. 1892. On some undescribed reptiles andfishes from Australia. Records of the AustralianMuseum, 2, 23–26.

Oldroyd, D. 2012. Biographical and autobiographicalwork in studies of the history of geology. In: 34thInternational Geological Congress. Unearthing ourPast and Future – Resourcing Tomorrow, Abstracts,#1158, 159.

Paton, R. L. 2004. Traquair, Ramsay Heatley (1840–1912). In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.Oxford University Press, Oxford [last accessed Wiki-pedia 30 January 2014].

Pittman, E. F. & Edgeworth David, T. W. 1895. Astratigraphical note on the geology of Talbragar. Mem-oirs of the Geological Survey of New South Wales,Palaeontology, 9, x–xiii.

Reader, J. 1981. Missing Links. The Hunt for EarliestMan. Book Club Association, London.

Ritchie, A. 1981. First complete specimen of the dipnoanGosfordia truncata Woodward from the Triassic ofNew South Wales. Records of the Australian Museum,33, 606–616.

Ritchie, A. 1987. Jurassic fishes of Lake Talbragar, NewSouth Wales: Aetheolepis mirabilis, Leptolepis gregar-ious and Uarbryichthys latus. In: Hand, S. J. &Archer, M. (eds) The Antipodean Ark. Creaturesfrom Prehistoric Australia. Angus & Robertson,N. Ryde, 22–24.

Rupke, N. A. 1994. Richard Owen. Victorian Naturalist.Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Sheets-Pyenson, S. 1988. Cathedrals of Science. TheDevelopment of Colonial Natural History Museumsin the Late 19th Century. McGill-Queens’s UniversityPress, Kingston & Montreal.

Shindler, K. & Smith, M. 2015. ‘A Splendid Position’:The life, achievements and contradictions of Sir ArthurSmith Woodward 1864–1944. In: Johanson, Z.,Barrett, P. M., Richter, M. & Smith, M. (eds)Arthur Smith Woodward: His Life and Influence onModern Vertebrate Palaeontology. Geological Soci-ety, London, Special Publications, 430. First published



http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2170

http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2170




http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.13

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.13


online October 20, 2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.10

Simpson, G. G. 1944. Obituary, Sir Arthur Smith Wood-ward. American Journal of Science, 242, 686–688.

Smith, M. 2011. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. Set in Stone,8, 17–18.

Smith, M. 2012. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward – the firstdecade. Set in Stone, 8, 19–20.

Smith, M. 2014. King of the fishes. Geoscientist, 24,16–20.

Smith, M. & Shindler, K. 2015. Lady Smith Wood-ward’s memories: introduction. In: Johanson, Z.,Barrett, P. M., Richter, M. & Smith, M. (eds)Arthur Smith Woodward: His Life and Influence onModern Vertebrate Palaeontology. Geological Soci-ety, London, Special Publications, 430. First publishedonline October 20, 2015, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.11

Stearn, W. T. 1981. The Natural History Museum atSouth Kensington. A history of the British Museum(Natural History). Heinemann, in association withthe British Museum (Natural History), London.

Stensio, E. 1925. Triassic fishes from Spitzbergen 2.Kungliga Svenska 21 Vetenskapsakademiens Hand-lingar 32.

Stilwell, J. D. & Long, J. A. 2011. Frozen in Time –Prehistoric Life in Antarctica. CSIRO Publishing,Melbourne.

Strahan, R. 1979. Rare and Curious Specimens. An illus-trated History of the Australian Museum 1827–1979.Australian Museum, Sydney.

Sweet, G. 1889. On the discovery of fossil fish in theOld Red Sandstone rocks of the Mansfield district.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 2,1–14.

Toombs, H. A. 1948. The use of acetic acid in the develop-ment of vertebrate fossils. Museums Journal, 48,54–55.

Townsend, A. C. 1962. A. S. Woodward’s first day at theBritish Museum (Natural History), 24 August 1882.Journal of the Society for Bibliography of Natural His-tory, 4, 79–83.

Turner, S. 1982. A catalogue of fossil fish in Queensland.Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 20, 599–611.

Turner, S. 1986. A short history of vertebrate palaeontol-ogy in Queensland. HESS, History of Earth SciencesJournal, 5, 50–65.

Turner, S. 1988. Charles Moore’s fossil fish fromQueensland. Geological Curator, 5 (1987), 20–22.

Turner, S. 1993. Fish (A review of Australian PermianFishes). In: Skwarko, S. K. (ed.) Palaeontology ofthe Permian of Western Australia. Geological Surveyof Western Australia, Bulletins, 136, 83–86, 382–387, + microfiche sheet 10.

Turner, S. 1997. Sequence of Devonian thelodont scaleassemblages in East Gondwana. Geological Societyof America Special Papers, 321, 1–45.

Turner, S. 2005. Heber Albert Longman (1880–1954),Queensland Museum scientist: a new bibliography.Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 51, 237–257.

Turner, S. 2009. Reverent and exemplary: ‘dinosaurman’ Friedrich von Huene (1875–1969). In: Kolbl-

Ebert, M. (ed.) Geology and Religion: HistoricalViews of an Intense Relationship between Harmony

and Hostility. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications, 310, 223–242, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP310.23

Turner, S. 2011a. Beautiful One day; Perfect the Next!19th–early 20th century geological collectors and col-lecting in the Great State of Queensland. PosterAbstract presented at the HOGG ‘Geological Collec-tors & Collecting’ meeting, 4–5 April, Natural HistoryMuseum, London, 17.

Turner, S. 2011b. Australia’s first fossil fish is still miss-ing! Geological Curator, 9, 285–290.

Turner, S. 2012a. The Woodward factor: Arthur SmithWoodward and geology in Australia. In: 34th IGC:Unearthing our Past and Future – Resourcing Tomor-row, abstracts volume, INHIGEO David BranaganSymposium Session, 336.

Turner, S. 2012b. Lazarus shark taxa in the Triassic ofAustralia. In: Friedman, M. & Lloyd, G. (eds) 60thSVPCA 2012, 10–14 September, Program & Abstracts,Geology Department, Oxford University, 24.

Turner, S. & Long, J. A. 1987. Lower Carboniferouspalaeoniscoids (Pisces: Actinopterygii) from Queens-land. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 25,193–200.

Turner, S. & Long, J. A. 1989. Professor Edwin SherbonHills: His palaeontological works. In: Le Maitre,R. W. (ed.) Pathways in Geology. Essays in Honourof Edwin Sherbon Hills. Memorial Volume Commit-tee/Blackwoods, Melbourne, 41–51.

Turner, S. & Young, G. C. 1992. Thelodont scalesfrom the Middle–Late Devonian Aztec Silstone,southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Antarctic Science,4, 89–105.

Turner, S., Burrow, C. J., & Warren, A. 2005.Gyracanthides hawkinsi gen. et sp. nov (Acanthodii:Gyracanthidae) from the Lower Carboniferous ofQueensland with a review of gyracanthid taxa. Palae-ontology, 48, 963–1006.

Turner, S., Bean, L., Dettmann, M., McKellar, J.,McCloughlin, S. & Thulborn, T. 2009. AustralianJurassic sedimentary and fossil successions: currentwork and future prospects for marine and non-marinecorrelation. GFF, 131, 49–70.

Turner, S., Burek, C. V. & Moody, R. T. J. 2010. For-gotten women in an extinct saurian (man’s) world.In: R. T. J.Moody,, E.Buffetaut,, D.Naish, &D. M.Martill, (eds) Dinosaurs and Other ExtinctSaurians: A Historical Perspective. Geological Soci-ety, London, Special Publications, 343, 111–153,http://doi.org/10.1144/SP343.7

Turner, S., Snyder, D., Daeschler, T. & Sullivan, R.2012. Super spiny or spiny supper: Gyracanthides sher-woodi (Newberry), an Upper Devonian cartilaginousfish from Pennsylvania, U.S.A. In: SVP 72nd AnnualMeeting, 17–20 October, 2012, Raleigh, NC. Journalof Vertebrate Paleontology, Suppl., Abstracts, 186.

Unmack, P. 1997. Biogeography of Australian freshwaterfishes. Australian Society for Fish Biology, Darwin,Australia, July, http://www.peter.unmack.net/biogeog/html/appendices/appendixi.html [last accessed22 December, 2014].

Vallance, T. G. 1988. Pittman, Edward Fisher (1849–1932). In: Australian Dictionary of Biography.National Centre of Biography, Australian National

S. TURNER & J. LONG


http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.10

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.10

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.10

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.11

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.11

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP430.11

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP310.23

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP310.23

http://doi.org/10.1144/SP310.23



http://www.peter.unmack.net/biogeog/html/appendices/appendixi.html




University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pittman-edward-fisher-8060/text14045 [last accessed online 21November 2014].

Vickers-Rich, P. & Archbold, N. 1991. Squatters,priests and professors: a brief history of vertebratepalaeontology in Terra Australis. In: Vickers-Rich,P., Monaghan, J. M., Baird, R. F. & Rich, T. H.(eds) Vertebrate Palaeontology of Australasia. PioneerDesign Studios in co-operation with Monash Univer-sity Publications Committee, Melbourne, 1–43.

Wade, R. T. 1931. The fossil fishes of the AustralianMesozoic rocks. Journal & Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of NSW, 64, 115–147.

Wade, R. T. 1935. The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale, NewSouth Wales. British Museum (Natural History),London.

Wade, R. T. 1940. The Triassic fishes of Gosford, NewSouth Wales. Journal & Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of NSW, 73, 206–217.

Wade, R. T. 1942. The Jurassic Fishes of New SouthWales. Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Societyof NSW, 75, 71–84.

Wade, R. T. 1953. Jurassic fishes of New South Wales(Macrosemiidae) with a note on the Triassic genusPromecosomina. Journal & Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of NSW, 87, 63–72.

Walsh, G. P. 1981. Etheridge, Robert (1846–1920). In:Australian Dictionary of Biography, 8. MelbourneUniversity Press, Melbourne.

Walsh, G. P. 1990. Wade, Robert Thompson (1884–1967). In: Australian Dictionary of Biography, 12.Melbourne University Press, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/wade-robert-thompson-8942/text15715 [lastaccessed 12 July 2012].

Walsh, G. P. 1993. Debenham, Frank (1883–1965). In:Australian Dictionary of Biography, 13. MelbourneUniversity Press, 602–603.

Ware, J. E. 2013. Altnachree. An Irish Castle, a Familyand a Man with a Passion. Writelight Pty Ltd forauthor, Sydney.

Warren, A. A. & Turner, S. 2004. A stem tetrapod fromthe Visean Ducabrook Formation, Queensland, Austra-lia. Palaeontology, 47, 1–34.

Warren, A., Currie, B. P., Burrow, C. & Turner, S.2000. A redescription and reinterpretation of Gyracan-thides murrayi (Acanthodii, Gyracanthidae) from theLower Carboniferous of the Mansfield Basin, Victoria,Australia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 20,225–242.

White, E. I. 1945. Obituary Sir Arthur Smith WoodwardKt., LL.D., D.Sc. Ph.D., F.R.S., F.G.S. Proceedingsof the Linnean Society of London, Session 156,1943–44, pt 3, 21 August, 238–242.

Willis, P. 2007. http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/antarcticfossils/ [last accessed 12 November2012] [NB. Not ‘Smith-Woodard’ – sic].

Woodward, A. S. 1885. The Modern Ideas of theCreation. [Abstract of lecture by Arthur Smith Wood-ward, delivered in the Townley Street Lecture Hall,Macclesfield, on Thursday evening, 19 March 1885.].Macclesfield Courier and Herald, 28 March 1885.

Woodward, A. S. 1889a. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes inthe British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,S.W. Part I. Trustees BM(NH), London.

Woodward, A. S. 1889b. On Atherstonia, a new genus ofpalaeoniscid fishes from the Karoo Formation of SouthAfrica. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series6, 4, 239–242.

Woodward, A. S. 1889c. On Diplodus Moorei, sp. nov.,from the Keuper of Somersetshire. fishes from theKaroo Formation of South Africa. Annals & Magazineof Natural History, Series 6, 3, 299–300.

Woodward, A. S. 1890a. On the discovery of a Jurassicfish-fauna in the Hawkesbury Beds of New SouthWales. [Abstract.] Annals & Magazine of Natural His-tory, Series 6, 6, 423.

Woodward, A. S. 1890b. The fossil fishes of the Haw-kesbury Series at Gosford, New South Wales.[Abstract.] Annals & Magazine of Natural History,Series 6, 6, 423–424.

Woodward, A. S. 1890c. On the discovery of a Jurassicfish-fauna in the Hawkesbury Beds of New SouthWales. [Abstract.] Geological Magazine, Decade 3,7, 565–566.

Woodward, A. S. 1890d. On the discovery of a Juras-sic fish-fauna in the Hawkesbury-Wianamatta Bedsof New South Wales. Report of the British Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science, 60 (for1889), 822.

Woodward, A. S. 1890e. The fossil fishes of the Hawkes-bury Series at Gosford, with Geology by T.W. Edge-worth David. Memoirs of the Geological Survey ofNew South Wales, Palaeontology, 4.

Woodward, A. S. 1891. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes inthe British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,S.W. Part II. Elasmobranchii (Acanthodii), Holoce-phali, ichthyodorulites etc. London.

Woodward, A. S. 1892. Doubly-armoured herrings.Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series 6, 10,412–413.

Woodward, A. S. 1893. [Aetheolepis scales] Natural Sci-ence, London, 3, 449.

Woodward, A. S. 1894. On some fish-remains of thegenera Portheus and Cladocyclus, from the RollingDowns Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of Queensland.Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series 6, 14,444–447.

Woodward, A. S. 1895a. The fossil fishes of the TalbragarBeds (Jurassic?). Memoir of the Geological Survey ofNew South Wales, Palaeontology, 9.

Woodward, A. S. 1895b. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes inthe British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,S.W. Part III. London.

Woodward, A. S. 1898. Outlines of Vertebrate Palaeon-tology for Students of Zoology. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Woodward, A. S. 1900. Reviews. Helicoprion – spine ortooth? Geological Magazine, Decade 4, 7, 33–36.

Woodward, A. S. 1902a. Fishes. In: von Zittel, K. A.(ed.) Textbook of Palaeontology, 11. Macmillan,London.

Woodward, A. S. 1902b. On Athersonia australis andCtenolates avus, two new species of fossil fishesfrom New South Wales. Records of the GeologicalSurvey of New South Wales, VII, 88–91.

Woodward, A. S. 1902c. Preliminary note on a Carbonif-erous fish fauna from Victoria, Australia. GeologicalMagazine, Decade 4, 9, 471–473.



http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pittman-edward-fisher-8060/text14045




http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/wade-robert-thompson-8942/text15715






http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/antarcticfossils/




Woodward, A. S. 1903. Note sur l’Helicoprion et lesEdestides. Bulletin de la Societe belge du Geologie,13, 230–233.

Woodward, A. S. 1904. On a Carboniferous acanthodianfish, Gyracanthides. Report of the British Associationfor the Advancement of Science, 73, 662–663.

Woodward, A. S. 1906. On a Carboniferous fish faunafrom the Mansfield district, Victoria. Memoirs of theNational Museum, Melbourne, 1, 1–32.

Woodward, A. S. 1907a. On a reconstructed skeleton ofDiprotodon in the British Museum (Natural History).Geological Magazine, Decade 5, 4, 337–339.

Woodward, A. S. 1907b. On a tooth of Ceratodus and adinosaurian claw from the Lower Jurassic of Victoria,Australia. Records of the Geological Survey of Victo-ria, 2, 135–137.

Woodward, A. S. 1908a. The fossil fishes of the Hawkes-bury Series at St Peter’s; with note by W. S. Dun. Mem-oirs of the Geological Survey of New South Wales,Palaeontology, 10.

Woodward, A. S. 1908b. The Fossil Fishes of the EnglishChalk. Part IV. Monograph of the PalaeontographicalSociety, London, 1907, 129–152.

Woodward, A. S. 1909. Presidential Address. BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Science, 1909,Winnipeg. Section C. Geology. [Abstract.]. Science,New York (n.s.), 30, 321–331.

Woodward, A. S. 1910. On remains of a megalosauriandinosaur from New South Wales. Report of the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Science, 79 (1909),482–483.

Woodward, A. S. 1916. Devonian fish remains from Aus-tralia and the Antarctica regions. In: Proceedings &Abstracts, Geological Society of London for 1915–1916, 65–66.

Woodward, A. S. 1921. Fish-remains from the Upper OldRed Sandstone of Granite Harbour, Antarctica. BritishMuseum (Natural History), London. British Antarctic(‘Terra Nova’) Expedition 1910, Natural HistoryReport Geology, 1, 51–62.

Woodward, A. S. 1931. On Urosthenes, a fossil fish fromthe Upper Coal Measures of Lithgow, New SouthWales. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series10, 8, 365–367.

Woodward, A. S. 1940a. The affinities of the Palaeozoicpleuracanth sharks. Annals & Magazine of NaturalHistory, Series 11, 5, 323–326.

Woodward, A. S. 1940b. A palaeoniscid fish (Elonichthysdavidi, sp. nov.) from the Newcastle Coal Measures,New South Wales. Annals & Magazine of NaturalHistory, Series 11, 6, 462–464.

Woodward, A. S. 1941. The head shield of a new macro-petalichthyid Fish (Notopetalichthys hillsi, gen. etsp. nov.) from the Middle Devonian of Australia.

Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series 11, 8,91–96.

Woodward, A. S. 1942. The beginning of the teleosteanfishes. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, Series11, 9, 902–912.

Woodward, A. S. 1948. The Earliest Englishman. Think-er’s Library, 127. London.

Woodward, A. S. & Sherborn, C. D. 1890. A Catalogueof British Fossil Vertebrata. Dulau & Co., London.

Woodward, H. 1886. On a remarkable ichthyodorulitefrom the Carboniferous Series, Gascoyne, WesternAustralia. Geological Magazine, Decade 3, 3, 1–7.

Woodward, H. 1895. Preface. Catalogue of the FossilFishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Crom-well Road, S.W. Part III. London.

Woodward, H. 1915. Eminent living geologists. – ArthurSmith Woodward. Geological Magazine, Decade 6,2, 1–5.

Woodward, M. S. n.d. Memories, P MSS WOO Box 3/10, NHM Library.

Wymer, J. J. 1999. Woodward, Arthur Smith. English,1864–1944. In: Singer, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia ofPaleontology. M–Z. Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, IL,2, 1345–1346.

Young, G. C. 1982. Devonian sharks from south-eastern Australia and Antarctica. Palaeontology, 25,817–843.

Young, G. C. 1988. Antiarchs (placoderm fishes) from theDevonian Aztec Siltstone, southern Victoria Land,Antarctica. Palaeontographica A, 202, 1–125.

Young, G. C. 1989a. The Aztec fish fauna of southern Vic-toria Land – evolutionary and biogeographic signifi-cance. In: Crame, J. A. (ed.) Origins and Evolutionof the Antarctic Biota. Geological Society, London,Special Publications, 47, 43–62, http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1989.047.01.05

Young, G. C. 1989b. New occurrences of culmacanthidacanthodians (Pisces, Devonian) from Antarctica andsoutheastern Australia. Proceedings of the LinneanSociety of New South Wales, 111, 12–25.

Young, G. C. 2011. Wee Jasper Lake Burrinjuck Fossilfish sites: scientific background to national heritagenomination. Proceedings & Journal of the LinneanSociety of New South Wales, 132, 83–127.

Young, G. C. 2015. ‘Elgin Marbles’ of Australian palae-ontology. Tag, The Australian Geologist, 175, 29–32.

Young, G. C. & Long, J. A. 2014. New arthrodires (plac-oderm fishes) from the Aztec Siltstone (late MiddleDevonian) of southern Victoria land, Antarctica.Australian Journal of Zoology, 62, 44–62.

Young, G. C., Long, J. A. & Ritchie, A. 1992. Crossopter-ygian fishes from the Devonian of Antarctica: system-atics, relationships and biogeographic significance.Records of the Australian Museum (Suppl.), 14, 1–77.

S. TURNER & J. LONG


http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1989.047.01.05




Documents

The Woodward factor: Arthur Smith Woodward’s legacy to … · 2017. 2. 8. · The Woodward factor: Arthur Smith Woodward’s legacy to geology in Australia and Antarctica SUSAN