Journal of Paleontology, 92(5), 2018, p. 948–949 Copyright © 2018, The Paleontological Society 0022-3360/15/0088-0906 doi: 10.1017/jpa.2018.53
Awards and Citations
Presentation of the 2017 Schuchert Award of the Paleontological Society to Caroline A.E. Strömberg
Scott L. Wing Department of Paleobiology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013, USA ⟨
wings@si.edu⟩
We scientists and the topics of our obsessive research are a little like pet owners with their pets. You might remember photos of a jowly Churchill with an English bulldog, or William Faulkner standing trim and taut next to his feisty terriers. For many of us there is also an inner rhyme between what we study and who we are. Maybe we choose our study subject because it suits the strengths of our personality, or maybe what we work on makes us who we are. These mysterious connections came to mind as I thought
about Caroline Strömberg, this year’s Schuchert awardee. As you know, Caroline is a paleobotanist, and her primary study organisms are grasses. Grasses are a fantastically successful group, but they are mostly herbaceous plants, and from a paleobotanical point of view the most notable feature of herbs is that they tend to have a poor fossil record. So the first thing you can tell about Caroline from her study group is that she doesn’t pick easy problems. Hard problems require innovative solutions, and the poor
macrofossil record of grasses and monotony of their pollen required a different approach. Caroline transplanted a largely archeological method, the study of siliceous phytoliths, to paleontology. When she decided to do this it was widely assumed that the opaline silica of which phytoliths are com- posed didn’t preserve for long enough to be a significant com- ponent of the deep time record. Caroline did not see that as a barrier, and off to the field she went, sampling paleosols across the American West for microscopic phytoliths that most thought wouldn’t be there. The abundant record she uncovered revealed that the grassland biome spread in North America in the late Oligocene and early Miocene, seven million years before the evolution of mammals with high-crowned molars. Caroline also saw that grasses were a classic example of ecological/evolu- tionary latency—their earliest fossils are Late Cretaceous, the open-country clades diversified in the Paleogene, but they didn’t rise to ecological dominance until the Neogene. This pattern fascinates anyone interested in the diversification of major groups.
Post-thesis Caroline decided that she wanted to chase the
idea of dominance lagging diversity in the Cretaceous rise of angiosperms, so she came to the Smithsonian on a fellowship to
work on a Late Cretaceous in situ flora. I assumed that, being a Neogene worker, Caroline would focus only on injecting fresh insight into analyzing extensive field data I had accumulated. If I had known her better, I would have known better. At our first conversation she announced that she couldn’t analyze existing data unless she understood the alpha taxonomy of the fossil assemblage. So, she spent months examining EVERY ONE of the thousands of specimens belonging to nearly 200 provisional taxa. Soon we were arguing about delimitation of morphotypes based on vein features that she had learned to name only a few weeks before. Not long after that she was winning the arguments. At the time I was surprised that Caroline wanted to wade into these minutiae. In retrospect I realized what she did was admir- ably if annoyingly rigorous, and also quite brave. Postdoc pres- sure to get things done was not going to keep her from doing them right. In more recent years Caroline’s research has taken on
Cenozoic rise to dominance of grasses undoubtedly influenced climate systems and was central to the evolution of grass-eating animals. Understanding this ecological transformation provides the evolutionary context for today’s grass-dominated ecosys- tems and may help us disentangle their complex controls—as well as predict how they will respond to ongoing anthropogenic climate change.” There is one final way in which Caroline is like the grasses
she studies. She feeds her professional community. She has worked directly with 6th and 8th grade girls in a program to encourage female participation in science and she has greatly improved the collections at theBurkeMuseumwhere she has also led several important temporary exhibitions. She even organizes
another characteristic of her study group as she has intertwined diverse lines of evidence. She has collaborated with others to work on the teeth of the mammals that ate the grasses, the geochemistry of the soils grasses created, the phylogeny of grasses themselves, and the broader effects of grasses on nutri- ent and carbon cycling and climate. She has become a model of how modern paleontologists integrate methods and observations from many different fields, and how their work can be cited across wide swaths of science. As she herself (Strömberg, 2011, p. 518) has written: “The
948
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207
