1 / 43

An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England Michael P. Ta

An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England Michael P. Taylor and Darren Naish School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth PO1 3QL <dino@miketaylor.org.uk>. freaky.

gabby
Download Presentation

An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England Michael P. Ta

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England Michael P. Taylor and Darren Naish School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth PO1 3QL <dino@miketaylor.org.uk>

  2. freaky An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England Michael P. Taylor and Darren Naish School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth PO1 3QL <dino@miketaylor.org.uk>

  3. Where to discover new dinosaurs (I) Mike Benton at SVPCA 2005 suggested countries such as Mongolia and Argentina ...

  4. Where to discover new dinosaurs (II) ... but the best unexplored territory is still the basement of the Natural History Museum.

  5. Meet BMNH R2095 A single, partial mid-to-posterior dorsal vertebra. That's not much material, but: Sauropod dorsals are very diagnostic. This specimen is highly apomorphic. Briefly described by Lydekker (1893) when no-one knew anything about sauropods. Subsequently overlooked.

  6. Where it's from Precise locality information is not preserved (if it was ever recorded). Lydekker (1893) just said “from the Wealden of Hastings”. But: known to have been collected by Rufford. Better documented Rufford specimens are known to be from East Cliff and Ecclesbourne Glen (both east of Hastings) R2095

  7. Age • Stratigraphic information is not preserved. • Units exposed both East Cliff and • Ecclesbourne Glen are part of the • Ashdown Beds Formation • R2095 probably from Ecclesbourne Glen: • It is closer to Hastings than is East Cliff • Most of Rufford's specimens are from • Ecclesbourne Glen. • Ashdown Beds Formation exposure at • Ecclesbourne Glen is Berriasian R2095

  8. A long-overdue closer look at the specimen Left and right lateral 200 mm Anterior

  9. A long-overdue closer look at the specimen Anterior and posterior

  10. So what is it?

  11. So what is it? 1. Sauropoda

  12. So what is it? 2. Eusauropoda

  13. So what is it? 3. Neosauropoda

  14. So what is it? 4. a unique Neosauropod

  15. Similarities between sides

  16. Similarities and differences between sides

  17. Similarities and differences between sides

  18. Reconstruction Parapophysis can be identified at junction of laminae. Positions of diapophysis and zygapophyses can be deduced from trajectories of laminae. Condyle curvature inferred from cotyle. High location of parapophysis indicates posterior position.

  19. So what kind of Neosauropod is it? “Classic” diplodocoids (Diplodocidae+ Dicraeosauridae) ? ? Diplodocoidea Rebbachisauridae Neosauropoda Camarasauridae Brachiosauridae Macronaria Titanosauria

  20. Is it a classic diplodocoid? Diplodocus carnegii holotype CM 84, dorsal 8 (Hatcher 1901, Plate VII, reversed)

  21. Is it a classic diplodocoid? Diplodocus carnegii holotype CM 84, dorsal 8 (Hatcher 1901, Plate VII, reversed)

  22. Is it a classic diplodocoid? Diplodocus carnegii holotype CM 84, dorsal 8 (Hatcher 1901, Plate VII, reversed)

  23. Is it a rebbachisaur? Rebbachisaurus garasbae holotype, posterior dorsal (photo by Fabio Dalla Vecchia, reversed)

  24. Is it a rebbachisaur? Rebbachisaurus garasbae holotype, posterior dorsal (photo by Fabio Dalla Vecchia, reversed)

  25. Is it a rebbachisaur? Rebbachisaurus garasbae holotype, posterior dorsal (photo by Fabio Dalla Vecchia, reversed) Prezygapophyses close together Laterally diverging prezygapophyses

  26. Is it a camarasaur? Camarasaurus grandis holotype YPM 1901, posterior dorsal (Ostrom & McIntosh 1966, Plate 25)

  27. Is it a camarasaur? Camarasaurus grandis holotype YPM 1901, posterior dorsal (Ostrom & McIntosh 1966, Plate 25) Stupid and ugly Stupid and ugly

  28. Is it a brachiosaur? Brachiosaurus brancai holotype HMN SII, D7 (Janensch 1950, Figure 56, reversed)

  29. Is it a brachiosaur? Brachiosaurus brancai holotype HMN SII, D7 (Janensch 1950, Figure 56, reversed) ? ? ? ?

  30. Is it a brachiosaur? Brachiosaurus brancai holotype HMN SII, D7 (Janensch 1950, Figure 56, reversed) ? ? ? ?

  31. Is it a titanosaur? Neuquensaurus autralis MCS-5/20-22, D9 (Salgado et al. 2005, Figure 4)

  32. Is it a titanosaur? Neuquensaurus autralis MCS-5/20-22, D9 (Salgado et al. 2005, Figure 4)

  33. Is it a titanosaur? Neuquensaurus autralis MCS-5/20-22, D9 (Salgado et al. 2005, Figure 4) Internal structure camerate Camellate

  34. So what is it?

  35. So what is it? It seems to represent a completely new group (or a very highly derived member of a known group) ... what we used to call a new “family”

  36. How big was R2095? Centrum proportions are similar to Brachiosaurus brancai holotype HMN SII, D7 B. brancai is estimated 25m long (Paul 1988) If isometrically similar, R2095 would be 15m. B. brancai is estimated 35000 kg (average of several sensible published estimates). R2095 would be 7500 kg. (About the mass of a big elephant)

  37. How big was R2095? Longer and lighter if similar to Diplodocus carnegii CM 84 D. carnegii is 27m long and 1200 kg (Wedel 2005). Centrum proportions differ, so: – assume length proportional to centrum length => R2095 is 20m long – assume mass propotional to centrum length x cotyle height x width => R2095 masses 2300 kg

  38. Sauropods of the Hastings Beds Group Humerus “Cetiosaurus” brevis = Pelorosaurusconybeari (pending ICZN petition) “Pelorosaurus” becklesi (actually generically distinct and titanosaurian) Humerus Ulna Radius

  39. Sauropod diversity goes nuts! Dorsal vertebrae of Tendaguria tanzaniensis holotype MB.R.2092.1-2, NB4, NB5 (Bonaparte, Heinrich and Wild 2000)

  40. Sauropod diversity goes nuts! Agustinia ligabuei Bonaparte 1999 Reconstruction by Mudyryknow J.R., from The Dinosauricon http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=2268 It might be some kind of titanosaur ...

  41. Sauropod diversity goes nuts! Agustinia ligabuei Bonaparte 1999 Reconstruction by Mudyryknow J.R., from The Dinosauricon http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=2268 It might be some kind of titanosaur ... ... but Titanosauria is the new Cetiosauridae

  42. Sauropod diversity goes nuts!

  43. I'd like to thank everyone who's made tonight possible ... * My co-author Doctor Darren Naish * Philip James Rufford for finding and donating the specimen * Everyone who's ignored it for 113 years * Sandra D. Chapman (Natural History Museum) for access to the specimen. * Nick Pharris (University of Michigan) for etymological assistance. * We used English translations of several papers from the very useful Polyglot Paleontologist web-site http://ravenel.si.edu/paleo/paleoglot/index.cfm Thanks are due specifically to the following translators: * Sebastián Apesteguía (Bonaparte 1999a), * Matthew T. Carrano (Bonaparte 1986b), * William R. Downs (Young and Zhao 1972), * Matthew C. Lamanna (Bonaparte and Coria 1993, del Corro 1975 and Lavocat 1954) * Jeffrey A. Wilson (Salgado and Coria 1993). * In addition, portions of Janensch 1914 were translated by Gerhard Maier. * David M. Martill (University of Portsmouth) reviewed the manuscript. * Mathew J. Wedel (UCMP) reviewed this presentation.

More Related