So, this happened today

March 28, 2013

Big Bend Alamosaurus cervical J with Matt for scale

Advertisements

9 Responses to “So, this happened today”

  1. Mike Taylor Says:

    1. Feel my jealousy rays, radiating across the Atlantic.

    2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Titanosaurs have stupid cervicals.


  2. First of all: Awesome.
    Second: That vert looks very similar to the cervical referred to Alamosaurus held in the Museum of Evolution in Uppsala. The neural canal is so small (relatively)…
    Third: Without measurements its not possible to tell for sure, but that vert looks on par (size-wise, and broadly morphologically speaking) with the Futalognkosaurus vertebra you posted a photo of with Juan Porfiri (https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cervical.jpg). Interesting…

  3. Mike Taylor Says:

    Yes, that Futalognkosaurus vertebra was my first thought on seeing this.

  4. Ronald12 Says:

    Hey, is this Alamosaurus? And people mention Futalognkosaurus in association with it? Futalognkosaurus is member of the Lognkosauria. So is the (late) late Cretaceous Puertasaurus (as far as I know).
    Alamosaurus is also late late Cretaceous (Campanian, Maastrichtian), probably contemporaneous with Puertasaurus.
    But Alamosaurus is member of the Opisthocoelicaudiinae, isn’t it?

    Is there maybe a close relationship here, and the possibility of migration from South America, after the North American sauropod hiatus?

  5. Mike Taylor Says:

    Ronald12, I don’t think anyone can say anything much about titanosaur relationships with certainty. There have been studies in which the phylogenetic analysis recovered Alamosaurus as close to Opisthocoelicaudia, yes, but I wouldn’t want to make any bets about how it’ll come out in the next study.

    I think I’m right in saying that Jeff Wilson has a big titanosaur analysis in the works. I hope so: Jeff does exhaustively detailed work, so that even now I still find myself referring back to his 2002 sauropod analysis.

    And there is definitely a gigantic all-Sauropoda analysis in the works from Paul Upchurch. That, too, will shed important new light.

  6. Mike Taylor Says:

    I’ve just noticed from this picture (and verified from a previous one that this mount seems to have no manual phalanges at all.

    Is that an oversight, and incompleteness or a genuine feature?

  7. Mark Robinson Says:

    “…seems to have no manual phalanges at all.”

    I thought that was a defining character for all derived Titanosaurids.

    Yeah, in Ameghiniana 34 (1): 3-32 15-4-1997, Salgado et al. use it to define Titanosauridae. No doubt there is more recent literature that will perhaps clarify things.

    I think there is also debate about whether metacarpals are also absent or just not ossified.

  8. Mike Taylor Says:

    You’re right on absence of manual phalanges being at least common for, if not diagnostic of, titanosaurs. My bad. I will diminish, and go into the West.


  9. […] relatives in Texas, just like last spring. Very distant relatives. And this […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: