Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

9 Responses to “So, this happened today”

1. Mike Taylor Says:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 1:08 am

   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. stephenfporopat Says:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 7:22 am

   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:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 8:55 am

   Yes, that Futalognkosaurus vertebra was my first thought on seeing this.
4. Ronald12 Says:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 11:29 am

   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:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 11:10 pm

   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:

   
   March 28, 2013 at 11:12 pm

   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:

   
   March 29, 2013 at 7:20 am

   “…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:

   
   March 29, 2013 at 11:00 am

   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. Taxidermy photobombs of the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

   
   April 9, 2014 at 5:52 am

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

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.