Anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of <i>Temnodontosaurus zetlandicus</i> (Reptilia: Ichthyosauria)

Laboury, Antoine; Bennion, Rebecca; Thuy, Ben; Weis, Robert; Fischer, Valentin

doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab118

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second outlying group with high values on both axes are two specimens (SMNS 4996–1 and 7762) which were formerly identified as ‘T. acutirostris’ (now species inquirenda [Laboury et al, 2022; Maisch, 2010]). These have long narrow snouts and weaker anterior mechanical advantages.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increasing number of studies are finding that Temnodontosaurus is not monophyletic (e.g. Laboury et al, 2022). Whilst not a phylogenetic analysis, our observations and results may offer some insight for future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mcgowanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…phenetics vs. apomorphies) has resulted in a taxonomic mess (McGowan, 1996b; McGowan & Motani, 2003) with the diagnosis of the genus based on gross skull and fin ratios (McGowan, 1974). Modern analyses find the genus to be a paraphyletic group of species of early neoichthyosaurians (Laboury et al, 2022; Moon, 2019). Recent work has started to improve the situation by reassessing the validity of some species (Laboury et al, 2022; Maisch & Hungerbuhler, 1997; Swaby & Lomax, 2021); however, further work is needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modern analyses find the genus to be a paraphyletic group of species of early neoichthyosaurians (Laboury et al, 2022; Moon, 2019). Recent work has started to improve the situation by reassessing the validity of some species (Laboury et al, 2022; Maisch & Hungerbuhler, 1997; Swaby & Lomax, 2021); however, further work is needed. Currently, seven species are recognised (Table 1), some of which have received no taxonomic attention in decades – this notably includes the two most common species T. platyodon and T. trigonodon .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Craniodental ecomorphology of the large Jurassic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus

Bennion,

Maxwell,

Lambert

et al. 2023

Journal of Anatomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine amniotes have played many crucial roles in ocean ecosystems since the Triassic, including predation at the highest trophic levels. One genus often placed into this guild is the large Early Jurassic neoichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus, the only post‐Triassic ichthyosaurian known with teeth which bear a distinct cutting edge or carina. This taxonomically problematic genus is currently composed of seven species which show a wide variety of skull and tooth morphologies. Here we assess the craniodental disparity in Temnodontosaurus using a series of functionally informative traits. We describe the range of tooth morphologies in the genus in detail, including the first examples of serrated carinae in ichthyosaurians. These consist of false denticles created by the interaction of enamel ridgelets with the carinal keel, as well as possible cryptic true denticles only visible using scanning electron microscopy. We also find evidence for heterodonty in the species T. platyodon, with unicarinate mesial teeth likely playing a role in prey capture and labiolingually compressed, bicarinate distal teeth likely involved in prey processing. This type of heterodonty appears to be convergent with a series of other marine amniotes including early cetaceans. Overall, the species currently referred to as the genus Temnodontosaurus show a range of craniodental configurations allowing prey to be captured and processed in different ways – for example, T. eurycephalus has a deep snout and relatively small bicarinate teeth likely specialised for increased wound infliction and grip‐and‐tear feeding, whereas T. platyodon has a more elongate yet robust snout and larger teeth and may be more adapted for grip‐and‐shear feeding. These results suggest the existence of niche partitioning at higher trophic levels in Early Jurassic ichthyosaurians and have implications for future work on the taxonomy of this wastebasket genus, as well as for research into the ecology of other extinct megapredatory marine tetrapods.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mcgowanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Craniodental ecomorphology of the large Jurassic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus

Bennion,

Maxwell,

Lambert

et al. 2023

Journal of Anatomy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Excavating the ‘Rutland Sea Dragon’: The largest ichthyosaur skeleton ever found in the UK (Whitby Mudstone Formation, Toarcian, Lower Jurassic)

Larkin,

Lomax,

Evans

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the Geologists' Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrasting macroevolutionary patterns in pelagic tetrapods across the Triassic–Jurassic transition

Laboury,

Stubbs,

Wolniewicz

et al. 2024

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The iconic marine raptorial predators Ichthyosauria and Eosauropterygia co-existed in the same ecosystems throughout most of the Mesozoic Era, facing similar evolutionary pressures and environmental perturbations. Both groups seemingly went through a massive macroevolutionary bottleneck across the Triassic–Jurassic (T/J) transition that greatly reduced their morphological diversity, leaving pelagic lineages as the only survivors. However, analyses of marine reptile disparity across the T/J transition have usually employed coarse morphological and temporal data. We comprehensively compare the evolution of ichthyosaurian and eosauropterygian morphology and body size across the Middle Triassic to Early Jurassic interval and find contrasting macroevolutionary patterns. The ecomorphospace of eosauropterygians predominantly reflects a strong phylogenetic signal, resulting in the clustering of three clades with clearly distinct craniodental phenotypes, suggesting ‘leaps’ towards novel feeding ecologies. Ichthyosaurian diversification lacks a discernible evolutionary trend, as we find evidence for a wide overlap of craniodental morphologies between Triassic and Early Jurassic forms. The temporal evolution of ecomorphological disparity, fin shape and body size of eosauropterygians and ichthyosaurians during the Late Triassic does not support the hypothesis of an abrupt macroevolutionary bottleneck near the T/J transition. Rather, an important turnover event should be sought earlier, during times of rapid sea level falls.

show abstract

Anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Temnodontosaurus zetlandicus (Reptilia: Ichthyosauria)

Cited by 6 publications

References 76 publications

Craniodental ecomorphology of the large Jurassic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus

Craniodental ecomorphology of the large Jurassic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus

Excavating the ‘Rutland Sea Dragon’: The largest ichthyosaur skeleton ever found in the UK (Whitby Mudstone Formation, Toarcian, Lower Jurassic)

Contrasting macroevolutionary patterns in pelagic tetrapods across the Triassic–Jurassic transition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About