Evidence for survival in a Middle Jurassic plesiosaur with a humeral pathology: What can we infer of plesiosaur behaviour?

Rothschild, Bruce M.; Clark, Neil D. L.; Clark, Caspar

doi:10.26879/719

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common single co‐ossification, or at least the most phylogenetically widespread, may be the fusion of the scapula and coracoid into a single element [used in e.g. Squamata (Dong, Wang & Evans, 2017); Rhynchocephalia (O'Brian et al ., 2018); Sauropterygia (Rothschild, Clark & Clark, 2018); Pantestudines (Bever et al ., 2015); Pseudosuchia (Walker, 1961; Brochu, 1995; Roberto‐da‐Silva et al ., 2020); Pterosauria (Hone et al ., 2012 b ); Dinosauria (Coombs & Maryańska, 1990; Currie & Zhao, 1993; Coria et al ., 2013; D'emic, 2013; Griffin, 2018; Navalón et al ., 2018)]. The fusion of these elements during ontogeny may represent the ancestral saurian condition (Griffin, 2018).…”

Section: Methods Of Assessing Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing ontogenetic maturity in extinct saurian reptiles

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphology forms the most fundamental level of data in vertebrate palaeontology because it is through interpretations of morphology that taxa are identified, creating the basis for broad evolutionary and palaeobiological hypotheses. Assessing maturity is one of the most basic aspects of morphological interpretation and provides the means to study the evolution of ontogenetic changes, population structure and palaeoecology, life‐history strategies, and heterochrony along evolutionary lineages that would otherwise be lost to time. Saurian reptiles (the least‐inclusive clade containing Lepidosauria and Archosauria) have remained an incredibly diverse, numerous, and disparate clade through their ~260‐million‐year history. Because of the great disparity in this group, assessing maturity of saurian reptiles is difficult, fraught with methodological and terminological ambiguity. We compiled a novel database of literature, assembling >900 individual instances of saurian maturity assessment, to examine critically how saurian maturity has been diagnosed. We review the often inexact and inconsistent terminology used in saurian maturity assessment (e.g. ‘juvenile’, ‘mature’) and provide routes for better clarity and cross‐study coherence. We describe the various methods that have been used to assess maturity in every major saurian group, integrating data from both extant and extinct taxa to give a full account of the current state of the field and providing method‐specific pitfalls, best practices, and fruitful directions for future research. We recommend that a new standard subsection, ‘Ontogenetic Assessment’, be added to the Systematic Palaeontology portions of descriptive studies to provide explicit ontogenetic diagnoses with clear criteria. Because the utility of different ontogenetic criteria is highly subclade dependent among saurians, even for widely used methods (e.g. neurocentral suture fusion), we recommend that phylogenetic context, preferably in the form of a phylogenetic bracket, be used to justify the use of a maturity assessment method. Different methods should be used in conjunction as independent lines of evidence when assessing maturity, instead of an ontogenetic diagnosis resting entirely on a single criterion, which is common in the literature. Critically, there is a need for data from extant taxa with well‐represented growth series to be integrated with the fossil record to ground maturity assessments of extinct taxa in well‐constrained, empirically tested methods.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Assessing Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing ontogenetic maturity in extinct saurian reptiles

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most marine prey items recorded in the literature represent invertebrates, although vertebrate prey are known primarily from preserved stomach contents or scavenging-and/or predation-related bite marks (or bite traces sensu Vallon et al, 2015) on bones of fish (e.g., Amalfitano et al, 2017;Claeson et al, 2015;Collareta et al, 2017a;Hunt and Lucas, 2014;McHenry et al, 2005), reptiles (e.g., Milàn et al, 2011;Noriega et al, 2007;Noto et al, 2012;Rothschild et al, 2018), and mammals (e.g., Boessenecker and Perry, 2011;Deméré and Cerutti, 1982;Ehret et al, 2009). Some of the first documented examples of predation in the fossil record involve vertebrate prey (e.g., Buckland, 1858;Capellini, 1865;Cope, 1872Cope, , 1871Cope, , 1868Dollo, 1887;Portis, 1883).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in the marine fossil record: Studies, data, recognition, environmental factors, and behavior

Klompmaker

Kelley

Chattopadhyay

et al. 2019

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fossil record is the primary source of data used to study predator-prey interactions in deep time and to evaluate key questions regarding the evolutionary and ecological importance of predation. Here, we review the types of paleontological data used to infer predation in the marine fossil record, discuss strengths and limitations of paleontological lines of evidence used to recognize and evaluate predatory activity, assess the influence of environmental gradients on predation patterns, and review fossil evidence for predator behavior and prey defense. We assembled a predation database from the literature that documents a steady increase in the number of papers on predation since the 1960s. These studies have become increasingly quantitative and have expanded in focus from reporting cases of predation documented by fossils to using the fossil record of predation to test ecological and evolutionary hypotheses. The data on the fossil record of predation amassed so far in the literature primarily come from trace fossils, mostly drill holes and, to a lesser extent, repair scars, derived predominantly from the Cenozoic of Europe and North America. Mollusks are the clade most often studied as prey and inferred predators. We discuss how to distinguish biotic from abiotic damage and predatory from parasitic traces, and how to recognize failed predation. Our data show that identifying the predator is easiest when predator and prey are preserved in the act of predation or when predators were fossilized with their gut contents preserved. However, determining the culprits responsible for bite traces, drill holes, and other types of predation traces can be more problematic.Taphonomic and other factors can distort patterns of predation, but their potential effects can be minimized by careful study design. With the correct identification and quantification of fossilized traces of predation, ecological trends in predator-prey interactions may be discerned along environmental gradients in water depth, habitat, and oxygen and nutrient availability.However, so far, these trends have not been explored adequately for the fossil record. We also

show abstract

“…Infections and injuries were described in ichthyosaurs (Pardo‐Pérez et al, 2018, 2020; Pardo‐Pérez et al, 2022; B. M. Rothschild et al, 2012) and mosasaurs (Bastiaans et al, 2020; Schulp et al, 2004, 2006). The pathological record within sauropterygians is limited to decompression syndrome‐related bone alterations (B. M. Rothschild et al, 2012; B. M. Rothschild & Storrs, 2003; Surmik et al, 2017), infections (Surmik et al, 2017, 2018), and trauma (Q. Liu et al, 2021; B. Rothschild et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone abnormalities in the middle Anisian marine sauropsids from Winterswijk

Surmik

Szczygielski

Słowiak-Morkovina

et al. 2022

Journal of Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the occurrence of skeletal pathologies in Middle Triassic marine reptiles has been poorly documented until now, massive accumulations of bone remains from the Germanic Basin provide the opportunities for documentation. Herein, we describe skeletal abnormalities in the Middle Triassic bone material from the Vossenveld Formation of Winterswijk, the Netherlands. The aim of the study is to distinguish in the studied bones pathologies resulting from malady or trauma and taphonomic alterations. Furthermore, an attempt was made to assess on how the pathologies also represent paleoecological data. Our survey led to the identification of one broken and healed bone, one case of abnormal coossification, and one case of posttraumatic fibro-osseous dysplasia. While the latter two pathologies give little insight into the ecology and function of the affected animals, the fractured dentary is attributed to Nothosaurus marchicus, a common sauropterygian macropredator. It proves that the individual survived long enough to heal, despite the injury hampering its hunting potential. One abnormally shaped humerus is interpreted as postmortem taphonomic deformation, emphasizing the necessity of utilization of detailed diagnostics to distinguish actual paleopathologies from nonbiological distortion.

show abstract

Evidence for survival in a Middle Jurassic plesiosaur with a humeral pathology: What can we infer of plesiosaur behaviour?

Cited by 8 publications

References 35 publications

Assessing ontogenetic maturity in extinct saurian reptiles

Assessing ontogenetic maturity in extinct saurian reptiles

Predation in the marine fossil record: Studies, data, recognition, environmental factors, and behavior

Bone abnormalities in the middle Anisian marine sauropsids from Winterswijk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About