Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'saurolophine'.
Found 7 results
-
The left humerus of a juvenile hadrosaur. Found near Hamilton. The closest formation is Two Medicine formation. The deltopectoral crest seems fairly robust for such a young animal so I'm leaning towards this being Lambeosaurine instead of Saurolophine, which would make it most likely Hypacrosaurus. The shape also fits quite well with a juvenile Hypacrosaurus I have restored some small areas where there were large holes. But I have left the largest area of damage due to it being a little unclear as to how robust or slender that area would have been.
-
- 1
-
-
- campanian
- cretaceous
- (and 6 more)
-
Partial chevron of a hadrosaur. Likely Edmontosaurus.
-
The right humerus of a subadult hadrosaur. The morphology matches that of saurolophinae. Members of Brachylophosaurini seem to match most closely. Brachylophosaurus canadensis is the closest match. There is some lateromedial crushing that makes the whole deltopectoral crest look more slender.
-
- 1
-
-
- campanian
- cretaceous
- (and 5 more)
-
Left coracoid of a medium sized hadrosaur from the Judith River formation. Both lambeosaurine and saurolophine hadrosaurs are present in the Judith River formation. This coracoid is consistent with the morphology of saurolophine hadrosaurs. The closest match is Brachylophosaurus canadensis.
-
- 4
-
-
- hadrosaurid
- judith river
- (and 4 more)
-
From the album: Reptile Fossils
Edmontosaurus annectens (Marsh, 1892) Jaw fragment of a juvenile Edmontosaurus. Location: Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, USA Age: Maastrichtian, Upper Cretaceous© © Olof Moleman
-
From the album: Reptile Fossils
Edmontosaurus annectens (Marsh, 1892) Chevron of an Edmontosaurus. Location: Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, USA Age: Maastrichtian, Upper Cretaceous© © Olof Moleman
-
Has anybody figured out the exact systematic placement of Stephanosaurus marginatus? As far as I can recall, the holotype of S. marginatus (CMN 419) consists of bones of the forelimb and the foot as well as fragments of neck vertebrae, teeth, and ribs (disassociated bones cataloged under CMN 419 [including a theropod ischium] were provisionally referred to T. marginatus by Lambe 1902, but were later referred to Lambeosaurus by Gilmore 1924). The two editions of the Dinosauria list Stephanosaurus and its type species as a nomen dubium (probably based on the assessment of Stephanosaurus as gen. et. sp. indet. in Brett-Surman's 1989 thesis), but without comment. As pointed out by Gilmore (1924), Stephanosaurus differs from Gryposaurus notabilis only in that the humerus and radius are almost equally proportional to each other in length (ratio of humerus length to radius length in Stephanosaurus 1:0.953 versus 1:0.881 in Gryposaurus notabilis) and the radius and ulna are larger than those of Gryposaurus. Since mid-late Campanian of Montana and Canada is starting to become crowded with saurolophines belonging to different tribes (Brachylophosaurini, Kritosaurini, Saurolophini) and no edmontosaurins have been found in the Dinosaur Park Formation yet, I'd be curious to see if Stephanosaurus could be its own thing or not.
