Lets talk... Blezingeria

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

First off: happy new year, everyone!

 

Blezingeria ichthyospondylus is an enigmatic marine reptile from the Ladinian-stage Triassic, Upper Muschelkalk of Baden-Württemberg in southwestern Germany, first discovered in Crailsheim. Although various material has been referred to the species through time, its affiliation remains unclear. Initially described as nothosaurian and later as cymbospondylid ichthyosaurian, it has most recently been classed as thalattosaurian. Fossilworks, however, still defines it as cymbospondylid, whereas Muschelkalk.eu classifies it as an Eosuchian. Below is an overview of some of the material that has been attributed to the species:

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vertebrae & humerus. Source: Wikimedia Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Muschelkalkmuseum Ingelfingen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vertebrae & scapula. Source: Muschelkalk.eu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the vertebrae are amphicoelous, just like those of ichthyosaurians. Though, contrary to in ichthyosaurs, the neural arch in B. ichthyospondylus is attached to the vertebral body. Scapulae and pubis bones are also highly reminiscent of those found in ichthyosaurs. All this, of course, is not to say that there were no other early marine reptiles with amphicoelous vertebrae - such as those of Placodus gigas figured below, for example:

 

Sources: online vendor & figure 13 from Diedrich, 2013. Review of the Middle Jurassic "sea cow" Placodus gigas (Reptilia) in Pangea's shallow marine macroalgae meadows of Europe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the same time, and in the same area, true ichthyosaurs were also already around, and already had characteristic their amphicoelous vertebrae free of neural arch, including such species as Cymbospondylus sp., Phantomosaurus sp. - which, according to Fossilworks, are sister taxa to B. ichthyospondylus - and, possibly, Pessosaurus sp., to which the below Middle Triassic vertebra has tentatively been ascribed:

 

Source: Muschelkalkmuseum Ingelfingen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most comprehensive overview of Blezingeria ichthyospondylus material, however, comes from Diedrich, 2015. The vertebrates from the Lower Ladinian (Middle Triassic) bonebed of Lamerden (Germany) as palaeoenvironment indicators in the Germanic Basin (figure 9):

 

 

Looking at the above image, the similarities with ichthyosaur skeletal material is indeed no longer obvious, which is reflected in the reconstruction, though there are still similarities to be found in the bone morphology of B. ichthyospondylus' fibula (no. 11 in the image above) and the Utatsusaurus sp. (primitive ichthyosaur) paddle in the diagram below:

 

Figure 4 from Motani, 2005. Evolution of Fish-Shaped Reptiles (reptilia: Ichthyopterygia) in Their Physical Environments and Constraints

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only cladistic data I can find on the interrelationships between thalattosauria, ichthyopterygia and sauropterygia, however, comes from the Pterosaur Heresies and Reptile Evolution - and, therefore, doesn't derive from the most reliable sources - lacks documented source references, and seems, at least in part, internally contradictory:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not having read Diedrich 2015 yet, my first question is, is there any more information on Blezingeria ichthyospondylus out there on easily accessible media (i.e., the internet, preferably open access)? Does anyone on TFF know about this species, and what is there to know about this species? Where does it fit in phylogenetically, and how does this relate to the other clades of marine reptile? Is there any merit to the above cladograms?
 

Thanks for your help!

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I hope you don't mind me calling your attention to this, @Pemphix and @Mahnmut, but you were very helpful in my other Triassic thread, so I was hoping you might have some insights on this as well. Thanks in advance, in any case!

[Pemphix]

Some things to think about:

- no articulated remains were found from "Blezingeria" until today

- reliable sources of information should be from scientists (articles) or museums only, other sources should be considered with the necessary scepticism

 

This said, you will find, that actually there's no definitive Assignement of Blezingeria and all specimens in the museum are marked "?Blezingeria".

Even assigning single bones to the genus, is difficult and can be done with reservation only. 

There's not much to tell about Blezingeria, because nothing can be said, lacking articulated remains which may shed more light on that question.

At a result you will not find much more articles/sources about Blezingeria as you still have already mentioned.

As far as i know, the newest literature referring in short to Blezingeria is:

http://www.palaeodiversity.org/pdf/08Suppl/10Palaeodiversity_SB_Schoch.pdf

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

As Diedrich (2015) tentatively reconstructs B. ichthyospondylus following the skeletal morphology of Askeptosaurus italicus, it might be interesting to read this article on the latter thalattosaur. Not only does it provide an overview of the possible reconstructed behaviour of A. italicus, but it also mentions a number of adaptations that seem interestingly convergent on the ichthyosaur Bauplan, including anguiliform swimming, flattened paddle-like paws mostly used for steering and balance, a long narrow snout, thecodont dentition with needle-like teeth that were likely used for hunting fish, and large eyes supported by a sclerotic ring that would have facilitated deep diving... Something to think about, may be, though of course there are plenty of other marine species that came up with similar solutions...

[Mahnmut]

Salut,

I feel flattered you think I can contribute here.

Actually, your thread is the first thing I hear about Blezingeria, thanks for that. It is another reminder of how scarce the fossil record is.

I mean, there are dinosaur species every child knows from cinema of which we still have not found a complete skeleton.

As you said, that site calling itself heretic is not a reliable source, and still it pops up every time you google an obscure species.

The sites graphics can be quite misleading. Just imagine drawing a dog skull, a baboons, a chimps and my own in a row and you have visually proved that I am a dog descendant.

The one thing he(?) gets right is that there is still a lot of relations between species we simply do not know well. Convergent evolution makes it harder. Looking at a Thylacine skeleton, it would depend very much on which bones future palaeontologists dig up, and what they will know about marsupials or maybe canids like me.

 

That said, the pubis (Schambein) in your first picture reminds me most of Placodus, being just a round disc with a notch. Fom that bone alone I would have  confidently said "placodont". And then maybe not. But I am really no expert in triassic reptiles, nor anything else to be honest.

I just "discovered" that there where Hupehsuchia and I try to make a model. Still more marine reptile confusion.

 

Best Regards,

J

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

14 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Salut,

I feel flattered you think I can contribute here.

Actually, your thread is the first thing I hear about Blezingeria, thanks for that. It is another reminder of how scarce the fossil record is.

I'm glad I could introduce you to a new enigma for the new year then

 

15 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

As you said, that site calling itself heretic is not a reliable source, and still it pops up every time you google an obscure species.

The sites graphics can be quite misleading. Just imagine drawing a dog skull, a baboons, a chimps and my own in a row and you have visually proved that I am a dog descendant.

The one thing he(?) gets right is that there is still a lot of relations between species we simply do not know well. Convergent evolution makes it harder.

According to the article I referenced before, both Reptile Evolution and the Pterosaur Heresies are run by the same guy, someone by the name of David Peters. To be honest, I've never paid either site much attention, seeing as much of the information presented there looks very sketchy, even from a mile off. However, when searching for information on B. ichthyospondylus I found that one of the few cladograms I could find on either this specific species or on Thalattosauria was from his site. I thus found myself wondering to what extent these cladograms would've been based on actual scientific research and consensus. But it looks like it'll be difficult to determine that, and I'd do best to leave those cladograms be - even if the idea of Ichthyopterygia originating within Thalattosauria sounds appealing to me.

 

28 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

That said, the pubis (Schambein) in your first picture reminds me most of Placodus, being just a round disc with a notch. Fom that bone alone I would have  confidently said "placodont". And then maybe not. But I am really no expert in triassic reptiles, nor anything else to be honest.

Interesting observation! With no articulated material having been found for B. ichthyospondylus yet, I really wonder based on what merit material is assigned to this species, tentative as such attributions may be. As such, it may be very well possible that less easily identifiable material from other marine reptile species get wrongly referred to B. ichthyospondylus, only adding to the confusion, of course. Personally, however, I don't quite see too much of a similarity when I place the above pubis next to either pubis (I) or coracoid (B) of Placodus gigas, as figured by Diedrich, 2013 (Review of the Middle Triassic "sea cow" Placodus gigas (Reptilia) in Pangea's shallow marine macroalgae meadows of Europe; figure 14):

 

 

I didn't realise you've got that little experience with Triassic reptiles, by the way. I get the impression there are generally not too many members on here that deal with Triassic marine reptiles from this (meaning Europe) part of the world, and having seen you reconstruct them so excellently, I just thought this must have given you quite a bit of insight into their anatomy. But not all reptiles are alike, not even when deriving from the same spatiotemporal context, of course. I just thought it was worth a shot

 

46 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

I just "discovered" that there where Hupehsuchia and I try to make a model. Still more marine reptile confusion.

Anyway, I'd be very interested to see how this new model works out. I'm quite jealous you're able to create these things so well, as I'd love to add some beautiful and scientifically based skeletal models to my collection, to illustrate their fossils. But it turns out it's both extremely hard and oft crazily expensive to them for sale. So may be I should take up 3D-printing and just start modelling

[jpc]

37 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

According to the article I referenced before, both Reptile Evolution and the Pterosaur Heresies are run by the same guy, someone by the name of David Peters. To be honest, I've never paid either site much attention, seeing as much of the information presented there looks very sketchy, even from a mile off. However, when searching for information on B. ichthyospondylus I found that one of the few cladograms I could find on either this specific species or on Thalattosauria was from his site. I thus found myself wondering to what extent these cladograms would've been based on actual scientific research and consensus. But it looks like it'll be difficult to determine that, and I'd do best to leave those cladograms be - even if the idea of Ichthyopterygia originating within Thalattosauria sounds appealing to me.

 

 

 

 

It is hard to comment on Pterosaur Heresies without insulting the author.  (I am not familiar with Reptile Evolution).  Suffice it to say that the above is a good summary.  And I woud be skeptical of his cladograms as well.  

[Mahnmut]

On 1.1.2021 at 3:40 AM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vertebrae & humerus. Source: Wikimedia Commons

That one to the left ("Schambein"=Pubis) reminded me of of Placodus, although there are also Ichthyosaur pubic bones that look similar, maybe thats just what a drastically reduced reptile pubis looks like, talking about convergence.

 

About those "heresies" again, I think the cladograms are the part that is least reliable in terms of consensus, because a "new evolutionary tree" is what he is trying to construct.

  I have so often been referred to this site by google when searching for skeletal drawings of little known species, the less material there is, the easier it is to get a high google ranking.

maybe he is right in some cases, in my eyes the relation between sugar gliders and Thylacoleo looks plausible for example (but I do not know enough to say if it really is more than the look.)  But that idea to completely restructure the tetrapod tree single handed does not convince me.

 

I myself try to learn about whatever creature catches my attention. Sometimes I read about something new to me, like Hupehsuchus, and decide to build a model. Or I find a fossil (online or at the beach if I am lucky, no matter) and start reading more about it. My model building started with whales, and then I looked into other marine tetrapods for context. The "other triassic marine reptiles" are fascinating, among other reasons, because their diversity is still relatively little known.

Starting to make models may not be a bad idea (although then you may find out that mine are not that great, that would be embarrassing now that you already know I have no clue about Blezingeria )

For me it is a highly satisfying addition to collecting fossils.

What species would you like to add to your collection first?

Best Regards,

J

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

 

2 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

That one to the left ("Schambein"=Pubis) reminded me of of Placodus, although there are also Ichthyosaur pubic bones that look similar, maybe thats just what a drastically reduced reptile pubis looks like, talking about convergence.

True, true! Seems I wasn't paying attention in my previous reply. What I posted for comparison was the scapula, though to me it looks very similar to the ischium pictured on the right above, now that I have another look at it... But, yes, you're right, a lot of girdle bones are very similar in marine reptiles, and therefore isolated bones would be difficult to refer, especially at this not fully understood time in earth's history.

 

19 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

I myself try to learn about whatever creature catches my attention. Sometimes I read about something new to me, like Hupehsuchus, and decide to build a model. Or I find a fossil (online or at the beach if I am lucky, no matter) and start reading more about it. My model building started with whales, and then I looked into other marine tetrapods for context. The "other triassic marine reptiles" are fascinating, among other reasons, because their diversity is still relatively little known.

Yeah, if I would've been younger or older, I would've also read up a lot on those creatures as interest me. In fact, this is mostly how I got through university, as I was always interested in fringe-fields... As it is, being a young father (soon of two) allots me very little time for my palaeontological interests - which makes even reading a short article a rare occurrence, let alone going on an actual fossil hunt or doing some fossil preparation. I still try to read articles, especially while sitting next to my son waiting for him to fall asleep at nights. But between the fragmentary time I have and my general slow reading speed, it can take a month or more for me to finish reading an article For the past year, or so, my strategy has therefore been to acquire a fossil, have it pass through my hands, and in doing so obtain as much information in as little time as possible, while then letting my mind work out the details while I'm doing other things... Not the best way of doing things, for sure, but all I can manage for the moment. Before Covid we'd visit the many excellent palaeontological collections across the border in Baden-Württemberg, but for obvious reasons that hasn't been really possible the past year either.

 

25 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

Starting to make models may not be a bad idea (although then you may find out that mine are not that great, that would be embarrassing now that you already know I have no clue about Blezingeria )

For me it is a highly satisfying addition to collecting fossils.

I agree, though, that creating a model would be a very good way to dive in to an animal's anatomy and learn a lot about it. But, contrary to what you may claim, building such a model takes skill too! Skills I'm not sure I'd have, as I'm rather clumsy with my hands!

 

30 minutes ago, Mahnmut said:

What species would you like to add to your collection first?

As my interest and greatest knowledge lies with ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, I'd really like to add either a model of Liopleurodon or of a Temnodontosaurus to my collection at some point.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

10 hours ago, Pemphix said:

reliable sources of information should be from scientists (articles) or museums only, other sources should be considered with the necessary scepticism

I'm not sure whether you meant this as a general remark, or as one specific to this case. But in general, I don't think scientists and museums should be considered the only valid sources of information. May be it's just my experience with archaeology - where outside opinions are frequently appreciated, sometimes even sought out, and amateurs consulted for their local knowledge - and ethnographic museums - that often have outdated displays (even if only for financial reasons) and might have very little in-house expertise on the material in their collections (to the point where we once saw a feather duster stuck in a headdress on display, as the exhibit curators had not realised it was not part of the headdress proper). But I think TFF, and sites like it, are excellent proof of what can be achieved when professionals and amateurs alike share their knowledge. And not just that. For what to make of Dean Lomax's excellent research and insights coming from a non-academic, self-taught background, or of the many world-class discoveries by Steve Etches and the likes?

 

Although it is  true that you need to be able to judge the merit of any information you absorb, and it's more likely to be safe if you do so from academic sources, it's certainly not true that academic institutions have a prerogative on validity, nor that they themselves are infallible...

 

11 hours ago, Pemphix said:

[N]o articulated remains were found from "Blezingeria" until today[.]

[...]

 

This said, you will find, that actually there's no definitive Assignement of Blezingeria and all specimens in the museum are marked "?Blezingeria".

Even assigning single bones to the genus, is difficult and can be done with reservation only.

 

Your point as to no articulated remains of B. ichthyospondyla having been found to date is well-taken, however, as the only material that can presumably be attributed to the species in this case would be that which can be compared to the type material, i.e. presumably (complete) vertebrae (I'm basing this on the specific part of the name, with "-spondylus" meaning vertebra). As mentioned above, one does wonder how any other bone material gets referred to the species at all, even if done so tentatively, as there's no real supporting reason to do so. That is, with such varied material being referred to B. ichthyospondyla as illustrated in Diedrich (2015), one would assume sufficient funds would've been made to warrant such association. But that, indeed, was part of my question: whether understanding of the genus had progressed to that point yet. And now I know it hasn't. Thank you for that!

 

11 hours ago, Pemphix said:

As far as i know, the newest literature referring in short to Blezingeria is:

http://www.palaeodiversity.org/pdf/08Suppl/10Palaeodiversity_SB_Schoch.pdf

This is a very interesting article and a beautiful overview of some of the incredible biodiversity that existed during the terminal Middle Triassic and Early Late Triassic. Something I'll definitely enjoy reading, even if it doesn't contain any new information on Blezingeria, apart from confirmation that the species was indeed defined based on its divergent vertebrae (and the fact that, according to this author at least, the ichthyosaur Shastasaurus is also known from the Upper Muschelkalk - though that's more of relevance to my other thread). Thanks for sharing!

[RuMert]

Looks like the Triassic has you, Mr. Anderson

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Hahaha! You might be right, @RuMert! I've been diving into the Triassic quite a bit recently...! 

 

My next one will be on Jurassic marine reptiles again, though. Just need to find the time to prepare it

[Pemphix]

On 3.1.2021 at 11:32 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

I'm not sure whether you meant this as a general remark, or as one specific to this case.

Not everyone having a Webpage, having knowledge about the topic he is writing of... So you need to be careful, which information you will trust.

Let's leave it like you've wrote: "Although it is true that you need to be able to judge the merit of any information you absorb, and it's more likely to be safe if you do so from academic sources, it's certainly not true that academic institutions have a prerogative on validity, nor that they themselves are infallible.."

 

On 3.1.2021 at 11:32 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Your point as to no articulated remains of B. ichthyospondyla having been found to date is well-taken, however, as the only material that can presumably be attributed to the species in this case would be that which can be compared to the type material, i.e. presumably (complete) vertebrae (I'm basing this on the specific part of the name, with "-spondylus" meaning vertebra). As mentioned above, one does wonder how any other bone material gets referred to the species at all, even if done so tentatively, as there's no real supporting reason to do so. That is, with such varied material being referred to B. ichthyospondyla as illustrated in Diedrich (2015), one would assume sufficient funds would've been made to warrant such association. But that, indeed, was part of my question: whether understanding of the genus had progressed to that point yet. And now I know it hasn't.

Exact. That was my intention to point to that.

 

On 3.1.2021 at 11:32 PM, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

This is a very interesting article [...] even if it doesn't contain any new information on Blezingeria, apart from confirmation that the species was indeed defined based on its divergent vertebrae [...]

Exact. That was to proof my statement about the actual status of Blezingeria. Unfortunately nothing really new.