Jump to content

Another UK sauropod vert?


FF7_Yuffie

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I'm more hopeful about this one. It looks different than the other verts that are for sale which are usually misidentified plesiosaur/pliosaur verts. Plus, while it has a couple of holes at the bottom--they are nowhere near as distinct as others.

 

It is from Abingdon, Kimmeridge Clay. Dimensions are 6.5 x 5 x 7

 

Now, I haven't seen Sauropod verts listed for sale which are this shape--which half makes me think it's something else entirely. But, then again, most sauropod verts from the UK are misidentified so I can't really judge with others listed for sale. 

 

Anyway, thanks for taking a look.

 

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paired foramina on the ventral surface still make me think it's plesiosaurian. 

  • I found this Informative 1

"In Africa, one can't help becoming caught up in the spine-chilling excitement of the hunt. Perhaps, it has something to do with a memory of a time gone by, when we were the prey, and our nights were filled with darkness..."

-Eternal Enemies: Lions And Hyenas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paleoworld-101 said:

The paired foramina on the ventral surface still make me think it's plesiosaurian. 

 

Cheers, I was more hopeful for this because they holes look diffrrent than other verts I posted and the vert is differently shaped than others I see---but I guess its just from a different bit of the vert column than usual ones.

 

 

Thanks for having a look.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paleoworld-101 said:

The paired foramina on the ventral surface still make me think it's plesiosaurian. 

I agree, the subcentral foramina and (what appears to be) heart-shaped vertebral faces would indicate this is a plesiosaurian vertebra. These are probably not your own photographs, but for future reference, it is my understanding that the shape of the vertebral faces is an important diagnostic feature for sauropod vertebrae too.

 

As it is, this is a nicely preserved plesiosaur vertebra - as opposed to the pliosaur vertebrae more commonly found at Abingdon - of which various genera are known from the Kimmeridge Clay. Of these, Colymbosaurus trochantericus is the one most often referred to. As a cryptoclidid it too has supracentral foramina on its cervical vertebrae. Although not easy to make out due to the angle of the photographs, placement of the rib attachments seem to indicate the vertebra being a cervical. The specimen, moreover, appears to have a foramen dorsally to the centrum. So, I'd say C. trochantericus wouldn't be a bad bet for this specimen too.

  • I found this Informative 2

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

I agree, the subcentral foramina and (what appears to be) heart-shaped vertebral faces would indicate this is a plesiosaurian vertebra. These are probably not your own photographs, but for future reference, it is my understanding that the shape of the vertebral faces is an important diagnostic feature for sauropod vertebrae too.

 

As it is, this is a nicely preserved plesiosaur vertebra - as opposed to the pliosaur vertebrae more commonly found at Abingdon - of which various genera are known from the Kimmeridge Clay. Of these, Colymbosaurus trochantericus is the one most often referred to. As a cryptoclidid it too has supracentral foramina on its cervical vertebrae. Although not easy to make out due to the angle of the photographs, placement of the rib attachments seem to indicate the vertebra being a cervical. The specimen, moreover, appears to have a foramen dorsally to the centrum. So, I'd say C. trochantericus wouldn't be a bad bet for this specimen too.

 

Wow, thanks for the info. Its cool that you can ID it to an exact species. Id consider getting this for that reason if it was Plesiosaur price. Unfortunately, with the Sauropod ID, it carries a sauropod price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

 

Wow, thanks for the info. Its cool that you can ID it to an exact species. Id consider getting this for that reason if it was Plesiosaur price. Unfortunately, with the Sauropod ID, it carries a sauropod price tag.

No problem! A little disclaimer with the species ID I gave, though: this is my current best guestimate, as I'm not sure whether other plesiosaurian species from the locality might not also show similar features. It's just that you see a lot less of them, and I therefore have not been able to study them as I have C. trochantericus. That having been said, there are a lot of online vendors currently selling vertebrae from this latter species, so with a bit of searching you should be able to find one for a plesiosaur price that has that ID at least :)

  • I found this Informative 1

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odons comments. This is a plesiosaur cervical vertebra (see rib facets near base of the centrum). It is rather elongated compared to cryptoclidids and more like the Oxford Clay Muraenosaurus ,which had a neck as the long as the rest of the body. If you look at Benson's study I believe its closest to Spitrasaurus - see figure below. Also example in Etches collection. Kimmeridgian plesiosaur categorisation is still very much a work in progress. Spitrasaurus.thumb.jpg.60b2c8d88cebf688a0b44474afd27981.jpg

 

600595d0054a4_steveetchescollectionMay2012038.thumb.jpg.b8850113f538acc8f08cea4b4901e2d8.jpg

 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paulgdls said:

It is rather elongated compared to cryptoclidids and more like the Oxford Clay Muraenosaurus ,which had a neck as the long as the rest of the body. If you look at Benson's study I believe its closest to Spitrasaurus - see figure below.

Hi Paul,

 

Could this be the image you're referring to above (since your copy seems to have gone missing)? It's from Benson and Bowdler's (2014) "Anatomy of Colymbosaurus megadeirus (Reptilia, Plesiosauria) from the Kimmeridge Clay Formation of the U.K., and High Diversity Among Late Jurassic Plesiosauroids". Though unfortunately not an open-access article, the abstract mentions Colymbosaurus megadeirus, C. trochanterius, C. svalbardensis, Kimmerosaurus langhami and cf. Spitrasaurus, so I can imagine that vertebrae from these genera and species may have been illustrated for comparative purposes. Moreover, the vertebra figured under F has some similarities to the one originally posted, as well as to those in the photograph you provided - therefore presumable Spitrasaurus?

 

f15_1053.thumb.jpg.f754456a7d9e370e7d30ad736564a822.jpg

 

In any case, I agree that the vertebra indeed seems a bit long for what's usual for C. trochantericus (some images provided below for comparison), and doesn't appear to have its typical bevelled concave vertebral faces either (see images below; another reason to require photographs of the anterior and posterior sides of plesiosaurian vertebral centra). I just wanted to point out, however, that both Muraenosaurus and Spitrasaurus are both considered cryptoclidid plesiosaurs as well, thus sharing many characteristics with Colymbosaurus sp.. As such, cryptoclidid vertebral length differs per species and may even vary between different parts of the body within a single individual, as illustrated in the last photograph of a mounted skeleton at the Naturkundemuseum Stuttgart (cervicals longer than the caudals).

 

Colymbosaurus_(plesiosaur)_sacral_vertebra.thumb.jpg.f75f58273dc0afc443c6c7410ac4b6e4.jpgColymbosaurus sp. sacral vertebra. Source: Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12549_2019_397_Fig7_HTML.png.1d0e5f88980e30f911728bfe743fb692.png12549_2019_397_Fig4_HTML.thumb.png.9b64b64f29f78bfd5829c88ccd85889b.pngFrom: Arkhangelsky, Zverkov, Rogov, Stenshin & Baykina, E., 2019. Colymbosaurines from the Upper Jurassic of European Russia and their implication for palaeobiogeography of marine reptiles (link appears broken)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6005abdd39f2d_colymbosaurussp.thumb.jpg.3af0b38735c09ec2368fcb58cb58f8b8.jpgColymbosaurus sp. from the Etches Collection referred to above. Source: Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6005abec0c5e5_plesiosaurstuttgart.thumb.jpg.9db163d357956e9513bd300908a359ff.jpg

  • I found this Informative 2

'There's nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fibre and, in some cases, backbone' -- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Yes, sorry about the image disappearing (re-instated). I agree with your synopsis. We now know from Steve's recent work that Kimmerosaurus and Colymbosaurus are different genera. Interesting about Muraenosaurus being considered a cryptoclidid. I see what you mean about the caudals being shorter.  

 

Paul 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...