Jump to content

Recommended Posts


We know very little about the bones of the Carcharodontosaurids in the Kem Kem Group.  Here is a paper of a new Carcharodontosaurid from Argentina that is somewhat closely related that we can use to compare bones against.  Don't forget to look at Supp Files


So this paper reports on a new Carcharodontosaurid, Meraxes gigas from the Huincul Formation of Argentina






Hand bones






  • I found this Informative 4
  • Thank You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christophe Hendrickx posted this on another Carcharodontosaurid skull.

"With a new and reliable estimate of about 163.4 cm, Giganotosaurus skull is still one of the largest theropod skulls ever recorded."



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Cullen posted these photos






  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Very interesting, definitely interested in seeing what is published.  Thanks for posting

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MBL13 said:

Also,there's something coming about North Africa carcharodontosaurs you might want to take into account...



The results of this abstract are unpublished, and the spinosaurid nature of Sigilmassasaurus has been firmly established thanks to the discovery of the complete Spinosaurus skeleton from Morocco. On the other hand, Motta et al. (2016) suggested that Aoniraptor and Deltadromeus could belong in the same family as Bahariasaurus (type genus of the family Bahariasauridae), but comparisons of Bahariasaurus with Aoniraptor and Deltadromeus by Motta et al. (2016) are only based on the paratype caudal vertebrae, and because the specimens IPHG 1922 X47 and IPHG 1922 X48 that Ernst Stromer designated as the cotypes of Bahariasaurus ingens in his 1934 paper describing additional theropod specimens from the Bahariya Oasis don't include caudal remains, the affinities of Bahariasaurus with Aoniraptor are tenuous. Rauhut (1995) considered Bahariasaurus to be a carcharodontosaurid based on characters only applicable to specimens referred to Bahariasaurus that don't overlap with elements of IPHG 1922 X47 and X48. 


The taxon Gualicho has reduced arms but its forelimbs are not as short as those of Meraxes. Moreover, an osteological description of the holotype of Deltadromeus agilis is yet to be published, so it's debatable whether it could be recovered as an ornithomimosaur.


Motta, M.J., Aranciaga-Rolando, A.M., Rozadilla, S., Agnolín, F.E., Chimento, N.R., Brissón-Egli, F., and Novas, F.E., 2016. New theropod fauna from the Upper Cretaceous (Huincul Formation) of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 71: 231–253. 


Rauhut, O.W.M., 1995. Zur systematischen Stellung der afrikanischen Theropoden Carcharodontosaurus Stromer 1931 und Bahariasaurus Stromer 1934. Berliner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, E, 16.1, 357-375.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, "based on the paratype caudal vertebrae", such specimen is BSPG 1912 VIII 62 [associated four presacral(one misidentified as a caudal) vertebrae, partial pubis and two caudals as indicated in Stromer,1936;along a more questionable,due to size,ilium].

Second,the specimen in question overlaps Bahariasaurus ingens in the dorsal vertebrae and proximal pubis and shows several apomorphies of the taxon as well as proportional congruences,so it's probably referable to Bahariasaurus.

The middle caudal,"Wirbel f",differs substantially from the Deltadromeus middle element,so they're clearly not synonymous despite the vertebrae and pubis being fundamentally identical to Bahariasaurus.

Rauhut (1995) used explicit features of BSPG 1922 X 48 and 47(e.g. the strongly opisthocoelous cervical BSPG 1922 X 48a;the proximal obturator notch of the pubes of both BSPG 1922 X 47 and 48B and also noted additional features like the Sinraptor-grade pubic boot) as similar to Allosauroidea,so it's certainly not based on material that "don't overlap with elements of IPHG 1922 X47 and X48."

Bahariasaurus phylogenetic affinities are a topic that is surely controversial,and I would like to remain secretive for now.

The specific details of the paper I'm not allowed to discuss until it's published.The position of Deltadromeus is based on  proper observations of the holotype and not only follows the brief original report.

Also,there's no discussion about Sigilmassasaurus both on the abstract and in the actual papers(as far as what I've been told) that say it's not a Spinosaurid.

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...