Jump to content

onafets

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

I added this Nothosaurus tooth from France to the collection.

 

Upper Muschelkalk (Triassic), about 245 million years old.

Found in France in the province of Sarrebourg, department of Moselle.

 

The tooth is 11 mm large.

 

I would like information on how to identify it, and learn how to distinguish the species by comparing the tooth with other Nothosaur fossils found in the same area.

 

Can Nothosaur be described as a marine reptile even though it is semi-aquatic?

SmartSelect_20231221-214307_Chrome.jpg

SmartSelect_20231221-214317_Chrome.jpg

SmartSelect_20231221-214324_Chrome.jpg

20240106_174900.jpg

20240106_174910.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not possible to identify the Nothosaurus species from it's teeth. (except Simosaurus.)

A reliable identification is only possible via the skull, because the bones are all more or less identical.
Only Nothosaurus giganteus can be identified with reservations(juvenile animals) based solely on the sheer size of bones.

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, onafets said:

Can Nothosaur be described as a marine reptile even though it is semi-aquatic?

I think yes.

Or if you want to be more spesific: Semi-aquatic marine reptile.

  • I Agree 1

There's no such thing as too many teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, North said:

I think yes.

Or if you want to be more spesific: Semi-aquatic marine reptile.

No, Nothosaurus is a fully marine reptile and NOT semi-aquatic. 

 

The evidence for this can be found in the skeletal anatomy and in the fact that Nothosaurus was viviparous. The older theses that state that Nothosaurus was capable of walking on land have been scientifically refuted.

Edited by Pemphix
  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pemphix said:

No, Nothosaurus is a fully marine reptile and NOT semi-aquatic. 

 

The evidence for this can be found in the skeletal anatomy and in the fact that Nothosaurus was viviparous. The older theses that state that Nothosaurus was capable of walking on land have been scientifically refuted.

Interesting. Is there paper to read, because I can only find ones that say semi-aquatic?

  • Enjoyed 1

There's no such thing as too many teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2024 at 8:07 PM, North said:

Interesting. Is there paper to read, because I can only find ones that say semi-aquatic?

 

Some few examples:

 

Schoch, R.R.  2021. Amphibien und Reptilien der Germanischen Trias. In: HAUSCHKE, N., BACHMANN, G. & FRANZ, M.H. (eds.): Trias - Aufbruch ins Erdmittelalter. Pfeil, Munich

 

SCHOCH, R.R. 2015. Reptilien. In: Hagdorn, H., Schoch, R.R. & Schweigert, G. (Hrg.): Der Lettenkeuper - Ein Fenster in die Zeit vor den Dinosauriern. Palaeodiversity Sonderband 2015: 231-264

 

Griebeler, Eva & Klein, Nicole. (2019). Life‐history strategies indicate live‐bearing in Nothosaurus (Sauropterygia). Palaeontology. 62. 10.1111/pala.12425. 

 

Mittag, Juliane & Matzke, Andreas & Augustin, Felix & Pfretzschner, Hans-Ulrich. (2020). A Nothosaurus (Sauropterygia) skull from Kupferzell (Triassic, late Ladinian; SW Germany). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 297. 101-111. 10.1127/njgpa/2020/0915. 

 

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/9/2024 at 5:25 PM, Pemphix said:

Schoch, R.R.  2021. Amphibien und Reptilien der Germanischen Trias. In: HAUSCHKE, N., BACHMANN, G. & FRANZ, M.H. (eds.): Trias - Aufbruch ins Erdmittelalter. Pfeil, Munich

 

From page 331:

Quote

Kennzeichend für alle Vertreter [Sauropterygier] ist ein starrer Rumpf mit zusätzlichen Gelenken zwischen den Wirbeln, wodurch die Beweglichkeit deutlich eingeschränkt war. Schulter- und Beckengürtel waren durch plattenartig vergrößerte Knochen sehr viel robuster gebaut als bei Landreptilien. Die meisten Sauropterygier hatten einen oben abgeplatteten Rumpf, während Schulterblatt und Darmbein niedrig waren. Bei den triassischen Taxa waren die Arme ruderartig abgeflacht und in sich unbeweglich geworden, während die Beine noch denen terrestrischer Echsen glichen [...]. Sauropterygier waren so auf die Lebensweise im Wasser ausgerichtet, dass eine Eiablage an Land schwer vorstellbar ist; dazu passen die jüngsten Nachweise lebendgebärender Arten bei zwei verschiedenen Gruppen.

Sauropterygier im weiteren Sinne beinhalten neben den unstrittigen Verwandten Pachypleurosaurier, Nothosaurier, Pistosaurier und Plesiosaurier wahrscheinlich auch die Placodontier, die früher einer anderen Wurzel zugerechnet wurden.

 

[...]

 

Diese klassischen Meeresechsen der Germanischen Trias [Nothosaurier] waren 1-6 m lang, mit Fischfressergebiss, langem Hals und oben abgeflachtem Rumpf (Abb. 12). Das Armskelett ist kräftig, mit gebogenem Oberarm, paddelartig abgeflachtem Unterarm und in sich unbeweglicher Hand.

 

Translation (mine):

Quote

A ridig torso with additional joints between vertebrae is characteristic for all representatives (sauropterygians), clearly limiting their movement. Pelvic and pectoral girdles were much more robust than those of terrestrial animals due to enlarged plate-like bones. Most sauropterygians had a dorsally flattened trunk, while the scapular and iliac bones were small. In Triassic taxa, arms were flattened in a oar-like fashion and had become immovable, whereas legs remained similar to those of terrestrial lizards. Sauropterygians were so well-designed for aquatic life that it is hard to imagine them laying eggs on land; in addition to which the earliest traces of live birth correspond to two different groups.

In a broader sense and in addition to the undeniably related pachypleurosaurs, nothosaurs, pistosaurs and plesiosaurs, sauropterygians probably also included the placodonts, which used to be assigned a different affiliation in the past.


[...]

 

These classical marine lizards from the German Triassic were 1-6 m long, with piscivorous teeth, a long neck and dorsally flattened torso (fig. 12). The anterior extremity is powerful, with a bent upper arm, paddle-like flattened lower arm, and an immovable hand.

 

On 1/9/2024 at 5:25 PM, Pemphix said:

SCHOCH, R.R. 2015. Reptilien. In: Hagdorn, H., Schoch, R.R. & Schweigert, G. (Hrg.): Der Lettenkeuper - Ein Fenster in die Zeit vor den Dinosauriern. Palaeodiversity Sonderband 2015: 231-264

 

From page 236:

Quote

Was lässt sich aus den Skeletten der Nothosaurier in Bezug auf Ihre Lenensweise herauslesen? Der Vergleich met Robben oder Seelöwen (Schmidt 1988) ist nicht passend, denn Nothosaurier waren kaum zu größeren Landgängen oder zum Kletern über Felsen befähigt. Die Gelenkflächen im Armskelett, insbesondere zwischen Ober- und Unterarmknochen, ließen kein Abwinkeln des Unterarms oder gar Abstützen des Körpers auf dem Arm zu. Der Rumpf war über die zusätzlichen Zygosphengelenke der Wirbel versteift, so dass also auch keine wirksame axiale, etwa schlängelnde Fortbewegung hätte erfolgen können. Die Vorstellungen von Schmidt (1988), nach denen Nothosaurier ufer- oder wattbewohnende, echsenartige kriechende Tiere gewesen sein sollen, erscheinen daher nicht plausibel. Die vorliegenden Befunde sprechen insgesamt für ein geringes Vermögen, sich weit über die Uferlinie auf das trockene Land vorzubewegen. Eine effektive Fortbewegung der Tiere im Wasser ist dagegen sehr gut vorstellbar: Die Vorderextremität bildet eine starre Paddel, deren mittlere und äußere (distale) Bereiche abgeflacht sind. Dies trifft auch auf den Humerus (Oberarmknochen) zu, der zudem noch stark gekrümmt ist. Das Armskelett erinnert am deutlichsten an heutige Meeresschildkröten, die mit ihren Armen kräftige Ruderbewegungen ausführen und beachtliche Geschwindigkeiten erreichen können.

 

Translation (mine):

Quote

What can nothosaur-skeletons teach us about their way of life? The comparison with seals or sea lions (Schmidt 1988) is unbefitting, as nothosaurs were barely capable of longer stays on shore or of climbing rocks. The articular surfaces of the anterior extremity, especially those on the bones of the upper and lower arm, did not allow the arm to bend or support the body. And the torso was so stiffened due to the additional zygosphic joints of the vertebrae that axial serpentine movement was also functionaly impossible. Schmidt's (1988) illustrations of nothosaurs as shore or mudflat dwelling lizard-like fighting animals therefore doesn't seem plausible. Overall, the available findings indicate a limited ability to move onto dry land far beyond the shoreline. On the other hand, effective movement in water is easy to imagine: the forelimb forms a rigid paddle, of which the middle and outer (distal) reaches are flattened. This also applied to the humerus (upper arm bone), which, additionally, is strongly curved. The anterior extremity most reminds of present-day sea turtles, which are able to make powerful stroking motions with their arms and are so able to reach considerable speeds.

 

  • Enjoyed 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

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...