Another one. Identify the creatures (all from the Barremian Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, England) - possibly more difficult this time! Remember that some of the animals are in 'historic guise', so are portrayed very much inaccurately. And no cheating, as labelled versions of this picture have been published before (in the Japanese Dino Press magazine).
And sorry the image is so small: without publishing numerous close-ups, this is the only way I can get the whole image on the screen.
- Log in to post comments
Aren't these images available in larger sizes on your Flickr site?
The brachiosaurid is probably Pelorosaurus, the theropod on the stump is Eotyrannus, the food item in Eotyrannus's mouth is... some kind of theropod, and the small theropod in the foreground is Aristosuchus. Which brings us to the ornithopods... they really look like rhabdodontids, but I'll assume they didn't use a time machine, and are actually meant to be Cumnoria.
Out of curiosity and lack of close familiarity (and once they've been guessed correctly): what are some of the inaccuracies?
I know what they are, but I won't spoil the fun, suffice to say that 2 of Pete Buchholz's identifications are correct. =)
I'd like to derail this thread momentarily to raise awareness about the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research in Singapore, which is currently seeking funds so that it may be able to expand and become a proper natural history museum, with 10 times more exhibit space than it currently has. The last I heard, at the end of March it still needed to raise an additional S$24 million (~US$17.1 million) by June. I was hoping that fellow readers could spread the word and if possible, contribute, but more importantly, I'd like to help garner international support for a museum that contributes a lot to natural history research not just in Singapore, but in Southeast Asia as a whole.
More details can be found in my blog post (go to the link under my name), or at the Raffles Museum's own page.
Is the brachiosaurid the undescribed one kept at The Dinosaur Farm museum? Eotyrannus could be eating an velociraptorine or coelurosaur - I seem to remember that velociraptorine teeth had been found in the early 2000's but I think these were from a bigger animal so I'll stick with the coelurosuar. I would agree with Aristosuchus for the theropod in the middle distance whilst the two grazing but alert ornithopods are Hypsilophodon.
More interesting is the small mammal under the log - I have no idea what this is. Love the Tempyska and monkey puzzles.
That's hard. The "when and where" list in Kielan-Jaworowska, Cifelli and Liu (*) doesn't seem to have any Barremian mammals from Britain, though somewhat earlier Cretaceous beds give a wide variety. Multituberculates and Dryolestids and ... are known from elsewhere in Western Europe (Spain) in the Barremian.
(Oh. There are also some dinosaurs in the picture.)
(*) Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs, Columbia University Press, 2004
Ok, the sauropod is probably meant to be Eucamerotus (or whatever name you want to use for the brachiosaurid from IOW). Eotyrannus is obvious, its probably Ornithodesmus in its mouth. The little coelurosaur on the bottom right is probably Aristosuchus. The mid-range ornithischians are almost certainly Yaverlandia (I can see little bumps on their heads), cleverly disguised as a basal pachycephalosaur.
How old is Albionbaatar?
It's so similar to a distorted Sinosauropteryx that it's got to be a supposed compsognathid, and that means Aristosuchus and/or -saurus.
I still think they're simply Hypsilophodon.
Thanks for playing :) And well done Adam - and the rest of you. The sauropod is obviously a brachiosaur (Pelorosaurus conybeari is not from the Wessex Formation, but from the substantially older Hastings Beds Group... and P. conybeari is not definitely a brachiosaur in any case). It's actually meant to depict MIWG.7306, aka 'Angloposeidon', and this should be obvious given that the animal looks so similar to depictions of Giraffatitan and Sauroposeidon. Eotyrannus is holding a deinonychosaur corpse: the deinonychosaur might as well be Ornithodesmus. The small coelurosaur at bottom right is obviously a compsognathid, so Aristosuchus is the most sensible ID.
The little ornithischians at right are indeed meant to be Yaverlandia (Cumnoria = Kimmeridgian!), here restored as low-domed pachycephalosaurs (actually, with low, twinned domes). I drew this long before I came up with all that stuff about Yaverlandia being a maniraptoran.
The mammal is a multituberculate. When I drew the picture (2001), Loxaulax was supposed to be present in the Wessex Formation (Butler & Ford 1975). However, Sweetman (2009) has since said that this is wrong and that the specimens concerned represent the new plagiaulacoid taxon Eobaatar clemensi. Incidentally, thanks to Steve Sweetman there are now quite a few Wessex mammals, including gobiconodontids, spalacotheriids and dryolestids.
The flora is semi-accurate, but there are no Tempyska in this one. Tempyska does feature heavily in the 'partner' illustration to this one: I'll post it some time soonish.
Refs - -
Butler, P. M. & Ford, R. 1975. Discovery of Cretaceous mammals on the Isle of Wight. Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society 6, 662â663.
Sweetman, S. C. 2009. A new species of the plagiaulacoid multituberculate mammal Eobaatar from the Early Cretaceous of southern Britain. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 54, 373â384.
I'd so buy the colouring book. Three copies, at least.
Kimmeridgian! Woops..... Well like I said, they looked like rhabdodontids, so Cumnoria is a better time fit than Zalmoxes :-)
Darren writes:
"The sauropod is obviously a brachiosaur (Pelorosaurus conybeari is not from the Wessex Formation, but from the substantially older Hastings Beds Group... and P. conybeari is not definitely a brachiosaur in any case)."
Presumably, this argument derives from Taylor and Naish 2007 (naming Xenoposeidon) where you two state:
"Discovered adjacent to the Cuckfield âC.â brevis vertebrae and chevrons was a large humerus. Mantell (1850) referred this to Melvilleâs (1849) name âC.â conybeari, but decided that the taxon was distinct enough for its own genus, Pelorosaurus Mantell, 1850. [As shown by Torrens (1999, p. 186), Mantell considered the name Colossosaurus for this humerus]. Though still discussed apart in most taxonomic reviews (e.g. Naish and Martill 2001; Upchurch and Martin 2003), it is therefore clear that Pelorosaurus conybeari and âC.â brevis are objective synonyms, with the latter having priority. As part of the previously mentioned ICZN petition, it is planned to suppress the latter name, and instead conserve the more widely used Pelorosaurus conybeari; for now, though, we continue to use âC.â brevis. The identity and validity of this material remains problematic. The humerus lacks autapomorphies and, though it is brachiosaurid-like and, hence, conventionally identified as representing a member of that group (e.g. McIntosh 1990), it differs in having a less prominent deltopectoral crest. Furthermore, the âC.â brevis caudal vertebrae are titanosaur-like in at least one feature, the absence of a hyposphenal ridge. On this basis, Upchurch and Martin (2003) proposed that the material be referred to Titanosauriformes incertae sedis. It can be seen to be distinct from âPelorosaurusâ becklesii as the humeri of both species are preserved." (p. 1559)
Argumentatively, the statement suggests that you see only shape in the deltopectoral crest (and use of the brevis caudal series' lack of a hyposphenal crest) to keep it out of "Brachiosauridae" (itself a "wastebasket").
You argue that simple association makes brevis and conybearei objective synonyms, but this is false: They are subjective synonyms, in that they are not the same specimen, and can be debatedly placed in separate taxa. Were they the same specimen, such as Griphosaurus problematicus for the London Archaeopteryx lithographica (as the type), one could argue that they are objective synonyms.
The case is less clear, and with only an appeal to morphology to argue against the specimen's identity as a brachiosaur, rather than conflation of the hypodigm, whether the material is "brachiosaurid" or generically "titanosaur." Upchurhc rightfully places the humerus in a state of ambiguity between the "brachiosaur-like" and "titanosaur-like" split in Titanosauriformes, but this does not exclude Pelorosaurus conybearei from being a brachiosaurid, unlike Brachiosaurus altithorax.
Taylor, M. P. & Naish, D. 2007. An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England. Palaeontology 50(6):1547-1564.
Jaime, did you misread "P. conybeari is not definitely a brachiosaur" as "P. conybeari is definitely not a brachiosaur"? Because unless you did, I can't figure what it is that you're trying to disagree with.
I read it fine the first time, Mike. Did you misread what I wrote when I never argued that the paper I cited never argued that Pelorosaurus conybearei was or wasn't a brachiosaur?
I was referring more to the tangent regarding conflating the type of two different taxa to form a subjective synonymy and calling it an objective synonymy. That the identity of the humerus as an indefinite brachiosaur to produce doubt on referring a definite brachiosaur dorsal (problematic when Brachiosauridae is a wastebasket taxon, another point I was trying to make) to incongruent material (caudals and humerus).
Did you misread what I wrote when I never argued that the paper I cited never argued that Pelorosaurus conybearei was or wasn't a brachiosaur?
I can't even parse that, let alone argue with it.
The quote does not say that the humerus is the holotype of "C." conybeari. To the contrary: it says that the humerus was referred by Mantell (1850) to the already named taxon "C." conybeari Melville 1849.
This means further that it doesn't tell whether "C." brevis and "C." conybeari are objective synonyms.
I think you're overworked...
David:
I never said the humerus itself was the type, I only stated the process under which objective synonymy can occur (since objective synonymy was raised in the quote provided, without use of the term "holotype" or "type", it then follows from that statement that the clarity is missing). The conclusion of the statement on objective synonymy does not follow from the preclusion as indicated in the quote.