Skip to main content

Megalosaur

This is some kind of a megalosaur I drew some time ago. I think it's supposed to be a Dubreuillosaurus, but I didn't really bother with any anatomical accuracy so I just call it a megalosaur.

Anyway, megalosaurs are interesting. They're usually agreed to be basal tetanuran theropods and sister-taxon to spinosaurs, together forming the Spinosauroidea. But the intrarelationship among the Megalosauridae is a mess. In short no one really knows which dinosaur is more closely related to the other. This is inevitable to a certain extent due to the fragmentary nature of many megalosaur specimens but also because of the historical treatment of 'megalosaurs' being kind of a wast basket for theropod fossils of uncertain affinities.

Comments

Zach said…
Ironically, spinosauroids are the best-known megalosaurs. And as derived as they are, they tell us almost nothing about their ancestry. Sereno links them to African "torvosaurs," but I think he's just using that as a different term for "megalosaurs." Eustreptosponylous (awful name) is probably the most complete "megalosaur" known.

Popular posts from this blog

Spinosaurus, the gigantic pangolin of the Cretaceous?

I was made aware of this not long ago - it kind of looks creepy, but it gave me an idea: Did Spinosaurus walk like a pangolin? That is, with it's hands low to the ground but not touching the ground - so no knuckle walking - and maintaining balance as a biped... This pangolin seems to maintain balance on its hind legs even though, on cursory glance, its centre of mass seems too far forward for that. Spinosaurus is supposed to have had a dense femur, so maybe its centre of gravity was farther back than you'd think from overall proportions. Maybe the sail helped tip the scale back? ...or maybe it was a giant ant-eater? Those giant claws look particularly suited to breaking open termite mounds? Who knows. This is me being silly, but thought it was hilarious enough to share...

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis ), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox . The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox , Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help...

Maximum bite force in Tyrannosaurus rex

I'm on a roll today. Might as well post another. So obviously, this is a Tyrannosaurus rex . It's so famous I'm afraid I don't really know what else to write about. Oh well, I'll just ramble on about bite forces then. T. rex has been the focus of many biomechanical studies. Bite force is no exception. However, as much of a celebrity T. rex is, as far as I'm aware, there have only been two studies so far that have attempted to estimate the bite force of T. rex : Erickson et al. (1996) and Meers (2002). Erickson et al. (1996) had an interesting approach of reproducing bite marks using cast replicas of a T. rex tooth and ramming it into a cow bone. They recorded the forces needed in order to penetrate the bone to different depths. The depths of T. rex bite marks found on a Triceratops ilium was compared to this relationship of puncture depth and forces needed. As a result they found out that a bite force of 6.4 kN were needed in order to to make that bite mar...