Skip to main content

Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis

This is one of my favorite dinosaurs - Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis. It's also perhaps one of the most complete theropod fossils from Britain. Eustreptospondylus is a Middle Jurassic 'megalosaur' from the Oxford Clay of Oxfordshire. Now, I'm not much of a historian so I won't claim to know all the details, but it was known for a long time as 'Streptospondylus' but was subsequently renamed by Walker in 1964 in his paper 'Triassic reptiles from the Elgin area: Ornithosuchus and the origin of carnosaurs'.

s is nowadays regarded as an archosaur so for some time, I was baffled as to why Walker addressed the question of carnosaur origins by redescribing a Triassic archosaur. However, it appeared I was just being lazy (as usual) as I had not even read the abstract. It is made quite clear that Walker considered Ornithosuchus to be a theropod dinosaur, a primitive carnosaur close to the ancestry of Megalosauridae and Tyrannosauridae. Thus, Walker proposed a modified classification of the Infra-order Carnosauria* within Sub-order Theropoda; comprised of the Superfamily Megalosauroidea and Superfamily Tyrannosauroidea which includes the Families Ornithosuchidae, Spinosauridae, and Tyrannosauridae.

In the process of establishing this classification, Walker naturally compared Ornithosuchus with other supposed 'Triassic carnosaurs' but also with Jurassic and Cretaceous 'carnosaurs'. Thus, much of the British 'carnosaur' materials were re-examined and several new names emerged including Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis, E. divesensis, and Metriacanthosaurus.

*Carnosauria used to include all the large theropods but has diminished substantially in taxonomic range in the last few years - I think it only includes the Allosauroidea and Spinosauroidea if these two form a monophyletic Carnosauria to begin with.

Walker, A. D. 1964. Triassic reptiles from the Elgin area: Ornithosuchus and the origin of carnosaurs. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 248: 53-134.


Zach said…
No, spinosaurs are megalosaurs, and so their tetanurine affiliations are questionable. Megalosaurs, as I understand it, occupy an uncomfortable "middle of the road" somewhere between old school ceratosaurs and true tetanurines. Of course, since megalosaurs have yet to be clearly defined, and their remains are so very shabby, it's hard to say anything with certainty about the group.

I believe that "Carnosauria" includes the allosaurs and their immediate cousins. I'll have to look back at my Holtz, Jr. paper for a reminder, though.

How much of Eustreptospondylus is known? Is there a skull?
Well, according to Holtz (1998), then Megalosauridae is paraphyletic, Spinosauridae is shown as the basal-most member of Tetanurae but yes, Carnosauria includes allosauroids and their close relatives.

On the other hand, Rauhut (2003) shows Eustreptospondylus basal to [Torvosaurus + Spinosauridae] in his reduced consensus tree so spinosaurs in his study is included in a 'megalosaur' clade though he calls that clade Spinosauroidea. Carnosauria in his case is [Spinosauroidea + Allosauroidea].

There's ongoing work on basal tetanurans with special emphasis on megalosaurs by a PhD student in Cambridge so we'll have to wait and see what he finds out.

There's quite a bit of Eustreptospondylus. Both the cranial and post-cranial skeleton is partial but fairly well-represented. For the skull, there's at least the braincase, lacrimal, squamosal, postorbitals, quadratojugal, frontals, maxillae, premaxillae, and dentaries (I think).
Zach said…
Hey brother, what happened to Dinobase today?
It was technical stuff associated with our Department migrating to a new server.

Popular posts from this blog

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour. If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this: B0 B1 B2 Family Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Ovir

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

Top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

I thought I'd do a fun post for once. And since list based articles are the norm for fun on the internet, I thought I'd do one on dinosaurs, but given that I know most about theropods, I've decided to restrict my list to theropods (...maybe in a future post, I'll do other clades). My ranking is based mostly on scientific importance so it may not reflect awesomeness, and it is obviously subjective as to how I rank importance to science. For instance, interesting discoveries or unique palaeobiology are ranked relatively low compared to wealth of information and data or completely revolutionising our understanding of the evolution of theropods. So here are my top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head) 10. Megalosaurus Being the first dinosaur to be named, Megalosaurus automatically deserves a spot on this list, but given the fragmentary nature of known fossil specimens, and being mostly useless as a meaningful source