Skip to main content

More on jaw muscle reconstructions

I have some more old images of mine, this one is of the jaw muscle reconstructions in Deinonychus. The skull is reconstructed from Ostrom's (1969) original figures. And jaw muscles are based on personal observations in numerous modern bird species. Off the bat it's obvious I've only referred to birds and not crocodilians or other diapsids because of the way I've reconstructed the MAMES attaching with a tendonous attachment onto the coronoid process. The muscle attached to the dorsal and medial surfaces of the surangular just medial and posterior to the MAMES is the MAMEM. In contrast, the MAMES in crocodilians attach along the dorsal surface of the surangular with the MAMEM attaching just medial to that. I suspect given the arrangement of cranial bones that the muscles arrangements in theropods would be more similar to crocs (and other diapsids) than to birds. The MPT is reconstructed as wrapping around the ventral side to attach to the lateral surface of the angular as in crocs.

Another picture I drew of muscle reconstructions in theropods, or rather another one of them hypothetical dissections, is one in Allosaurus. Again it is evident the muscles are based on birds from the MAMES attachment. Like in a previous post, the skin is peeled off halfway and the tongue and hyobranchial apparatus have been removed to reveal just the jaw adductor muscles. I just think this is a rather comical drawing, more so than the last one.

You might think that all this is pointless and we will never know what the muscles in theropods were like, but a large part of biomechanics actually rely on muscle data and the more we know about them the better it is.

Comments

Zach said…
Gorgeous pictures, especially the second one! I always like seeing muscle reconstructions of dinosaurs. Has anybody done one for hadrosaurs? As I understand it, their mandibles worked in a wierd way...
Thanks, Zack! The second one was actually quite difficult mostly because of its odd angle...you rarely see dinosaur drawings at this angle. But the muscles weren't that difficult as I have first hand observations from various angles.

Ostrom (1961) has some detailed jaw muscle reconstructions using Corythosaurus. They're more schematic than artistic but I really like them as Ostrom looks at all the major jaw muscles from a variety of angles!

The ref is: Ostrom, J. H. 1961. Cranial morphology of the hadrosaurian dinosaurs of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 122:35-186

And of course, the classic refs for jaw biomechanics in hadrosaurs are Weishampel (1983) and Norman and Weishampel (1985).
The Warrior said…
Okay, I just visited your blog. This is about the most amazing place I've ever visited on the blogosphere.

You mind if I stick around for a while? It seems we share a passion for all things paleo. :-D

Spencer

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Hind limb proportions do not support the validity of Nanotyrannus

While it was not the main focus of their paper, Persons and Currie (2016) , in a recent paper in Scientific Reports hinted at the possibility of Nanotyrannus lancensis being a valid taxon distinct from Tyrannosaurus rex , using deviations from a regression model of lower leg length on femur length. Similar to encephalisation quotients , Persons and Currie devised a score (cursorial-limb-proportion; CLP) based on the difference between the observed lower leg length and the predicted lower leg length (from a regression model) expressed as a percentage of the observed value. The idea behind this is pretty simple in that if the observed lower leg length value is higher than that predicted for its size (femur length), then that taxon gets a high CLP score. I don't particularly like this sort of data characterisation (a straightforward regression [albeit with phylogeny, e.g. pGLS] would do the job well), but nonetheless, Persons and Currie found that when applied to Nanotyrannus , it