4.3 Article

Ontogenetic stages of ceratopsian dinosaur Psittacosaurus in bone histology

Journal

ACTA PALAEONTOLOGICA POLONICA
Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 323-334

Publisher

INST PALEOBIOLOGII PAN
DOI: 10.4202/app.00559.2018

Keywords

Dinosauria; Ceratopsia; bone histology; ontogeny; growth patterns; longevity; Cretaceous; China

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41502018, 41688103]
  2. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of Chinese Academy of Sciences [2015057]
  3. Newton Advanced Fellowships of Royal Society [NA160290]
  4. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB26000000, XDB183030504]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The early ceratopsians Psittacosaurus and Protoceratops have provided important information on dinosaurian development because of abundant specimens of adults, subadults, juveniles, and even hatchlings. Here we present new data and methods for identifying key growth stages from bone histology. Previous studies on Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis from the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota of China did not present in-depth analysis of growth patterns. Based on a histological study of 43 thin sections from 17 individuals of this species, we recognize four histological ontogenetic stages, i.e., hatchling, juvenile, sub-adult, and adult, but no fully-grown stage. We estimate life history and longevity from diaphyseal growth line counts and other features of histology. We show that P. lujiatunensis grew fast in early stages ( hatchling, juvenile, and subadult), according to the density of vascular canals and the different type of bone tissue; the deposition of parallel fibred bone tissue in the outer cortex of the subadult stage indicates that growth rate was slowing down. We introduce a new graphical method to estimate the occurrence and volumes of vascular canals from thin sections more accurately than current two-dimensional approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available