4.8 Article

Resolving the long-standing enigmas of a giant ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus mirificus

期刊

NATURE
卷 515, 期 7526, 页码 257-U231

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature13874

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hwaseong City, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea
  2. Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources, Korea
  3. Paleontological Center of Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolia
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24540494] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The holotype of Deinocheirus mirificus was collected by the 1965 Polish-Mongolian Palaeontological Expedition at Altan Uul III in the southern Gobi of Mongolia(1). Because the holotype consists mostly of giant forelimbs (2.4 min length) with scapulocoracoids(2), for almost 50 years Deinocheirus has remained one of the most mysterious dinosaurs. The mosaic of ornithomimosaur and nonornithomimosaur characters in the holotype has made it difficult to resolve the phylogenetic status of Deinocheirus(3,4). Here we describe two new specimens of Deinocheirus that were discovered in the Nemegt Formation of Altan Uul IV in 2006 and Bugiin Tsav in 2009. The Bugiin Tsav specimen (MPC-D100/127) includes a left forelimb clearly identifiable as Deinocheirus and is 6% longer than the holotype. The Altan Uul IV specimen(MPC-D100/128) is approximately 74% the size of MPC-D 100/127. Cladistic analysis indicates that Deinocheirus is the largest member of the Ornithomimosauria; however, it has many unique skeletal features unknown in other ornithomimosaurs, indicating that Deinocheirus was a heavily built, non-cursorial animal with an elongate snout, a deep jaw, tall neural spines, a pygostyle, a U-shaped furcula, an expanded pelvis for strong muscle attachments, a relatively short hind limb and broad-tipped pedal unguals. Ecomorphological features in the skull, more than a thousand gastroliths, and stomach contents (fish remains) suggest that Deinocheirus was a megaomnivore that lived in mesic environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据