4.7 Article

Early Cretaceous lepidosaur (sphenodontian?) burrows

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37385-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scarcely found in Cretaceous rocks, tetrapod burrows from Patagonia provide insights into paleoecology and paleoenvironment. These burrows, preserved in pyroclastic rocks of eolian dunes and ash-fall deposits, suggest the presence of lepidosaurs, possibly eilenodontine sphenodontians. The rare occurrence of these burrows can be attributed to harsh conditions caused by volcanic ash and a semiarid climate.
Scarce fossil tetrapod burrows have been recorded in Cretaceous rocks, which is probably linked to the dominant equable climates that existed for most of this period. The occurrence of Cretaceous tetrapod burrows from Patagonia (Chubut Province, Argentina) dated between 118 and 115 million years ago, gives insights into their paleoecology and paleoenvironment. The rocks containing the tetrapod burrows are of pyroclastic origin and represent eolian dunes and ash-fall deposits, some reworked by fluvial currents and others showing soil development. Fossil burrow casts preserved in a paleosol are composed by a ramp with a slightly curved or straight path in plan-view and lacking bifurcation, a rounded termination with no enlargement, showing a reniform cross-section, and are assigned to the ichnospecies Reniformichnus katikatii. The strongly flattened cross-sectional shape of the burrow casts and comparison with modern lizard burrows suggest that the producers were lepidosaurs (body mass = 50-323 g). Among Cretaceous fossorial lepidosaurs from Patagonia, the best candidate is an eilenodontine sphenodontian. Sphenodontians burrowed in the fossil soils where also arthropods, earthworms and shrubby plants thrived. The rare occurrence of tetrapod burrows in Cretaceous rocks is linked to stressing conditions related to frequent arrival of volcanic ash and a semiarid seasonal climate.

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

4.7
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