4.1 Article

The skull of Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the late Cretaceous of Madagascar

期刊

JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 121-144

出版社

SOC VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1671/A1109-10

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Upper Cretaceous Maevarano Formation of Madagascar is the best-preserved and most complete titanosaur yet described. The skull of Rapetosaurus is particularly significant because most titanosaurs are diagnosed solely on the basis of fragmentary postcranial material, and knowledge of the fitanosaur skull has remained incomplete. Material referred to Rapetosaurus includes the type skull from an adult that preserves the basicranium, rostrum, mandible, and palate. A second, juvenile skull preserves most of the braincase and cranial vault, as well as some of the palate and lower jaw. Here we provide a detailed description of Rapetosaurus cranial anatomy and highlight comparative relationships among known fitanosaur and other neosauropod skulls. The Rapetosaurus skull is similar to those of diplodocoids in its overall shape, with retracted external nares and an elongated snout. However, extensive tooth distribution and bone articulations surrounding the external narial region and orbit are more similar to those of macronarians like Camarasaurus and Brachiosaurus. The maxilla, basicranium. paroccipital process, and pterygoid are among the most diagnostic elements of the Rapetosaurus skull, along with the enlarged antorbital fenestra, anteroventrally oriented braincase, and mandible. Titanosaur crania exhibit a greater diversity than previously recognized and, in light of Rapetosaurus, it is apparent that there is not a narrowly constrained bauplan for the skull of titanosaurs. Broad generalizations about evolution based on previously known, fragmentary fossils require re-evaluation. Ultimately, Rapetosaurus will be key in resolving fitanosaur higher-level and ingroup phylogeny.

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

4.1
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