![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
W abstrakcie w "Science" jest mowa tylko o fragmentach biaĹek, a nie o caĹych komĂłrkach - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 4/5927/578
Barrett, P.M., McGowan, A.J., and V. Page. 2009. Dinosaur diversity and the rock record. Procedings of the Royal Society B published online 29 April 2009. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0352
Palaeobiodiversity analysis underpins macroevolutionary investigations, allowing identification of mass extinctions and adaptive radiations. However, recent large-scale studies on marine invertebrates indicate that geological factors play a central role in moulding the shape of diversity curves and imply that many features of such curves represent sampling artefacts, rather than genuine evolutionary events. In order to test whether similar biases affect diversity estimates for terrestrial taxa, we compiled genus-richness estimates for three Mesozoic dinosaur clades (Ornithischia, Sauropodomorpha and Theropoda). Linear models of expected genus richness were constructed for each clade, using the number of dinosaur-bearing formations available through time as a proxy for the amount of fossiliferous rock outcrop. Modelled diversity estimates were then compared with observed patterns. Strong statistically robust correlations demonstrate that almost all aspects of ornithischian and theropod diversity curves can be explained by geological megabiases, whereas the sauropodomorph record diverges from modelled predictions and may be a stronger contender for identifying evolutionary signals. In contrast to other recent studies, we identify a marked decline in dinosaur genus richness during the closing stages of the Cretaceous Period, indicating that the clade decreased in diversity for several million years prior to the final extinction of non-avian dinosaurs at the Cretaceous–Palaeocene boundary.
Wpis na archosaurmusings.wordpress.com.Brusatte, S., Benson, R., Chure, D., Xu, X., Sullivan, C., & Hone, D. (2009). The first definitive carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from Asia and the delayed ascent of tyrannosaurids Naturwissenschaften DOI: 10.1007/s00114-009-0565-2
Abstract Little is known about the evolution of large-bodied theropod dinosaurs during the Early to mid Cretaceous in Asia. Prior to this time, Asia was home to an endemic fauna of basal tetanurans, whereas terminal Cretaceous ecosystems were dominated by tyrannosaurids, but the intervening 60 million years left a sparse fossil record. Here, we redescribe the enigmatic large-bodied Chilantaisaurus maortuensis from the Turonian of Inner Mongolia, China. We refer this species to a new genus, Shaochilong, and analyze its systematic affinities. Although Shaochilong has previously been allied with several disparate theropod groups (Megalosauridae, Allosauridae, Tyrannosauroidea, Maniraptora), we find strong support for a derived carcharodontosaurid placement. As such, Shaochilong is the first unequivocal Asian member of Carcharodontosauridae, which was once thought to be restricted to Gondwana. The discovery of an Asian carcharodontosaurid indicates that this clade was cosmopolitan in the Early to mid Cretaceous and that Asian large-bodied theropod faunas were no longer endemic at this time. It may also suggest that the ascent of tyrannosaurids into the large-bodied dinosaurian predator niche was a late event that occurred towards the end of the Cretaceous, between the Turonian and the Campanian.
A nie "gen. nov."? Brusatte i in. piszÄ w pracy: "Shaochilong gen. nov."(comb. nov.)
Badania radiometryczne wskazaĹy na turon, ok. 92 Ma(?apt-alb albo turon - o ile nie później)
PierdĂłĹka - spacja po pierwszych nawiasach jest zbÄdna ;)(( Giganotosaurus + Mapusaurus) Carcharodontosaurus)
To chyba siÄ nie odmienia, czyli byĹoby "Hu"Hu'ego
Chyba na jedno wychodzi. Comb. to zapewne skrĂłt od combination. Patrz np.Ag.Ent pisze:A nie "gen. nov."? Brusatte i in. piszÄ w pracy: "Shaochilong gen. nov."(comb. nov.)
PoprawiÄ, bo chyba powinno byÄ tak jak mĂłwisz.Maidment et al (2008), zmodyfikowane nieco przeze mnie pisze:Loricatosaurus gen. nov.
Loricatosaurus priscus (Nopcsa, 1911b) comb. nov.
1911b Stegosaurus priscus Nopcsa: 109.
1964 Lexovisaurus priscus (Nopcsa) Kuhn: 35.
przynajmniej 92, bo moĹźe byÄ później, albo jednak wczeĹniej:Badania radiometryczne wskazaĹy na turon, ok. 92 Ma(?apt-alb albo turon - o ile nie później)
eh, moglem daÄ wszystkie ĹşrĂłdĹa z ktĂłrych korzystaĹem:DBenson i Xu (2008) pisze:Ulansuhai Formation was regarded as at least younger than
92 Ma (Late Cretaceous), based on K–Ar dating of basalts
from the unconformably underlying Suhongtu Formation
by Kobayashi & L¨u (2003). However, Weishampel et al.
(2004) list the age as Aptian–?Albian based on a personal
communication from Dong, and in agreement with the age
given byRauhut (2003). In the future, further data may clarify
uncertainty regarding the age of the Ulansuhai Formation.
No wĹasnie sam nie wiedziaĹem co mam z tym zrobiÄ.Ag.Ent pisze:PS.To chyba siÄ nie odmienia, czyli byĹoby "Hu"Hu'ego
Chyba nie muszÄ byÄ nowe? W tym przypadku stary gatunek przenosimy do nowego rodzaju.skrecu pisze:comb. nov. znaczy tyle, Ĺźe formalnie prawidĹowo opisany nowy
a)gatunek,
lub
b)podgatunek
w obrÄbie znanego rodzaju, przenosi siÄ do nowego (odpowiednio)
a)rodzaju,
bÄ dĹş
b)gatunku
A moĹźe trzeba wyraĹşnie zaznaczyÄ?Shaochilong maortuensis (gen/comb. nov.) to pierwszy niewÄ tpliwy...
Shaochilong maortuensis (gen/comb. nov., wczeĹniej Chilantaisaurus maortuensis) to pierwszy niewÄ tpliwy...
Oba pochodza z tej samej publikacji Hu (C. tashuikouensis pojawia siÄ kilka stron wczesniej). PojawiĹa siÄ wczeĹniej tez nazwa “Alashansaurus” Chure, 2000 vide Glut, 2003 (nonem nudum) dla C. maortuensis, ale w jaki sposob:skrecu pisze:na poczÄ tku opisano kiedyĹ tam typowy okaz nowego rodzaju Chilantaisaurus, zwany Chilantaisaurus tashuikouensis
później Hu(1964) opisaĹ skrĂłtowo na podstawie materiaĹu nowy gatunek Chilantaisaurus, Chilantaisaurus maortuensis
HistoriÄ taksonu oczywiĹcie znam, dlatego zaczÄ Ĺem news tak, z comb. nov, choÄ w pracy te wyraĹźenie nie wystepuje:Mortimer pisze:Chure (1998) separated the two species, and later (2000) created a new genus for "Chilantaisaurus" maortuensis in his unpublished thesis. The name was published by Glut (2003), but the latter reference includes a caveat to prevent it from being an official taxonomic source, leaving the possibility of Chure being its official describer once his thesis' contents are published.
Po czym nastÄpiĹa niepotrzebna dyskusja.Shaochilong maortuensis (comb. nov.) to pierwszy niewÄ tpliwy karcharodontozauryd z Azji.
jeszcze Argentynahanys pisze:Za niedĹugo dinozaur spoza Chin to bÄdzie rarytas,
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=5568520Euhelopus zdanskyi was the first dinosaur described from China. Both traditional and modern cladistic assessments have found support for an endemic clade of Chinese sauropods (Euhelopodidae) that originated during an interval of geographic isolation, but the monophyly of this clade has remained controversial. The phylogenetic affinity of the eponymous genus Euhelopus is central to this controversy, yet its anatomy has not been completely restudied since the original German-language monograph in 1929.
We jointly re-examined the cranial and postcranial anatomy of the holotypic and referred materials of Euhelopus to provide a new diagnosis for the genus and to explore its phylogenetic affinities. Diagnostic features of Euhelopus include: postaxial cervical vertebrae that have variably developed epipophyses and more subtle “pre-epipopophyses” below the prezygapophyses; cervical neural arches with an epipophyseal–prezygapophyseal lamina separating two pneumatocoels; anterior cervical vertebrae with three costal spurs on the tuberculum and capitulum; divided middle presacral neural spines, which in anterior dorsal vertebrae bear a median tubercle that is as large or larger than the metapophyses; middle and posterior dorsal parapophyseal and diapophyseal laminae arranged in a “K” configuration; and presacral pneumaticity that extends into the ilium. Following this morphological study, we rescored Euhelopus for the two most comprehensive sauropod data matrices (Wilson 2002; Upchurch et al. 2004a), which previously yielded vastly different hypotheses for its relationships. Both matrices decisively demonstrate that Euhelopus is closely related to Titanosauria; traditional and cladistic claims that Euhelopus, Omeisaurus, Mamenchisaurus and Shunosaurus formed a monophyletic “Euhelopodidae” endemic to East Asia are not supported. These results suggest that there were at least two clades of very long-necked sauropods in East Asia, occurring in the Middle Jurassic (i.e. Omeisaurus + Mamenchisaurus) and Early Cretaceous (e.g. Euhelopus, Erketu), with the latter group perhaps also occurring in Europe (Canudo et al. 2002). It is probable that the Euhelopus + Erketu lineage invaded East Asia from another part of Pangaea when isolation ended in the Early Cretaceous. The large number of basal titanosauriforms from East Asia has been interpreted to mean that this area may represent their centre of origin (You et al. 2003), but the titanosaur fossil record and phylogenetic studies indicate that the group probably originated prior to the Middle Jurassic and acquired a virtually global distribution before Pangaean fragmentation.
PrzyszĹ‚y paleontolog pisze:W filmie jurassica sĹyszaĹem, Ĺźe rĂłwnieĹź chyba (nie jestem pewien) gardiumim zapadaĹ w hibernacje. Ale nie wiem czy to prawda
![]()
Zhao, X.-J., Benson, R. B. J., Brusatte S. L. & Currie, P. J. 2009. The postcranial skeleton of Monolophosaurus jiangi (Dinosaurs: Theropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Xinjiang, China, and a review of Chinese Middle Jurassic theropods. Geological Magazine. doi: 10.1017/S0016756809990240
The Middle Jurassic was a critical time in the evolution of theropod dinosaurs, highlighted by the origination and radiation of the large-bodied and morphologically diverse Tetanurae. Middle Jurassic tetanurans are rare but have been described from Europe, South America and China. In particular, China has yielded a number of potential basal tetanurans, but these have received little detailed treatment in the literature. Here we redescribe the postcranial skeleton of one of the most complete Chinese Middle Jurassic theropods, Monolophosaurus. Several features confirm the tetanuran affinities of Monolophosaurus, but the possession of ‘primitive’ traits such as a double-faceted pubic peduncle of the ilium and a hood-like supracetabular crest suggest a basal position within Tetanurae. This conflicts with most published cladistic analyses that place Monolophosaurus in a more derived position within Allosauroidea. We review the Middle Jurassic record of Chinese theropods and compare Monolophosaurus to other Middle Jurassic theropods globally. These comparisons suggest that Monolophosaurus and Chuandongocoelurus formed an endemic theropod clade limited to the Middle Jurassic of Asia. Other Middle Jurassic Chinese theropods deserve further study.
Praca nie jest az taka nowa, ale nie zauwazylem, zeby sie tu o niej mowilo. W kazdym razie chetnie bym dodal swoje trzy grosze do tematu.Benson, R. B. J. 2009. An assessment of variability in theropod dinosaur remains from the Bathonian (Middle Jurassic) of Stonesfield and New Park Quarry, UK and taxonomic implications for Megalosaurus bucklandii and Iliosuchus incognitus. Palaeontology 52: 857-877.
Abstract: The assemblage of large-bodied theropod remains from the Taynton Limestone Formation (middle Bathonian) of Stonesfield, Oxfordshire and the Chipping Norton Limestone Formation (lowest Bathonian) of New Park Quarry, Gloucestershire, UK is interpreted as monospecific. An assessment of morphological variation in theropod fossils from these localities reveals no taxonomically-significant variation among remains representing large-bodied individuals. Previous observations of anatomical variation among femora, ilia and scapulocoracoids are attributed to postmortem damage and deformation. Referral of all such material to the first named dinosaur taxon, Megalosaurus bucklandii Mantell, is therefore justified. ‘Iliosuchus incognitus’ lacks autapomorphies and is a nomen dubium. However, other remains of small-bodied theropods from Stonesfield indicate a minimum of two small-bodied taxa that are distinct from M. bucklandii.