Cutting up dinosaur’s evolutionary tree

For more than 130 years dinosaurs have been classified into two distinct orders, the saurischians and the ornithischians. But as it is common in biological sciences, every theory is true until the opposite is proved. A new study has called into question classical dinosaur classification, destroying and redistributing some of the different dinosaur groups. Even if this new hypothesis isn’t 100% sure yet, in this entry we’ll explain what this dinosaur reordering consists in.

TRADITIONAL DINOSAUR CLASSIFICATION

Since the XIX century, dinosaurs have been divided into two large orders based on their hip anatomy. The order Saurischia (lizard-hipped) includes theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs and current birds) and sauropodomorphs (large, long-necked herbivores); the order Ornithischia (bird-hipped) includes ornithopods (herbivorous and duck-billed dinosaurs), marginocephalians (dinosaurs with horns and hardened skulls) and thyreophorans (armored dinosaurs).

Traditional dinosaur evolutionary tree by Zureks, with the two different hip morphologies at the bottom.

Yet, this classification doesn’t have the last word. Palaeontology is an extremely volatile science, as with each new discovery, you can dismantle everything you knew at that moment, even if it’s a centenary-old hypothesis. This is what has recently happened with dinosaurs.

THE RISE OF A NEW HYPOTHESIS

A new study published in March 2017, has caused the reconsideration of traditional dinosaur classification. Many previous studies assumed the Saurichia/Ornithischia classification as true and so, the used characters and taxons were all focussed on this classification. However, this new study has pioneered in many aspects:

• It includes a larger number of species and taxons (many more than in previous investigations).
• Previous studies gave more importance to basal theropod and sauropodomorph dinosaurs (traditional saurischians), as they were the first dinosaurs to diversify, including few basal ornithischians.
• It has also included many dinosauromorph archosaurs (non-dinosaur taxons).
• Older studies had assumed many ornithischian characters to be symplesiomorphies (ancestral characters of all dinosaurs) and they only focused on a few synapomorphies (characters found in a monophyletic group).

This study has detached from many of the previous assumptions on dinosaur phylogeny and has analysed a large number of species and many characters not included in previous investigations. This has made the resulting evolutionary tree pretty different from the ones obtained before.

RESHAPING THE TREE

Then, how does the dinosaur’s evolutionary tree stand according to this hypothesis? Well, the matter is somewhat complex, even if the different groups are still divided in two orders:

• Order Saurischia which, according to this study, only includes sauropodomorphs and herrerasaurids (a group of carnivorous, non-theropod saurischians).
• The new order Ornithoscelida (bird-limbed) that includes the traditional ornithischians and theropods, which are no longer saurischians.

Keeping this in mind, let’s now see the characteristics that define these two orders.

Saurischians

The order Saurischia is almost the same, except that theropods are no longer part of this group. This order presents the original saurischian hip structure, which the dinosaurs’ ancestors also had. According to this new hypothesis,  herrerasaurids and sauropodomorphs are all included as saurischians.

Herrerasaurids (Herrerasauridae family) were a small group of basal saurischians that evolved towards meat-eating. That’s why for a long time it was thought that they were the sister-taxon of theropods, but it was later seen that they were found among the first saurischians. Even if they were pretty specialized, they were probably displaced by competition with other predators, appearing during the middle Triassic and becoming extinct at the end of it.

Photo by Brian Smith of a Herrerasaurus skeleton and model, from the Field Museum of Natural History of Chicago.

Herrerasaurids occupied a similar ecological niche as theropods. The new hypothesis implies that hypercarnivory (feeding exclusively on meat) evolved independently twice in dinosaurs, which makes some palaeontologist question it. Yet the herrerasaurid and theropod anatomy differed in some aspects, such as the anatomy of their hands (more generalistic in herrerasaurids) and the jaw structure.

The first sauropodomorphs were biped animals just like herrerasaurids, even if they were omnivorous. Yet, sauropodomorphs would end up becoming huge herbivorous quadrupeds with characteristic long necks.

Thecodontosaurus skeleton (by Qilong), a basal sauropodomorph and a reconstruction of Plateosaurus (from Walters, Senter & Robins) a more advanced one. Even if it cannot be appreciated in this image, sauropodomorphs would increase very their size very much during their evolution (Thecodontosaurus 2 metres, Plateosaurus up to 10 metres).

Ornithoscelidans

The new dinosaur order is Ornithoscelida, which groups theropods with ornithischians. This taxon is supported by more than twenty skeletal synapomorphies (derived characters shared by a clade), present both in basal theropods and ornithischians. Some of these characteristics include the presence of a gap between premaxillar and maxillar teeth (diastema) and the fusion of the ends of the tibia and the fibula into a tibiotarsus (even if these characteristics are only found on the most basal species).

Scheme from Baron et al. (2017) of the skulls of two basal ornithoscelidans, Eoraptor (a theropod, top) and Heterodontosaurus (an ornithischian, bottom).

Both theropods and the first ornithischians were bipedal animals. Also, the presence of heterodont teeth in the ancestral members of both groups leads us to think that the first ornithoscelidans were omnivorous, which would later specialise in feeding on meat and on plants (theropods and ornithopods respectively).

Reconstruction of the face of Daemonosaurus, one of the first theropods, by DeadMonkey8984.

A curiosity about the new classification is that accepting Ornithoscelida as a valid taxon, all feathered dinosaurs are put together into one group. Everyone knows that many theropods presented feathers (as they were the ancestors of birds) but, what most people don’t know is that feathers have also been found in some basal ornithischians and in more advanced ones too.

Reconstruction by Tom Parker of Kulindadromeus, a ornithischian which feathers have been proved to be present on most of its body.

KEEP INVESTIGATING

Then, is this hypothesis irrevocable? Well, no of course. Even if it’s pretty tempting to assume that the dinosaur’s natural history has been changed, we cannot say that from now on dinosaurs will be classified this way.

Dinosaur evolutionary tree according to Baron et al. (2017), in which we can see the different clades; Dinosauria (A), Saurischia (B) and Ornithoscelida (C).

Even if this study shows really interesting results about the origin of dinosaurs, we cannot dismiss hundreds of previous studies about this group of animals. We’ll have to remain alert to new articles that step by step will keep unveiling more information about the relationships between these Mesozoic reptiles. And that’s what’s so stimulating about biology, that there’s nothing sure! And that with new investigation techniques and new discoveries, little by little we learn more about the world around us.

Keep your mind open and keep investigating!

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted during the elaboration of this entry:

• G. Seeley (1887). On the Classification of the Fossil Animals Commonly Named Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Vol. 43. Pp 165-171.
• Baron, Norman & Barret (2017). A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature Vol. 543. Pp 501-506.
• Senter & Robins (2015). Resting Orientations of Dinosaur Scapulae and Forelimbs: A Numerical Analysis, with Implications for Reconstructions and Museum Mounts. Plos One.
• Scientific American. Ornithoscelida Rises: A New Family Tree for Dinosaurs.
• Cover image by Charles Knight.

Dinosaurs from the North Pole: Live at Prince Creek

When we think about dinosaurs, we probably imagine them walking through a dense, tropical jungle or wandering in a warm, foggy swamp. But as a matter of fact, some dinosaur species lived in very high latitudes, as the ones found in the Prince Creek formation. This Alaskan geologic formation is one of the most important sources of arctic dinosaurs, as many fossils have been found in it. In this entry, we’ll describe some of these dinosaurs from the North Pole, and we’ll explain some of the difficulties they had to endure in order to survive in the northernmost point of the planet.

ALASKA 75 MILLION YEARS AGO

The Prince Creek formation is situated in the north of Alaska and dates from around 80-60 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous, the last period of the Mesozoic. At that time, North America was divided by the Western Interior Seaway; the eastern continent or Appalachia, and the western continent or Laramidia, north of which the Prince Creek formation was deposited.

Map of North America at the end of the Cretaceous period, with the Prince Creek formation marked in red, from the article New Horned Dinosaurs from Utah Provide Evidence for Intracontinental Dinosaur Endemism.

At the end of the Cretaceous period, the Prince Creek formation was further north than it is today. Yet, at that time the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect phase, so the climate was a little warmer than it is today. It is thought that the mean annual temperature at Prince Creek was about 5°C, with summer maximums at about 18-20°C. Still, the difference in temperature between summer and winter would have been quite remarkable (currently, at the same latitude, it’s about 56°C).

Even if temperatures were not as low as the ones of present-day Alaska, the dinosaurs of Prince Creek had to endure long, dark winter months. Yet, the slightly higher temperatures and the proximity to the sea, produced a higher diversity of plant species. Observing the fossilized flora, we know that the landscape was that of a polar woodland, with angiosperm-dominated forests and a large number of fern, moss and fungus species, with some areas of seasonally-flooded grasslands.

Drawing by Julio Lacerda of Prince Creek’s landscape and wildlife.

As for the fauna, palaeontologists were surprised at the great number of big animals found. The fact that dinosaurs were found in such high latitudes is what makes us think that these were endotherm animals that generated their own body heat. Also in Prince Creek, there aren’t any fossils of other ectotherm reptiles like turtles, crocodiles or snakes, which are usually found in other United States deposits of the same period. Currently, dinosaurs are thought to be neither endotherm nor ectotherm, but mesotherm animals, which generated body heat metabolically, but were unable to control its temperature or keep it stable.

TOUGH HERBIVORES

The relatively abundant vegetation, allowed the presence of a great diversity of plant-eating dinosaurs in such high latitudes. While the smaller herbivores had little trouble because of their low energetic requirements, the larger herbivores probably had more difficulties in order to find enough food, especially during the harsh winter months. The dinosaur fossil found at the highest latitude is Ugrunaaluk (literally “ancient grazer” in Inupiaq language from northern Alaska) a hadrosaurid or “duck-billed dinosaur”. This ornithopod measured up to 10 metres long and weighed around 3 tonnes, making it one of the largest animals in Prince Creek.

Reconstruction by James Havens of a herd of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis, moving under the polar lights.

Ugrunaaluk were herbivorous animals that lived in groups. Even if many author think that these animals performed long migrations like today’s birds and mammals in order to avoid the lack of food during the winter, some others argue that young Ugrunaaluk (which had a less active metabolism than current endotherms) would had been unable to endure such long journeys. Ugrunaaluk probably moved to areas were the vegetation better tolerated the severity of winter, even if it’s thought that these great herbivores survived during the dark winters feeding on bark, ferns and probably aquatic vegetation during the coldest months.

The other great Prince Creek plant-eater was Pachyrhinosaurus (literally “thick-nosed lizard”) a ceratopsid widely-distributed through the United States, with a large protuberance on its nose which may have been used as a weapon during intraspecific combats, and a pair of laterally-facing horns on the top of its frill. Pachyrhinosaurus was the largest animal of Prince Creek, measuring up to 8 metres long and weighing up to 4 tonnes. It is possible that it used its nasal protuberance to shovel through the snow to reach the plants buried under it, similar to today’s bisons.

Reconstruction of a pair of Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum by James Havens.

All the animals of Prince Creek had arduous lives. Almost all the fossils of both Ugrunaaluk and Pachyrhinosaurus, indicate that these species matured quickly and died young. Observing the growth of the different bones that have been found, it is thought that these dinosaurs rarely lived for over 20 years of age, probably due to the harsh conditions of their habitat but also to the presence of predators.

PREDATORS LARGE AND SMALL

The largest predator of the region was Nanuqsaurus (“polar bear lizard”, from Inupiaq language), a tyrannosaurid. This animal had a highly developed sense of smell which allowed it to detect their prey or animal carcasses in low light during the polar winter. Also, although there is no evidence, it was probably covered in feathers which would have protected it from the cold, as many closely-related theropods presented feathers to some extent.

Reconstruction of Nanuqsaurus hoglundi by Tom Parker.

What’s more surprising about Nanuqsaurus is its size, much smaller than that of its relatives. While other tyrannosaurids from the same time measured between 10 or 12 metres long and weighed up to 9 tonnes, Nanuqsaurus was more of a pygmy tyrannosaur, with an estimated length of 6 metres and a weight of 800 kg. This diminutive size was probably caused by the fact that it lived in an environment where food availability varied through the seasons. Apart from the fact that their prey’s population densities probably weren’t very high, during winter months many herbivores would migrate to other areas.

By contrast, there was another theropod that presented the opposite adaptation. Troodon (“wounding tooth”) was a relatively small dinosaur, about 2.9 metres long and 50 kg of weight. This is a pretty abundant dinosaur in many North American deposits. Troodon was a highly active carnivorous animal, with a good binocular vision and it’s also believed to be one of the most intelligent Mesozoic dinosaurs.

Reconstruction of two Troodon inequalis playing in the snow by Midiaou.

While Nanuqsaurus was smaller by the lack of abundant prey, Troodon specimens found at Prince Creek were characterized by their bigger size, compared with the ones from other deposits. This is what is called the Bergmann’s Rule, according to which the populations of a species that live in colder climates tend to be larger than the populations living in warmer climates, as this way they lose less body heat. Also, the larger eyes of Prince Creek’s Troodon, would give them advantage hunting during the long winter nights.

Image from the article A Diminutive New Tyrannosaur from the Top of the World, in which we can see the size of Nanuqsaurus (A) compared with some other tyrannosaurids (B, C, D and E) and two Troodon specimens (F and G) from different latitudes.

As you can see, dinosaurs not only thrived in warm and tropical environments. Even if their populations weren’t very large and their living conditions were harsher, these dinosaurs were able to adapt and survive in the polar forests of Prince Creek, and many of them surely gazed at the spectacular northern lights of 75 million years ago.

Assembly of the different dinosaur species from the Prince Creek formation by James Kuether.

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted during the elaboration of this entry:

• Susana Salazar Jaramillo (2014). Paleoclimate and paleoenvironment of the Prince Creek and Cantwell formations, Alaska: terrestrial evidence of middle Maastrichtian greenhouse event. Thesis.
• Live Science. Polar Dinosaurs Endured Cold Dark Winters.
• The Strange Lives of Polar Dinosaurs.
• North Pole Dinosaurs Lived Short, Hard Lives: Discovery News.
• Gangloff, Fiorillo & Norton (2005). The first Pachycephalosaurine (Dinosauria) from the Paleo-Arctic of Alaska and its Paleogeographic implications. Journal of Paleontology. Vol. 79. Pp: 997-1001.
• Mori, Druckenmiller & Erickson (2016). A New Hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (Lower Maastrichtian) of Northern Alaska. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. Vol. 61. Pp: 15-32.
• Fiorillo & Tykoski (2014). A Diminutive New Tyrannosaur from the Top of the World. PLoS ONE 9(3).
• Cover Image by Julio Lacerda.

Tuatara: reintroduction of a living fossil

There’s a reptile in New Zealand whose lineage arose in the time of the dinosaurs. Even if its external appearance is similar to that of a lizard, the tuatara (whose name means “spiny back” in the Maori language) is an animal with many unique characteristics that classify it in an order different from the other reptiles. In this entry we’ll explain the main characteristics of this relic from the past, as interesting as endangered.

ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

The tuataras are unusual reptiles whose lineage goes back to 240 million years ago, at the middle Triassic. Tuataras are lepidosaurs, yet they form a different lineage from the squamates, and that’s why they are found in their own order, the rhynchocephalians (order Rhynchocephalia). Lots of species flourished during the Mesozoic, even if almost all of them were replaced by squamates. At the end of the Mesozoic only one family survived, the Sphenodontidae.

Homoeosaurus fossil, an extinct relative of the tuataras. Photo by Haplochromis.

Of all the existing sphenodontids, only tuataras have survived to the present day. Traditionally it was considered that tuataras included two species: the common tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) and the Brother’s Island tuatara (Sphenodon guntheri), although recent analyses have popularized the idea that the tuatara is only one species, S. punctatus.

TUATARA ANATOMY

As we have already stated, tuataras look externally like a lizard, having a certain resemblance to iguanas. Male tuataras are larger than females, measuring up to 61 cm in length and one kilogramme of weight, while females only measure 45 cm and weigh half a kilo. Tuataras present a spiny crest on their backs which give them their common name. This crest is bigger in males, and can be erected as display.

Photo by KeresH of a young male tuatara.

What really distinguishes the tuataras is their internal anatomy. All the other reptiles have modified greatly their skull structure, but tuataras have maintained the original diapsid configuration without most changes. While crocodiles and turtles have developed a sturdy skull, tuataras conserve wide temporal openings, and while squamates have developed flexible skulls and jaws, tuataras keep a rigid cranium. Also, unlike most reptiles, tuataras present no external ears.

Modified image from the drawing by Nobu Tamura of the tuatara skull. In it we can see the main characteristics that distinguish it: 1. Beak-shaped premaxilla, 2. Acrodont teeth, fused to the jaws, 3. Diapsid-like wide temporal openings and 4. Parietal or pineal opening.

The name Rhynchocephalia means “beak head” and it refers to the beak-like structure of their premaxilla. Tuataras are also one of the few reptiles with acrodont teeth, which are fused to the maxilla and the jaw, and are not renewed. Also, they present a unique saw-like jaw movement, moving it forwards and backwards.

Video by YouOriginal, of some captive tuataras feeding. In this video we can appreciate the singular jaw movement.

Finally, one of the more incredible anatomic characteristics of tuataras is that they conserve their parietal or pineal eye. This is a structure reminiscent from the first tetrapods, which connects with the pineal gland and which is involved in the thermoregulation and circadian rhythms. Even if some other animals also keep it, the tuataras present a real third eye, with complete lens, cornea and retina, even if it gets covered with scales as they age.

HABITAT AND BIOLOGY

Tuataras live in some thirty islets in the Cook Strait, between the two main islands of New Zealand. Also, the previously considered species S. guntheri is found on Brother’s Island, in the northwest of South Island. All populations live in coastal forests or scrublands, with loose soils easy to dig. Also, in most of their distribution area there are colonies of sea birds, whose nests are also used by tuataras.

Photo by Satoru Kikuchi of a typical humid forest of New Zealand.

Compared with most reptiles, tuataras live in relatively cold habitats, with annual temperatures oscillating between 5 to 28°C. Tuataras are mainly nocturnal, usually coming out of their burrows at night, even if sometimes they can be found basking in the sun during the day (especially in winter).

Tuataras have few natural predators. Apart from some introduced animals, only gulls and some birds of prey represent a danger for these reptiles. In contrast, their diet is fairly varied. Being sit-and-wait predators, tuataras feed mainly on invertebrates like beetles, crickets and spiders, even if they are able to predate on lizards, eggs and bird chicks, and even younger tuataras. As their acrodont teeth don’t renew, these get worn down in time, so older individuals usually feed on softer prey like snails and worms.

Tuataras mate between January and March (summer), when the territorial males compete for the females, which will lay around 18-19 eggs between October and December (spring). The sex of the offspring depends on the incubation temperature (males at higher temperatures and females at lower ones). The eggs will hatch after 11-16 months (one of the longest incubation periods of all reptiles), from which young tuataras will be born, who will avoid the cannibalistic adults being active mainly during the day.

Unique video of the birth of a tuatara at the Victoria University of Wellington. The translucent mark on the little tuatara’s head corresponds to the parietal eye.

As we can see based on their long incubation period, tuataras develop slowly. These reptiles do not reach sexual maturity until the age of 12, and they keep growing. Also, tuataras are extremely long-lived animals, living up to more than 60 years in the wild. In captivity they can live more than 100 years.

CONSERVATION AND THREATS

Before the arrival of man, the tuataras were present in both main islands of New Zealand and many more islets. When the first European settlers arrived, tuataras were already only found in about 32 little islands. It’s believed that the extinction of tuataras from the main islands was due to habitat destruction and to the introduction of foreign mammals like rats. Other threats include the low genetic diversity caused by isolation of the different populations and climate change, which can affect the sex of the offspring.

Current distribution map of the tuataras. The squares correspond to the old species Sphenodon guntheri, now considered a population of S. punctatus.

When the first human settlers arrived in the isles, it is thought that 80% of New Zealand was covered in forests. When the first Polynesian tribes came around the year 1250, they caused the deforestation of more than half the archipelago. Centuries later, with the arrival of Europeans, deforestation intensified even more, up to the current situation, with only 23% of the original forest still preserved.

Photo by Cliff of a Pacific rat (Rattus exulans), one of the main threats for the tuataras.

The introduction of foreign mammals has been one of the main factors of the recent decline of tuataras, especially the introduction of the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans). This rodent has affected the populations of both tuataras and many of New Zealand’s endemic bird species. In studies on coexisting populations of tuataras and rats, it has been observed that rats, apart from preying on eggs and hatchlings, also compete with adult tuataras for resources. With an extremely slow life cycle, tuataras can’t recover from this impact.

Photo by Br3nda of a reintroduced and tagged tuatara.

Yet, tuataras are currently classified as “least concern” in the IUCN red list. This is thanks to the great efforts of conservation groups that have contributed to the recovery of this species. One of the main tasks has been the eradication of the Pacific rat from the main island where tuataras live. In order to do that, a titanic effort was made in many islets where entire populations of tuataras were captured to participate in captive breeding programs, while the rats were eliminated from these islands. After their main threat was eradicated, all the captured individuals and their captive-born offspring were released in their natural habitat so they could live without such a fierce competitor.

Video by Carla Braun-Elwert, about the breeding success of an old tuatara couple.

Currently, the wild tuatara population is estimated to be between 60.000 and 100.000 individuals. It can be said that this living fossil, which was on the brink of extinction after millions of years of existence, received a second opportunity to keep inhabiting the incredible islands of New Zealand. We hope that in the future, we can keep enjoying the existence of these reptiles, the only survivors of a practically extinct lineage, for many more centuries.

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted during the elaboration of this entry:

• Halliday & Adler (2007). La gran enciclopedia de los Anfibios y Reptiles. Editorial Libsa.
• Arkive. Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus).
• The Reptile Database. Sphenodon punctatus.
• Department of Conservation, Te Papa Atawhai. Tuatara.
• Imagen de portada de Michal Klajban.

Shell evolution with just four fossil turtles

Turtles are charming animals yet, while they look cute to most people, they’ve been racking the brains of palaeontologists for decades. The combination of apparently primitive features and an extremely specialized anatomy, has made the reconstruction of the origin and evolution of these reptiles a nearly impossible task. In this entry we’ll try to get a general idea about the evolution of one of the most striking characteristics of turtles (the shell) with only four examples of primitive “turtles”.

CURRENT AND EXTINCT RELATIVES

As we explained in an earlier entry, the origin of turtles is still debated among the scientific community. Turtles show some anatomic characteristics not found among any current vertebrate, which makes their phylogenetic origin confusing. One of the characteristics that has puzzled palaeontologist more is their skull.

Skull of a loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) in which we can see the lack of temporal openings. Photo by David Stang.

While the rest of reptiles are diapsid (they present a pair of temporal openings at each side of the skull), turtles present a typically anapsid cranium (without any temporal openings). Yet, recent genomic studies have proved that it’s more likely that testudines (order Testudines, current turtles) descend from a diapsid ancestor and that through their evolution they reverted back to the primitive anapsid form. What is not so clear is if turtles are more closely related to lepidosaurs (lizards, snakes and tuataras) or to archosaurs (crocodiles and birds). The most accepted hypothesis is the second one.

Even if the origins of the testudines are still somewhat mysterious, most palaeontologists coincide in that they belong to the clade Pantestudines, which groups all those species more closely related to turtles than to any other animal. A group of reptiles that are also found inside the pantestudines are the sauropterygians like plesiosaurs and placodonts.

Reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov of the sauropterygian Plesiosaurus, a distant relative of turtles.

EVOLUTION OF TESTUDINES

The rest of pantestudines help us to form an image of how turtles acquired such a specialized anatomy. But first, take a look at some of the characteristics of turtles:

• A shell made up of two parts: the upper shell (carapace) which comes from the fusion of the vertebrae and the dorsal ribs and the lower shell (plastron) that originates from ventral ribs called “gastralia” (still present in some current reptiles).
• While the rest of vertebrates present the scapula over their ribs, the turtle’s ribs (their carapace) cover the scapula.
• The ability to hide their heads and limbs in their shells.
• The absence of teeth; having instead horny ridges in their jaws.

As we’ll see, these characteristics were acquired very gradually.

The carapace of a dead turtle, in which we can see how the ribs fuse with the vertebrae to form the shell. Photo by Fritz Flohr Reynolds.

Even if their relationship with turtles isn’t still very clear, Eunotosaurus africanus is the most ancient candidate to being a turtle’s relative. Eunotosaurus was a fossorial animal that lived 260 million years ago in South Africa. This animal had very wide dorsal ribs which contacted each other, which is thought to have served as an anchoring point for powerful leg muscles, used while digging. Also, similarly to current turtles, Eunotosaurus had lost the intercostal muscles and presented a reorganization of the respiratory musculature.

Fossil of Eunotosaurus, in which the characteristically wide ribs can be seen. Photo by Flowcomm.

The oldest indisputable relative of turtles is Pappochelys rosiane from Germany (240 million years ago). The name “Pappochelys” literally means “grandfather turtle” as, before the discovery of Eunotosaurus it was the oldest turtle relative. Just like Eunotosaurus, it presented wide dorsal ribs in contact with each other. Also, its ventral ribs were already wider and thicker and its scapular girdle was placed below the dorsal ribs.

Drawing by Rainer Schoch of the skeleton of Pappochelys in which we can see some of its characteristics. It is believed that Pappochelys was a semiaquatic animal that swam with the aid of its long tail.

The next step in the evolution of turtles is found 220 million years ago, during the late Triassic in China. Its name is Odontochely semitestacea, which means “toothed turtle with half a shell”. This name is due to the fact that, unlike true turtles, Odontochelys still had a mouth full of teeth and it only presented the lower half of the shell, the plastron. Even if it also had thick dorsal ribs, only paleontological proofs of the plastron have been found. Odontochelys was discovered in freshwater deposits, leads us to believe that at first it only developed the plastron to protect itself from predators attacking from below.

Reconstruction by Nobu Tamura of Odontochelys semitestacea. It’s not considered to be a true turtle due to the fact that it only had half a shell.

The first testudine known to possess a complete shell is Proganochelys quenstedti from the Triassic period, 210 million years ago. It already presented many characteristics found in current turtles: the shell was completely formed, with carapace and plastron, its skull was anapsid looking and it had no teeth. However, Proganochelys wasn’t able to retract its head and legs inside its shell (even if this may be because of the horns it had). It also presented two extra shell pieces at both sides, which probably served to protect its legs.

Reconstruction of Proganochelys from the Museum am Lowentor of Stuttgart. Photo by Ghedoghedo.

PRESENT DAY TURTLES

The order Testudines as we know it, appeared around 190 million years ago, during the Jurassic period. These current turtles are classified into two different suborders, which both separated quickly at the beginning of the evolution of testudines:

Suborder Pleurodira: This suborder is the smallest one as it only contains three current families, all native from the southern hemisphere. The main characteristic is the form in which they retract their neck laterally inside their shell, which leaves the neck exposed and makes the cervical vertebrae present a characteristic shape (Pleurodira roughly means “side neck”). Also, pleurodirans present 13 scutes in their plastrons.

Photo by Ian Sutton of an eastern long-necked turtle (Chelodina longicollis), a typical pleurodiran.

Suborder Cryptodira: Cryptodirans comprise most turtles. While pleurodirans only include freshwater species (as the testudines common ancestor is thought to be), criptodirans include freshwater terrapins, terrestrial tortoises and sea turtles. Apart from only presenting between 11 and 12 scutes in their plastrons, their principal characteristic is the ability to retract their neck and to hide their heads completely in their shell (Cryptodira roughly means “hidden neck”). Cryptodirans are found in practically all the continents and oceans (except in the coldest habitats).

Photo of an Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In this photo we can see how cryptodirans hide their heads.

Even if there still are some questions to be answered about the evolution of turtles, we hope that with this little introduction to some of the most characteristic fossil “turtles”, you have had an overall view about how turtles got their shells. Whatever their origins are, we hope that the apparition of men isn’t what puts an end to the history of this group of slow but steady creatures.

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted during the elaboration of this entry:

• Bever, Lyson, Field & Bhullar (2015). Evolutionary origin of the turtle skull. Nature. Vol. 525. Pp: 239-242.
• Phenomena, National Geographic. How the turtle got its shell through skeletal shifts and muscular origami.
• Lyson, Bever, Scheyer, Hsiang & Gauthier (2013). Evolutionary Origin of the Turtle Shell. Current Biology. Vol. 23. Pp: 1113-1119.
• Lyson, Rubidge, Scheyer, Queiroz, Schchner, Smith, Botha-Brink & Bever (2016). Fossorial Origin of the Turtle Shell. Current Biology. Vol. 26. Pp: 1887-1894.
• The Atlantic. Why Turtles Evolved Shells: It Wasn’t for Protection.
• Schoch & Sues (2015). A Middle Triassic stem-turtle and the evolution of the turtle body plan. Nature. Vol. 523. Pp: 584-587.
• Reptile Evolution. Odontochelys.
• Cover photo by Daderot.

Reptiles and mammals: same origin, different stories

Did mammals evolve from reptiles? The truth is they didn’t. Reptiles and mammals both have independent evolutionary histories that separated soon after the apparition of the so-called amniotic egg, which allowed the babies of these animals to be born outside of water. Previously, we talked about the origin of vertebrates and about how they managed to get out of the sea to start walking on land for the first time. In this entry we’ll explain how the ancestors of reptiles and mammals, the AMNIOTES, became independent of the aquatic medium and became the dominant land animals.

THE AMNIOTIC EGG

The characteristic that unites reptiles and mammals in the same group is the amniotic egg. While amphibian eggs are relatively small and only have one inner membrane, the eggs of amniotes are much bigger and present various membranes protecting the embryo and keeping it in an aqueous medium. The outer layer is the eggshell which, apart from offering physical protection to the embryo, prevents water loss and its porosity allows gas interchange. Beneath the eggshell we can find the next membranes:

Diagram of a crocodile egg: 1. eggshell 2. yolk sac 3. yolk (nutrients) 4. vessels 5. amnion 6. chorion 7. air 8. alantois 9. albumin (white of the egg) 10. amniotic sac 11. embryo 12. amniotic fluid. Image by Amelia P.

• Chorion: The first inner membrane, which offers protection and, together with the amnion, forms the amniotic sac. Also, being in contact with the eggshell, it participates in gas interchange, bringing oxygen from the outside to the embryo and carbon dioxide from the embryo to the outside.
• Amnion: Membrane that surrounds the embryo and constitutes a part of the amniotic sac. It offers an aqueous medium for the embryo and connects it with the yolk sac (a structure that brings food and that is also found in fish and amphibians).
• Allantois: The third layer, it is used as a storage for nitrogen waste products, and together with the chorion, helps in gas interchange.

Diagram of an amphibian egg: 1. jelly capsule 2. vitelline membrane 3. perivitelline fluid 4. yolk 5. embryo. Image by Separe3g.

All these different kinds of membranes eliminate the need amphibians had of laying their eggs in water. Also, unlike amphibians, amniotes don’t go through a gilled larval stage, but are instead born as miniature adults, with lungs and legs (at least those that have them). All these made the first amniotes completely independent of the aquatic medium.

AMNIOTE ORIGINS

The first amniotes evolved around 312 million years ago from reptiliomorph tetrapods. At the end of the Carboniferous period lots of tropical forests where the great primitive amphibians lived disappeared, leaving a colder and drier climate. This ended with many of the big amphibians of that time, allowing the amniotes to occupy new habitats.

Reconstruction of Solenodonsaurus janenschi, one of the candidates in being the first amniote, which lived around 320-305 million years ago in what is now the Czech Republic. Reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov.

CHARACTERISTICS

These early amniotes had a series of characteristics that set them apart from their semiaquatic ancestors:

• Horny claws (amphibians don’t have claws) and keratinized skin that prevents water loss.
• Bigger large intestine and higher density of renal tubules to increase water reabsorption.
• Specialized lacrimal glands and a third membrane in the eye (nictitating membrane) which keep the eye wet.
• Larger lungs.
• Loss of the lateral line (sensory organ present in fish and amphibians).

The skeleton and musculature also evolved offering better mobility and agility on a terrestrial medium. The first amniotes presented ribs that encircled their body converging at the sternum, making their inner organs more secure, and a series of muscular receptors offered them better agility and coordination during locomotion.

AMNIOTE SKULLS

Traditionally, the different amniotes were classified based on the structure of their cranium. The characteristic used to classify them was the presence of temporal openings (fenestrae), by which we have three groups:

• Anapsids (“no arches”): No temporal openings (turtles).

Diagram of an anapsid skull, by Preto(m).

• Synapsids (“fused arches”): With only one temporal opening (mammals).

Diagram of a synapsid skull, by Preto(m).

• Diapsids (“two arches”): With two temporal openings (reptiles, including birds).

Diagram of a diapsid skull, by Preto(m).

Previously it was believed that the first amniotes presented an anapsid skull (without openings, like turtles) and that subsequently they separated into synapsids and diapsids (the temporal openings formed “arches” that offered new anchor points for the jaw’s musculature). Yet, it has been discovered that this three-group classification is not valid.

Even though we still believe that the first amniotes were anapsid, it is currently known that these, soon after their apparition, separated into two different lineages: the synapsids (clade Synapsida) and the sauropsids (clade Sauropsida).

SYNAPSIDA

This lineage includes mammals and their amniote ancestors. Even though the first synapsids like Archaeothyris looked externally like lizards, they were more closely related to mammals, as they shared one temporal fenestrae where the jaw muscles passed through.

Drawing of the skull of Archaeothyris, which is thougth to be one of the first synapsids that lived around 306 million years ago in Nova Scotia. Drawing by Gretarsson.

The ancestors of mammals were previously known as “mammal-like reptiles”, as it was thought that mammals had evolved from primitive reptiles. Currently it’s accepted that synapsids form a different lineage independent of reptiles, and that they share a series of evolutionary trends that makes them closer to modern mammals: the apparition of different kinds of teeth, a mandible made of one single bone, the vertical posture of their limbs, etc…

Reconstruction of Dimetrodon grandis, one of the better known synapsids, from about 280 million years ago. Reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov.

Even though most modern mammals don’t lay eggs and give birth to live offspring, all groups maintain the amniote’s three characteristic membranes (amnion, chorion and allantois) during embryonic development.

SAUROPSIDA

Sauropsids include current reptiles and their amniote ancestors. Currently, in many scientific papers the word “sauropsid” is used instead of “reptile” when discussing phylogenies, as the sauropsids also includes birds. The first sauropsids were probably anapsids, and soon after their appearance they separated into two groups: the Parareptilia which conserved anapsid skull, and the Eureptilia which include the diapsids (current reptiles and birds).

Evolutionary tree of current vertebrates, in which green color marks the groups previously included inside reptiles. As you can see, the traditional conception of "reptile" includes the ancestors of mammals and excludes birds. Image by Petter Bøckman.

Diapsids are currently the most diversified group of land vertebrates. They diversified greatly in the late Permian period (about 254 million years ago), just before the Mesozoic (the Age of Reptiles). These can be divided into two main groups: the Lepidsaurs and the Archosaurs, both with representatives in our days.

LEPIDOSAURIA: SMALL AND PLENTIFUL

Lepidosaurs (literally “reptiles with scales”) appeared in the early Triassic (around 247 million years ago) and, even if most of them didn’t grow to big sizes, they are currently the largest group of non-avian reptiles. These are characterized by presenting a transversal cloacal slit, by having overlapping scales and shedding their skin whole or in patches and by other skeletal characters.

Shed skin of a rat snake. Photo by Mylittlefinger.

The current lepidosaurs belong to one of two different orders:

• Order Rhynchocephalia: That includes the two species of tuatara. Currently endangered, they are considered living fossils because they present skulls and characteristics similar to the Mesozoic diapsids.

Photo of a tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), by Tim Vickers.

• Order Squamata: Current squamates include iguanas, chameleons, geckoes, skinks, snakes and other legless lizards. With more than 9000 living species, squamates are a large group with a wide array of adaptations and survival strategies.

Photos of some squamates, from left to right and from top to bottom: Green iguana (Iguana iguana, by Cary Bass), king cobra (Ophiophaga Hannah, by Michael Allen Smith), Mexican mole lizard (Bipes biporus, by Marlin Harms) and Indian chameleon (Chamaeleo zeylanicus, by Shantanu Kuveskar).

ARCHOSAURIA: ANCIENT KINGS

Archosaurs (literally “ruling reptiles”) were the dominant group of land animals during the Mesozoic. These conquered all possible habitats until the extinction of most groups at the end of the Cretaceous period. Some of the extinct groups were the pseudosuchians (relatives of modern crocodiles, order Crocodylia), the pterosaurs (large flying reptiles) and the dinosaurs (excepting birds, clade Aves).

Drawing of the skull of the dinosaur Massospondylus in which we can see the different characteristic openings of diapsid archosaurs. Image by Steveoc 86.

As you see, both groups of modern archosaurs couldn’t be more different. Yet, crocodiles and birds share a common ancestor, and they are both more closely related with each other than with the rest of reptiles.

Photo of two species of modern arcosaurs: a Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) and a yellow-billed stork (Mycteria ibis). Photo by Tom Tarrant.

AND WHAT ABOUT TURTLES?

Turtles (order Testudines) have always been a group difficult to classify. Turtles are the only living amniotes with an anapsid skull, without any post-ocular opening. That’s why previously they had been classified as descendants of primitive amniotes (clade Anapsida, currently disused) or as primitive anapsid sauropsids (inside the Parareptilia clade)

Skeleton of the extinct tortoise Meiolania platyceps which lived in New Caledonia until 3000 years ago. In this photo it can be seen the compact cranium without openings. Photo by Fanny Schertzer.

Recent molecular studies have revealed that turtles are actually diapsids that lost their temporal openings secondarily. What still divides the scientific community is if testudines are more closely related to Lepidosauromorphs (lepidosaurs and their ancestors) or to Archosauromorphs (archosaurs and their ancestors).

Individual leopard tortoise (Stigmochelys pardalis) from Tanzania. Photo by Charles J. Sharp.

As you have seen, the evolution of amniotes is an extremely complex matter. We hope that with this entry some concepts have been clarified:

1. Mammals (synapsids) come from an evolutionary lineage different from that of reptiles (sauropsids).
2. Sauropsids include traditional reptiles (lepidosaurs, archosaurs and turtes) and birds (inside archosaurs).
3. There’s still so much to investigate about the placement of turtles (testudines) in the evolutionary tree of sauropsids.

Modified diagram about the evolutionary relationships of the different amniote groups.

REFERENCES

During the elaboration of this entry the following sources have been consulted:

• Cover image by Henri Pidoux.
• Halliday & Adler (2007). La gran enciclopedia de los Anfibios y Reptiles. Editorial Libsa.
• Hickman, Roberts, Keen, Larson, l’Anson & Eisenhour (2009). Principios integrales de Zoología (decimocuarta edición). Mc Graw Hill.
• http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/Amniote-Egg.html
• http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amniota.html
• http://tolweb.org/Amniota
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1979.tb00027.x/abstract
• https://courses.candelalearning.com/osbiosec/chapter/29-4-reptiles/

Spinosaurus: the first aquatic dinosaur?

Recently, the BBC documentary series “Planet Dinosaur” has premiered on TVE2. In this series the latest paleontological discoveries concerning the biology of dinosaurs are explained. On my last entry we talked about the theropod dinosaurs, one of which is the spinosaur, one of the largest predators that have ever existed. On this entry I’m going to explain some of the facts that paleontology has revealed about the lifestyle of this creature.

TAXONOMY

The spinosaur (scientific name Spinosaurus aegyptiacus) belonged to the Spinosauridae family, a group of specialized theropods which appeared during the late Jurassic and became extinct about 93 million years ago during the late Cretaceous. This group was characterized by being relatively large theropods, with conic teeth and long snouts similar to crocodiles, and elongated neural spines through its back forming a sail-like structure (that’s where the name “Spinosauridae“ comes from, meaning spine reptiles).

Comparition of the different sizes of various spinosaurids by Scott Hartman. From right to left: Irritator challengeri, Baryonyx walkeri, Suchomimus tenerensis and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.

Some of the more famous members on this family are, the Baryonyx from Europe, which had long curved claws on its hands to capture the fish it fed on, similar to its close relative the Suchomimus from northern Africa. Furthermore, there was the smaller Irritator of about 3 metres tall found in Brasil and finally, the Spinosaurus from northern Africa, which measuring between 12 and 18 metres long and wheighing between 7 and 20 tons, was one of the biggest predators to ever walk on land.

HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION

The genus Spinosaurus was distributed in the zone of what is now the north of Africa. This genus lived during the Cretaceous, appearing about 112 million years ago and disappearing about 97 million years ago.

Map of the World 94 million years ago by Joshua Doubek, during the middle Cretaceous period.

During that period, the northern part of Africa was a very humid zone with high temperatures and lots of wetlands. Spinosaurs probably lived in areas with large rivers and mangrove forests next to the sea, where tidal movements flooded its habitat during certain seasons of the year. This is in accordance with the vision that spinosaurids preferred wet semiaquatic habitats with plenty of great fish to prey upon.

Reconstruction from 2010 of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus by Dmitry Bogdanov.

Currently there are two possible spinosaur species. The most famous is Spinosaurus aegyptiacus from Egypt, the species of which we have more information. A possible second species is Spinosaurus maroccanus from Morocco, which some authors consider simply as a subpopulation of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.

FUNCTION OF NEURAL SPINES

Spinosaurs were discovered in 1912 from a fossil which included its characteristic dorsal spines. These spines grow up to a length ten times that of the vertebra from which they emerged.

The scarcity of spinosaur fossils means that the function of the spines is still a mystery for science, although there are some hypothesis. One of these is that the spines formed a “sail” along the back of the animal which was highly irrigated and helped the animal’s thermoregulation, as such a big animal probably would have had problems losing heat. Therefore its sail would have helped the spinosaur to evade overheating, orienting it towards fresh winds to cool down.

Reconstruction of the skeleton of a subadult spinosaur (Japan Museum, photo by Kabacchi).

Another hypothesis tells us that the spines held a hump-like structure similar to that of camels, which the animal would have used as a fat reserve system to store fat to withstand periods with little available feeding resources.

Lots of paleontologists think that both hypothesis could be correct and that the spinosaur used the sail both to regulate its body temperature and also to store fat to resist periods of low prey abundance. It is also possible that the sail made the spinosaur appear bigger than it actually was and that they used it during mating rituals similar to those of the modern peacock.

FEEDING STRATEGIES

The Spinosaurus‘s skull shows adaptions to a piscivorous diet. The snout is longer and slender than on other theropods. Aside from this, observing the snout of Spinosaurus it has been seen that it presents a series of little holes similar to those found on crocodiles. It is thought that these structures indicate the presence of pressure receptors which helped them detect the movement of their preys underwater.

Upper jaw of Spinosaurus from the Museo di Storio Naturale di Milano, where the holes which possibly contained the pressure receptors can be seen.

While the teeth of most carnivorous theropods where curved and serrated on their posterior part to tear flesh, spinosaur teeth were conic in shape and had no serration, more similar to those of crocodiles. These teeth were more useful for catching and holding fast and slippery prey and to prevent them from escaping (for example, a fish). Also, various Spinosaurus fossils have been found to have between their theeth scales and bones of large prehistoric fish which probably populated many rivers during the Cretaceous period.

Reconstruction by Joschua Knüppe of two Mawsonia species, the rests of which have been found between the teeth of Spinosaurus.

Nevertheless, it is generally believed that the spinosaur was probably an opportunistic predator, feeding mainly on fish, also hunting small dinosaurs when it had the opportunity and stealing prey from smaller predators using its great size to intimidate them.

POSTURE AND LIFESTYLE

Spinosaurs have traditionally been represented as bipedal animals, as most similarly-sized theropods have. Eventhough most fossils are actually pretty incomplete, it is known that its forelegs were more developed than in most theropods, having long curved claws.

Traditionally it was thought that Spinosaurus hunted in a manner similar to a grey heron, roaming through zones of shallow water, sinking its long snout underwater to detect prey using the pressure receptors, and catching fish with its jaws. It then, probably used its front legs as hands to tear its prey to small pieces easy to swallow.

Reconstruction by Joschua Knüppe of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in hunting posture.

At the end of 2014 a new Spinosaurus fossil was discovered which has changed the view we had on this animal. For the first time, scientists found a fossil which shows the structure of the hind legs of this dinosaur and they have observed a number of characteristics not found in any other theropod not even in other spinosaurids. This fossil shows that the hind legs of Spinosaurus were much more massive than those of other theropod dinosaurs, in which the bones are usually hollow to make them more agile (like present day birds). Also, in this fossil the hind legs are actually much shorter in relation to the size of the animal than in any other theropod, leading some scientists to think that Spinosaurus was actually a quadrupedal animal. This has made some paleontologist think that maybe the lifestyle of the spinosaurs was much more similar to that of a crocodile and that they spent much more time living in water than on land, making the Spinosaurus the first known aquatic dinosaur.

Reconstruction by Rodrigo Vega of Spinosaurus based on the skeleton found in 2014.

Anyway, many paleontologists argue that the biology of a species cannot be based on a single fossil and advise caution when generalizing to the whole species (the fossil could belong to an adult and a juvenile that died together or could even come from an individual which had suffered some kind of embryonic malformation that kept its legs from developing normally). Paleontology is a science in which with every new discovery we can unravel the tree of life and the evolution of the different groups of living beings. With a little of luck, future discoveries will enable us to clarify the anatomy of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and define the lifestyle of such a unique and extraordinary reptile.

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted in the elaboration of this entry:

• Cover photo: Davide Bonadonna.
• http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/theropoda/spinosauridae.html
• http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104therop.html
• http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/dinosauria/Theropoda.html
• http://www.scielo.br/pdf/aabc/v83n1/v83n1a06.pdf

If you enjoyed this article, please share it on social networks to spread it. The aim of the blog, after all, is to spread science and reach as many people as possible.

This publication is under a Creative Commons License:

The kingdom of the reptiles: what is a dinosaur?

Dinosaurs (superorder Dinosauria, “terrible reptiles”) are a group of reptiles which dominated all terrestrial ecosystems during the Mesozoic (Secondary Era or “the Age of Reptiles”). Even today, to most people there’s still some confusion over what a dinosaur is and what is not, and the term “dinosaur” is often used to refer to all the reptiles that evolved during the Secondary Era. In this entry I’ll try to give account of some of the different groups of reptiles that appeared during the Mesozoic and I’ll explain the classification of the different dinosaurian groups and some of their adaptations.

MESOZOIC REPTILES: DINOSAURS AND LOTS MORE

The rise of the dinosaurs was possible thanks to a mass extinction phenomenon which occurred 251 million years ago (Permian-Triassic extinction event). That phenomenon annihilated up to 96% of marine species and up to 70% of terrestrial species in that time, leaving lots of empty ecological niches to be inherited by new animal species.

Modified graphic from Rohde & Muller (2005) showing the great massive extinction. The darker zone corresponds to the Mesozoic period.

During the Triassic period (in the early Mesozoic) many different groups of reptiles evolved. One of these groups was the Dinosauria, which at that moment was far from being the dominant group of terrestrial animals. Some other reptilian groups of that time were the terrestrial rauisuchians (clade Rauisuchia) and fully aquatic groups like the sauropterygians (superorder Sauropterygia) and the ichthyopterygians (superorder Ichthyopterygia).

Reconstructions by Dmitry Bogdanov of Prestosuchus (a rauisuchian, top), Nichollsia (a suropterygian, left bottom) and Platypterigius (an ichthyopterygian, right bottom).

A second mass extinction in the late Triassic and the early Jurassic put an end to most of the dominant reptile groups, allowing the yet small dinosaurs to expand and evolve, along with some new groups like the crocodilomorphs (superorder Crocodylomorpha, ancestors of crocodilians), the flying pterosaurs (order Pterosauria).

Reconstructions by Dmitry Bogdanov of Dakosaurus (a crocodilomorph, top) and Scaphognathus (a pterosauria, bottom).

As we can see, dinosaurs are only one of many reptile groups that evolved during the Mesozoic. During the Jurassic period, dinosaurs diversified into many different groups, but they were mostly restricted to terrestrial ecosystems, which they would rule until their practical extinction 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretacic period.

DINOSAUR CLASSIFICATION

The first dinosaurs evolved around 231 million years ago during the mid-Triassic period. They were small in size and were characterized by their limb’s posture, which contrary to most reptiles, grew vertically elevating their body from the ground. That gave them more agility and a more active lifestyle.

Top: Skeleton of Eoraptor, one of the oldest known dinosaurs (Museum of Japan, photo by Kentaro Ohno). Bottom: Representation of the posture common among most reptiles (left) and the posture characteristic of dinosaurs (right).

Then dinosaurs diverged into two different orders: the Saurischia and the Ornithischia. These two groups were distinguished by the structure of their pelvis; saurischians conserved a pelvis more closely similar to that of the other reptiles, while the ornithischians evolved a pelvis superficially similar to that of modern birds.

Representation showing the structure of saurischian hips (left) and ornitischian hips (right). The animals represented are facing left.

ORNITISCHIA: BIRD HIPPED

Evolutionary tree of Ornithischia, modified by Zureks.

Ornithopoda (“bird feet”): Ornithopods were the most diverse group of Ornithischia, characterized by their three-toed feet similar to that of birds. They were herbivores that could combine bipedal and quadruped walking. Among them we can find the Iguanodon, one of the first dinosaurs to be discovered by science.

Iguanodon feet (right) and reconstruction by O. C. Marsh (1896).

Ornithopods acquired many different adaptations; some groups had duck-like bills to feed on aquatic vegetation, others developed specialized hands with a sharp thumb and an opposable little finger to grasp the plants they fed on. Many groups developed bony crests which are thought to be used both for species identification and for communication between members of the same species.

Reconstruction of Parasaurolophus (missing author), an ornithopod which presented a big hollow crest to amplify the sounds it made.

Marginocephalia (“fringed heads”): The so-called marginocephalians were a group of herbivorous dinosaurs related to the ornithopods characterized by a great cranial ossification. These can be divided into two separated groups:

Pachycephalosaurians (suborder Pachycephalosauria, “thick-headed reptiles”) were bipeds which had an extremely thick skull and a series of lateral osteoderms (keratin-covered ossifications) flanking it. It is believed that pachycephalosaurians resolved territorial fights and disputed reproductive rights via head-ramming, similar to goats.

Reconstruction of Pachycephalosaurus by Jordan Mallon.

The other members of the group are the ceratopsians (suborder Ceratopsia, “horned faces”), quadrupeds which presented; neck frills making their skulls look bigger and the “rostral bone”, which formed a beak-shaped structure on the mouth. Lots of species also developed facial horns which could protrude from the cheek-bone, the eyebrow or the neck frill.

Reconstruction of Rubeosaurus by Lukas Panzarin (left) and skull of Triceratops (right), photo by Zachi Evenor.

Thyreophora (“shield bearers”): This basal group of ornithischians was exclusively composed of quadruped herbivores characterized by the presence of heavy osteoderms that constituted their main defence. This group can be divided into:

Stegosaurians (suborder Stegosauria, “roofed reptiles”) were big herbivorous dinosaurs characterized by having two rows of dorsal osteoderms from the neck to the tail, which served as protection and helped them in their thermoregulation. Some species also developed caudal spines called “thagomizers” used as weapons to defend themselves from predators.

Mounted “thagomizer” at Denver Museum of Nature and Science (left) and reconstruction of Stegosaurus by Nobu Tamura (right).

Anchylosaurians (suborder Ankylosauria, “fused reptiles”) developed heavy bony armours that covered most of the body. Some of them, like the Ankylosaurus, developed big bony clubs at the end of the tail to fend off predators.

Reconstruction of Euoplocephalus by Nobu Tamura.

SAURISCHIA: REPTILE HIPPED

Evolutionary tree of Saurischia, modified by Zureks.

Sauropodomorpha (“reptile-shaped feet”): The sauropodomorphs are better known as the “long-necked dinosaurs”. That’s because they adapted to feed on the highest strata of vegetation.

Reconstruction of different sauropodomorphs (left to right): Camarasaurus, Brachiosaurus, Giraffatitan and Euhelopus.

Most species became large quadrupeds, with pillar-like legs similar to those of elephants and long necks to reach the leaves of the highest trees. Later species reached tremendous sizes, like the Amphicoelias which could grow up to 60 metres long.

Theropoda (“beast feet”): This last group is mostly known for two reasons. First of all is that this group includes some taxons of great predators like the Tyrannosauridae and Dromeosauridae families. The second reason is that theropods are the only dinosaurian group that includes living species, because modern birds are included in the suborder Theropoda.

Skeleton of Allosaurus from american museum collections (1915).

All theropods are bipedal and most of the Mesozoic species were carnivorous, with sharp replaceable teeth adapted to predation. Theropods present a saurischian pelvis but later on, birds evolved a hip structure more similar to that found in ornitischian dinosaurs.

Reconstruction by Davide Bonnadonna of the different clades that led to the aparition of birds (left to right): Neotheropoda, Tetanurae, Coelurosauria, Paraves and finally the Archaeopteryx, believed to be the first bird species that ever existed.

Some species had feathers to help thermoregulation. Birds from these groups evolved at the end of the Jurassic period.

REFERENCES

The following sources have been consulted in the elaboration of this entry:

• Cover photo: Gerhard Boeggemann.
• http://web.archive.org/web/20110612180650/http://www.hmnh.org/library/diplodocus/holland1910.html
• http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/tracking-the-origin-of-dinosaurs-70638045/?no-ist
• http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/104Syl.html
• http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/dinosauria/index.html

If you enjoyed this article, please share it on social networks tospread it. The aim of the blog, after all, is to spread science and reachas many people as possible.

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.