ArticlePDF Available

Description of a nearly complete juvenile skull of Diplodocus (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) from the Late Jurassic of North America


Abstract and Figures

More than any other sauropod dinosaur group, the long-necked herbivores belonging to Diplodocoidea have been defined by their skulls. Their unique skull shape, which is extremely elongate antorbitally, with a transversely broad, square snout packed at its anterior extreme with narrow-crowned, pencil-like teeth, has served as a touchstone for describing the biology of these animals ever since the discovery of the first skull in the late 19th century. In particular, the unusual diplodocoid skull has been discussed frequently in the context of examining feeding behavior, spawning hypotheses ranging from branch stripping, propalinal shearing, and aquatic plant ‘grazing.’ Here, we describe a juvenile skull of Diplodocus (Carnegie Museum 11255) that does not share the unusually blunted snout and anteriorly sequestered teeth seen in adult specimens, suggesting that adults and juveniles may have differed greatly in their feeding behavior, an ontogenetic distinction that may be unique among sauropodomorphs.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by:
[Wilson, Jeffrey A]
24 March 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 920292687]
Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
Description of a Nearly Complete Juvenile Skull of
Diplodocoidea) from the Late Jurassic of North America
John A. Whitlock
; Jeffrey A. Wilson
;Matthew C. Lamanna
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
Section of Vertebrate Paleontology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Online publication date: 24 March 2010
To cite this Article Whitlock, John A. , Wilson, Jeffrey A. andLamanna, Matthew C.(2010) 'Description of a Nearly
Complete Juvenile Skull of
(Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) from the Late Jurassic of North America', Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology, 30: 2, 442 — 457
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02724631003617647
Full terms and conditions of use:
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(2):442–457, March 2010
© 2010 by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A.,,;
Section of Vertebrate Paleontology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15213-4080, U.S.A.,
ABSTRACT—More than any other sauropod dinosaur group, the long-necked herbivores belonging to Diplodocoidea have
been defined by their skulls. Their unique skull shape, which is extremely elongate antorbitally, with a transversely broad,
square snout packed at its anterior extreme with narrow-crowned, pencil-like teeth, has served as a touchstone for describing
the biology of these animals ever since the discovery of the first skull in the late 19th century. In particular, the unusual
diplodocoid skull has been discussed frequently in the context of examining feeding behavior, spawning hypotheses ranging
from branch stripping, propalinal shearing, and aquatic plant ‘grazing.’ Here, we describe a juvenile skull of Diplodocus
(Carnegie Museum 11255) that does not share the unusually blunted snout and anteriorly sequestered teeth seen in adult
specimens, suggesting that adults and juveniles may have differed greatly in their feeding behavior, an ontogenetic distinction
that may be unique among sauropodomorphs.
The skull of Diplodocus was first described by Marsh in 1884,
and several additional, nearly complete skulls have been dis-
covered and described since, making diplodocid cranial ele-
ments some of the best-known among Sauropoda (Marsh, 1884;
Hatcher, 1901; Holland, 1906, 1924; Gilmore, 1932; Janensch,
1935–36; Haas, 1963; McIntosh and Berman, 1975; Berman and
McIntosh, 1978, Connely, 1997). Since its discovery, the skull
of Diplodocus has played a prominent role in distinguishing
diplodocids from other sauropods. Cranial characters repre-
sent four of the seven features Marsh (1884) used in his ini-
tial diagnosis of the Family Diplodocidae, a trend that contin-
ues to this day. Wilson (2002) listed ten cranial characters as
synapomorphies of Diplodocoidea (sauropods more closely re-
lated to Diplodocus than to Saltasaurus), as well as seven cra-
nial synapomorphies for the subgroup Diplodocidae (sauropods
more closely related to Diplodocus than to Dicraeosaurus)and
six for Dicraeosauridae (sauropods more closely related to Di-
craeosaurus than Diplodocus). Cranial characters made up 39.5%
of the support for the node Diplodocoidea, nearly 10% more
than for Macronaria (Wilson, 2002:table 14). Likewise, cra-
nial specializations contributed much of the character support
for Diplodocoidea and Diplodocidae in the analysis of Up-
church et al. (2004). Even at lower taxonomic levels, cranial
characters are important qualifiers. Wilson (2002:appendix 4)
lists 25 cranial characters as autapomorphies for the six in-
cluded diplodocoid genera for which cranial material is pre-
served and that were included in his analysis. Both their un-
usual shape and their relative abundance—40% of diplodocoid
genera are represented by some cranial material, compared to
less than 33% of macronarians (Table 1)—have contributed
to what has become an iconic impression of the diplodocoid
Corresponding author.
The diplodocoid skull is typically described as elongate an-
torbitally, with the nares retracted to a position dorsomedial to
the orbits and the jaws transversely expanded anteriorly, ter-
minating in a blunt, square snout containing narrow-crowned
teeth. The shape of the Diplodocus skull has been regarded as
poorly suited to chewing or biting through stems (e.g., Hay, 1908;
Holland, 1924), and, as a consequence, great interest has been
taken in the potential uses of the skull for gathering food in other
ways (Osborn, 1899; Hatcher, 1901; Holland, 1906, 1924; Hay,
1908; Tornier, 1911; Coombs, 1975; Bakker, 1986; Dodson, 1990;
Fiorillo, 1991, 1995, 1998; Barrett and Upchurch, 1994; Calvo,
1994; Stevens and Parrish, 1999, 2005; Christiansen, 2000; Up-
church and Barrett, 2000). The unique skull shape of Diplodocus
has led researchers to propose equally unique modes of feeding,
including uprooting aquatic succulents (Hatcher, 1901), scrap-
ing algae from rocks (Holland, 1906), branch stripping (Coombs,
1975; Bakker, 1986; Barrett and Upchurch, 1994), and prehen-
sion of fish (Tornier, 1911) or bivalves (Sternfeld in Holland,
1924), as well as a feeding strategy employed by modern mega-
herbivores: low-height cropping (Barrett and Upchurch, 1994;
Stevens and Parrish, 1999; Upchurch and Barrett, 2000; Barrett
and Willis, 2001; Sereno et al., 2007). Regardless of their specific
functional interpretation, all studies agree that the feeding ecol-
ogy of Diplodocus was clearly distinct from those employed by
contemporaneous macronarian sauropods such as Camarasaurus
and Brachiosaurus.
Here, we describe a juvenile skull attributable to Diplodocus
that provides new insights into the life history and paleoecol-
ogy of this giant herbivore. The reconstructed shape of the facial
skeleton, particularly the anterior, tooth-bearing region, is trans-
versely narrow and rounded anteriorly, in contrast to the square,
blunt shape characteristic of adult diplodocids. This disparity in
shapes between age classes implies a pattern of ontogenetic re-
modeling of the facial skeleton. We interpret this pattern as an
indication of resource partitioning between rapidly growing ju-
veniles and adults, which were primarily invested in maintain-
ing body existing body mass. This pattern is then compared and
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
TABLE 1. Described sauropod taxa known from cranial elements, not including taxa known solely from teeth
Category Genus Material Key reference
Non-Neosauropods Archaeodontosaurus Jaw fragment Buffetaut, 2005
Chebsaurus Skull fragments Mahammed et al., 2005
Chinshakiangosaurus Partial dentary Upchurch et al., 2007
Datousaurus Jaw fragments Dong and Tang, 1984
Gongxianosaurus Jaw fragment He et al., 1998
Lamplughsaura Partial skull Kutty et al., 2007
Lufeng taxon Partial maxilla Barrett, 1999
Mamenchisaurus Several partial skulls Ouyang and Ye, 2002
Omeisaurus Three partial skulls He et al., 1988; Tang et al., 2001
Patagosaurus Jaw fragments Bonaparte, 1979; Rauhut, 2003
Shunosaurus At least five partial skulls Chatterjee and Zheng, 2002
Tazoudasaurus Partial braincase, jaw fragments Allain and Aquesbi, 2008
Diplodocoids Amargasaurus Braincase Salgado and Bonaparte, 1991
Apatosaurus Multiple braincases, nearly complete skull Berman and McIntosh, 1978
Dicraeosaurus Two braincases, jaw fragments Janensch, 1935–36
Diplodocus Multiple adult and sub-adult skulls Holland, 1924
Limaysaurus Braincase Calvo and Salgado, 1995
Nigersaurus Nearly complete skull Sereno et al., 1999
Suuwassea Braincase, jaw fragments Harris, 2006
Tornieria Braincase, possibly jaw fragments Remes, 2006, 2009
Macronarians Abrosaurus Skull Ouyang, 1989
Ampelosaurus Partial braincase Le Loeuff, 1995
Antarctosaurus Braincase, partial dentary Huene, 1929
Atlasaurus Braincase, jaw fragments Monbaron et al., 1999
Auca Mahuevo taxon Multiple embryonic skulls Chiappe et al., 2001
Bonatitan Braincase Martinelli and Forasiepi, 2004
Bonitasaura Partial skull Apestegu
ıa, 2004
Brachiosaurus At least three partial skulls Janensch, 1935–36
Camarasaurus Multiple adult and sub-adult skulls Madsen et al., 1995
Euhelopus Nearly complete skull Wiman, 1929
Europasaurus At least 11 partial skulls Sander et al., 2006
Glen Rose taxon Partial braincase Tidwell and Carpenter, 2003
Isisaurus Partial braincase Berman and Jain, 1982
Jainosaurus Partial braincase Huene and Matley, 1933
Jobaria Partial adult skull and sub-adult braincase Sereno et al., 1999
Lirainosaurus Braincase fragment Sanz et al., 1999
?Magyarosaurus Braincase Weishampel, 1991
Malawisaurus Braincase, other dermal skull fragments Gomani, 2005
Nemegtosaurus Nearly complete skull Nowinski, 1971; Wilson, 2005
Neuquensaurus Skull fragments Huene, 1929
en taxon Partial braincase Calvo and Kellner, 2006
Paluxysaurus Skull fragments Rose, 2007
Phuwiangosaurus Jaw fragments Martin et al., 1999
Quaesitosaurus Partial skull Kurzanov and Bannikov, 1983
Rapetosaurus Partial adult and sub-adult skulls Curry Rogers and Forster, 2004
ıo Negro taxon Partial braincase Garc
ıa et al., 2008
Saltasaurus Partial braincase Bonaparte and Powell, 1980
contrasted with the known record of cranial ontogeny in other
Discovery of the Juvenile Diplodocus Skull
Several expeditions led by Earl Douglass in the early 20th cen-
tury to the Carnegie Quarry in what is now Dinosaur National
Monument yielded some of the most spectacular sauropod dis-
coveries in North America, including several complete or nearly
complete skulls (McIntosh, 1981). Most famous of these is prob-
ably the complete and largely undistorted adult Diplodocus skull
(Carnegie Museum [CM] 11161) collected by Douglass in 1912.
Three years later, a large sub-adult skull of this genus (CM 3452)
was the first—and, to date, only described—diplodocid skull
found articulated with postcranial elements. Following these suc-
cesses, a third, much smaller Diplodocus skull was collected by
Douglass and his team in 1921, near the discovery site of CM
11161 (Fig 1; McIntosh, 1981). This skull was mentioned and fig-
ured by Holland (1924:pl. 43), but until now has never been fully
Institutional AbbreviationsAMNH, American Museum of
Natural History, New York, U.S.A.; CM, Carnegie Museum of
Natural History, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.; CMC, Cincinnati Museum
Center, Cincinnati, U.S.A.; MB,Museumf
ur Naturkunde der
at zu Berlin, Germany; SMM, Science Mu-
seum of Minnesota, St. Paul, U.S.A.; USNM, United States Na-
tional Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A.; YPM, Yale Peabody
Museum, New Haven, U.S.A.; Z. PAL, Polish Academy of Sci-
ence, Warsaw, Poland.
SAURISCHIA Seeley, 1887
SAUROPODA Marsh, 1878
FLAGELLICAUDATA Harris and Dodson, 2004
DIPLODOCUS Marsh, 1878
(Figs. 2–5)
CM 11255 is a diplodocid sauropod, sharing the following
synapomorphies with other representatives of this clade: elon-
gate prefrontal with a posterior projection approaching the
parietal; squamosal-quadratojugal contact absent; paroccipital
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
process with rounded, tongue-like ventrolateral end; shallow
quadrate fossa. CM 11255 displays a single autapomorphy of
Diplodocus: sharply defined fossa surrounding preantorbital fen-
estra. CM 11255 is distinguishable from Apatosaurus by the fol-
lowing features: presence of a long quadratojugal process of
the squamosal that nearly contacts the quadratojugal; basiptery-
goid recess present; basipterygoid process without marked an-
teroventral flaring; closely appressed, sheet-like basal tubera with
posteriorly facing concavity; paroccipital processes strongly ven-
trally oriented. CM 11255 cannot be compared to the other
Morrison Formation diplodocids, Barosaurus,andSupersaurus,
due to their lack of recognized cranial material. CM 11255 is
distinguishable from the East African diplodocid Tornieria by
the presence of a basipterygoid recess and the comparatively
larger contribution of the prefrontal to the margin of the orbit.
It can also be tentatively distinguished by the location of the
frontal-parietal suture, which is located near the anterior mar-
gin of the supratemporal fenestra in Diplodocus and probably
CM 11255, but located more posteriorly in Tornieria. Lastly, CM
11255 is distinguishable from the indeterminate flagellicaudatan
Suuwassea in the following characters: anteroposteriorly com-
pressed basal tubera; basisphenoid concave ventrally, not visi-
ble in posterior view; basal tubera widely separated from oc-
cipital condyle, spike-like, dorsoventrally narrow parasphenoid
Few characters have been shown to consistently distinguish the
skulls of different diplodocid taxa, particularly Apatosaurus and
Diplodocus (Berman and McIntosh, 1978). In the only descrip-
tion of a mostly complete skull referable to Apatosaurus (CM
11162), Berman and McIntosh (1978) noted several cranial dis-
tinctions between that genus and Diplodocus, although these are
primarily proportional in nature. Due to the early ontogenetic
stage of CM 11255, proportional characters are potentially unreli-
able. Nevertheless, the anteroventral flaring of the basipterygoid
processes noted by those authors for Apatosaurus (CM 11162) is
not present in CM 11255 or in any other specimen of Diplodocus,
regardless of ontogenetic stage; the remainder of the characters
listed by Berman and McIntosh (1978) cannot be evaluated on
CM 11255 due to incomplete preservation.
Wilson (2002) distinguished between Apatosaurus and
Diplodocus on the basis of the basipterygoid recess, which is
absent in the former but present in the latter. The presence of a
sharply defined fossa surrounding the preantorbital fenestra is
listed as an autapomorphy of Diplodocus by Wilson (2002); this
fossa is present in CM 11255, but cannot be adequately evaluated
in CM 11162; as such, its state is here considered unknown in
Apatosaurus. The basal tubera, which are globose and laterally
expanded in Apatosaurus (CM 11162, YPM 1860), are pendant
and more anteroposteriorly compressed in CM 11255 and in
other specimens of Diplodocus (CM 11161, CM 3452, USNM
Although there are no cranial remains known for two other
Morrison diplodocids (Supersaurus, Barosaurus), the identifica-
tion of two novel probable Diplodocus autapomorphies and the
ease with which CM 11255 is distinguished from Apatosaurus, Su-
uwassea,andTornieria support the current assignment of this
specimen to Diplodocus. CM 11255 is not here assigned to a
species within Diplodocus: no cranial characters yet known serve
to differentiate between the various species of the genus, which
currently remain distinguishable solely by postcranial features.
As such, the lack of associated postcranial material for CM 11255
currently prevents a specific diagnosis.
We use traditional anatomical terminology and orientational
descriptors (e.g., ‘anterior’ rather than ‘cranial’) in the descrip-
tion below, following Wilson (2006).
Ontogenetic Stage
The early ontogenetic stage assigned to CM 11255 is based on
the small size of the specimen and on the presence of a visible
suture between the left and right parietal bones. The skull mea-
sures 29.2 cm from its anterior-most point to the posterior margin
of the occipital condyle, which is approximately 58% the length
of the adult Diplodocus CM 11161 and approximately 66% the
length of the large sub-adult CM 3452. CM 11255 is therefore the
ontogenetically youngest Diplodocus
skull ever fully described.
CM 11255 was recovered in isolation, with no associated
postcrania or elements belonging to other individuals (Fig 1).
It was recovered from, and to some extent is still obscured by,
a poorly sorted sandstone matrix. The skull is crushed later-
ally, such that its left and right halves are disarticulated along
the midline sutures, continuing posteriorly through the unfused
parietals. Parts of the maxillae and premaxillae have been
FIGURE 1. Quarry map showing the original location of the juvenile Diplodocus skull (CM 11255) relative to other dinosaurs excavated from
Carnegie Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument. Redrawn from original quarry map at Carnegie Museum of Natural History. North at top of
figure; grid lines are 2 feet (0.61 m) apart.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
damaged or destroyed, although the tooth row is well represented
in these regions by in situ replacement teeth, preserved when sed-
iment filled in around the highly resistant teeth after the thin bone
surrounding them had been eroded away. This type of preserva-
tion is not uncommon (e.g., CM 21718 [McIntosh, 1981; pers. ob-
serv.], YPM 1922), although it is not typically found in direct asso-
ciation with other skull elements. The skull roof and occiput are
represented primarily by elements from the right side, although
median elements (supraoccipital, occipital condyle, basioccipital)
are largely complete. The dermal skull roof (nasal, prefrontal,
frontal, and parietal) is rotated away from the midline of the fa-
cial skeleton by approximately 7.5
The left and right elements of the lower jaw are disarticu-
lated, and the left mandible is displaced slightly medially and pos-
terodorsally. As seen in ventral view, the curvature of the jaws
is similar in both elements. The lower jaw of the well-preserved
skull of Nemegtosaurus (Z. PAL MgD-I/9) has a similar
translation of one mandible relative to the other (Wilson, 2005).
No deformation of the tooth-bearing elements was noted in that
specimen, although the left and right mandibles were translated
relative to each other; this suggests that the curvature seen in the
preserved mandibular elements of CM 11255 is likely natural and
Dermal Roof Complex
Premaxilla—The premaxillae are elongate tooth-bearing ele-
ments that contact each other medially and the maxillae later-
ally, terminating posteriorly at the external naris. Due to the lat-
eral crushing, the anterior portion of the skull is deformed along
the median suture between the premaxillae, creating an unusually
steep angle between these bones and exaggerating their visibility
in lateral view.
Four tooth positions are preserved in the right premaxilla and
are presumed present in the left (Fig. 2). The anterior margins of
the premaxillae are represented only by narrow, medial portions
of the left and right premaxillae. Harris (2006) regarded the pre-
maxillae of CM 11255 as similar in proportion and size to those of
Suuwassea; however, the premaxillae in the present specimen ap-
pear to expand laterally without the distinct ‘step’ of Suuw assea,
in which the transversely wide anterior portion is clearly demar-
cated by sharp lateral curvature in dorsal and ventral view. The
narial fossae are not distinctly preserved.
The posterior extremes of the premaxillae are partially com-
plete, preserving a portion of the anterior margin of the narial
opening. There is no evidence for an elongate internarial bar,
such as has been observed in some adult (USNM 2673) and sub-
adult (CM 3452) Diplodocus skulls.
Maxilla—The maxillae are thin, sheet-like bones that are di-
vided by the antorbital fenestra into an ascending process and a
posteriorly directed process that contacts the jugal and quadra-
tojugal (Fig. 2). As in adult Diplodocus, the preserved portion of
the maxilla-jugal suture is coarsely sinuous in lateral view. The as-
cending process remains in contact with the premaxilla until they
both reach the external naris. Posteriorly, the ascending process
contacts the nasal and the lacrimal.
Similar to adult Diplodocus (AMNH 696, CM 11161, CM 3452,
USNM 2672) and other diplodocoids (Dicraeosaurus, MB.R.
2336; Apatosaurus, CM 11162, CMC VP 7180), the external sur-
faces of the maxillae in this region are ornamented by sev-
eral shallow, elongate depressions, roughly corresponding to the
positions and orientations of tooth families within the bone.
The lateral plate of the maxilla is partially preserved posteriorly.
The poor anterior preservation contributes to the convex shape
of the ventral margin as preserved.
Immediately posterior to the preserved dentigerous margin
of the maxilla is a large, distinct fossa that dorsally overlaps
the three posterior-most replacement teeth. The fossa is pierced
posteriorly by a large, subcircular preantorbital fenestra. The
sharp outline of the fossa is best preserved on the left side (Fig.
2D). In other Diplodocus skulls (CM 11161, CM 3452, USNM
2672), the subnarial foramen and anterior maxillary foramen re-
side in a shallow groove situated slightly anterodorsal to the
preantorbital fossa, along the contact with the premaxilla; nei-
ther these foramina nor the groove are distinctly preserved in
CM 11255.
Nasal—The nasal is a roughly quadrangular element with an-
teriorly projecting rami that form the right and left posterolat-
eral margins of the naris. The preserved portions of these rami
contact the lacrimal and maxilla anteriorly; the main body of the
nasal contacts the prefrontal laterally and would have contacted
the frontal posteriorly, forming the anterior-most medial element
of the braincase. The main body of the nasal rises dorsally above
the orbit, elevating the posterior margin of the naris, as seen in
some other individuals of Diplodocus (AMNH 696, CM 11161,
CM 3452, USNM 2672; Figs. 2B, 3D). A small (1 cm long) piece
of the anterior ramus is preserved on the left side (Figs. 2D, 3C,
4C). This process forms the posterolateral margin of the naris. It
is probable that the orientation of the rami and the main body
of the nasal obscured the naris in lateral view and that the naris
pointed strictly anterodorsally in life.
Jugal—The jugal is a V-shaped element that connects the max-
illa and quadratojugal with the lacrimal and postorbital. Its con-
tact with the maxilla is a broadly sinuous suture, whereas its con-
tacts with the remaining three elements are more linear (Figs. 2C,
D). A dorsally directed process along the lacrimal/jugal contact,
as illustrated by Wilson and Sereno (1998:fig 6) in their recon-
struction of Diplodocus, appears to be at least incipiently present,
although less substantial in this specimen. Medially, the jugal has
a small contact with the palate via a lateral process of the ptery-
As in adult Diplodocus, the jugal is broad, flat, and excluded
from the ventral margin of the skull. It forms parts of the margins
of three skull openings: the orbit, the antorbital fenestra, and the
lateral temporal fenestra.
Lacrimal—The lacrimal is a bar-shaped element, oriented ap-
proximately dorsoventrally. It contacts the jugal ventrally, the
nasal and prefrontal dorsally, and the maxilla along the dorsal
portion of its anterior margin. The suture with the jugal is nearly
linear, with a reduced version of the “stepped” contact in some
adult skulls (CM 11161; Fig. 2). Ventral to its anterior contact
with the maxilla, the lacrimal forms an anteroposteriorly elon-
gate portion of the margin of the antorbital fenestra; the cross-
sectional shape becomes more mediolaterally elongate dorsal to
this fenestra. There, a strong ridge on the lateral surface of the
lacrimal extends dorsally to join the laterally expanded prefrontal
and form the anterior portion of the dorsal orbital margin.
The long axis of the lacrimal in CM 11255 is much more ver-
tically oriented than is typical of more ontogenetically mature
skulls, suggesting that the infraorbital and antorbital regions ex-
perienced a greater degree of anteroposterior and anteroventral
lengthening during growth than did neighboring regions. A con-
sequence of the orientation of the lacrimal is that the tear-drop
shape typical of eusauropod orbits is not as strongly expressed;
although there is still an anteroventral ‘corner’ on the orbit, the
shape is generally subcircular.
Prefrontal—The prefrontal meets and slightly overlaps the
lacrimal at a scarf joint. Along with the frontal, which it contacts
posteriorly, the prefrontal forms most of the dorsal margin of the
orbit. In lateral view, the prefrontal is anteroposteriorly broad,
with only a gentle ventral concavity. In dorsal view, it is arcuate
and contacts the frontal and nasal along a concave medial mar-
gin. This concavity lends the posterior half of the prefrontal a
‘hooked’ shape, which has been recognized as a diplodocid fea-
ture (Berman and McIntosh, 1978; Wilson, 2002). The prefrontal
forms much of the lateral margin of the skull roof in dorsal view.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
FIGURE 2. Photographs and interpretive line drawings of the juvenile skull of Diplodocus (CM 11255). A, B, right lateral view; C, D, left lateral
view. Stippled areas indicate matrix; hatching indicates broken bone. Scale bar equals 5 cm. Abbreviations: a, angular; aof, antorbital fenestra; bo,
basioccipital; d,dentary;eo, exoccipital-opisthotic; f, frontal; j, jugal; ltf, lateral temporal fenestra; l,lacrimal;m, maxilla; mc, Meckelian canal; n, nasal;
o,orbit;os/ls, orbitosphenoid/laterosphenoid; pa, parietal; paof, preantorbital fenestra; pf, prefrontal; pm, premaxilla; po, postorbital; pop, paroccipital
process; ps, parasphenoid; psaf, posterior surangular foramen; pt, pterygoid; q, quadrate; qj, quadratojugal; sa, surangular; soc, supraoccipital; spl,
splenial; sq, squamosal.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
FIGURE 2. (Continued)
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
FIGURE 3. Photographs and interpretive line drawings of the skull of
Diplodocus (CM 11255). A, C, anterior view; B, D, posterior view. Stip-
pled areas indicate matrix, hatching indicates broken bone. Scale bar
equals 5 cm. Abbreviations: a, angular; bo, basioccipital; bt , basal tu-
bera; btp, basipterygoid processes; d,dentary;eo, exoccipital-opisthotic;
f, frontal; l,lacrimal;m, maxilla; mc, Meckelian canal; n, nasal; os/ls,or-
bitosphenoid/laterosphenoid; pa, parietal; pf, prefrontal; po, postorbital;
popr, paroccipital process; pm, premaxilla; ps, parasphenoid; q, quadrate;
qj, quadratojugal; sa, surangular; sq, squamosal; soc, supraoccipital.
Frontal—In lateral view, the frontal is a narrow, arcuate
element that contacts the prefrontal anteriorly and the pos-
torbital laterally. In dorsal view, the frontals can be seen to
contact the parietals posteriorly and the nasal anteriorly. The
frontal-parietal suture is obscured and so cannot be compared to
the relatively linear suture of Suuwassea (Harris, 2006) or the sin-
uous sutures known in Apatosaurus (CM 11162) and Diplodocus
(CM 11161). The frontal forms much of the dorsal skull roof, and
contacts the orbitosphenoid ventrally.
The lateral margin of the right frontal has been eroded away,
exposing the trabecular internal structure of the bone, bordered
by a thin veneer of cortical bone on the dorsal and ventral faces.
In other specimens of Diplodocus (CM 11161, CM 3452, USNM
2672, USNM 2673), the lateral portion of the frontal that forms
the orbital margin is greatly expanded laterally, creating a broad
shelf dorsal to the orbit. A notch is commonly associated with the
anterior margin of this expanded margin. In Apatosaurus (CM
11162), this expansion is well developed, and increases the width
of the skull in this region well beyond the lateral extent of the
parietals. Based on the mediolateral position of the posterior-
most preserved portion of the postorbital, CM 11255 did not have
such a prominent lateral expansion.
Postorbital—The postorbital is a triradiate element, with elon-
gate processes contacting the frontal dorsally and the jugal ante-
riorly. The third process is comparatively short and inserts into a
groove in the squamosal. CM 11255 preserves the jugal process,
which forms most of the ventral margin of the orbit. The contact
with the jugal occurs along a shallowly angled, planar suture. Al-
though the postorbital and lacrimal are closely situated in adult
specimens, this relationship in CM 11255 appears unusually close.
There is a longitudinal ridge along the lateral surface of the jugal
process, expanding the element into a flat shelf dorsally and ren-
dering it triangular in cross-section. This creates a narrow fossa
surrounding the lateral temporal fenestra.
Squamosal—The squamosal is an arcuate element when
viewed laterally, contacting the parietal, postorbital, and
quadrate, and forming a portion of the margin of both temporal
fenestrae. The right side of CM 11255 preserves a small portion
of the anteriorly directed process that overlies the head of the
quadrate in lateral view. In CM 11255, this process is partially
obscured by matrix (Fig. 2A), but is revealed by computed
tomography (CT) to extend anteriorly to nearly contact the
posterodorsally directed squamosal process of the quadratojugal,
which contrasts with the widely spaced position of these elements
in adult Diplodocus (CM 11161). In posterior view, the pre-
served portion of the squamosal is almost entirely obscured by
the paroccipital process, although a small portion of the lateral
margin can be seen overlapping the quadrate (Fig. 3B, D).
Quadratojugal—The quadratojugal of CM 11255 is an antero-
posteriorly elongate, dorsoventrally narrow element that con-
tacts and laterally overlaps the quadrate; its elongate squamosal
process extends 2.3 cm along the lateral margin of the quadrate
toward the squamosal. This process tapers dorsally and termi-
nates in a broken surface; it can be inferred to have extended
to near the midpoint of the quadrate, within a centimeter of con-
tact with the squamosal. The anteroventral corner of the lateral
temporal fenestra is preserved on the left side only. Much of the
anterior contact with the maxilla is not preserved.
The dorsal margin of the quadratojugal is broadly sinuous. It is
dorsally convex anteriorly along the contacts with the maxilla and
jugal, and it is concave posteriorly where it forms the anteroven-
tral corner of the lateral temporal fenestra. In dorsal and ventral
views, the quadratojugal bulges laterally as it overlaps the articu-
lar head of the quadrate (Fig. 4).
Parietal—The parietal of CM 11255 contacts the frontal an-
teriorly and delimits the dorsomedial margin of the supratem-
poral fenestra. The partially preserved median contact between
the parietals is a highly interdigitated suture. In adult and large
sub-adult Diplodocus (CM 11161, CM 3452, USNM 2672, USNM
2673), the parietals are fused. Coupled with the small size of the
specimen, the presence of a patent interparietal suture in CM
11255 suggests that fusion of these elements only occurred as the
animal approached maturity.
The lateral wing of the parietal arches strongly dorsolaterally,
obscuring the supratemporal fenestra in posterior view—a con-
dition described as characterizing Diplodocus by Berman and
McIntosh (1978). The dorsolateral margin of the parietal in Ap-
atosaurus is nearly linear, unlike the state preserved in CM 11255.
In dorsal view, a nuchal fossa can be seen between the lateral
wing of the parietal and the parietal-supraoccipital suture.
Although the depth of this fossa is somewhat exaggerated by an
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
FIGURE 4. Photographs and interpretive line drawings of the juvenile skull of Diplodocus (CM 11255). A, C, dorsal view; B, D, ventral view.
Stippled areas indicate matrix, hatching indicates broken bone. Scale bar equals 5 cm. Abbreviations: a, angular; bo, basioccipital; bs, basisphenoid;
bt, basal tubera; btp, basipterygoid processes; d,dentary;eo, exoccipital-opisthotic; f, frontal; l,lacrimal;m, maxilla; n, nasal; nf, nuchal fossa; os/ls,
orbitosphenoid/laterosphenoid; pa, parietal; pf, prefrontal; pm, premaxilla; po, postorbital; popr, paroccipital process; pt, pterygoid; q, quadrate; qj,
quadratojugal; soc, supraoccipital; t, teeth.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
area of broken bone in the center of the concavity, the nuchal
fossa appears to invade quite deeply, reaching nearly to the depth
of the parietal-frontal suture, and is therefore more strongly con-
cave than that seen in Suuw assea (Harris, 2006) and some speci-
mens of Diplodocus (CM 11161). It is quite similar to the fossae
in some other Diplodocus specimens, however, including other
presumed sub-adult skulls (CM 3452), as well as in Apatosaurus
(CM 11162).
The supratemporal region is narrow in dorsal view. The pre-
served mediolateral width of the right parietal at the greatest
extent of the lateral wing is 4.1 cm, resulting in a minimum to-
tal transverse width estimate of 8.2 cm, roughly 24% of the to-
tal skull length (compared to 29% in adult Diplodocus and
46% in Apatosaurus). The proportional width of CM 11255 is
more congruent with smaller Diplodocus skulls (SMM P84.15.3;
Erickson and Hanks, 2001).
Palatal Complex
The palatal complex of CM 11255 is represented by the
quadrates, pterygoids, ectopterygoids, palatines, and vomers
(Fig. 5). The latter four structures are visible entirely or in large
part only through CT scanning.
Quadrate—The quadrate connects the palate with the dermal
skull roof through its insertion into a recess of the squamosal
posterodorsally and with the facial skeleton by contact with
the quadratojugal laterally. The quadrate also contacts the
FIGURE 5. Palatal complex of juvenile Diplodocus (CM 11255), based
on data obtained using computed tomography (CT) scanning. A, Recon-
struction of the palate in left lateral view; B, palatal complex in lateral
view; C, Cross-sections taken through B at transects i–iv. Cross-sections
in anterior view. Scale bar equals 5 cm. Abbreviations: ect, ectopterygoid;
pal, palatine; pt, pterygoid; v,vomer.
paroccipital process posteriorly (Fig. 3B, D). The wing-like ptery-
goid flange of the quadrate extends anteromedially, and is visible
in lateral view through the lateral temporal fenestra. This flange is
broad and flat, terminating in a broad, arcuate contact with ptery-
In lateral view, the quadrate is distinctly concave posteriorly,
unlike the relatively straight or only slightly bent condition seen
in adult exemplars of Apatosaurus (CM 11162), Diplodocus (CM
11161), and Suuw assea (Harris, 2006). This curvature is slightly
exaggerated by breakage at mid-shaft, but even allowing for some
distortion the quadrate was much more strongly curved than
those of larger Diplodocus skulls. The quadrate fossa is shallow,
as in other diplodocoids, and does not continue onto other ele-
ments laterally.
The articular surface of the quadrate condyle is visible in lat-
eral view, with the medial aspect projecting well beyond the ven-
tral margin of the quadratojugal. The articular face is roughly
triangular with a peak facing posteriorly. The surface is beveled
such that it faces slightly ventrolaterally.
Pterygoid—The pterygoid forms much of the posterior portion
of the palate, contacting the pterygoid wing of the quadrate pos-
teriorly, the palatine and ectopterygoid laterally, and the vomer
anteriorly. Anteriorly, the pterygoid bifurcates into anterodor-
sally and anteroventrally directed processes. The anterodorsal
process is broad and sheet-like and has a slightly concave, elon-
gate dorsal margin that extends anteriorly to contact the pala-
tine and vomer (Fig. 5). Much of the ventral portion of this pro-
cess is indistinguishable from matrix in the CT images, suggesting
that portion of the element was quite thin. The pterygoid an-
teroventral process contacts the ectopterygoid to form the trans-
verse pterygoid hook. In contrast to the autapomorphic condition
described for adult Diplodocus by Wilson (2002), the pterygoid
is situated posterolateral to the ectopterygoid when the two ele-
ments are articulated (Fig. 5).
Like the other dermal skull elements of the left side, the left
pterygoid is displaced dorsally, posteriorly, and slightly medially.
The pterygoids are vaulted inward at an angle of approximately
from vertical and arch dorsally as they approach their mid-
line contact (Fig. 5C). The right pterygoid is more strongly in-
clined dorsomedially (35
from the vertical) than the left (2.3
). In
adult Diplodocus (CM 11161), the pterygoids are inclined at ap-
proximately 30
from the vertical (McIntosh and Berman, 1975).
Palatine—The palatine is thin and arcuate in CM 11255, con-
tacting the pterygoid posteriorly along a concave, anterodorsally
inclined suture. The dorsal portion of the palatine and the con-
tact with the vomer is not well preserved (see Vomer, below).
The anteroventral portion of the palatine forms a dorsoventrally
flattened process that contacts the maxilla along its lateral and an-
terior margins. The anterior-most portion of this process is over-
lapped by a posterior process of the maxilla that projects from
the floor of the preantorbital fenestra. The ectopterygoid con-
tacts the palatine along the palatine’s ventral margin, near the
posterior margin of the maxillary contact.
Vomer—The vomer is trapezoidal in lateral view, contacting
the maxilla anteriorly and the pterygoid posteriorly. It is over-
lapped to some degree along its posteroventral margin by the
palatine, although that contact is poorly preserved. The vomers
are strongly vaulted, although this is probably exaggerated by the
minor lateral compression of the skull.
Ectopterygoid—The ectopterygoid is an arched, strap-like
element that articulates laterally with the maxilla and postero-
medially with the pterygoid in a ventrally directed, anteroposte-
riorly elongate ‘hook’ that extends to near the level of the ven-
tral margin of the maxilla. As discussed above, the articulation
of the ectopterygoid with the pterygoid appears to position the
former anteromedial to the latter, unlike the condition described
for adult Diplodocus by Wilson (2002). In both cases, the articula-
tion is primarily along the posterior margin of the ectopterygoid,
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
and the ectopterygoid process of the pterygoid curves laterally to
meet the ectopterygoid, so the variation seen here is perhaps not
The braincase is largely missing, particularly those elements
surrounding the foramen magnum. As with the circumorbital and
skull roof elements, the right side preserves more of these bones
than does the left. The braincase is oriented at the same slight
angle to the facial skeleton as is the skull roof.
Basioccipital—The basioccipital makes up the main body of
the occipital condyle, and in CM 11255 it is mostly complete. Lit-
tle of the foramen magnum remains dorsal to it, including the
portion of the margin that was presumably formed by this ele-
ment. The condyle is D-shaped in occipital view, with a nearly flat
posterodorsal margin. Including allowances for ventral rotation
of the structure, the occipital condyle is oriented strongly ven-
trally. The suture between the basioccipital and the exoccipital-
opisthotic that forms the dorsolateral ‘shoulder’ of the condyle is
plainly visible on both sides (Fig. 3B, D).
Supraoccipital—The supraoccipital is a midline element that
contacts the parietals and the exoccipital-opisthotics. In CM
11255, the supraoccipital is represented primarily by a large, tri-
angular eminence formed by the confluence of two crests: a trans-
verse crest that extends laterally towards the nuchal fossa, the
insertion of which is obscured by a broken surface; and a promi-
nent, sagittal crest that extends down the midline of the element,
flaring slightly at its dorsal terminus (Fig. 3B, D). In Apatosaurus,
Suuwassea, and other crania of Diplodocus, a narrow isthmus of
the supraoccipital extends ventrally to form a small portion of the
dorsal margin of the foramen magnum, although this cannot be
determined in CM 11255 due to a lack of preservation.
Exoccipital-Opisthotic—The exoccipital-opisthotic forms part
of the posterior braincase, contacting the supraoccipital and ba-
sioccipital medially, the parietal dorsally, and the squamosal lat-
erally. Together, the right and left exoccipital opisthotics form
much of the lateral margin of the foramen magnum. In CM 11255,
these elements are primarily represented by the left and right
paroccipital processes. The blade-like paroccipital processes are
strongly angled ventrally, as in other Diplodocus specimens (CM
11161, CM 3452). This is in contrast to the more laterally directed
processes seen in Suuwassea (Harris, 2006) and Apatosaurus (CM
11162). As in other diplodocid sauropods, the paroccipital pro-
cess expands ventrolaterally, predominantly on its dorsal mar-
gin. The exoccipital-opisthotic makes a small contribution to the
‘shoulders’ of the occipital condyle (Figs. 3, 4).
Basisphenoid—In diplodocoids, the basisphenoid serves as the
only bony connection between the braincase and palate, contact-
ing the pterygoids via elongate basipterygoid processes. Poste-
riorly, it meets the basioccipital at the base of the neck of the
occipital condyle. Dorsally, the basisphenoid projects anteriorly
as the parasphenoid rostrum, visible though the left orbit. This
process is rod-like and elongate, reaching anteriorly to near the
anterior margin of the orbit. It is generally similar in shape and
proportion to its homologues in adult Diplodocus, and is unlike
the much larger, dorsoventrally expanded parasphenoid rostrum
of Suuwassea (Harris, 2006). A prominent ridge just dorsal to the
parasphenoid rostrum is identified as the ventral extreme of the
antotic crest.
Near its contact with the basioccipital, the basisphenoid is ex-
panded into paired basal tubera that are separated from each
other by a narrow sulcus. A narrow pit (the ‘basipterygoid recess’;
Wilson, 2002) is present just posterior to this sulcus, as in other
specimens of Diplodocus. The basal tubera of CM 11255 are diag-
nostic for this genus in two ways. First, unlike the more massive,
globose basal tubera seen in Apatosaurus, those of CM 11255
are flat and semi-concave posteriorly, as in other Diplodocus
skulls (CM 11161, CM 3452). Second, as in other specimens of
Diplodocus, the basal tubera of CM 11255 are pendulous, pri-
marily visible ventral to the occipital condyle in occipital view.
In Apatosaurus (CM 11162, CMC VP 7180, YPM 1860), the
basal tubera do not descend as far ventrally and are more lat-
erally oriented, such that they are primarily visible lateral to the
Anteroventral to the basal tubera, a deep concavity separates
the paired basipterygoid processes. In CM 11255, the basiptery-
goid processes are thin and elongate, similar in shape to those of
other Diplodocus crania. Anteroventrally, there is a condyle for
articulation with the pterygoid. Unlike their counterparts in Ap-
atosaurus, the basipterygoid processes of CM 11255 do not flare
anteroventrally. The angle between the basipterygoid processes
cannot be determined due to deformation of the left process and
breakage of the right process.
Orbitosphenoid and Laterosphenoid—Posterodorsal to the
parasphenoid, the right orbitosphenoid and laterosphenoid are
visible in medial view (Fig. 2C, D). Much of the internal surface
of the orbitosphenoid has been destroyed, including the foram-
ina for cranial nerves I and IV, respectively. A small foramen
for the passage of cranial nerve III is preserved near the ven-
tral margin of the orbitosphenoid. An ovate, anteroposteriorly
oriented foramen situated slightly posterodorsal to the foramen
for cranial nerve III may have accommodated the endolymphatic
sac. Ventrally, the orbitosphenoid meets the parietal in a sin-
uous, patent suture. Posteriorly, the orbitosphenoid abuts the
supraoccipital in a straight, dorsoventrally oriented patent suture.
The internal surface of the laterosphenoid is marked by a large,
approximately anteroposteriorly oriented tuberosity, the dorsal
margin of which forms the ventral margin of the foramen for
cranial nerve V. The anteroventral corner of this tuberosity,
where the openings for cranial nerves IX–XI are expected, has
been destroyed.
Cranial Openings
Six cranial openings can be identified in CM 11255: the prean-
torbital fenestra, the antorbital fenestra, the orbit, the external
naris, the supratemporal fenestra, and the lateral temporal fenes-
tra. The subnarial foramen, anterior maxillary foramen, and post-
temporal fenestra are not preserved.
Preantorbital Fenestra—The preantorbital fenestra is a small,
elliptical opening that pierces the maxilla in the posterodorsal
corner of a sharply defined fossa that extends anteriorly and ven-
trally. As in other neosauropods, the preantorbital fenestra is in-
ternally connected with the antorbital fenestra by a narrow bridge
of bone composed of a posteromedial projection of the maxilla
and an anterior projection of the palatine, inserting on the ven-
tral margin of the preantorbital fenestra. The preantorbital fen-
estra may therefore represent a pneumatic continuation of the
antorbital fenestra, similar to the invasions of the maxilla by the
antorbital sinus in some theropods (Witmer, 1997).
Antorbital Fenestra—Located posterodorsal to the preantor-
bital fenestra, the antorbital fenestra opens laterally and is with-
out a distinct fossa surrounding it. It is bound largely by processes
of the maxilla; the ascending process surrounds the fenestra on its
dorsal margin, and the posterior process contributes most of the
anteroventral margin. The remainder of the antorbital fenestra is
enclosed by the jugal and the lacrimal; the nasal is excluded from
its margin.
As in adult Diplodocus, the outline of the antorbital fenes-
tra of CM 11255 is roughly teardrop-shaped, with the acute
posterodorsal corner formed by the confluence of the maxilla
and lacrimal. The dorsal margin is not as concave as in adult
Diplodocus (CM 11161, USNM 2672, USNM 2673), more closely
resembling the condition seen in other sub-adult Diplodocus
(CM 3452).
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
Orbit—Five bones bound the orbit: the lacrimal, prefrontal,
frontal, postorbital, and jugal. It is a subcircular opening in CM
11255, with the sharply notched ventral margin typical of eu-
sauropods weakly expressed (Wilson and Sereno, 1998). The pri-
mary cause of this shape disparity is the vertical orientation of
the lacrimal, creating a wider angle between that element and
the postorbital process of the jugal. The expansion of this angle
gives the orbit its rounded appearance. The orbit is more strongly
arched dorsally, where it is bounded by the prefrontal and frontal,
than it is ventrally, where it is proscribed by the postorbital. The
anteroposterior length of the orbit is difficult to determine due to
the loss of the frontal process of the postorbital.
External Naris—The external naris is bounded posteriorly and
posterolaterally by the nasal, anterolaterally by the maxillae, and
anteriorly by the premaxillae. From the position of preserved ele-
ments surrounding it, the naris faced entirely dorsally. The trans-
verse breadth of the naris expands posteriorly, giving the open-
ing a triangular shape in dorsal view. There is no evidence for a
large internarial bar dividing the naris anteriorly, although such
bars have been observed in other Diplodocus crania (CM 3452,
USNM 2762).
Supratemporal Fenestra—In adult skulls of Diplodocus,the
supratemporal fenestrae are bounded by the frontals and pos-
torbitals anteriorly, the parietals posteriorly, and the squamosal
ventrally. However, due to the incomplete preservation of these
elements in CM 11255, little is known about the condition of the
supratemporal fenestra in this specimen. It was likely a mediolat-
erally elongate, oval opening, largely obstructed in posterior view
by the large lateral wing of the parietal. The partially preserved
right supratemporal fenestra is fully visible in lateral view.
Lateral Temporal Fenestra—The lateral temporal fenestra
is poorly preserved, although an estimate of its shape can
be inferred from the bones forming its margin. As in other
diplodocids, it is roughly divisible into two sections: a rounded,
anterior portion and a dorsoventrally compressed, anteroposteri-
orly elongate posterior portion. In CM 11255, its anterior margin
is approximately even with the anterior margin of the orbit in lat-
eral view. This is unlike the condition in larger Diplodocus skulls
(e.g., CM 11161), in which the lateral temporal fenestra extends
well anterior to the orbit.
Lower Jaw
The lower jaw is similar to that described for larger specimens
of Diplodocus, save only for its rounded anterior end, which dis-
tinguishes it from the iconic squared shape of adults.
Dentary—As in other Diplodocus (CM 11161, USNM 2672),
the dentary of CM 11255 comprises approximately one-half the
length of the mandible. The internal surfaces of both dentaries
are preserved medially, and the ventral margin is visible in both
elements as well. As a consequence of the lateral crushing of
the skull, the dentaries are disarticulated from each other at the
symphysis, and the left is displaced posteriorly, dorsally, and me-
dially. In ventral view, the dentaries are similar, although the
better-preserved right element is slightly more strongly curved.
The orientation of the symphysis suggests that the two dentaries
would have met at a sharp angle, unlike the symphysis in adult
Diplodocus, which was oriented essentially perpendicular to the
anterior rami of the dentaries. The Meckelian groove is visible
on the medial surface of the right dentary, arching dorsally to the
broken edge of the bone.
Surangular—The surangular forms the dorsal portion of the
posterior half of the mandible. In lateral view, it contacts the den-
tary anteroventrally and the angular ventrally. Medially, it con-
tacts the dentary anteriorly and the splenial and prearticular ven-
trally. The surangular contacts the articular posteriorly in other
exemplars of Diplodocus, but this cannot be confirmed in CM
11255. The surangular is broad and sheet-like, and there is no ev-
idence for a well-developed coronoid eminence. There is also no
evidence of the anterior surangular foramen that occurs in other
Diplodocus (CM 11161, CM 3452).
The surangular and angular (along with the articular) form the
retroarticular process, which protrudes farther posterior to the
quadrate in CM 11255 than is seen in adult Diplodocus. In this
way, it is more similar to the condition of the large sub-adult
CM 3452. As in that specimen, however, the mandibular cotyle
does not extend greatly posterior to the articular head of the
quadrate, being instead quite rounded dorsally. This indicates
that the lower jaw of CM 11255 was not capable of being signif-
icantly displaced anteriorly during the bite stroke, in contrast to
what has been previously proposed for adult Diplodocus (Barrett
and Upchurch, 1994; Calvo, 1994; Upchurch and Barrett, 2000;
Barrett and Upchurch, 2005).
Angular—The angular forms the ventral margin of the
mandible and contributes to the unusually well developed
retroarticular process. In lateral view, it contacts the surangular
dorsally and the dentary anteriorly. Medially, it contacts the sple-
nial anterodorsally and the prearticular dorsally.
Splenial—The splenial is a triradiate bone with two closely ap-
pressed anterior processes that contact the dentary and a pos-
terior process that separates the prearticular from the angular.
The anteroventral process is elongate and triangular in shape.
The anterodorsal process is also triangular in shape, but much
broader at the base and does not extend far anteriorly. Whether
the anterodorsal process is further subdivided (as in CM 11161;
McIntosh and Berman, 1975) cannot be determined.
Prearticular—The prearticular is a subquadrangular element
that contacts the surangular dorsally and the angular and splenial
ventrally. It arches slightly dorsally at mid-length, where it forms
a portion of the ventral margin of the adductor fossa, and is very
similar to the prearticular described for the adult Diplodocus CM
11161 (McIntosh and Berman, 1975).
The teeth of CM 11255 are of the narrow-crowned type typi-
cal of diplodocoids (Calvo, 1994). As in other Diplodocus,they
lack marginal denticles. Seven functional maxillary tooth posi-
tions are preserved on the right side, and 10–11 are estimated
on the left. This is the standard Diplodocus condition (AMNH
696, CM 11161, CM 3452, USNM 2672). In the lower jaw, there
are eight preserved functional teeth in the left dentary and
six in the right. Based on other Diplodocus skulls, CM 11255
would have had between 10 and 11 dentary teeth. The upper
teeth are larger than their lower counterparts, and are gener-
ally in a better state of preservation. None show definite traces of
Similar to adult teeth, those of CM 11255 are subcircular in
cross-section near the apicobasal midpoint of the crown, and be-
come labiolingually compressed more apically. The upper teeth
are unusual for a diplodocoid, however, in having mesiodistal
asymmetry. Unlike the teeth preserved in specimens of adult
Diplodocus (AMNH 696, CM 11161, USNM 2672, USNM 2673),
the apices of each tooth of CM 11255 are slightly distally inclined.
The teeth are sharply pointed, a condition Holland (1924) consid-
ered unusual. However, in situ teeth in other Diplodocus skulls
(CM 3452, USNM 2672, and USNM 2673) are also pointed, sug-
gesting that this shape is in fact typical for unworn crowns. As in
those skulls (but not CM 11161), the teeth of CM 11255 are also
closely appressed, occasionally contacting their mesial and/or dis-
tal neighbors.
In adult diplodocoids, the dentition is restricted to the ante-
rior extremity of the snout. Although much of the ventral mar-
gins of the maxillae of CM 11255 are missing, a large propor-
tion of the dentition is represented by both functional (Fig. 2A,
B) and replacement (Fig. 2C, D) teeth. The preservation of the
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
replacement teeth allows the reconstruction of the position of the
distal-most maxillary tooth, which is located farther posteriorly
than is typical for adult Diplodocus (Fig. 2). That is, the tooth row
in adults ends well anterior to the preantorbital fenestra, and of-
ten anterior to the subnarial foramen. Conversely, in CM 11255,
the tooth row appears to end posterior to at least the subnarial
foramen, and perhaps quite close to the anterior margin of the
preantorbital fenestra.
The replacement teeth in each maxillary tooth family are first
formed well within the bone, with the most distally located re-
placement tooth forming nearly within the preantorbital fossa
(2D). The most mesially positioned upper teeth (i.e., those in the
premaxilla and the mesial-most positions of the maxilla) appear
to travel in an arcuate path through the jaw bones as a result
of the ‘stepped’ shape of the snout visible in lateral view; more
distal teeth seem to form in more linear families. The erupted
teeth are oriented at a slight angle to the ventral margin of the
jaw and tilted slightly mesially (Fig. 2A, C), as in other sub-adult
Diplodocus (CM 3452). Visual estimates of the size and position
of the replacement teeth of CM 11255 suggest that, even as ju-
veniles, Diplodocus individuals carried in excess of four or five
replacement teeth per alveolus in the maxilla. In the dentary of
CM 11255, replacement teeth are present within 7 mm of the pre-
served ventral margin of the jaw, possibly explaining the ventrally
projecting ‘chin’ of diplodocids as a reservoir for replacement
teeth (Wilson and Sereno, 1998). The presence of so many teeth
in such a small jaw may be evidence of rapid replacement rates,
such as that observed in the rebbachisaurid diplodocoid Niger-
saurus (Sereno et al., 2007).
Reconstructing the Snout of CM 11255
Adult individuals of Diplodocus and most other diplodocoids
are well known for having snouts that are broad and square
in dorsoventral view, with anteriorly sequestered teeth. The
youngest known juvenile Diplodocus (CM 11255), however, has a
highly rounded snout and a tooth row that extends farther poste-
riorly than in adults (Figs. 6, 7). Although taphonomic processes
have slightly distorted the snout, there are three main lines of evi-
dence that suggest that we have correctly reconstructed its shape:
the preserved position of the teeth, the orientation and size of the
palatal elements, and the shape of the dentary.
Evidence from Teeth—In adult Diplodocus, the posterior-
most tooth in the maxillary tooth row (tooth 10 or 11) is located
very far anteriorly in the jaw, well anterior to the preantorbital
fenestra. The lateral compression experienced by CM 11255 is
unlikely to have displaced its tooth row posteriorly; displacement
of that type would result in visible damage or deformation to
the pre-preantorbital region of the skull, which is not evident in
the specimen. In contrast, the most likely consequence of lateral
crushing is exaggeration of the length of the skull due to folding
at the premaxillary symphysis, causing the anterior ends of the
premaxillae to protrude farther anteriorly than they did in life.
This can be refuted as a major impactor here due to the close as-
sociation of the anterior end of the preserved upper tooth row
with the anterior end of the right dentary.
Evidence from the Palate—The pterygoids are elements with
multiple local angles when viewed in cross-section (Fig. 5C). In
Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, the angle between the pterygoids
at mid-height is approximately 60
(Berman and McIntosh, 1978).
The right pterygoid of CM 11255—the better preserved of the
two—has an angle with the vertical of 35
. If the right pterygoid
is mirrored, the resultant median angle is 70
, greater than that
seen in adult Diplodocus. This suggests that the right pterygoid is
largely undistorted, and when mirrored provides a conservative
estimate of palatal width. Using the right pterygoid to reconstruct
the width of the palate indicates that the width to be added is only
FIGURE 6. Reconstruction of CM 11255. A, lateral view; B, dorsal
view. Scale bar equals 5 cm.
FIGURE 7. Transformation grids based on sutures and other landmarks
showing the regions of the Diplodocus skull that underwent the greatest
amount of shape change through ontogeny. Grids based on Figure 6 and
a reconstruction of the adult skull of Diplodocus (Wilson and Sereno,
1998:fig. 6). A, lateral view; B, dorsal view.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
11 mm, for a maximum skull width of 88 mm at the quadrates.
If the entire right side of the skull, to the midline suggested by
the right pterygoid, is mirrored, the maximum skull width is only
102 mm. Even using this higher estimate, the reconstructed snout
is still quite round in comparison to adults (see Comparisons with
Adult Diplodocus, below).
Evidence from the Dentary—As noted above, lateral crush-
ing of the skull has displaced the left mandible, disarticulating
it from the right at the dentary symphysis. This disarticulation
and subsequent displacement appears to have been the main im-
pact of compression on the mandibles because their longitudinal
rami appear to be relatively straight and the anterior curvature
of each dentary is similar (Fig. 4B, D). These elements are gently
rounded in ventral view, not squared as seen in larger Diplodocus
Lateral crushing of this extent is not typically seen in larger
Diplodocus skulls, although slight crushing is apparent in two
other specimens, one adult (USNM 2672), and a larger sub-
adult (CM 3452). In both of these latter specimens, the dentaries
are symmetrical and appear to retain their original morphology
(squared in USNM 2672, more gently rounded in CM 3452) and
are, again, disarticulated along the symphysis, with one mandible
displaced. Even in a clearly distorted skull (USNM 2673), the de-
formation occurs along the lateral ramus of the mandible, not at
its anterolateral corner. The only observed case of deformation
altering the anterior shape of the dentary is the dicraeosaurid
diplodocoid Dicraeosaurus (MB.R. 2372), in which the square-
ness of the dentary is exaggerated, although the ventral margin is
itself undeformed. It is unlikely, then, that taphonomic deforma-
tion has greatly altered the shape of the dentaries of CM 11255,
and consequently these elements constitute a reasonable proxy
for snout shape in this specimen.
Comparisons with Adult Diplodocus
Varricchio (1997) listed ten ways in which the crania of di-
nosaurs have been shown to vary ontogenetically, two of which
(increase in tooth count, shortening and deepening of the skull)
are potentially related to changes in feeding behavior. Others
(relative decrease in size of the orbit, relative increase in antor-
bital length) are common in many amniote groups and are not
directly related to feeding behavior.
As expected, the relative contributions of the orbit and brain-
case to overall skull size are dramatically larger in CM 11255 rel-
ative to large adult skulls (Fig. 7). Accordingly, there is a smaller
contribution of the antorbital region to skull length in CM 11255,
which has the effect of shortening the face. This shorter propor-
tional length is accompanied by a snout that is narrower and
rounder in dorsal view. The upper tooth row occupies a much
larger proportion of the jaw margin and extends much farther
posteriorly than in adults. This suggests a large-scale ontoge-
netic remodeling of the facial skeleton involving rearrangement
of the food-gathering apparatus, which has not been previously
reported for any sauropodomorph dinosaur.
Implications for Facial Remodeling in Diplodocus—In mam-
mals, snout shape has been shown to serve as a proxy for feed-
ing behavior (Bou
e, 1970; Solounias et al., 1988; Dompierre and
Churcher, 1996). Broad, anteriorly flat snouts belong to mam-
mals that crop low-lying grasses near the ground, and narrow,
pointed snouts belong to mammals that selectively browse for
particular plants or plant parts. Using a modification of a metric
used by Solounias et al. (1988), the snout shape of sauropods can
be quantified. The premaxillary-maxillary index (PMI) is calcu-
lated by superimposing a triangle over a dorsal view of the snout
with the hypotenuse drawn at 26
. The area of this triangle that
is covered by snout is divided by the total area of the triangle
to determine the PMI; higher numbers indicate squarer snouts.
The most conservative reconstruction of CM 11255 has a PMI of
56%; this is well below that of adult Diplodocus (PMI = 84%;
Whitlock, 2007). This pointed snout is also seen in other juvenile
specimens of Diplodocus (CMC VP 8300; Whitlock, 2006). The
ontogenetic disparity in snout shapes in this genus may be evi-
dence of resource partitioning between adults and juveniles that
might have had vastly different energetic needs. Fiorillo (1998)
presented patterns of enamel microwear as evidence for resource
partitioning between adults and juveniles of a different Morri-
son sauropod, Camarasaurus. Ongoing research has shown a dif-
ference in wear patterns between relatively round snouted (Di-
craeosaurus) and relatively square snouted (Apatosaurus, adult
Diplodocus) diplodocoids that is consistent with selective brows-
ing versus non-specific browsing similar to the ‘grazing’ behavior
of ruminants (Whitlock, 2007). Unfortunately, microwear has not
yet been recovered from a definitive juvenile Diplodocus tooth
for comparison with adult patterns.
Curry (1999) and Lehman and Woodward (2008) presented
sigmoidal growth curves for the diplodocid Apatosaurus.As-
suming that these curves accurately represent the pattern of
growth rates through diplodocid ontogeny, juvenile Diplodocus
in the exponential growth phase may have required more
energy-rich foodstuffs than adults that had reached their growth
plateau. Barrett (2000) suggested a similar scenario for basal
sauropodomorphs involving opportunistic carnivory in juveniles.
Jarman (1974) noted that small ungulates, which have compa-
rably higher metabolic rates than large ungulates, have narrow
snouts for selective browsing of plant parts with high digestibility
and high caloric content. It is possible that a similar scenario
could have occurred in an organism whose growth curve involves
many orders of magnitude increase in mass. Earlier ontogenetic
stages likely required easily digestible, high-calorie foods to
maintain a higher metabolism, and used a narrow, pointed snout
to selectively obtain them. Once full size had been reached,
energetic goals may have been attained by higher-volume,
less nutritious, non-specific browsing by blunt-snouted adult
Diplodocus individuals. Resource partitioning may also have oc-
curred out of necessity, easing intraspecific competition between
adults and their offspring, or, as noted by Jarman (1974), because
a larger skull (such as that of adult Diplodocus)islesssuitedfor
selective herbivory.
Comparisons with Other Dinosaurs
Of the numerous dinosaurian taxa that have been examined for
ontogenetic cranial variation, six are of particular interest. Three
related taxa, the sauropodomorphs Camarasaurus, Rapetosaurus,
and Massospondylus, are examined, as well as the theropods Al-
bertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. To elucidate the condition in
an ornithischian, the basal ceratopsian Psittacosaurus is also dis-
CamarasaurusCamarasaurus is known from multiple skulls,
including a juvenile preserving most of the facial skeleton (CM
11338). Ikejiri (2004) and Ikejiri et al. (2005) suggested that there
was little remodeling of the craniofacial skeleton throughout the
ontogeny of this genus. McIntosh et al. (1996) posited that a re-
duction in alveolar count did occur with advancing ontogenetic
stage, contrary to the typical dinosaurian condition (Varricchio,
1997; but see Carr, 1999). Fiorillo (1998) used enamel microwear
patterns to suggest resource partitioning between adults and ju-
veniles in browse height, but not necessarily browse type. For
sauropods like Camarasaurus, whose relatively high forelimb-to-
hind limb and low neck-to-torso ratios suggest a higher browse
height than is posited for diplodocoids, browse height was most
likely a function of body size and therefore maturity. In other
words, given their smaller size, younger individuals necessar-
ily browsed at lower heights than older individuals. In contrast,
Diplodocus has been interpreted as a mid- to low-height feeder
throughout its ontogeny (Barrett and Upchurch, 1994; Stevens
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
and Parrish, 1999, 2005; Upchurch and Barrett, 2000). The varia-
tion in resource acquisition may have been as much a function of
behavior as it is of physiology.
Rapetosaurus—The derived titanosaurian sauropod
Rapetosaurus is known from cranial elements belonging to
an adult and a juvenile, including facial bones from each (Curry
Rogers and Forster, 2004). However, the reconstructed skull of
this taxon is based almost entirely on the adult, because very
little of the facial skeleton is preserved in the juvenile (Curry
Rogers and Forster, 2004:Fig. 1). Although the reconstructed
snout is somewhat rounded in dorsal view, the preserved dentary
(Curry Rogers and Forster, 2004:fig. 28) approaches a square
shape, more so than in the juvenile Diplodocus but less than in
adults. In the absence of more complete juvenile skulls, little can
be said about the ontogenetic development of the blunt snout in
Massospondylus—Sues et al. (2004) described four skulls
attributable to Massospondylus carinatus, representing several
stages of growth. M. carinatus appears to have added maxillary
tooth positions with age, and there are more denticles per crown
in juvenile specimens than in adults, but the general shape of the
snout does not appear to have varied greatly (Sues et al., 2004).
Gow (1990) noted a few ontogenetic changes in the braincase
of M. carinatus, primarily the late ossification of a posterior ex-
tension of the laterosphenoid separating the vena cerebralis me-
dia and cranial nerve V, and increased muscle scarring on the
supraoccipital. Reconstructions of three skulls of M. carinatus
(Gow et al., 1990:fig. 7) suggest that the orbit became propor-
tionally smaller and the antorbital region proportionally longer
with increasing size, as is typical of many other dinosaurian taxa
(Varricchio, 1997).
Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus—The premaxillae and
maxillae of Albertosaurus were subject to ontogenetic variation,
particularly in the later sub-adult stages, when the snout broad-
ened transversely (Carr, 1999). Additionally, the skull as a whole
became more robust with age, a pattern also seen in Tyran-
nosaurus. Carr (1999) hypothesized that this variation may be
the result of variation in foraging behaviors, such that older in-
dividuals were more capable of grasping and holding live prey
or tearing apart large carrion; an alternate explanation proposed
was that the increased robustness and broadness was a physiolog-
ical response to increased skull size and bite force. Additionally,
the teeth became more robust throughout ontogeny, with a cor-
responding reduction in the number of alveoli. The implication
is that, as in Diplodocus, tyrannosaurid theropods were capable
of variation in response to differing feeding behaviors or require-
ments at different ontogenetic stages.
Psittacosaurus—The basal ceratopsian Psittacosaurus is
known from many individuals of varying sizes and stages of
ontogeny. In P. mongoliensis, alveolar count more than doubles
throughout ontogeny, eventually reaching 12 maxillary and den-
tary teeth from approximately five in the youngest individuals
(Sereno, 1990). In P. mongoliensis and P. xinjiangensis, the large
sagittal crest is not present in young individuals and developed
as the animal matured (Sereno and Chao, 1988). Additionally,
Makovicky et al. (2006) demonstrated that the presence of
a well-developed flange on the dentary is age related, only
appearing in older sub-adults. Those authors also found that
overall skull shape, however, did not significantly vary with age.
Unlike in Diplodocus, it appears that the ontogenetic variation in
Psittacosaurus was not related to a substantial change in feeding
behavior, but was instead a response to increased body size and
muscle development with age.
CM 11255 is the smallest recognized skull of Diplodocus.It
shares several synapomorphies with adult skulls, but the pres-
ence of unfused parietal bones and the small size of the specimen
(60% of the anteroposterior length of the adult skull CM 11161)
indicate that it pertains to a juvenile individual. Unique to this
individual are the extreme posterior position of the distal-most
tooth in the maxillary tooth row and the rounded dental arcade,
in contrast to the squared snout and anteriorly sequestered tooth
row in adults. The larger sub-adult Diplodocus CM 3452 strongly
resembles CM 11255 in both conditions, and it is hypothesized
that juvenile and sub-adult individuals of Diplodocus share a fa-
cial morphology that is distinct from that of adults, particularly
with regard to the tooth bearing elements and the dental arcade.
Similar morphologies (rounded versus blunt snouts) have been
shown to be related to food gathering in mammals. The condition
in Diplodocus indicates ontogenetic niche partitioning, as has
been suggested for Camarasaurus and tyrannosaurid theropods.
Juvenile and sub-adult Diplodocus appear to have been selective
browsers, whereas square-snouted adults were likely low-height
non-selective browsers, similar to what has been proposed for
the diplodocoids Brachytrachelopan (Rauhut et al., 2005), Di-
craeosaurus (Upchurch and Barrett, 2000; Barrett and Upchurch,
2005), and Nigersaurus (Sereno et al., 2007).
We thank A. Henrici (CM), C. Mehling (AMNH), M. Brett-
Surman (USNM), K. Curry Rogers (SMM), N. Klein (MB), and
O. Hampe (MB) for access to specimens. A. Shaw (CM) as-
sisted with additional preparation of the specimen. C. Blaine and
K. Schwarz (UM Hospitals) proved CT imaging assistance. B.
Miljour (UM Museum of Paleontology) greatly improved the il-
lustrations. D. Brinkman (YPM) provided a photo of YPM 1922.
Reviewers M. D’Emic and T. Ikejiri provided comments on pre-
vious drafts of the manuscript. Editor H.-D. Sues and reviewers
P. Barrett and J. Harris improved later drafts with helpful com-
ments. This work was supported in part by funds from the Scott
Turner Award at the University of Michigan and the Geological
Society of America (8689-07) awarded to J. Whitlock.
Allain, R., and N. Aquesbi. 2008. Anatomy and phylogenetic relation-
ships of Taz oudasaurus naimi (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the
late Early Jurassic of Morocco. Geodiversitas 30:345–424.
Apesteguia, S. 2004. Bonitasaura salgadoi gen. et sp. nov.: a beaked sauro-
pod from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Naturwissenschaften
Bakker, R. T. 1986. The Dinosaur Heresies. Kensington Press, New York,
481 pp.
Barrett, P. M. 1999. A sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Lufeng For-
mation (Lower Jurassic) of Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of
China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19:785–787.
Barrett, P. M. 2000. Prosauropod dinosaurs and iguanas: speculations on
the diets of extinct reptiles; pp. 43–78 in H.-D. Sues (ed.), Evolution
of Herbivory in Terrestrial Vertebrates: Perspectives from the Fossil
Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Barrett, P. M., and P. Upchurch. 1994. Feeding mechanisms of
Diplodocus. Gaia 10:195–203.
Barrett, P. M., and P. Upchurch. 2005. Sauropodomorph diversity
through time: paleoecological and macroevolutionary implications;
pp. 125–151 in K. A. Curry Rogers and J. A. Wilson (eds.), The
Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.
Barrett, P. M., and K. J. Willis. 2001. Did dinosaurs invent flowers?
Dinosaur-angiosperm coevolution revisited. Biological Reviews of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society 76:411–447.
Berman, D. S., and S. L. Jain. 1982. The braincase of a small sauropod
dinosaur (Reptilia: Saurischia) from the Upper Cretaceous Lameta
Group, Central India, with review of Lameta Group Localities. An-
nals of Carnegie Museum 51:405–422.
Berman, D. S., and J. S. McIntosh. 1978. Skull and relationships of the
Upper Jurassic sauropod Apatosaurus (Reptilia, Saurischia). Bul-
letin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 8:1–35.
Bonaparte, J. F. 1979. Faunas y paleobiogeograf
ıa de los tetr
Mesozoicos de Am
erica del Sur. Ameghiniana 16:217–238.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
Bonaparte, J. F., and J. E. Powell. 1980. A continental assemblage of
tetrapods from the Upper Cretaceous beds of El Brete, north-
western Argentina (Sauropoda-Coelurosauria-Carnosauria-Aves).
emoires de la Soci
eologique de France 139:19–28.
e, C. 1970. Morphologie fonctionnelle des dents labiales chez les ru-
minants. Mammalia 34:696–711.
Buffetaut, E. 2005. A new sauropod dinosaur with prosauropod-like teeth
from the Middle Jurassic of Madagascar. Bulletin de la Societie
eologique de France 176:467–473.
Calvo, J. O. 1994. Jaw mechanics in sauropod dinosaurs. Gaia 10:183–193.
Calvo, J. O., and A. W. A. Kellner. 2006. Description of a sauropod di-
nosaur braincase (Titanosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous R
Colorado Subgroup, Patagonia. Anais da Academia Brasileira de
encias 78:175–182.
Calvo, J., and L. Salgado. 1995. Rebbachisaurus tessonei, sp. nov., a new
Sauropoda from the Albian-Cenomanian of Argentina: new evi-
dence on the origin of the Diplodocidae. Gaia 11:13–33.
Carr, T. D. 1999. Craniofacial ontogeny in Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria,
Coelurosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19:497–520.
Chatterjee, S., and Z. Zheng. 2002. Cranial anatomy of Shunosaurus,a
basal sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of China. Zoo-
logical Journal of the Linnean Society 136:145–169.
Chiappe, L. M., L. Salgado, and R. A. Coria. 2001. Embryonic skulls of
titanosaur sauropod dinosaurs. Science 293:2444–2446.
Christiansen, P. 2000. Feeding mechanisms of the sauropod dinosaurs
Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus,andDicraeosaurus.His-
torical Biology 14:137–152.
Connely, M. 1997. Analysis of head-neck functions and feeding ecology
of common Jurassic sauropod dinosaurs based on a new find from
Como Bluff, Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(3,
Coombs, W. P. 1975. Sauropod habits and habitats. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 17:1–33.
Curry, K. A. 1999. Ontogenetic histology of Apatosaurus (Dinosauria:
Sauropoda): new insights on growth rates and longevity. Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology 19:654–665.
Curry Rogers, K. A., and C. A. Forster. 2004. The skull of
Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Late Cre-
taceous of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24:121–
Dodson, P. 1990. Sauropod paleoecology; pp. 402–407 in D. B. Weisham-
pel, P. Dodson, and H. Osm
olska (eds.), The Dinosauria. University
of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Dompierre, H., and C. S. Churcher. 1996. Premaxillary shape as an indi-
cator of the diet of seven extinct late Cenozoic New World camels.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:141–148.
Dong, Z., and Z. Tang. 1984. [Note on a new Mid-Jurassic sauropod (Da-
tousaurus bashanensis gen et sp. nov.) from Sichuan Basin, China].
Vertebrata PalAsiatica 22:69–75. [Chinese]
Erickson, B. R., and H. Hanks. 2001. A puzzling young diplodocid. Jour-
nal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(3, Supplement):21A.
Fiorillo, A. R. 1991. Dental microwear on the teeth of Camarasaurus and
Diplodocus: implications for sauropod paleoecology; pp. 23–24 in Z.
Kielan-Jaworowska, N. Heintz, and H. Nakrem (eds.), Fifth Sym-
posium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota. Paleonto-
logical Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 12–15 August
Fiorillo, A. R. 1995. Enamel microstructure in Diplodocus, Cama-
rasaurus,andBrachiosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) and its lack
of influence on resource partitioning by sauropods in the Late Juras-
sic; pp. 147–149 in A. Sun and Y. Wang (eds.), Sixth Symposium
on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota. China Ocean Press,
Beijing, China, 1–4 August 1991.
Fiorillo, A. R. 1998. Dental microwear patterns of the sauropod dinosaurs
Camarasaurus and Diplodocus: evidence for resource partitioning in
the Late Jurassic of North America. Historical Biology 13:1–16.
ıa, R. A., A. Paulina-Carabajal, and L. Salgado. 2008. Un nuevo
aneo de titanosaurio de la Formaci
on Allen (Campaniano-
Maastrichtiano), Provincia de R
ıo Negro, Patagonia, Argentina.
Geobios 41:625–633.
Gilmore, C. W. 1932. On a newly mounted skeleton of Diplodocus in the
United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States
National Museum 81:1–21.
Gomani, E. M. 2005. Sauropod Dinosaurs from the Early Cretaceous of
Malawi, Africa. Palaeontologia Electronica 8:1–37p.
Gow, C. E. 1990. Morphology and growth of the Massospondylus brain-
case (Dinosauria Prosauropoda). Palaeontologia Africana 27:59–75.
Gow, C. E., J. W. Kitching, and M. A. Raath. 1990. Skulls of the prosauro-
pod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen in the collections of
the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontological Research. Palaeon-
tologia Africana 27:45–58.
Haas, G. 1963. A proposed reconstruction of the jaw musculature of
Diplodocus. Annals of Carnegie Museum 36:139–157.
Harris, J. D. 2006. Cranial osteology of Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda:
Diplodocoidea: Flagellicaudata) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison
Formation of Montana, USA. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
Harris, J. D., and P. Dodson. 2004. A new diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur
from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA.
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49:197–210.
Hatcher, J. B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and
probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the
Carnegie Museum 1:1–63.
Hay, O. P. 1908. On the habits and the pose of the sauropodous dinosaurs,
especially of Diplodocus. The American Naturalist 42:672–681.
He, X., K. Li, and K. Cai. 1988. [The Middle Jurassic Dinosaur Fauna
from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan: Sauropod Dinosaurs. Volume
4, Omeisaurus tianfuensis]. Sichuan Publishing House of Science
and Technology, Chengu, China, 143 pp. [Chinese 1–113; English
He, X., C. Wang, S. Lui, F. Zhou, T. Lui, K. Cai, and B. Dai. 1998. [A
new sauropod from the Early Jurassic in Gongxian County, South
Sichuan]. Acta Geologica Sichuan 18:1–6. [Chinese]
Holland, W. J. 1906. The osteology of Diplodocus Marsh. Memoirs of the
Carnegie Museum 2:225–264.
Holland, W. J. 1924. The skull of Diplodocus. Memoirs of the Carnegie
Museum 9:379–403.
Huene, F. von. 1929. Los saurisquios y ornitisquios de Cretac
eo Ar-
gentino. Anales del Museo de La Plata 3:1–196.
Huene, F. von. 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre
Entwicklung und Geschichte. Monographien zur Geologie und
Palaeontologie (Series 1) 4:1–361.
Huene, F. von, and C. A. Matley. 1933. Cretaceous Saurischia and Or-
nithischia of the Central Provinces of India. Palaeontologia Indica,
Ikejiri, T. 2004. Anatomy of Camarasaurus lentus (Dinosauria:
Sauropoda) from the Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic), Ther-
mopolis, central Wyoming, with determination and interpretation of
ontogenetic, sexual dimorphic, and individual variation in the genus.
M.S. thesis, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas, 336 pp.
Ikejiri, T., V. Tidwell, and D. L. Trexler. 2005. New adult specimens
of Camarasaurus lentus highlight ontogenetic variation within the
species; pp. 141–153 in V. Tidwell and K. Carpenter (eds.), Thunder-
Lizards: the Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, Indiana.
Janensch, W. 1935–36. Die Sch
adel der Sauropoden Brachiosaurus,
Barosaurus, und Dicraeosaurus. Palaeontographica 2(Supplement
Jarman, P. J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their
ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267.
Kurzanov, S. M., and A. F. Bannikov. 1983. A new sauropod from the
Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. Paleontology Journal 1983:91–97.
Kutty, T. S., S. Chatterjee, P. M. Galton, and P. Upchurch. 2007. Basal
sauropodomorphs (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Lower Jurassic
of India: their anatomy and relationships. Journal of Paleontology
Lehman, T. M., and H. N. Woodward. 2008. Modeling growth rates for
sauropod dinosaurs. Paleobiology 34:264–281.
Le Loeuff, J. 1995. Ampelosaurus atacis (nov. gen., nov. sp.), un nouveau
Titanosauridae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) de Cr
erieur de la
Haute Vall
ee de l’Aude (France). Comptes Rendus de l’Acad
des Sciences Series IIA, Sciences de la Terre et des Plan
Madsen, J. H., J. S. McIntosh, and D. S. Berman. 1995. Skull and atlas-
axis complex of the Upper Jurassic sauropod Camarasaurus Cope
(Reptilia: Saurischia). Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural
History 31:1–115.
Mahammed, F.,
E. L
ang, L. Mami, L. Mekahli, M. Benhamou, B.
Bouterfa, A. Kacemi, S.-A. Ch
erief, H. Chaouati, and P. Taquet.
2005. The ‘Giant of Ksour’, a Middle Jurassic sauropod dinosaur
from Algeria. Comptes Rendus Paleovol 4:707–714.
Makovicky, P., K.-Q. Gao, C.-F. Zhao, and G. Erickson. 2006. Ontoge-
netic changes in Psittacosaurus: implications for taxonomy and phy-
logeny. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(3, Supplement):94A.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
Marsh, O. C. 1878. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs.
Part I. American Journal of Science (Series 3) 16:411–416.
Marsh, O. C. 1884. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs.
Part VII. On the Diplodocidae, a new family of the Sauropoda.
American Journal of Science (Series 3) 27:161–167.
Martin, V., V. Suteethorn, and E. Buffetaut. 1999. Description of the
type and referred material of Phuw iangosaurus sirindhornae Mar-
tin, Buffetaut and Suteethorn, 1994, a sauropod from the Lower
Cretaceous of Thailand. Oryctos 2:39–91.
Martinelli, A.G., and A. M. Forasiepi. 2004. Late Cretaceous vertebrates
from Bajo de Santa Rosa (Allen Formation), R
ıo Negro province,
Argentina, with the description of a new sauropod dinosaur (Ti-
tanosauridae). Revista de Museo Argentino Ciencias Naturales
McIntosh, J. S. 1981. Annotated catalogue of the dinosaurs (Reptilia,
Archosauria) in the collections of Carnegie Museum of Natu-
ral History. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 18:
McIntosh, J. S., and D. S. Berman. 1975. Description of the palate
and lower jaw of the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus (Reptilia:
Saurischia) with remarks on the nature of the skull of Apatosaurus.
Journal of Paleontology 49:187–189.
McIntosh, J. S., C. A. Miles, K. C. Cloward, and J. R. Parker. 1996. A
new nearly complete skeleton of Camarasaurus. Bulletin of Gunma
Museum of Natural History 1:1–87.
Monbaron, M., D. A. Russell, and P. Taquet. 1999. Atlasaurus imelakei n.
g., n. sp., a brachiosaurid-like sauropod from the Middle Jurassic of
Morocco. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad
emie des Sciences Series IIA,
Sciences de la Terre et des Plan
etes 329:519–526.
Nowinski, A. 1971. Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis n. gen., n. sp.,
(Sauropoda) from the uppermost Cretaceous of Mongolia. Palaeon-
tologica Polonica 25:57–81.
Osborn, H. F. 1899. A skeleton of Diplodocus. Memoirs of the American
Museum of Natural History 1:189–214.
Ouyang, H. 1989. [A new sauropod dinosaur from Dashanpu, Zigong
County, Sichuan Province (Abrosaurus donpoensis gen. et sp. nov.)].
Newsletter of the Zigong Dinosaur Museum 2:10–14. [Chinese]
Ouyang, H., and Y. Ye. 2002. [The first mamenchisaurian skeleton
with complete skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi]. Sichuan Science and
Technology Press, Chengdu, China, 111 pp. [Chinese 1–88; English
Rauhut, O. 2003. A dentary of Patagosaurus (Sauropoda) from the Mid-
dle Jurassic of Patagonia. Ameghiniana 40:425–432.
Rauhut, O., K. Remes, R. Fechner, G. Cladera, and P. Puerta. 2005. Dis-
covery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic
period of Patagonia. Nature 435:670–672.
Remes, K. 2006. Revision of the Tendaguru sauropod dinosaur Tornieria
africana (Fraas) and its relevance for sauropod paleobiogeography.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26:651–669.
Remes, K. 2009. Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from
Tendaguru (Tanzania). Fossil Record 12:23–46.
Rose, P. J. 2007. A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria:
Saurischia) from the Early Cretaceous of central Texas and its phy-
logenetic relationships. Palaeontologia Electronica 10:1–65.
Salgado, L., and J. F. Bonaparte. 1991. Un nuevo sauropodo Di-
craeosauridae, Amargasaurus caz aui en. et sp. nov., de la Formaci
La Amarga, Neocomiano de la Provincia del Neuqu
en, Argentina.
Ameghiniana 28:333–346.
Sander, P. M., O. Mateus, T. Laven, and N. Kn
otschke. 2006. Bone his-
tology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod
dinosaur. Nature 441:739–741.
Sanz, J. L., J. Powell, J. Le Loeuff, R. Mart
ınez, and X. Pereda-
Suberbiola. 1999. Sauropod remains from the Upper Cretaceous of
no (north-central Spain). Titanosaur phylogenetic relationships;
pp. 235–255 in H. Astiba, J. C. Corral, X. Murelalga, X. Orue-
Extebarria, and X. Pereda-Suberbiola (eds.), Geology and Pale-
ontology of the Upper Cretaceous Vertebrate-bearing beds of the
no Quarry (Basque-Cantabrian Region, Iberian Peninsula). Es-
tudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de
Alava (num. espec 1),
Alava, Spain.
Seeley, H. G. 1887. On the classification of the fossil animals commonly
called Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
Sereno, P. C. 1990. Psittacosauridae; pp. 579–592 in D. B. Weishampel,
P. Dodson, and H. Osm
olska (eds.) The Dinosauria. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Sereno, P. C., and S. Chao. 1988. Psittacosaurus xinjiangensis (Ornithis-
chia: Ceratopsia), a new psittacosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of
northwestern China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 8:353–365.
Sereno, P. C., J. A. Wilson, L. M. Witmer, J. A. Whitlock, A. Maga, O.
Ide, and T. A. Rowe. 2007. Structural extremes in a Cretaceous di-
nosaur. PLoS ONE 2:e1230.
Sereno, P. C., A. L. Beck, D. B. Dutheil, H. C. E. Larssen, G. H. Lyon,
B. Moussa, R. W. Sadleir, C. A. Sidor, D. J. Varricchio, G. P. Wil-
son, and J. A. Wilson. 1999. Cretaceous sauropods from the Sahara
and the uneven rate of skeletal evolution among dinosaurs. Science
Solounias, N., M. Teaford, and A. Walker. 1988. Interpreting the diet of
extinct ruminants: the case of a non-browsing giraffid. Paleobiology
Stevens, K. A., and J. M. Parrish. 1999. Neck posture and feeding habits
of two Jurassic sauropod dinosaurs. Science 284:798–800.
Stevens, K. A., and J. M. Parrish. 2005. Digital reconstructions of sauro-
pod dinosaurs and implications for feeding; pp. 178–200 in K. A.
Curry Rogers and J. A. Wilson (eds.), The Sauropods: Evolution
and Paleobiology. University of California Press, Berkeley, Califor-
Sues, H.-D., R. R. Reisz, S. J. Hinic, and M. A. Raath. 2004. On
the skull of Massospondylus carinatus Owen, 1854 (Dinosauria:
Sauropodomorpha) from the Elliot and Clarens formations (Lower
Jurassic) of South Africa. Annals of Carnegie Museum 73:239–257.
Tang, F., X. Jing, X. Kang, and G. Zhang. 2001. [Omeisaurus maoianus:
a complete sauropod from Jingyuan, Sichuan]. China Ocean Press,
Beijing, China, 112 pp. [Chinese 1–84; English 85–112]
Tidwell, V., and K. Carpenter. 2003. Braincase of an Early Cretaceous
titanosauriform sauropod from Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Pale-
ontology 23:176–180.
Tornier, G. 1911. Bau und Lebensweise des Diplodokus. Bericht
der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 42:112–
Upchurch, P., and P. M. Barrett. 2000. The evolution of sauropod feeding
mechanisms; pp. 79–122 in H.-D. Sues (ed.), Evolution of Herbivory
in Terrestrial Vertebrates: Perspectives from the Fossil Record.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004. Sauropoda; pp.
259–324 in D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osm
olska (eds.),
The Dinosauria, second edition. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, X. Zhao, and X. Xu. 2007. A re-evaluation
of Chinshakiangosaurus chunghoensis Ye vide Dong 1992 (Di-
nosauria, Sauropodomorpha): implications for cranial evolution in
basal sauropod dinosaurs. Geological Magazine 144:247–262.
Varricchio, D. J. 1997. Growth and embryology; pp. 282–288 in P. J.
Currie and K. Padian (eds.), Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic
Press, San Diego, California.
Weishampel, D. B., D. Gigorescu, and D. B. Norman. 1991. Dinosaurs of
Transylvania: island biogeography in the Late Cretaceous. National
Geographic Research and Exploration 7:196–215.
Whitlock, J. A. 2006. Ontogenetic growth in the skull of Diplodocus.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(3, Supplement):138A.
Whitlock, J. A. 2007. Dietary inferences from studies of skull shape and
enamel microwear in diplodocoid sauropods. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 27(3, Supplement):165A.
Wilson, J. A. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladis-
tic analysis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136:217–
Wilson, J. A. 2005. Redescription of the Mongolian sauropod Nemeg-
tosaurus mongoliensis Nowinski (Dinosauria: Saurischia) and com-
ments on Late Cretaceous sauropod diversity. Journal of Systematic
Palaeontology 3:283–318.
Wilson, J. A. 2006. Anatomical nomenclature of fossil vertebrates: stan-
dardized terms or ‘lingua franca’? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontol-
ogy 26:511–518.
Wilson, J. A., and P. C. Sereno. 1998. Early evolution and higher-level
phylogeny of sauropod dinosaurs. Society of Vertebrate Paleontol-
ogy Memoir 5:1–68.
Wiman, C. 1929. Die Kreide-Dinosaurier aus Shantung. Palaeontologica
Sinica (Series C) 6:1–67.
Witmer, L. M. 1997. Craniofacial air sinus systems; pp. 151–159 in P. J.
Curry and K. Padian, (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Aca-
demic Press, New York.
Submitted December 19, 2008; accepted May 27, 2009.
Downloaded By: [Wilson, Jeffrey A] At: 17:56 24 March 2010
... There is evidence of allometric growth in the tibia, with several character differences noted (Carpenter and McIntosh, 1994). Among diplodocines, isometric growth occurs in the shape of both the humerus and femur, and allometric growth occurs in the skull, vertebrae, and femoral proportions (see Table S3) (Curtice and Wilhite, 1996;Bonnan, 2004;Whitlock et al., 2010;Woodruff and Fowler, 2012;Tschopp and Mateus, 2013;Melstrom et al., 2016;Hanik et al., 2017;Woodruff et al., 2018). ...
Full-text available
Although sauropod dinosaur bones are the most abundant vertebrate fossils found in the Upper Cretaceous Winton Formation of northeast Australia, only subadult and adult specimens have been described to date. Herein, we describe the first juvenile sauropod from Australia, derived from the Winton Formation (Cenomanian–lower Turonian). The preserved material belongs to a single individual and is sufficiently diagnostic to classify as a juvenile Diamantinasaurus matildae—the third specimen to be referred to the species. It also enables the identification of a new local autapomorphy for Diamantinasaurus: a distinct tuberosity on the medial surface of the scapula, posterior to the junction of the acromion and the distal blade. Nevertheless, several morphological changes are observable between the juvenile and the two adult skeletons of Diamantinasaurus matildae. These include less well-defined or entirely absent muscle attachment sites on the juvenile bones relative to the heavily scarred and rugose adult specimens. Overlapping elements between the juvenile and the two adult skeletons indicate allometric changes for Diamantinasaurus matildae throughout ontogeny, with limb bones growing at a more rapid proportional rate than other skeletal elements. Finally, we review the global record of juvenile sauropod remains, demonstrating that the growth patterns of sauropods vary greatly between taxa. Although titanosaurs display a range of isometry and allometry in the growth of individual bones, it appears that allometric growth was the primary pattern for this group.
... In spite of broad similarities in the sauropod bauplan, these two clades are characterized by marked morphological differences in both cranial and postcranial elements. Importantly, these skeletons sometimes include nearly complete cranial material with associated dental elements, which reveal a diverse range of tooth shapes, especially amongst herbivores [19,[31][32][33][34] (Fig. 1). The combination of skeletal and dental microwear differences strongly suggest a partitioning of plant resources. ...
Full-text available
Background Dinosaurs dominated terrestrial environments for over 100 million years due in part to innovative feeding strategies. Although a range of dental adaptations was present in Late Jurassic dinosaurs, it is unclear whether dinosaur ecosystems exhibited patterns of tooth disparity and dietary correlation similar to those of modern amniotes, in which carnivores possess simple teeth and herbivores exhibit complex dentitions. To investigate these patterns, we quantified dental shape in Late Jurassic dinosaurs to test relationships between diet and dental complexity. Results Here, we show that Late Jurassic dinosaurs exhibited a disparity of dental complexities on par with those of modern saurians. Theropods possess relatively simple teeth, in spite of the range of morphologies tested, and is consistent with their inferred carnivorous habits. Ornithischians, in contrast, have complex dentitions, corresponding to herbivorous habits. The dentitions of macronarian sauropods are similar to some ornithischians and living herbivorous squamates but slightly more complex than other sauropods. In particular, all diplodocoid sauropods investigated possess remarkably simple teeth. The existence of simple teeth in diplodocoids, however, contrasts with the pattern observed in nearly all known herbivores (living or extinct). Conclusions Sauropod dinosaurs exhibit a novel approach to herbivory not yet observed in other amniotes. We demonstrate that sauropod tooth complexity is related to tooth replacement rate rather than diet, which contrasts with the results from mammals and saurians. This relationship is unique to the sauropod clade, with ornithischians and theropods displaying the patterns observed in other groups. The decoupling of herbivory and tooth complexity paired with a correlation between complexity and replacement rate demonstrates a novel evolutionary strategy for plant consumption in sauropod dinosaurs.
... Bajadasaurus [Gallina et al., 2019]; Smitanosaurus [Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla, 2020]). Among sauropods, Diplodocoidea is an outlier, with nearly half of the named taxa known from at least partial cranial remains and, in many instances, both dermatocranial and chondrocranial elements (Holland, 1906(Holland, , 1924Janensch, 1935e36;Berman and McIntosh, 1978;Salgado and Bonaparte, 1991;Calvo and Salgado, 1995;Sereno et al., 1999;Harris and Dodson, 2004;Whitlock et al., 2010;Torcida Fern andez-Baldor et al., 2011;Mateus, 2013, 2017;Woodruff et al., 2018;Xu et al., 2018;Gallina et al., 2019;Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla, 2020). The neuroanatomy of diplodocid sauropod dinosaurs has been studied in Apatosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Balanoff et al., 2010), Tornieria Sternfeld, 1911, Diplodocus Marsh, 1878 (Hopson, 1979;Witmer et al., 2008) as well as a ...
Diplodocid neuroanatomy is known from four Late Jurassic forms from North America and Africa. Recently, a partial braincase of a diplodocid sauropod (MMCh-Pv- 232), tentatively assigned to Leinkupal laticauda Gallina et al., 2014, preserving a complete basicranium, right laterosphenoid, prootic, parietal, otooccipital and right half of the supraoccipital, was recovered from Bajada Colorada Formation (Berriasian–Valanginian). Reconstructions of the braincase, cranial endocast and inner ear were performed via X-ray Computed Tomography and segmentation. The endocast is represented by the pituitary body (inclined at 69° from the base of the medulla oblongata –similar to Diplodocus), the caudal-most region of the cerebral hemispheres and the internal carotid arteries, the midbrain, showing Cranial Nerve (CN) III and CN IV exiting the braincase through a single opening; and the hindbrain, with CN V exiting the braincase through a single opening as in other sauropods, the ventral CN VI entering the pituitary fossa caudally, CN IX-XI exiting the braincase through a single opening (metotic foramen), and CN XII exiting the braincase through two canals. The inner ear preserved a caudoventrally inclined conical lagena, a sub-rectangular fenestra ovalis, the ampulla of the Anterior Semicircular Canal, the crus commune, and a Lateral Semicircular Canal. The length of the lagena suggests a lower auditive capacity in comparison to other sauropods. The morphological similarities of the braincase and endocast to other diplodocids reinforce the tentative assignation of MMCh-Pv-232 to Leinkupal, and expands the knowledge in neuroanatomy of South American sauropods.
... Ontogenetic changes. The MOS are identified by several size-independent characters: bone surface structure, the increasingly erect nasal process and anterior snout region, and the tendency for the muzzle to become relatively wider during ontogeny (the last character is also used for other sauropods; Whitlock et al. 2010). Relative muzzle width is measured as the anteroposterior length of the premaxillary body divided by its lateromedial width (measured at the premaxillary-maxillary suture); note that in this ratio lower values indicate greater relative width. ...
... Marya nska, 1977;Godefroit et al., 1999;Lucas et al., 2006;Lehman, Wick & Barnes, 2017), sauropodomorphs (e.g. Yates, 2003;Whitlock, Wilson & Lamanna, 2010;Marsh & Rowe, 2018), non-avialan theropods (e.g. Bakker, Williams & Currie, 1988;Currie & Zhiming, 2001;Xu & Norell, 2004;Turner et al., 2007;Nesbitt et al., 2009a), birds and their extinct close relatives (e.g. ...
Full-text available
Morphology forms the most fundamental level of data in vertebrate palaeontology because it is through interpretations of morphology that taxa are identified, creating the basis for broad evolutionary and palaeobiological hypotheses. Assessing maturity is one of the most basic aspects of morphological interpretation and provides the means to study the evolution of ontogenetic changes, population structure and palaeoecology, life‐history strategies, and heterochrony along evolutionary lineages that would otherwise be lost to time. Saurian reptiles (the least‐inclusive clade containing Lepidosauria and Archosauria) have remained an incredibly diverse, numerous, and disparate clade through their ~260‐million‐year history. Because of the great disparity in this group, assessing maturity of saurian reptiles is difficult, fraught with methodological and terminological ambiguity. We compiled a novel database of literature, assembling >900 individual instances of saurian maturity assessment, to examine critically how saurian maturity has been diagnosed. We review the often inexact and inconsistent terminology used in saurian maturity assessment (e.g. ‘juvenile’, ‘mature’) and provide routes for better clarity and cross‐study coherence. We describe the various methods that have been used to assess maturity in every major saurian group, integrating data from both extant and extinct taxa to give a full account of the current state of the field and providing method‐specific pitfalls, best practices, and fruitful directions for future research. We recommend that a new standard subsection, ‘Ontogenetic Assessment’, be added to the Systematic Palaeontology portions of descriptive studies to provide explicit ontogenetic diagnoses with clear criteria. Because the utility of different ontogenetic criteria is highly subclade dependent among saurians, even for widely used methods (e.g. neurocentral suture fusion), we recommend that phylogenetic context, preferably in the form of a phylogenetic bracket, be used to justify the use of a maturity assessment method. Different methods should be used in conjunction as independent lines of evidence when assessing maturity, instead of an ontogenetic diagnosis resting entirely on a single criterion, which is common in the literature. Critically, there is a need for data from extant taxa with well‐represented growth series to be integrated with the fossil record to ground maturity assessments of extinct taxa in well‐constrained, empirically tested methods.
Although cranial morphology of modern birds has been an important subject of evolutionary studies, detailed information on postnatal ontogeny of the avian skull remains very scarce. Herein, a wild population of the black‐tailed gull (Larus crassirostris) breeding on Kabu Island was examined to explore relationships between their growth strategies and ontogenetic changes in the cranial shape. By examining growth series covering a major part of the postnatal ontogenetic period, it was clarified that the typical form of the adult larid skull was produced through dynamic proportional changes among cranial structures after hatching. Cranial structures related to the oral capacity and deglutition (e.g., some elements of hyoid bones) attained the adult sizes before fledging, whereas other structures apparently reached the adult sizes well after leaving the nest. The palatal width exhibited positively allometric growth against the skull volume in chicks in the early nestling stage, followed by a period of negative allometry in the later growth stage. A nestling gull has to acquire swallowing ability by the time of fledging at the latest because this ability is apparently essential for a food intake without parental aid. In addition, because nestlings mainly feed on foodstuffs supplied by their parents, previous studies suggested the possibility that siblings within a nest compete for food resources. Under this scenario, early acquisition of swallowing abilities, as indicated by the allometric patterns of relevant cranial structures, may be an adaptive trait that enhances survival of nestlings. We found a new example that suggests the parallelism between cranial growth allometry and dietary ecology of young birds. Herein, postnatal cranial development of the black‐tailed gull (Larus crassirostris) was examined by using images of X‐ray CT scanning. Cranial structures related to the oral capacity and deglutition attained the adult sizes before fledging, whereas other structures apparently reached the adult sizes well after leaving the nest. This development pattern appears to be adaptive and probably prompts nestlings to swallow food items similar to those for adult birds.
Full-text available
Sauropod dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial vertebrates that have ever lived. Virtually every part of the sauropod body is heavily modified in association with gigantic size and associated physiological alterations. Sauropod skulls are no exception: they feature elongated, telescoped facial regions connected to tilted neurocrania and reoriented jaw adductor muscles. Several of these cranial features have been suggested to be adaptations for feeding on the one hand and the result of paedomorphic transformation near the base of Sauropoda on the other. However, the scarcity of sauropodomorph ontogenetic series has impeded further investigation of these hypotheses. We re‐evaluated the cranial material attributed to the early sauropodomorph Anchisaurus, which our phylogenetic analyses confirm to be closely related to sauropods. Digital assembly of μCT scanned skulls of the two known specimens, a juvenile and an adult, permitted us to examine the detailed ontogeny of cranial elements. The skull anatomy of Anchisaurus is distinguished by a mosaic of ancestral saurischian and sauropod‐like characters. Sauropod‐like characters of the braincase and adductor chamber appear late in ontogeny, suggesting that these features first evolved by the developmental mechanism of terminal addition. Shape analyses and investigation of allometric evolution demonstrate that cranial characters that appear late in the ontogeny of sauropodomorphs closely related to sauropods are already present in the embryos and juveniles of sauropods, suggesting a predisplacement‐type shift in developmental timing from the ancestral anchisaurian condition. We propose that this developmental shift relaxed prior constraints on skull morphology, allowing sauropods to explore a novel range of phenotypes and enabling specializations of the feeding apparatus. The shift in timing occurred in concert with the evolution of gigantism and physiological and locomotory innovations.
The holotypic materials of the sauropod ‘Morosaurus’ agilis—a partial skull, proatlases, and first three cervical vertebrae—have been a taxonomic and phylogenetic mystery since their initial description by O. C. Marsh in 1889 and redescription by C. W. Gilmore in 1907. Although most species of Morosaurus were subsumed into Camarasaurus in 1919, ‘M.’ agilis was left in the defunct genus without a proper taxonomic assignment. Similarities have been noted between ‘M.’ agilis and other Morrison Formation sauropod taxa, including Camarasaurus, Haplocanthosaurus, Diplodocus, and Brachiosauridae, but it had yet to be included in a phylogenetic analysis. Here we present new data following additional preparation and study that suggest ‘M.’ agilis is a basally diverging member of Dicraeosauridae, along with the recently described sauropod Kaatedocus. Based upon its recovery as a distinct taxon, we propose that ‘M.’ agilis receive the new generic name Smitanosaurus, yielding the new combination Smitanosaurus agilis.
Full-text available
In the summer of 1878, American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope published the discovery of a sauropod dinosaur that he named Amphicoelias fragillimus. What distinguishes A. fragillimus in the annals of paleontology is the immense magnitude of the skeletal material. The single incomplete dorsal vertebra as reported by Cope was a meter and a half in height, which when fully reconstructed, would make A. fragillimus the largest vertebrate ever. After this initial description Cope never mentioned A. fragillimus in any of his scientific works for the remainder of his life. More than four decades after its description, a scientific survey at the American Museum of Natural History dedicated to the sauropods collected by Cope failed to locate the remains or whereabouts of A. fragillimus. For nearly a century the remains have yet to resurface. The enormous size of the specimen has generally been accepted despite being well beyond the size of even the largest sauropods known from verifiable fossil material (e.g. Argentinosaurus). By deciphering the ontogenetic change of Diplodocoidea vertebrae, the science of gigantism, and Cope’s own mannerisms, we conclude that the reported size of A. fragillimus is most likely an extreme over-estimation.
Full-text available
The Late Jurassic (Tithonian) Tendaguru Beds of Tanzania yielded one of the richest sauropod faunas known, including the diplodocines Tornieria africana (Fraas, 1908) and Australodocus bohetii Remes, 2007, the only known representatives of their group on the southern continents. Historically, the holotypes and referred material of both taxa plus dozens of additional specimens had been subsumed under the term "Barosaurus africanus" (Fraas, 1908). Here, the taxonomic status of the referred elements is reviewed by evaluating the phylogenetic information content of their anatomical characters, in order to provide a firm footing for further studies (e.g. of morphometrics, histology, and phylogeny of the Tendaguru sauropods). Some of the material shows diplodocine synapomorphies and may belong to either Tornieria or Australodocus, while other specimens are diagnostic only on higher taxonomic levels (Diplodocidae, Flagellicaudata, or Diplodocoidea indet.). The isolated limb elements in most cases lack phylogenetically diagnostic characters. Generally, the "Barosaurus africanus" sample shows a substantial grade of morphological variation, and it cannot be ruled out that there are more flagellicaudatans represented in the Tendaguru material than the diplodocines and dicraeosaurids already known. doi:10.1002/mmng.200800008
Cranial elements of Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, U.S.A., represent one of only a few flagellicaudatan skulls known. Preserved elements include a left premaxilla, a fragment of right maxilla, a right squamosal, a right quadrate, a basicranium and skull roof lacking only the rostral end of the frontals, basipterygoid processes, and parasphenoid rostrum. Autapomorphic features of the skull include: premaxillary teeth projecting parallel to long axis of premaxilla; single optic nerve foramen; postparietal foramen present and larger than parietal foramen; supraoccipital with elongate ventral process contributing little to dorsal margin of foramen magnum; basioccipital not contributing to floor of median condylar incisure; and antotic processes with no dorsal contact with frontals. The basicranium more closely resembles that of Apatosaurus rather than Diplodocus and is also unlike the skull of Dicraeosaurus, despite its possession of a similar postparietal foramen, a feature unique among Morrison Formation sauropods. Pending reanalysis of Tornieria africana, which also possesses it, the postparietal foramen must be viewed as a symplesiomorphic retention in the Dicraeosauridae, with its loss a synapomorphy of the Diplodocidae, or at least of the North American members of the latter clade.
Whereas the anatomy of birds, domesticated mammals, and humans is described by standardized terminology, the anatomy of most fossil vertebrates is described by nonstandardized terminology. New fossil discoveries increasingly resolve the transitions between these living groups and their fossil outgroups, diminishing morphological differences between them, and vertebrate paleontologists can easily apply more than one system of anatomical terms to such groups. This plurality of systems has led to recent proposals to standardize anatomical terminology for tetrapods, either by applying avian and mammalian anatomical terminology to their respective stem groups (Sauropsida and Synapsida) or by creating an all-encompassing terminology for Tetrapoda from a combination of existing terminologies. The main rationale for implementing standardized anatomical terminology, which requires abandoning competing terminologies, is that it reflects homology and evolutionary descent, eliminates ambiguity, and enhances interdisciplinary communication. The proposed standardized anatomical terminology, however, entails many negative consequences, including reversing character trajectories, misrepresenting complex anatomical transformations and uncertain homologies, and requiring far-reaching terminological conversions. These negative consequences result from increasing the taxonomic scope of standardized anatomical terms that were developed for a specific group, but now: (1) apply to a broader hierarchy of character states; (2) involve additional phylogenetic interpretations or assumptions; and (3) are used for basal, often more generalized conditions. In contrast, traditional non-standardized anatomical terminology, although not strictly phylogenetic, is anatomical ‘lingua franca’ that has been in usage for nearly two centuries and is consistent, ubiquitous, and descriptive.
This chapter investigates a number of potential macroevolutionary mechanisms that may account for sauropodomorph diversity, including various potential clade-clade interactions (coevolution and competition). It also examines the possibility that the observed changes may be at least partially accounted for by fluctuations in the frequencies of different sauropodomorph feeding mechanisms through time. There was considerable temporal overlap between prosauropods and sauropods, extending from the late Carnian to the end of the Pliensbachian. Moreover, the possible roles of several biological processes that may have influenced sauropod diversity through time are assessed. Comparisons of sauropodomorph diversity with information on Mesozoic floras reveal one possible incidence of coevolution, between titanosaurs and angiosperms, in the Late Cretaceous. The strong correlation between diversity and feeding ecology shows that herbivory and the various adaptive complexes that arose to deal with a diet of plants were central to the radiation of sauropodomorphs in the Middle and Late Jurassic.