Opisthocoelicaudia

Last updated

Contents

Opisthocoelicaudia
Temporal range: Late Cretaceous, 70  Ma
Ꞓ
O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg
N
↓
Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 02.JPG
Skeleton restoration of Opisthocoelicaudia in the Museum of Evolution of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw
Scientific classification OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Clade: Dinosauria
Clade: Saurischia
Clade:† Sauropodomorpha
Clade:† Sauropoda
Clade:† Macronaria
Clade:† Titanosauria
Family:† Saltasauridae
Genus:† Opisthocoelicaudia
Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977
Species:
†O. skarzynskii
Binomial name
†Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii
Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977

Opisthocoelicaudia /ɒˌpɪsθoʊsɪlɪˈkɔːdiə/ is a genus of sauropod dinosaur of the Late Cretaceous Period discovered in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia. The type species is Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii. A well-preserved skeleton lacking only the head and neck was unearthed in 1965 by Polish and Mongolian scientists, making Opisthocoelicaudia one of the best known sauropods from the Late Cretaceous. Tooth marks on this skeleton indicate that large carnivorous dinosaurs had fed on the carcass and possibly had carried away the now-missing parts. To date, only two additional, much less complete specimens are known, including part of a shoulder and a fragmentary tail. A relatively small sauropod, Opisthocoelicaudia measured about 11.4–13 m (37–43 ft) in length. Like other sauropods, it would have been characterised by a small head sitting on a very long neck and a barrel shaped trunk carried by four column-like legs. The name Opisthocoelicaudia means "posterior cavity tail", alluding to the unusual, opisthocoel condition of the anterior tail vertebrae that were concave on their posterior sides. This and other skeletal features lead researchers to propose that Opisthocoelicaudia was able to rear on its hindlegs.

Named and described by Polish paleontologist Maria Magdalena Borsuk-Białynicka in 1977, Opisthocoelicaudia was first thought to be a new member of the Camarasauridae, but is currently considered a derived member of the Titanosauria. Its exact relationships within Titanosauria are contentious, but it may have been close to the North American Alamosaurus . All Opisthocoelicaudia fossils stem from the Nemegt Formation. Despite being rich in dinosaur fossils, the only other sauropod from this rock unit is Nemegtosaurus , which is known from a single skull. Since the skull of Opisthocoelicaudia remains unknown, several researchers have suggested that Nemegtosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia may represent the same species. Sauropod footprints from the Nemegt Formation, which include skin impressions, can probably be referred to either Nemegtosaurus or Opisthocoelicaudia as these are the only known sauropods from this formation.

Discovery and specimens

Mounted holotype specimen Opisthocoelicaudia holotype-Japanese exhibition.jpg
Mounted holotype specimen

The type specimen was discovered between June 10 and 23, 1965, during a joint Polish-Mongolian paleontological expedition led by Polish paleontologist Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska. [1] [2] The largest of a series of expeditions carried out in 1963–1971, this expedition involved 21 members, which at times were supported by additional hired Mongolian workers. The site of discovery is located in Ömnögovi Province in southern Mongolia in the Altan Uul area, which exposes some 100 km2 of badlands. The sediments exposed at Altan Uul belong to the Nemegt Formation, the youngest of the three geological formations of the Nemegt Basin. Opisthocoelicaudia was the first of several important dinosaur discoveries made by the 1965 expedition. The other finds, made at different localities, include several skeletons of the tyrannosaurid Tarbosaurus as well as the type specimens of the giant ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus , the sauropod Nemegtosaurus, and the pachycephalosaur Homalocephale . [2]

Latero-ventral view of the opisthocoelous anterior tail vertebrae, which lend Opisthocoelicaudia its name Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 08.JPG
Latero-ventral view of the opisthocoelous anterior tail vertebrae, which lend Opisthocoelicaudia its name

On the fifth day of fieldwork, Ryszard Gradziński, the geologist of the expedition, found a concretion of well-preserved bones which promised to belong to a fairly complete skeleton. Excavation starting the next day revealed a nearly complete skeleton lacking only the head and neck. Until today, this specimen remains by far the most complete finding of this dinosaur. The transport of the specimen out of rough terrain caused major technical problems. Stone blocks containing the fossils had to be moved some 580 meters, dragged on improvised metal sledges made out of petrol drums, before they could be loaded onto trucks. Because the skeleton was embedded in very hard sandstone layers, several blocks weighed over a ton. On July 9, the packing of the skeleton into 35 crates started for transportation to Dalanzadgad; together, the crates weighed about 12 tons. [1] [2]

The type specimen belonged to an aged individual. [3] Its taphonomy is unusual as it was found lying on its back –in contrast, most other nearly complete dinosaur skeletons of the Nemegt Formation usually are found lying on their sides. [4] The specimen was found encased in cross-bedded sandstone deposited by a river. Most of the discovered vertebrae were still connected together, forming a continuous series of eight dorsal, six sacral and thirty-four caudal vertebrae. An additional three vertebrae were found isolated from the series and may belong to the transitional area between back and neck. The remaining parts of the skeleton were shifted slightly out of their original anatomical position. Both the left limb and rib bones were found on the right side of the body, while conversely the right limb and rib bones were found on the left side. Bite marks have been identified on the skeleton, particularly in the pelvis and the thigh bone, showing that predators had fed on the carcass. The skull and neck are missing, indicating that the carnivores might have carried away these body parts. [3] The completeness of the remains indicate that the individual had died near the discovery site. [4] A flooding event might have transported the carcass a short distance and subsequently covered it with sediment, even before the soft tissue had decayed entirely. [3]

Shoulder blade and coracoid of a juvenile (ZPAL MgD-I/25c) Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 25.JPG
Shoulder blade and coracoid of a juvenile (ZPAL MgD-I/25c)

In 1977, Polish paleontologist Maria Magdalena Borsuk-Białynicka published her comprehensive description of the skeleton and named Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii as a new genus and species. The genus name, hinting at the unusual opisthocoel condition of the tail vertebrae, means "posterior cavity tail". It is derived from the Greek ὄπισθεν, opisthen [behind, at the back], κοῖλος, koilos [hollow], and Latin cauda [tail]. [5] The specific name honors Wojciech Skarżyński, the person who prepared the type specimen. [3] Opisthocoelicaudia was only the third sauropod from Asia known from a postcranial skeleton, after Euhelopus and Mamenchisaurus . [3] After its discovery, the holotype skeleton became part of the collection of the Institute of Paleobiology in Warsaw, but later was handed back to its country of origin, now being housed at the Institute of Geology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences in Ulaanbaatar under the catalog number MPC-D100/404. [6] [7] Besides the type specimen, Borsuk-Białynicka described a shoulder blade and coracoid (ZPAL MgD-I/25c) from the same locality. These bones were not yet fused to each other, indicating a juvenile individual. [3]

By 2017, sauropod fossils had been recovered from a total of 32 localities within the Nemegt Formation, and possibly belong to either Opisthocoelicaudia or Nemegtosaurus. At least two finds from the Nemegt locality –a fragmentary tail (MPD 100/406) and a pair of claws –show features diagnostic for Opisthocoelicaudia and can be referred to the latter. [8] [7] Field crews led by Philip Currie attempted to relocate the Opisthocoelicaudia holotype quarry in 2006 and 2008, but became successful only in 2009 thanks to additional data provided by Gradziński. [7] Although a prospection for additional bone material was not possible as the quarry had been filled by windblown sand, the quarry could be determined to fall within the lower portion of the Nemegt Formation. [7]

Description

Life restoration Opisthocoelicaudia.jpg
Life restoration
Size diagram Nemegtosaurus Size.svg
Size diagram

Like other sauropods, Opisthocoelicaudia had a small head on a long neck, a barrel-shaped body on four columnar limbs, and a long tail. It was relatively small for a sauropod; the type specimen was estimated at 11.4 m (37 ft) to 13 m (43 ft) from the head to the tip of the tail. [9] [10] [11] The body mass has been estimated at 8.4 t (19,000 lb), [12] 10.5 t (23,000 lb), [9] 22 t (49,000 lb), [13] 13 t (29,000 lb) [14] and 25.4 t (56,000 lb) [15] in separate studies.

The skull and neck are not preserved, but the reconstruction of the nuchal ligament indicates the possession of a neck of medium length of roughly 5 m (16 ft). [3] Borsuk-Białynicka, in her 1977 description, noted the presence of eleven dorsal vertebrae. Gregory Paul in 2019, however, argued that the known part of the vertebral column actually includes the first cervical (neck vertebra), leaving only ten dorsals, typical of titanosaurs. [16] As in other titanosaurs, the back was quite flexible due to the lack of accessory vertebral joints (hyposphene-hypantrum articulations), [17] while the pelvic region was strengthened by an additional sixth hip vertebra. [3] The anterior vertebrae of the tail were opisthocoelous, which means they were convex on their anterior sides and concave on their back sides, forming ball-and-socket joints. [3] These opisthocoelous tail vertebrae lend Opisthocoelicaudia its name and serve to distinguish the genus from all other titanosaurs. [18] Other titanosaurs were usually characterised by strongly procoelous anterior tail vertebrae, which were concave on their anterior sides and convex on their back sides. [19] Another unique feature can be found in the back vertebrae, which show bifurcated spinous processes, resulting in a double row of bony projections along the top of the spine. [20] While unique in titanosaurs, this feature can be found in several other unrelated sauropods, including Diplodocus and Euhelopus , where it evolved independently. [21]

The ischium and pubis bones. The gap normally present between these bones is closed, a characteristic of Opisthocoelicaudia. Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 23.JPG
The ischium and pubis bones. The gap normally present between these bones is closed, a characteristic of Opisthocoelicaudia.

As in the hips of other titanosaurs, the ischium was relatively short, measuring only two-thirds the length of the pubis. The left and right ischium bones as well as the left and right pubis bones were ossified with each other over most of their length, closing the gap that in other sauropods is normally present between these bones. [18] The limbs were proportionally short, as seen in other titanosaurs. [22] The forelimbs measured 1.87 m (6.1 ft) in height in the nearly complete specimen, approximately two thirds the length of the hindlimbs, which were reconstructed at 2.46 m (8.1 ft) height. [3] As in other titanosaurs, the limbs were slightly spread outwards rather than standing vertically under the body, [23] while the forelimbs were more flexible and mobile compared to other sauropods. [22]

Limbs of Opisthocoelicaudia, showing the digit-less semicircular hands and the fully developed feet Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 20.JPG
Limbs of Opisthocoelicaudia, showing the digit-less semicircular hands and the fully developed feet

The manus was composed merely of the five metacarpalia, which were orientated vertically and arranged in a semicircle. Carpal bones were missing, as in other titanosaurs. [3] [24] Finger bones and claws were also completely absent –in most other titanosaurs, these bones were still present though extremely reduced in size. In the foot, the talus bone was strongly reduced as in other titanosaurs, while the calcaneus was probably completely absent in Opisthocoelicaudia. [3] In contrast to the manus, the foot showed well developed digits and claws. The phalangeal formula, which states the number of phalanges (digit bones) beginning with the innermost digit, is 2-2-2-1-0. Foot skeletons of titanosaurs are rarely found, and besides Opisthocoelicaudia, completely preserved examples are known only from Epachthosaurus and the unnamed La Invernada titanosaur, whose phalangeal formulas are 2-2-3-2-0 and 2-2-2-2-0, respectively. Of these three titanosaurs, Opisthocoelicaudia was the most derived while showing the fewest phalanges, indicating a progressive reduction in the phalangeal count during titanosaur evolution. [25] The claw of the first digit was not larger than that of the second digit, as in other sauropods, but roughly equal in size. [7]

Osteoderms (bony plates formed in the skin) have been found with at least 10 titanosaur genera. The lack of osteoderms in the nearly complete Opisthocoelicaudia skeleton might indicate they are absent in this genus. [26] However, the closely related Alamosaurus was found to have osteoderms nearly a century after its discovery, in addition to several other closely related titanosaurs, thus raising the possibility that Opisthocoelicaudia had them as well. [27]

Classification

Originally, Opisthocoelicaudia was classified as a member of the family Camarasauridae, together with Camarasaurus and Euhelopus. This classification was based on several shared features of the skeleton, most importantly the forked neural spines of the back vertebrae. In 1977, Borsuk-Białynicka considered Opisthocoelicaudia closer to Euhelopus than to Camarasaurus, placing it in the subfamily Euhelopodinae. [3] A 1981 study by Walter Coombs and Ralph Molnar, on the other hand, considered it a member of the subfamily Camarasaurinae and therefore a close relative of Camarasaurus. [28] Today, both Euhelopus and Opisthocoelicaudia are classified outside the Camarasauridae. In 1993, Leonardo Salgado and Rodolfo Coria showed Opisthocoelicaudia to represent a titanosaur and classified it within the family Titanosauridae. [19] The name Titanosauridae is currently considered invalid by many scientists; [29] instead, the name Lithostrotia is often used as an equivalent. [18] [30]

Within the Lithostrotia, Opisthocoelicaudia has been found to be closely related to the genera Alamosaurus, Neuquensaurus , Rocasaurus and Saltasaurus , together forming the family Saltasauridae. Interrelationships of these genera are contested. Many scientists considered Opisthocoelicaudia to be most closely related to Alamosaurus, with both genera forming a monophyletic group, the Opisthocoelicaudiinae. Other scientists concluded that the Opisthocoelicaudiinae is paraphyletic (not forming a natural group). [31] Contradicting most other studies, Upchurch and colleagues in 2004 argued that Alamosaurus has to be placed outside the Saltasauridae as a close relative of Pellegrinisaurus , and therefore is not related to Opisthocoelicaudia at all. [18]

Skeletal drawing showing elements of the type specimen Opisthocoelicaudia skeleton restoration.jpg
Skeletal drawing showing elements of the type specimen

This cladogram, based on Calvo and colleagues (2007), shows a monophyletic Opisthocoelicaudiinae: [32]

Saltasauridae  

Opisthocoelicaudia in a cladogram after Navarro et al., 2022: [33]

Saltasauridae

Relationship to Nemegtosaurus

Cast of the skull of Nemegtosaurus, a possible senior synonym, mounted on the Opisthocoelicaudia skeletal restoration in Warsaw Opisthocoelicaudia Museum of Evolution in Warsaw 14.JPG
Cast of the skull of Nemegtosaurus , a possible senior synonym, mounted on the Opisthocoelicaudia skeletal restoration in Warsaw

Another sauropod of the Nemegt-Formation, Nemegtosaurus, is known only from a skull. Opisthocoelicaudia, on the other hand, lacks both the skull and neck, precluding a direct comparison and leading to suspicions that it may represent a synonym of Nemegtosaurus. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the oldest name has priority over younger synonyms –if Opisthocoelicaudia would be shown to be a synonym of Nemegtosaurus, the name Nemegtosaurus would remain valid while Opisthocoelicaudia would become invalid. [8]

Both Opisthocoelicaudia and Nemegtosaurus were discovered during the 1965 joint Polish-Mongolian expedition. Before the remains were prepared and described, the expedition crew believed both finds to belong to the same species of sauropod. [2] In 1977, Borsuk-Białynicka deemed Opisthocoelicaudia and Nemegtosaurus to represent separate genera because Nemegtosaurus was at this time considered to be a member of the Dicraeosauridae, while Opisthocoelicaudia seemed to be a representative of a different group, the Camarasauridae. [3]

Currently, both Opisthocoelicaudia and Nemegtosaurus are classified within the Titanosauria, and Jeffrey Wilson stated in 2005 that synonymy cannot be ruled out. [34] Currie and colleagues, in 2003 and 2017, argued that a synonymy is very probable in the light of new fossil discoveries in the Nemegt Formation. [8] [7] After relocating the original Nemegtosaurus quarry, these researchers excavated postcranial bones of the Nemegtosaurus holotype including the centrum of a caudal vertebra and hind limb bones, which allowed, for the first time, a direct comparison between the Nemegtosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia type specimens based on overlapping elements. These postcranial elements were found to be very similar to the corresponding parts of the Opisthocoelicaudia holotype. Most importantly, the discovered caudal centrum is opisthocoelous –a diagnostic feature of Opisthocoelicaudia –suggesting both genera were either closely related or synonymous. Furthermore, these authors noted that none of the 32 known sauropod localities of the Nemegt Formation revealed evidence for the presence of more than one species of sauropod. [7] In 2019, Alexander O. Averianov and Alexey V. Lopatin reported Nemegt sauropod vertebrae discovered in 1949 and some femora that differed from the same bones of Opisthocoelicaudia, and stated they probably belonged to Nemegtosaurus, thereby supporting that the two genera were distinct. [35]

In her 1977 description, Borsuk-Białynicka argued that different sauropod genera sharing the same habitat is nothing unusual, as is evident in the North American Morrison Formation. [3] Currie and colleagues, however, stressed in 2018 that the dinosaur fauna of the Nemegt Formation was fundamentally different, as larger dinosaurs were present with only few species per clade, indicating a harsh and geographically restricted habitat. Definitive proof for the suggested synonymy is, however, still missing, and additional overlapping elements would be required before Opisthocoelicaudia and Nemegtosaurus can be formally declared synonyms. [7]

Paleobiology

Posture

A: Posture based on the 1977 reconstruction by Borsuk-Bialynicka with a horizontal back. B: Posture based on the 2007 reconstruction by Schwarz et al. with a much steeper scapula (green) angled 60deg towards the horizontal, resulting in a downwards tilting back. Opisthocoelicaudia posture.svg
A: Posture based on the 1977 reconstruction by Borsuk-Białynicka with a horizontal back. B: Posture based on the 2007 reconstruction by Schwarz et al. with a much steeper scapula (green) angled 60° towards the horizontal, resulting in a downwards tilting back.

Originally, Borsuk-Białynicka assumed that in standard position the neck was horizontal or slanted slightly downward. This was based on the reconstruction of the nuchal ligament, which runs atop of the cervical and dorsal vertebrae and serves to support the weight of the head and neck. [3] Although an S-curved, swan-like ascending neck was envisaged in several subsequent reconstructions following similar depictions of better known sauropods, recent studies argue that sauropod necks were relatively straight and were carried more horizontally. [37]

The back was also reconstructed in a more or less horizontal orientation by Borsuk-Białynicka, [3] which was followed by most subsequent depictions. In a 2007 study, Daniela Schwarz and colleagues suggested that the back dipped towards the rear. According to these researchers, the shoulder blade would have been inclined at a horizontal angle of 55–65°, much steeper than previously thought, resulting in an elevated shoulder region. [36] With the vertebral column of the trunk and neck held in a relatively straight line, this would result in an elevated position of the head. [37]

Rearing stance

Pelvis of the type specimen Opisthocoelicaudia pelvis.jpg
Pelvis of the type specimen

Opisthocoelicaudia may have been able to rear up on its hindlimbs for foraging, using its tail as a third leg. In 1977, Borsuk-Białynicka cited several skeletal features that might have been related to rearing, including the opisthocoelous vertebrae of the anterior part of the tail, which, according to this author, would have made the tail more flexible than in other sauropods. Features of the pelvis, such as the thickened shelf of the acetabulum, the flaring ilia, and the fused pubic symphysis, may have allowed the pelvis to withstand the stress of rearing. [3]

Heinrich Mallison in 2011 argued that Opisthocoelicaudia may have been able to angle the anterior part of the tail against the posterior part, producing a buckle in midsection. Thus, the anterior part would have been more straight during rearing than in other sauropods. [38] In 2005, Wilson assumed that rearing was an innovation not only of Opisthocoelicaudia but also of related genera within the subfamily Saltasaurinae. Common features of these genera, such as the shortened tail, may have evolved as adaptations to rearing. [31]

Footprints

Natural cast of a sauropod hindfoot impression, probably left by Opisthocoelicaudia Opisthocoelicaudia footprint.JPG
Natural cast of a sauropod hindfoot impression, probably left by Opisthocoelicaudia

Footprints from the Nemegt Formation were unknown until 2003, when several examples had been described from the Nemegt locality by Currie and colleagues. Most of these footprints belonged to hadrosaurids (probably Saurolophus), while two have been left by a large theropod (probably Tarbosaurus) and yet another two by the hindfoot of a sauropod. The sauropod tracks were assigned to Opisthocoelicaudia, which, according to these authors, showed a matching hind foot morphology and was probably the only known sauropod (and, thus, the only potential trackmaker species) from the Nemegt Formation when Nemegtosaurus is regarded a synonym. The tracks were left in the soft and wet mud of shallow or freshly dried up points along a river and subsequently filled up with sand. Today only the sand infill remains, with the encasing mudstone having been eroded away. [8] The best-preserved footprint measures 63 cm (25 in) across, so it was probably created by an individual larger than the type specimen. Although the surface of the underside is hard to obtain, the vertical surfaces are very well preserved, making this track one of the best preserved sauropod tracks known. Four digital impressions can be distinguished, with two or three showing claw impressions. The toes were almost perpendicular. Even a skin impression has been preserved above the impression of the first toe, which shows the non-overlapping scales, each with an average diameter of 14 mm (0.55 in). The foot of the track creator was probably a little longer than wide. The second track is much shallower than the first, but shows well-preserved digit impressions with a high degree of detail, including at least two deep claw impressions that are rotated outwards, and a well-preserved impression of a fleshy toe pad behind the middle claw. [8]

Although number of additional sauropod tracks were reported in subsequent accounts, they continued to be rare in relation to the much more common hadrosaurid and theropod tracks. Brennan Stettner and colleagues, in 2017, reported on footprints discovered during a 2007 expedition to the Nemegt locality. The best preserved of these, a very large, 76 cm (30 in) long impression of a hindfoot, features a very well preserved underside showing digital pads and four outwards directed digits, the first three of which showing claws. [39] Also in 2017, Judai Nakajima and colleagues described a kidney-shaped impression as the first sauropod manus (forefoot) impression discovered in the formation. [40]

Paleoecology

Cretaceous-aged dinosaur fossil localities of Mongolia. Opisthocoelicaudia was collected in Altan Ula within area A (left). Cretaceous-aged dinosaur fossil localities of Mongolia.PNG
Cretaceous-aged dinosaur fossil localities of Mongolia. Opisthocoelicaudia was collected in Altan Ula within area A (left).

The Nemegt Formation was deposited within the Late Cretaceous, although its exact age is unknown as it has never been dated radiometrically. According to different authors, the formation is late Campanian to early Maastrichtian, early Maastrichtian, or middle Maastrichtian in age. [41] The sediments of the Nemegt Formation were deposited in a plain crossed by rivers. [4] The climate was warm and subhumid with seasonal droughts, [41] and the soils were relatively dry. [42] Nevertheless, the Nemegt Formation was more humid than the underlying (and thus older) Barun Goyot and Djadochta Formations, which show a semiarid climate. [41]

The fauna of the Nemegt Formation includes aquatic or amphibious animals such as fish, turtles, and crocodiles as well as birds and the abundant medium to large sized dinosaurs, while smaller terrestrial vertebrates like lizards and mammals are rare. [41] Theropod dinosaurs are very diverse in the Nemegt and include the abundant tyrannosaur Tarbosaurus, [41] which might have preyed upon Opisthocoelicaudia. [43] The only other known sauropod is Nemegtosaurus, which is known from a single skull. Ornithischians are represented by the "duck-billed" hadrosaurids (including the very common Saurolophus ), the thick-skulled pachycephalosaurs, and the heavily armored ankylosaurs. Neoceratopsians are absent, despite being present in the older Barun Goyot and Djadochta formations. [41] Other important dinosaur finds from the same locality as Opisthocoelicaudia include the troodontid Borogovia [44] and the ankylosaur Tarchia . [45]

Related Research Articles

<i>Tarbosaurus</i> Tyrannosaurid dinosaur genus from Late Cretaceous of Mongolia

Tarbosaurus is a genus of tyrannosaurine theropod dinosaur that lived in Asia about 72 million years ago to 68 million years ago, during the Maastrichtian age at the end of the Late Cretaceous period, considered to contain a single known species: Tarbosaurus bataar. Fossils have been recovered from the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia, with more fragmentary remains found further afield in the Subashi Formation of China.

<i>Saltasaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Saltasaurus is a genus of saltasaurid dinosaur of the Late Cretaceous period of Argentina. Small among sauropods, though still heavy by the standards of modern creatures, Saltasaurus was characterized by a short neck and stubby limbs. It was the first genus of sauropod known to possess armour of bony plates embedded in its skin. Such small bony plates, called osteoderms, have since been found on other titanosaurians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Titanosauria</span> Extinct clade of dinosaurs

Titanosaurs were a diverse group of sauropod dinosaurs, including genera from all seven continents. The titanosaurs were the last surviving group of long-necked sauropods, with taxa still thriving at the time of the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous. This group includes some of the largest land animals known to have ever existed, such as Patagotitan—estimated at 37 m (121 ft) long with a weight of 69 tonnes —and the comparably-sized Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus from the same region.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nemegtosauridae</span> Extinct family of dinosaurs

Nemegtosauridae is a family of titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs based on their diplodocid-like skulls. Only three species are known: Nemegtosaurus, Quaesitosaurus and possibly Tapuiasaurus, each from the Cretaceous.

<i>Deinocheirus</i> Genus of theropod dinosaurs

Deinocheirus is a genus of large ornithomimosaur that lived during the Late Cretaceous around 70 million years ago. In 1965, a pair of large arms, shoulder girdles, and a few other bones of a new dinosaur were first discovered in the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. In 1970, this specimen became the holotype of the only species within the genus, Deinocheirus mirificus; the genus name is Greek for "horrible hand". No further remains were discovered for almost fifty years, and its nature remained a mystery. Two more complete specimens were described in 2014, which shed light on many aspects of the animal. Parts of these new specimens had been looted from Mongolia some years before, but were repatriated in 2014.

<i>Alamosaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Alamosaurus is a genus of opisthocoelicaudiine titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs containing a single known species, Alamosaurus sanjuanensis, from the Maastrichtian age of the Late Cretaceous period in what is now southwestern North America. Isolated vertebrae and limb bones indicate that it reached sizes comparable to Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus, which would make it the absolute largest dinosaur known from North America. Its fossils have been recovered from a variety of rock formations spanning the Maastrichtian age. Specimens of a juvenile Alamosaurus sanjuanensis have been recovered from only a few meters below the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary in Texas, making it among the last surviving non-avian dinosaur species. Alamosaurus is the only known sauropod to have inhabited North America after their nearly 30-million year absence from the North American fossil record and probably represents an immigrant from South America.

<i>Aeolosaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Aeolosaurus is a genus of titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Period of what is now South America. Like most sauropods, it would have been a quadrupedal herbivore with a long neck and tail. Aeolosaurus is well known for a titanosaur, as it is represented by the remains of several individuals belonging to at least two species. However, like most titanosaurs, no remains of the skull are known. The holotype of Aeolosaurus rionegrinus consists of a series of seven tail vertebrae, as well as parts of both forelimbs and the right hindlimb. It was discovered in the Angostura Colorada Formation in Argentina, which dates from the Campanian stage of the Late Cretaceous, about 83 to 74 million years ago. The species A. maximus was transferred over to the new genus Arrudatitan in 2021.

<i>Nemegtosaurus</i> Sauropod dinosaur genus from Late Cretaceous Period

Nemegtosaurus was a sauropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Period of what is now Mongolia. It was named after the Nemegt Basin in the Gobi Desert, where the remains — a single skull — were found. The skull resembles diplodocoids in being long and low, with pencil-shaped teeth. However, recent work has shown that Nemegtosaurus is in fact a titanosaur, closely related to animals such as Saltasaurus, Alamosaurus and Rapetosaurus.

<i>Euhelopus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Euhelopus is a genus of sauropod dinosaur that lived between 145 and 133 million years ago during the Berriasian and Valanginian stages of the Early Cretaceous in what is now Shandong Province in China. It was a large quadrupedal herbivore. Like sauropods such as brachiosaurs and titanosaurs, Euhelopus had longer forelegs than hind legs. This discovery was paleontologically significant because it represented the first dinosaur scientifically investigated from China: seen in 1913, rediscovered in 1922, and excavated in 1923 and studied by T'an during the same year. Unlike most sauropod specimens, it has a relatively complete skull.

<i>Huabeisaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Huabeisaurus was a genus of dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous. It was a sauropod which lived in what is present-day northern China. The type species, Huabeisaurus allocotus, was first described by Pang Qiqing and Cheng Zhengwu in 2000. Huabeisaurus is known from numerous remains found in the 1990s, which include teeth, partial limbs and vertebrae. Due to its relative completeness, Huabeisaurus represents a significant taxon for understanding sauropod evolution in Asia. Huabeisaurus comes from Kangdailiang and Houyu, Zhaojiagou Town, Tianzhen County, Shanxi province, China. The holotype was found in the unnamed upper member of the Huiquanpu Formation, which is Late Cretaceous (?Cenomanian–?Campanian) in age based on ostracods, charophytes, and fission-track dating.

Venenosaurus is a genus of sauropod dinosaur that lived in what is now Utah during the Early Cretaceous. Its type and only species is Venenosaurus dicrocei. Fossils of Venenosaurus were first discovered in 1998, by Denver Museum of Natural History volunteer Anthony DiCroce, and described as a new genus and species in 2001 by Virginia Tidwell and colleagues, who named the species for DiCroce. Venenosaurus was a relatively small sauropod, and was similar to Cedarosaurus, another sauropod from the Early Cretaceous of Utah.

<i>Neuquensaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Neuquensaurus is a genus of saltasaurid sauropod dinosaur that lived in the Late Cretaceous, about 80 million years ago in Argentina in South America. Its fossils were recovered from outcrops of the Anacleto Formation around Cinco Saltos, near the Neuquén river from which its name is derived.

<i>Lirainosaurus</i> Extinct genus of reptiles

Lirainosaurus is a genus of titanosaur sauropod which lived in what is now Spain. The type species, Lirainosaurus astibiae, was described by Sanz, Powell, Le Loeuff, Martinez, and Pereda-Suberbiola in 1999. It was a relatively small sauropod, measuring 4 metres (13 ft) long, possibly up to 6 metres (20 ft) long for the largest individuals, and weighed about 2–4 metric tons.

<i>Phuwiangosaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Phuwiangosaurus is a genus of titanosaur dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous (Valanginian-Hauterivian) Sao Khua Formation of Thailand. The type species, P. sirindhornae, was described by Martin, Buffetaut, and Suteethorn in a 1993 press release and was formally named in 1994. The species was named to honor Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand, who was interested in the geology and palaeontology of Thailand, while the genus was named after the Phu Wiang area, where the fossil was discovered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nemegt Formation</span> Geological formation in Mongolia

The Nemegt Formation is a geological formation in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia, dating to the Late Cretaceous. The formation consists of river channel sediments and contains fossils of fish, turtles, crocodilians, and a diverse fauna of dinosaurs, including birds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saltasauridae</span> Extinct family of dinosaurs

Saltasauridae is a family of armored herbivorous sauropods from the Upper Cretaceous. They are known from fossils found in South America, Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe. They are characterized by their vertebrae and feet, which are similar to those of Saltasaurus, the first of the group to be discovered and the source of the name. The last and largest of the group and only one found in North America, Alamosaurus, was thirty-four metres in length and one of the last sauropods to go extinct.

<i>Diamantinasaurus</i> Extinct genus of reptiles

Diamantinasaurus is a genus of titanosaurian sauropod from Australia that lived during the early Late Cretaceous, about 94 million years ago. The type species of the genus is D. matildae, first described and named in 2009 by Scott Hocknull and colleagues based on fossil finds in the Winton Formation. Meaning "Diamantina lizard", the name is derived from the location of the nearby Diamantina River and the Greek word sauros, "lizard". The specific epithet is from the Australian song Waltzing Matilda, also the locality of the holotype and paratype. The known skeleton includes most of the forelimb, shoulder girdle, pelvis, hindlimb and ribs of the holotype, and one shoulder bone, a radius and some vertebrae of the paratype.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opisthocoelicaudiinae</span> Extinct clade of dinosaurs

Opisthocoelicaudiinae is a subfamily of titanosaurian dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous. It was named by John McIntosh in 1990. Opisthocoelicaudiines are known from Mongolia, Argentina, and the United States. Two genera were assigned to Opisthocoelicaudiinae by Gonzalez et al. (2009): Alamosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia, a conclusion also found by Díez Díaz et al. (2018). The hands of opisthocoelicaudiines lacked wrist bones and phalanges.

<i>Patagotitan</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Patagotitan is a genus of titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur from the Cerro Barcino Formation in Chubut Province, Patagonia, Argentina. The genus contains a single species known from at least six young adult individuals, Patagotitan mayorum, which was first announced in 2014 and then named in 2017 by José Carballido and colleagues. Preliminary studies and press releases suggested that Patagotitan was the largest known titanosaur and land animal overall, with an estimated length of 37 m (121 ft) and an estimated weight of 69 tonnes. Later research revised the length estimate down to 31 m (102 ft) and weight estimates down to approximately 50–57 tonnes, suggesting that Patagotitan was of a similar size to, if not smaller than, its closest relatives Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus. Still, Patagotitan is one of the most-known titanosaurs, and so its interrelationships with other titanosaurs have been relatively consistent in phylogenetic analyses. This led to its use in a re-definition of the group Colossosauria by Carballido and colleagues in 2022.

<i>Mansourasaurus</i> Extinct genus of dinosaurs

Mansourasaurus is a genus of herbivorous lithostrotian sauropod dinosaur from the Quseir Formation of Egypt. The type and only species is Mansourasaurus shahinae.

References

  1. 1 2 Kielan-Jaworowska, Z.; Dovchin, N. (1968). "Narrative of the Polish-Mongolian Expeditions 1963–1965" (PDF). Palaeontologia Polonica. 19: 7–40.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. (2013). "The Polish-Mongolian paleontological expeditions, 1963–1971, and the nomadic expedition, 2002". In Pursuit of Early Mammals. Indiana University Press. pp. 35–70. ISBN   978-0-253-00817-6.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Borsuk-Białynicka, M.M. (1977). "A new camarasaurid sauropod Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii gen. n., sp. n. from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia" (PDF). Palaeontologia Polonica. 37 (5): 5–64.
  4. 1 2 3 Gradziński, Ryszard (1969). "Sedimentation of dinosaur-bearing Upper Cretaceous deposits of the Nemegt Basin, Gobi Desert" (PDF). Palaeontologia Polonica. 21: 147–249.
  5. ↑ Hentschel, E., & Wagner, G. (1990). Zoologisches Wörterbuch. Tiernamen, allgemeinbiologische, anatomische, physiologische Termini und biographische Daten (4th edition). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
  6. ↑ Maryańska, T. (2000). "Sauropods from Mongolia and the former Soviet Union". In Benton, M.J.; Shishkin, M.A.; Unwin, D.M.; Kurochkin, E.N. (eds.). The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 457–458. ISBN   978-0-521-54582-2.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Currie, Philip J.; Wilson, Jeffrey A.; Fanti, Federico; Mainbayar, Buuvei; Tsogtbaatar, Khishigjav (2018). "Rediscovery of the type localities of the Late Cretaceous Mongolian sauropods Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis and Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii: Stratigraphic and taxonomic implications". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 494: 5–13. Bibcode:2018PPP...494....5C. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.10.035. hdl: 11585/622592 . S2CID   133748374.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Currie, P.J.; Badamgarav, D.; Koppelhus, E.B. (2003). "The first Late Cretaceous footprints from the locality in the Gobi of Mongolia" (PDF). Ichnos. 10: 1–12. doi:10.1080/10420940390235071. S2CID   140547544.
  9. 1 2 Seebacher, F. (2001). "A new method to calculate allometric length-mass relationships of dinosaurs" (PDF). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21 (1): 51–60. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.462.255 . doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2001)021[0051:ANMTCA]2.0.CO;2. S2CID   53446536.
  10. ↑ Holtz, Thomas R. Jr.; Rey, Luis V. (2007). Dinosaurs: the most complete, up-to-date encyclopedia for dinosaur lovers of all ages . New York: Random House. ISBN   978-0-375-82419-7.
  11. ↑ Barsbold, R. (1997). "Mongolian dinosaurs". In Currie, P.J.; Padian, K. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. pp. 447–450. ISBN   978-0-12-226810-6.
  12. ↑ Paul, Gregory S. (1997). "Dinosaur models: the good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs". In Wolberg, D.L.; Stump, E.; Rosenberg, G.D. (eds.). Dinofest International. Proceedings of a symposium held at Arizona State University. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. pp. 129–154 (152).
  13. ↑ Anderson, J.F.; Hall-Martin, A.; Russell, D.A. (2009). "Long-bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs". Journal of Zoology. 207 (1): 53–61. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb04915.x.
  14. ↑ Packard, G.C.; Boardman, T.J.; Birchard, G.F. (2009). "Allometric equations for predicting body mass of dinosaurs". Journal of Zoology. 279 (1): 102–110. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00594.x.
  15. ↑ Benson, R. B. J.; Campione, N. S. E.; Carrano, M. T.; Mannion, P. D.; Sullivan, C.; Upchurch, P.; Evans, D. C. (2014). "Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage". PLOS Biology. 12 (5): e1001853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001853 . PMC   4011683 . PMID   24802911.
  16. ↑ Paul, Gregory S. (2019). "Determining the largest known land animal: A critical comparison of differing methods for restoring the volume and mass of extinct animals" (PDF). Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 85 (4): 335–358. doi:10.2992/007.085.0403. S2CID   210840060.
  17. ↑ Apesteguía, S. (2005). "Evolution of the Hyposphene-Hypantrum Complex within Sauropoda". In Tidwell, V.; Carpenter, K. (eds.). Thunder-Lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. ISBN   978-0-253-34542-4.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Upchurch, P.; Barret, P.M.; Dodson, P. (2004). "Sauropoda". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H. (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). University of California Press. pp. 259–322. ISBN   978-0-520-25408-4.
  19. 1 2 Salgado, L.; Coria, R.A. (1993). "Consideraciones sobre las relaciones filogeneticas de Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii (Sauropoda) del Cretácico superior de Mongolia". Jornadas Argentinas de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Resumenes (in Spanish). 10.
  20. ↑ Wilson, J. (2002). "Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladistic analysis". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 136 (2): 217–276. doi: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00029.x . hdl: 2027.42/73066 . ISSN   0024-4082.
  21. ↑ Taylor, M.P.; Wedel; M.J. (2013). "Why sauropods had long necks; and why giraffes have short necks". PeerJ. 1: e36. doi: 10.7717/peerj.36 . ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   3628838 . PMID   23638372.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. 1 2 Carrano, M.T. (2005). "The Evolution of Sauropod Locomotion: Morphological Diversity of a Secondarily Quadrupedal Radiation". In Rogers, K.C.; Wilson, J.A. (eds.). The Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. University of California Press. ISBN   978-0-520-24623-2.
  23. ↑ Wilson, J.A.; Carrano, M.T. (1999). "Titanosaurs and the origin of "wide-gauge" trackways: a biomechanical and systematic perspective on sauropod locomotion". Paleobiology. 52 (2): 252–267. Bibcode:1999Pbio...25..252W. doi:10.1017/S0094837300026543. S2CID   88907578.
  24. ↑ Apesteguía, S. (2005). "Evolution of the Titanosaur Metacarpus". In Tidwell, V.; Carpenter, K. (eds.). Thunder-Lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. pp. 321–345. ISBN   978-0-253-34542-4.
  25. ↑ González Riga, B.J.; Calvo, J.O.; Porfiri, J. (2008). "An articulated titanosaur from Patagonia (Argentina): New evidence of neosauropod pedal evolution" (PDF). Palaeoworld . 17: 33–40. doi:10.1016/j.palwor.2007.08.003.
  26. ↑ d’Emic, M.D.; Wilson, J.A.; Chatterjee, S. (2009). "The titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) osteoderm record: review and first definitive specimen from India". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29 (1): 165–177. Bibcode:2009JVPal..29..165D. doi:10.1671/039.029.0131. S2CID   85991253.
  27. ↑ Carrano, M.T.; Michael, D.D. (2015). "Osteoderms of the titanosaur sauropod dinosaur Alamosaurus sanjuanensis Gilmore, 1922". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (1): e901334. Bibcode:2015JVPal..35E1334C. doi:10.1080/02724634.2014.901334. S2CID   86797277.
  28. ↑ Coombs, W.P.; Molnar, R.E. (1981). "Sauropoda (Reptilia, Saurischia) from the Cretaceous of Queensland". Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 20 (2): 351–373.
  29. ↑ Wilson, J.A.; Upchurch, P. (2003). "A Revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria – Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a 'Gondwanan' distribution". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 1 (3): 125–160. Bibcode:2003JSPal...1..125W. doi:10.1017/s1477201903001044. S2CID   53997295.
  30. ↑ D’emic, M.D. (2012). "The early evolution of titanosauriform sauropod dinosaurs" (PDF). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 166 (3): 624–671. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00853.x .
  31. 1 2 Wilson, J. (2005). "Overview of Sauropod Phylogeny and Evolution". In Rogers, K.C.; Wilson, J.A. (eds.). The Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. University of California Press. ISBN   978-0-520-24623-2.
  32. ↑ Calvo, J.O., Porfiri, J.D., González-Riga, B.J., Kellner, A.W. (2007). "A new Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystem from Gondwana with the description of a new sauropod dinosaur". Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 79 (3): 529–541. doi: 10.1590/S0001-37652007000300013 . PMID   17768539.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ Navarro, Bruno A.; Ghilardi, Aline M.; Aureliano, Tito; Díaz, Verónica Díez; Bandeira, Kamila L. N.; Cattaruzzi, André G. S.; Iori, Fabiano V.; Martine, Ariel M.; Carvalho, Alberto B.; Anelli, Luiz E.; Fernandes, Marcelo A.; Zaher, Hussam (September 15, 2022). "A new nanoid titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Brazil". Ameghiniana. 59 (5): 317–354. doi:10.5710/AMGH.25.08.2022.3477. ISSN   1851-8044. S2CID   251875979.
  34. ↑ Wilson, J.A. (2005). "Redescription of the Mongolian sauropod Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis Nowinski (Dinosauria: Saurischia) and comments on Late Cretaceous sauropod diversity". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 3 (3): 283–318. Bibcode:2005JSPal...3..283W. doi:10.1017/S1477201905001628. S2CID   54070651.
  35. ↑ Averianov, Alexander; Lopatin, Alexey (2019). "A possible new specimen of the Late Cretaceous Mongolian sauropod Nemegtosaurus and sauropod diversity in the Nemegt Formation". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 64. doi: 10.4202/app.00596.2019 . ISSN   0567-7920.
  36. 1 2 Schwarz, D.; Frey, E.; Meyer, C. (2007). "Novel reconstruction of the orientation of the pectoral girdle in sauropods". The Anatomical Record. 290 (1): 32–47. doi: 10.1002/ar.20405 . PMID   17441196.
  37. 1 2 Stevens, K.A. (2013). "The articulation of sauropod necks: methodology and mythology". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e78572. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...878572S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078572 . PMC   3812995 . PMID   24205266.
  38. ↑ Mallison, H. (2011). "Rearing Giants: Kinetic-Dynamic Modeling of Sauropod Bipedal and Tripodal Poses". In Klein, N.; Remes, K.; Gee, C.T.; Sander, P.M. (eds.). Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: Understanding the Life of Giants. Indiana University Press. pp. 239–320. ISBN   978-0-253-35508-9.
  39. ↑ Stettner, B.; Persons, W. S.; Currie, P. J. (2018). "A giant sauropod footprint from the Nemegt Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Mongolia". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 494: 168–172. Bibcode:2018PPP...494..168S. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.10.027. ISSN   0031-0182.
  40. ↑ Nakajima, J.; Kobayashi, Y.; Chinzorig, T.; Tanaka, T.; Takasaki, R.; Tsogtbaatar, K.; Currie, P. J.; Fiorillo, A. R. (2018). "Dinosaur tracks at the Nemegt locality: Paleobiological and paleoenvironmental implications". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 494: 147–159. Bibcode:2018PPP...494..147N. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.10.026. ISSN   0031-0182.
  41. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Osmólska, H. (1997). "Nemegt Formation". Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. pp. 471–472. ISBN   978-0-12-226810-6.
  42. ↑ Jerzykiewicz, Tomasz; Dale A. Russell (1991). "Late Mesozoic stratigraphy and vertebrates of the Gobi Basin". Cretaceous Research. 12 (4): 345–377. Bibcode:1991CrRes..12..345J. doi:10.1016/0195-6671(91)90015-5. ISSN   0195-6671.
  43. ↑ Hurum, J.H.; Sabath, K. (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190. ISSN   0567-7920.
  44. ↑ Osmólska, H. (1987). "Borogovia gracilicrus gen. et sp. n., a new troodontid dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 32: 133–150. ISSN   0567-7920.
  45. ↑ Maryańska, T. (1969). "Remains of armoured dinosaurs from the uppermost Cretaceous in Nemegt Basin, Gobi Desert" (PDF). Palaeontologia Polonica. 21: 23–32. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 12, 2020. Retrieved March 1, 2014.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.