Synapsid locomotor evolution + Upper Cretaceous Placerias quarry age

43 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Creisler

unread,
Jun 17, 2025, 11:03:58 AMJun 17
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Creisler

New papers:


P. J. Bishop & S. E. Pierce (2025)
Locomotor shifts, stylopod proportions, and the evolution of allometry in Synapsida
The Anatomical Record (advance online publication)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.70006
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70006


Locomotor evolution in synapsids involved numerous functional shifts associated with the transition from sprawled to erect limb postures on the line to therian mammals. Given that bone structure frequently reflects functional requirements, this study investigated evolutionary changes in synapsid humerus and femur proportions as a lens to evaluate functional shifts through time. A total of 936 bones were measured, representing 330 species across the full 320+ million years of synapsid history. This dataset was used to test whether transformations in stylopod proportions are consistent with inferred changes in bone loading mechanics, alignment of joint and muscle forces, muscular control of the shoulder and hip, and differential support of body weight by the fore- and hindlimbs. As variation in bone dimensions may also correlate with bone or body size, this study first developed a novel approach for calculating species-specific, size-corrected measures of bone proportions. By disentangling the effect of body size from functional signals recorded in bone geometry, this then enabled a node-to-node appraisal of how bone allometry itself evolved through time. Ancestral state reconstruction of size-corrected stylopod proportions reveals trends that broadly support many hypothesized shifts in locomotor biomechanics along the therian stem lineage. However, patterns of transformation are frequently complex, suggesting functional mosaicism, and stylopod proportions that typify therians as a whole are often not achieved until crown Theria itself. Several instances of temporary trend reversal are also inferred, particularly within non-mammalian cynodonts, indicating greater functional or ecological diversification in this group.

===

Free pdf:

Spencer G. Lucas (2025)
Stratigraphic Position and Age of the Upper Triassic Placerias Quarry, East-Central Arizona, USA
Fossil Studies 3(2): 9
doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/fossils3020009
https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/3/2/9


The Placerias quarry is a dicynodont-dominated bonebed in Upper Triassic Chinle Group strata near St. Johns in east-central Arizona, USA. Though long identified as being in strata of the lower Chinle Group, recently published numerical ages apparently indicate a stratigraphically much higher (younger) position in the Chinle section for the Placerias quarry. Nevertheless, recent analysis of outcrop and subsurface (hydrologic) data in the vicinity of the Placerias quarry confirms its stratigraphic position very low in the Chinle Group section, close to the base of the Bluewater Creek Formation. A regional Upper Triassic lithostratigraphy has been established across east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico by nearly a century of stratigraphic studies and geologic mapping by diverse workers, and is supported by biostratigraphy; in this lithostratigraphy the Placerias quarry is near the Chinle Group base. However, U/Pb ages on zircons from Upper Triassic strata in eastern Arizona/western New Mexico have been used to reorganize this lithostratigraphy to indicate intertonguing and dramatic lithofacies changes over relatively short lateral distances. But, if the well-established lithostratigraphy is followed, the U/Pb ages are problematic, particularly where younger ages (such as at the Placerias quarry) are stratigraphically below older ages. A handful of numerical ages should not be used to over-rule well-established understanding of lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy, unless the lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy need to be modified based on stratigraphic data. Numerical ages need to be used judiciously and evaluated critically with regard to established lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and other age constraints.

===




Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages