Rocasaurus (titanosaur) vertebrae pneumaticity and air space volume
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Creisler
Mar 26, 2026, 1:52:25 PM (8 days ago) Mar 26
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Creisler
A new paper:
Matías E. Fernández, Virginia L. Zurriaguz & Guillermo J. Windholz (2026)
Assessing pneumaticity in fossil vertebrae: a volumetric approach to air space proportion in Rocasaurus muniozi
Cretaceous Research 106386
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2026.106386
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667126000753
Highlights
The first study of volumetric air space proportion in a fossil taxon is presented
Using a volumetric measurement avoids slice location and orientation biases
The traditional air space proportion method tends to result in overestimated values
The volumetric air space proportion method is preferred over the traditional one
Abstract
The use of the air space proportion has been one of the main methods used to quantify the amount of postcranial pneumaticity invasion suffered in determined skeletal elements. Traditionally, it’s calculated through the use of area unit measurements obtained from one or several tomographic slices. Nevertheless, some authors directly measured it through the use of digital volumetric reconstructions in modern birds. This publication performs a study of air volume proportion (AVP) of three caudal vertebrae of Rocasaurus muniozi. The results were compared with values of air area proportion (i.e., traditional method or ASP) obtained from the same elements, through a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, in order to assess the level of accuracy of this method. This study comprehends application of the method, for the first time, to vertebrate fossils. The ASP values were obtained from selected tomographic sections. The results shows that the AVP values are statistically different from their respective ASP values in almost all cases; the ASP values present a great disparity as a response of the location where the tomographic section was obtained; and it suggests that the lower the level of invasion, the higher is the difference between the AVP and ASP values. In conclusion, the volumetric model is preferred over the traditional one, since it offers more precise results and avoids tomography-location biases. It is proposed here to avoid or to carry out with caution comparing results of specimens with different methodology sources as AVP and ASP, due to a very likely overestimation of the latter.
Matías E. Fernández, Virginia L. Zurriaguz & Guillermo J. Windholz (2026)
Assessing pneumaticity in fossil vertebrae: a volumetric approach to air space proportion in Rocasaurus muniozi
Cretaceous Research 106386
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2026.106386
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667126000753
Highlights
The first study of volumetric air space proportion in a fossil taxon is presented
Using a volumetric measurement avoids slice location and orientation biases
The traditional air space proportion method tends to result in overestimated values
The volumetric air space proportion method is preferred over the traditional one
Abstract
The use of the air space proportion has been one of the main methods used to quantify the amount of postcranial pneumaticity invasion suffered in determined skeletal elements. Traditionally, it’s calculated through the use of area unit measurements obtained from one or several tomographic slices. Nevertheless, some authors directly measured it through the use of digital volumetric reconstructions in modern birds. This publication performs a study of air volume proportion (AVP) of three caudal vertebrae of Rocasaurus muniozi. The results were compared with values of air area proportion (i.e., traditional method or ASP) obtained from the same elements, through a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, in order to assess the level of accuracy of this method. This study comprehends application of the method, for the first time, to vertebrate fossils. The ASP values were obtained from selected tomographic sections. The results shows that the AVP values are statistically different from their respective ASP values in almost all cases; the ASP values present a great disparity as a response of the location where the tomographic section was obtained; and it suggests that the lower the level of invasion, the higher is the difference between the AVP and ASP values. In conclusion, the volumetric model is preferred over the traditional one, since it offers more precise results and avoids tomography-location biases. It is proposed here to avoid or to carry out with caution comparing results of specimens with different methodology sources as AVP and ASP, due to a very likely overestimation of the latter.
====
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages