Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:31:53.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New perspectives on ancient marine reptiles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

BENJAMIN P. KEAR  and
GRAHAM E. BUDD
BENJAMIN P. KEAR*
Affiliation:
Palaeobiology Programme, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
GRAHAM E. BUDD
Affiliation:
Palaeobiology Programme, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
*
*Author for correspondence: benjamin.kear@geo.uu.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Amniotes first invaded saline lagoons and coastal seaways towards the end of the Palaeozoic (Early Permian, ~ 280 Ma: Piñeiro et al. 2012), but by the dawn of the Mesozoic (Early–Middle Triassic, ~ 250–235 Ma: Rieppel, 2002; McGowan & Motani, 2003) they had achieved a diversity of specialized body-forms requisite for an obligate oceanic lifestyle. Such an explosive ecomorphological radiation paved the way for amniote dominance of large-bodied aquatic carnivore/omnivore niches over the next 185 Ma, with some lineages (e.g. dyrosaurid crocodylomorphs and bothremydid turtles: Gaffney, Tong & Meylan, 2006; Barbosa, Kellner & Sales Viana, 2008) even persisting on into the Palaeogene (until ~ 50 Ma), and diversifying (i.e. chelonioid sea turtles: Hirayama, 1997) alongside emergent marine mammals through the Neogene (from ~ 23 Ma) and up until today.

Type
Preface
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 151 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 5 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Amniotes first invaded saline lagoons and coastal seaways towards the end of the Palaeozoic (Early Permian, ~ 280 Ma: Piñeiro et al. Reference Piñeiro, Ramos, Goso, Scarabino and Laurin2012), but by the dawn of the Mesozoic (Early–Middle Triassic, ~ 250–235 Ma: Rieppel, Reference Rieppel2002; McGowan & Motani, Reference McGowan and Motani2003) they had achieved a diversity of specialized body-forms requisite for an obligate oceanic lifestyle. Such an explosive ecomorphological radiation paved the way for amniote dominance of large-bodied aquatic carnivore/omnivore niches over the next 185 Ma, with some lineages (e.g. dyrosaurid crocodylomorphs and bothremydid turtles: Gaffney, Tong & Meylan, Reference Gaffney, Tong and Meylan2006; Barbosa, Kellner & Sales Viana, Reference Barbosa, Kellner and Sales Viana2008) even persisting on into the Palaeogene (until ~ 50 Ma), and diversifying (i.e. chelonioid sea turtles: Hirayama, Reference Hirayama, Callaway and Nicholls1997) alongside emergent marine mammals through the Neogene (from ~ 23 Ma) and up until today.

The scientific concept of ancient marine amniotes, or ‘marine reptiles’ as the iconic Mesozoic clades are often popularly known, began with the birth of vertebrate palaeontology in the early nineteenth century. The famous British fossil collector Mary Anning (1799–1847) is widely credited with the first documented find in 1811: the articulated skull and skeleton of the gigantic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus platyodon (Torrens, Reference Torrens1995; McGowan, Reference McGowan2001). These remains were eventually described by the eminent surgeon Sir Everard Home (1756–1832) in 1814 (Home, Reference Home1814), and contributed to the sensational debates on extinction and the geological age of the Earth, which were amongst the most controversial academic topics of the day.

With the nomenclatural establishment of Dinosauria by Sir Richard Owen (1804–1892) in 1842, and the subsequent capture of public imagination by this quintessential group of ‘prehistoric animals’, studies on many of the fossil marine reptile clades became less fashionable. Indeed, it was not until the 1990s and the publication of dedicated compendia such as the landmark book Ancient Marine Reptiles (Callaway & Nicholls, Reference Callaway and Nicholls1997), which appeared on the back of newly proliferating research, that marine reptile palaeontology once again experienced a resurgence. Since that time, a wealth of new material, innovative technologies and fresh perspectives have continued to dynamically advance the field. In an effort to capture part of this developing knowledge, a special issue of Geological Magazine was commissioned in 2011 to commemorate Mary Anning's first fossil marine reptile discovery and, through its scheduled release in 2014, 200 years of continuing work following Sir Everard Home's seminal publication. Fourteen papers by 33 international contributing authors have been included in this synopsis, and cover a broad range of topics from Mary Anning's historical specimens (Vincent et al. Reference Vincent, Taquet, Fischer, Falconnet and Godefroit2014; Massare & Lomax, Reference Massare, Wahl, Ross and Connely2013) to ichthyosaurian anatomy, phylogeny and ontogeny (Druckenmiller & Maxwell, Reference Druckenmiller and Maxwell2013; Fernández & Talevi, Reference Fernández and Talevi2013; Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Arkhangelsky, Uspensky, Stenshin and Godefroit2013; Kear & Zammit, Reference Kear, Ekrt, Prokop and Georgalis2013; Maxwell, Scheyer & Fowler, Reference Maxwell, Scheyer and Fowler2013; Zammit, Kear & Norris, Reference Zammit, Kear and Norris2014), early sauropterygian interrelationships (Li et al. Reference Li, Jiang, Cheng, Wu and Rieppel2013; Sato et al. Reference Sato, Cheng, Wu and Shan2013), dyrosaurid palaeobiology (Schwartz-Wings, Reference Schwartz-Wings2013), dental histology in crocodylians and mosasaurs (Gren & Lindgren, Reference Gren and Lindgren2013) and Jurassic–Cretaceous marine amniote palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology (Kear et al. Reference Kear, Ekrt, Prokop and Georgalis2013; Massare et al. Reference Massare, Wahl, Ross and Connely2013). These collective articles aim to carry on the spirit of Mary Anning's legacy, and reflect rapidly evolving research foci that can only gain in profile over the years to come.

References

Barbosa, J. A., Kellner, A. W. A. & Sales Viana, M. S. 2008. New dyrosaurid crocodylomorph and evidences for faunal turnover at the K-P transition in Brazil. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 275, 1385–91.Google Scholar
Callaway, J. M. & Nicholls, E. L. 1997. Ancient Marine Reptiles. San Diego: Academic Press, 501 pp.Google Scholar
Druckenmiller, P. S. & Maxwell, E. E. 2013. A Middle Jurassic (Bajocian) ophthalmosaurid (Reptilia, Ichthyosauria) from the Tuxedni Formation, Alaska and the early diversification of the clade. Geological Magazine 151, 41–8.Google Scholar
Fernández, M. S. & Talevi, M. 2013. Ophthalmosaurian (Ichthyosauria) records from the Aalenian–Bajocian of Patagonia (Argentina): an overview. Geological Magazine 151, 49–59.Google Scholar
Fischer, V., Arkhangelsky, M. S., Uspensky, G. N., Stenshin, I. M. & Godefroit, P. 2013. A new Lower Cretaceous ichthyosaur from Russia reveals skull shape conservatism within Ophthalmosaurinae. Geological Magazine 151, 60–70.Google Scholar
Gaffney, E. S., Tong, H. & Meylan, P. A. 2006. Evolution of the side-necked turtles: the families Bothremydidae, Euraxemydidae, and Araripemydidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 300, 1–698.Google Scholar
Gren, J. A. & Lindgren, J. 2013. Dental histology of mosasaurs and a marine crocodylian from the Campanian (Upper Cretaceous) of southern Sweden: incremental growth lines and dentine formation rates. Geological Magazine 151, 134–43.Google Scholar
Hirayama, R. 1997. Distribution and diversity of Cretaceous chelonioids. In Ancient Marine Reptiles (eds Callaway, J. M. & Nicholls, E. L.), pp. 225–41. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Home, E. 1814. Some account of the fossil remains of an animal more nearly allied to fishes than any of the other classes of animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 104, 571–7.Google Scholar
Kear, B. P., Ekrt, B., Prokop, J. & Georgalis, G. L. 2013. Turonian marine amniotes from the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic. Geological Magazine 151, 183–98.Google Scholar
Kear, B. P. & Zammit, M. 2013. In utero foetal remains of the Cretaceous ichthyosaurian Platypterygius: ontogenetic implications for character state efficacy. Geological Magazine 151, 71–86.Google Scholar
Li, C., Jiang, D.-Y., Cheng, L., Wu, X.-C. & Rieppel, O. 2013. A new species of Largocephalosaurus (Diapsida: Saurosphargidae), with implications for the morphological diversity and phylogeny of the group. Geological Magazine 151, 100–120.Google Scholar
Massare, J. A. & Lomax, D. R. 2013. An Ichthyosaurus breviceps collected by Mary Anning: new information on the species. Geological Magazine 151, 21–8.Google Scholar
Massare, J. A., Wahl, W. R., Ross, M. & Connely, M. V. 2013. Palaeoecology of the marine reptiles of the Redwater Shale Member of the Sundance Formation (Jurassic) of central Wyoming, USA. Geological Magazine 151, 167–82.Google Scholar
Maxwell, E. E., Scheyer, T. M. & Fowler, D. A. 2013. An evolutionary and developmental perspective on the loss of regionalization in the limbs of derived ichthyosaurs. Geological Magazine 151, 29–40.Google Scholar
McGowan, C. 2001. The Dragon Seekers. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 272 pp.Google Scholar
McGowan, C. & Motani, R. 2003. Ichthyopterygia. Handbook of Paleoherpetology, Volume 8. München: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, 175 pp.Google Scholar
Piñeiro, G., Ramos, A., Goso, C., Scarabino, F. & Laurin, M. 2012. Unusual environmental conditions preserve a Permian mesosaur-bearing Konservat-lagerstätte from Uruguay. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57, 299–318.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2002. Feeding mechanics in Triassic stem-group sauropterygians: the anatomy of a successful invasion of Mesozoic seas. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 135, 33–63.Google Scholar
Sato, T., Cheng, Y.-N., Wu, X.-C. & Shan, H.-Y. 2013. Diandongosaurus acutidentatus Shang, Wu & Li, 2011 (Diapsida: Sauropterygia) and the relationships of Chinese eosauropterygians. Geological Magazine 151, 121–33.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Wings, D. 2013. The feeding apparatus of dyrosaurids (Crocodyliformes). Geological Magazine 151, 144–66.Google Scholar
Torrens, H. 1995. Mary Anning (1799–1847) of Lyme; ‘the greatest fossilist the World ever knew’. British Journal for the History of Science 25, 257–84.Google Scholar
Vincent, P., Taquet, P., Fischer, V., Falconnet, J. & Godefroit, P. 2014. Mary Anning's legacy to French vertebrate palaeontology. Geological Magazine 151, 7–20.Google Scholar
Zammit, M., Kear, B. P. & Norris, R. 2014. Locomotory capabilities in the Early Cretaceous ichthyosaur Platypterygius australis based on osteological comparisons with extant marine mammals. Geological Magazine 151, 87–99.Google Scholar