www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5807/1925/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
A Giant European Dinosaur and a New Sauropod Clade
Rafael Royo-Torres,* Alberto Cobos, Luis Alcalá*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] Published 22 December 2006, Science314, 1925 (2006)
DOI: 10.1126/science.1132885
This PDF file includes:
SOM Text Figs. S1 to S4 Tables S1 to S5 References
Supporting Online Material for:
A GIANT EUROPEAN DINOSAUR AND A NEW SAUROPOD CLADE Rafael Royo-Torres1*, Alberto Cobos1 and Luis Alcalá1 1
Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel-Dinópolis. Avenida de Sagunto, E-44002 Teruel, Spain. *To whom correspondence should be addressed, E-mail: [email protected]
This file includes:
1. Geographic and stratigraphic setting (Figures S1, S2).
2. Excavation map of the Turiasaurus riodevensis type locality (Barrihonda-El
Humero) (Figure S3).
3. Phylogenetic character codings for Losillasaurus, Turiasaurus and Galveosaurus
(Table S1).
4. Measurements of skeletal elements of Turiasaurus riodevensis compared to
those of other large-sized sauropods (Figure S4, Tables S2, S3).
5. Mass and length estimation of Turiasaurus riodevensis (Tables S4, S5).
1. Geographic and stratigraphic setting
Fig. S1. Geographic setting of the Barrihonda-El Humero site in Riodeva (Teruel Province,
Fig. S2. Stratigraphic sections of the localities where the Villar del Arzobispo Formation
sauropods have been found and their temporal relationship. (A) Galve (S1, S2). (B) Riodeva
(S3). (C) Alpuente (S4, S5). (D) Litostratigraphic chart of the South-Iberian Basin of the
Iberian Range during the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous (S6). In Riodeva, the Villar del
Arzobispo Formation consists of alternating fine to coarse sandstones and red silt stone beds deposited in more than ten shallowing para-sequences (from five to 20 m thick) related to successive sea level change and basin sedimentary infill.
2. Excavation map of the Turiasaurus riodevensis type locality (Barrihonda-El Humero)
3. Phylogenetic character codings for Losillasaurus, Turiasaurus, and Galveosaurus
Table S1: Phylogenetic character codings for Losillasaurus, Turiasaurus, and
Galveosaurus. The codification of these taxa has been based on personal observations
supported by descriptions in previous studies (S2, S5, S7). Character numbers follow
Upchurch et al. (2004) (S8). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 ? 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 ? ? 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Losillasaurus 1 1 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Turiasaurus 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 0 0 1 1 0 ? 1 1 Galveosaurus 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 1 0 ? 1 1 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 Losillasaurus 0 0 1 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Turiasaurus 0 0 1 1 1 ? 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ? Galveosaurus 0 ? 1 1 ? ? ? 0 ? 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ? 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 Losillasaurus 1 1 0 1 1 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? 0 Turiasaurus 1 1 0 ? 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus 1 1 0 ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Losillasaurus 0 1 0 0 ? 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 1 Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ? 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? ? ? ? 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 Losillasaurus 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ? 0 0 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 Losillasaurus 2 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? ? 0 1 1 Turiasaurus 2 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? 0 1 1 1 Galveosaurus 2 0 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 Losillasaurus 1 0 ? ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus ? ? ? 1 ? 0 ? 0 1 0 ? ? 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Turiasaurus 1 1 ? 1 ? 1 1 ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? 0 1 0 1 Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 305 306 307 308 309 Losillasaurus ? ? ? ? 0 Turiasaurus ? 1 ? 1 0 Galveosaurus ? ? ? ? 1
4. Measurements of skeletal elements of Turiasaurus riodevensis compared to those of other large-sized sauropods
On the femur, only the distal end is known in Turiasaurus. Accordingly we have
estimated the length of this bone based on the humerofemoral proportions of other basal sauropods. Using the allometric equations generated, we estimate the Riodeva femoral
length of Turiasaurus as 2219 mm.
Fig. S4. Regression analyses of the skeletal proportions of the basal sauropods
Gongxianosaurus shibeiensis (S9), Kotasaurus yamanpalliensis (S10) (notice that humerus
and femur could not belong to the same specimen); the basal eusauropods Cetiosauriscus
stewarti (S11), Cetiosaurus oxoniensis (S12), Jobaria tiguidensis (S13, S14), Omeisaurus maoianus (S15) and Mamenchisaurus youngi (S16); and the basal neosauropod
Ferganasaurus verzilini (S17), which have been used to estimate femur and tibia length
(mm) in the turiasaurian eusauropod Turiasaurus riodevensis. The humerus of Turiasaurus
measures 1790 mm in length. The allometric equations generated were used to estimate the
Table S2: Measurements of skeletal elements of Turiasaurus riodevensis compared to those of other European sauropods.
1: Craniocaudally length of cervical vertebrae; 2: Dorsoventral height of cervical vertebrae; 3: Craniocaudally length of dorsal vertebrae; 4: Dorsoventral height of dorsal vertebrae; 5: Scapulocoracoid length, 6: Sternal length; 7: Humerus length; 8: Radius length; 9: Ulna length; 10: Metacarpal II length; 11: Femur length; 12: Tibia length; 13: Fibula length; 14: Mediolateral width of astragali; 15: Metatarsal II length; 16: Craniocaudally length of pedal digit I ungual; 17: Dorsal rib length.
Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 References
Ampelosaurus atacis 180 350 200 500 910 / 630 / 395 / 837 520 541 / / / / S18
Aragosaurus ischiaticus / / / / 1260 / 1120 790 820 / 1360 / / / / 170 / S19
Brachiosauridae indet. MIWG7306 745 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S20
Cetiosaurus oxoniensis 360 357 186 / 1370 / 1236 / 930 / 1615 945 945 / / / / S12, S21 "Cetiosauriscus greppini" / / / / / / 520 / / / 600 ca / / / / / / S22 Cetiosauriscus stewarti / / / / 965 595 940 760 760 / 1360 / / / 210 / / S8, S11 "Chondrosteosaurus gigas" 340 144+ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S23 Dinheirosaurus lourinhanensis 710 / 580 500 / / / / / / / / / / / / / S24 Eucamerotus foxi / / 228 657 / / / / / / / / / / / / / S25 Galveosaurus herreroi 436 578 / 725 750 620 1530 / / / / / / / / / 1500 S2, S7 Histriasaurus boscarollii 350 150 200 750 / / / / / / / / / / / / / S26 Lirainosaurus astibiae / / 125 280 520 260 530 / / / 660 525 560 / / / / S27 Losillasaurus giganteus 410 / 205 775 / 600 1430 785 ca 810 ca 330 ca 1834* 1114* / / / / / S5 Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis 500 / 300 / 1670 / 1500 1010 1060 150 1740 1100 1160 360 / / / S28, S29 Lusotitan atalaiensis 200 120 200 / / / 2050 ca 1130 1150 370 1900-2000 ca 1120 / / / / / S28, S30 Magyarosaurus dacus / / / / / / 400 / 400 / / / 470 / / / / S31, S32 Ohmdenosaurus liasicus / / / / / / / / / / / 412 / 140 / / / S32, S33 Ornithopsis hulkei / / 200 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S23 Pelorosaurus conybearei / / / / / / 1300 / / / / / / / / / / S34 Turiasaurus riodevensis 520 400 ca 200 ca 700 / 950 1790 1180 1260 435 2219* 1365* 1440 ca 370 295 300 1900
Table S3: Measurements of skeletal elements of Turiasaurus riodevensis compared to those of the largest known sauropods.
1: Craniocaudally length of cervical vertebrae; 2: Dorsoventral height of cervical vertebrae; 3: Craniocaudally length of dorsal vertebrae; 4: Dorsoventral height of dorsal vertebrae; 5: Scapulocoracoid length, 6: Sternal length; 7: Humerus length; 8: Radius length; 9: Ulna length; 10: Metacarpal II length; 11: Femur length; 12: Tibia length; 13: Fibula length; 14: Mediolateral width of astragali; 15: Metatarsal II length; 16: Craniocaudally length of pedal digit I ungual; 17: Dorsal rib length; 18: Humerus minimum mid-shaft circumference; 19: Pedal ungual phalanx I length.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 References
Amphicoelias fragillimus / / / 1920 ca / / / / / / 3100-4000* / / / / / / / S35,S36
Argentinosaurus huinculensis PVPH-1 / / 410 1590 / / 1810* / / / 2257-2557ca / 1550 / / / / / S37, S38, S39
Antarctosaurus giganteus MLP23-316 / / / / / / / / / / 2350 / / / / / / / S38
Brachiosaurus brancai HMN SII 1155 / / 1170 2360* 1100 2130 1240 / 635 2090* 1150* 1190 / 276 240 2580 647 240* S40, S41 Brachiosaurus brancai HMN XV2 1300* / / 1320* 2660* / 2400* / / / 2350* / 1340 / / / 2900* / S40
Paralititan stromeri CGM 81119 / / / / / / 1690 / / / 2054* / / / / / / / S39
Puertasaurus reuili MPM 10002 1180 / 450 1060 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S42
Sauroposeidon proteles OMNH 53062 1250-1400 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S43
Seismosaurus halli NMMNH 3690 / / / 1000* / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S36, S44
Supersaurus vivianae BYU 5501 / / / / 2700 / / / / / 2600* / / / / / / / S40
Turiasaurus riodevensis 520 400 ca 200 ca 700 / 950 1790 1180 1260 435 2219 ca 1365 ca 1440 ca 370 295 300 1900 755 300 * estimated; ca: approximately
5. Mass and length estimation of Turiasaurus riodevensis
Estimations of dinosaurs’body masshave produced varied results. For example, for
the basal titanosauriform sauropod Brachiosaurus brancai, the following quite different
mass estimates have been proposed (in metric tons): 78.26 Colbert (1962) (S45) 46.6 Alexander (1985) (S46) 39.5 Mazzetta et al. (2004) (S38) 37.4 Christiansen (1997) (S41) 31.5 Paul (1988) (S40) 29 Anderson et al. (1985) (S47)
The method developed by Anderson et al. (1985) (S47) produced the lowest mass
estimate; we therefore follow their method, to be conservative. Their mass estimate is
calculated based on the minimum midshaft circumferences of the humerus (Ch) and femur
(Cf) in mm, according to the following formula proposed for quadrupedal dinosaurs:
W = 0.078 Ch+f2.73
The Turiasaurus humerus is complete and its midshaft circumference measures 755
mm. Unfortunately, we lack the same datum for the femur, as only its distal end has been
preserved. To estimate the midshaft femoral circumference of Turiasaurus, we have
measured the circumference of the shaft in a section corresponding to 16% of the total femur length (which, as above, was estimated using the humeral:femoral proportions of other primitive sauropods at 2219 mm) with respect from the distal end; this value is 980 mm. To estimate which would be the measurement of the circumference of this femur, we have used references from the femora of other sauropods (see table below). As the maximum and minimum difference between circumferences at 16% and 50% of femoral length ranges between 81% and 92%, we estimate that the approximate midshaft
Table S4: Data used to estimate the midshaft circumference of the Turiasaurus femur. MPZ (Museo Paleontológico de la Universidad de Zaragoza), CPT (Museo Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel-Dinópolis), MMG (Museo Municipal de Galve).
Sauropod f rom P eñarroya d e Tas tavins ( S48 ) MPZ-99/9 Sauropod f rom t he Morrison F or m ation (USA) CP T-M01 Sauropod f rom t he Morrison F or m ation (USA) CP T-M02 Cast of Bellusaurus sui (China) CPT-22 1 Cast of Brachiosaurus brancai (H MN SII) CP T-211 Aragosaurus ischiaticus MMG-SS Turiasaurus riod evensis CPT-124 1
Femur total length (mm) 1300 1450 1300 500 1700 1420 2219
A= distal shaft circumference at 16% of the femur total length
(mm) 670 770 850 880 960 715 980
B= midshaft circumference at 50% of the femur total length
(mm) 550 710 780 710 840 640
Difference 82% 92% 92% 81% 87.5% 90%
Applying the formula from Anderson et al. (1985) (S47):
Minimum estimated weight in g = 0.078 (755 + 794)2.73
Maximum estimated weight in g = 0.078 (755 + 902)2.73
So, the body mass of Turiasaurus could range between 39.90 and 47.96metric tons.
Similarly, we have calculated the mass of Turiasaurus, using the formula
log (body mass) = v log X + log u
obtained by Mazzetta et al. (2004)(S38) via logarithmic regressions proposed using several
available dimensions; the results obtained from our data (X) and from the parameters provided by Mazzetta et al. (2004)(S38) are the following:
51.05 metric tons using length of the femur (fl = 2219 mm, estimated).
49.40 metric tons using distal width of the femur across the condyles (fw = 620 mm). 36.87 and 25.29 metric tons using mid-shaft perimeter of the femur (fp: maximum estimated = 902 mm and minimum estimated = 794 mm).
Regardless of whether maximum or minimum estimated dimensions for
Turiasaurus are used the average of these calculations exceeds 40 metric tons (41.91 and 45.77, respectively).
With this mass, and according to Seebacher’s (2001) correlation method (S49),
which proposes the following regression equation for sauropods:
body mass (kg) = 214.44 (total length in m)1.46
the length of Turiasaurus would range between about 36 m (minimum) and 38-39 m
(maximum). If this calculation is made using the average of the weights obtained by the
Anderson et al. (1985) (S47) method, the estimated length would be 37.3 m, practically the
same. Nearly the same results are achieved by two different methods.
All of these data establish Turiasaurus riodevensis as one of the largest sauropods
yet discovered, along with Amphicoelias fragillimus, Seismosaurus, Supersaurus,
“Antarctosaurus” giganteus, Argentinosaurus, Paralititan, Puertasaurus, and
Sauroposeidon (S8, S37, S39, S42, S43, S50). Moreover, Turiasaurus is arguably the most completely known of these gigantic sauropods. The only one of them known from
comparably complete material is Seismosaurus (see below).
Table S5: Skeletal completeness of Seismosaurus vs. Turiasaurus.
Seismosaurus (S44 ) Turiasaurus (this paper)
Skull elements * Very fragmentary remains
Teeth * 8 (3 comp
Cervical vertebrae * 6 vertebrae with ribs (numbers 3-8)
Dorsal vertebrae 8 vertebrae with ribs
3 complete vertebrae, 1 incomplete vertebra, 3 complete ribs, 5
incomplete ribs
Sacrum Nearly complete sacrum Partial sacrum
Caudal vertebrae 21 caudal vertebrae (ant., med., and post.) 2 posterior vertebrae
Chevrons 5 *
Scapular girdle * Scapula and sternal fragments
Pelvic girdle 2 ilia; 2 ischia; 1 pubis *
Fore limbs * Humerus, radius, ulna, carpal, 5
metacarpals, 7 phalanges
Hind limbs *
Distal fragment of femur, proximal fragment of tibia, 1 fibula, 2 astragali, 2 complete and 3 incomplete metatarsals, 10 phalanges App. 50 App. 70 SKULL AXIAL SKELETON APPENDICULAR SKELETON TOTAL lete)
6. Supporting Online Material References
S1. J.I. Ruiz-Omeñaca et al., Estud. Geol. 60, 179 (2004).
S2. J.L. Barco, J.I. Canudo, G. Cuenca-Bescós, J.I. Ruiz-Omeñaca, Nat. Aragonesa15,
4 (2005).
S3. L. Luque, A. Cobos, R. Royo-Torres, E. Espílez, L. Alcalá, Geogaceta 38,
27 (2005).
S4. M.L. Casanovas-Cladellas, J.V. Santafé Llopis, C. Santisteban Bové, X.
Pereda-Suberbiola, Rev. Esp. Paleontol.Homenaje Prof. J. Truyols, 57 (1999).
S5. M.L. Casanovas, J.V. Santafé, J.L. Sanz, Paleontol. Evolució32, 99 (2001).
S6. R. Salas et al., in Peri-Tethyan Rift/Wrench Basins and Passive Margins, W.
Cavazza, A.H.F.R. Robertson, P. Ziegler, S. Crasquin-Soleau, Eds. (Mém. Muséum
National Histoire Naturelle, 2001), vol. 186, pp. 145-185.
S7. B. Sánchez-Hernández, Zootaxa1034, 1 (2005).
S8. P. Upchurch, P.M. Barrett, P. Dodson, in The Dinosauria, D.B. Weishampel, P.
Dodson, H. Osmólska, Eds. (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 2004), pp. 259-322.
S9. Y. Luo, C. Wang, Acta Geol. Sin. 74, 132 (2000)
S10. P. Yadagiri, Records Geol. Surv. India11, 102 (1988).
S11. A.S. Woodward, Proc. Zool. Soc. London26, 232 (1905).
S12. P. Upchurch, J. Martin, J. Vert. Paleontol.23, 208 (2003).
S13. P.C. Sereno et al., Science286, 1342 (1999).
S14. A.F. de Lapparent, Mém. Soc. Géol. France, 88A, 57 (1960).
S15. T. Feng, J. Xingsheng, K. Ximin, Z. Goujon, Omeisaurus maoianus. A complete
Sauropods from Jingyan, Sichuan (Research Works of Natural Museum of Zhejiang, 2001), pp. 1-128.
S16. H. Ouyang, Y. Ye, The First Mamenchisaurian Skeleton with Complete Skull:
Mamenchisaurus youngi (Sichuan Science and Technology Press, Chengdu, 2002), pp. 1-110.
S17. V.R. Alifanov, A.O. Averianov, J. Vert. Paleontol. 23, 358 (2003).
S18. J. Le Loeuff, in Thunder-Lizards. The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs, V. Tidwell, K.
Carpenter, Eds. (Indiana University Press, 2005), pp. 115-137.
S19. J.L. Sanz, A.D. Buscalioni, M.L. Casanovas, J.V. Santafé, Estud. Geol.
Galve-Tremp, 45 (1987).
S20. D. Naish, D.M. Martill, D. Cooper, K.A. Stevens, Cretaceous Res. 25, 787 (2004).
S21. P. Upchurch, J. Martin, Palaeontology 45, 1049 (2002).
S22. C.A. Meyer, B. Thüring, Comp. Rend.Palevol3, 103 (2003).
S23. P. Upchurch, thesis, Cambridge University (1993).
S24. J.F. Bonaparte, O. Mateus, Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. “Bernardino Rivadavia”
5, 13 (1999).
S25. W.T. Blows, Palaeontology38, 187 (1995).
S26. F. Dalla Vecchia, Geol. Croatica51, 105 (1998).
S27. J.L. Sanz, J.E. Powell, J. Le Loeuff, R. Martínez, X. Pereda-Suberbiola, Estud.
Mus. Cien. Nat. Alava, 14, 235 (1999).
S28. A.F. Lapparent, G. Zbyszewski, Mem. Serv. Géol. Portugal2, 1 (1957).
S29. P. Dantas et al., Comun. Inst. Geol. Mineiro84, 91 (1998).
S30. M.T. Antunes, O. Mateus, Comp. Rend. Palevol2, 77 (2003).
S32. D. Glut, Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia (McFarland & Company Inc. Publishers, 1997), pp. 1-1076.
S33. R. Wild, Stutt. Beit. Natur. ser. B 41, 1 (1978).
S34. G.A. Mantell, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London140, 379 (1850).
S35. E.D. Cope, Am. Nat.13, 563 (1878).
S36. G.S. Paul, The Dinosaur Report, 12 (1994).
S37. J.F. Bonaparte, R.A. Coria, Ameghiniana30, 271 (1993).
S38. G.V. Mazzetta, P. Chistiansen, R.A. Fariña, Hist. Biol.16, 71 (2004).
S39. J.B. Smith et al., Science292, 1704 (2001). S40. G.S. Paul, Hunteria2, 1 (1988).
S41. P. Christiansen, GAIA14, 45 (1997).
S42. F.E. Novas, L. Salgado, J. Calvo, F. Agnolin, Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat.
“Bernardino Rivadavia” 7, 37 (2005).
S43. M.J. Wedel, R.L. Cifelli, R.K. Sanders, J. Vert. Paleontol. 20, 109 (2000).
S44. D.D. Gillete, J. Vert. Paleontol.11, 417 (1991).
S45. E.H. Colbert, Am. Mus. Novit. 2076, 1 (1962).
S46. R.M. Alexander, Zool. J. Linn. Soc.83, 1 (1985).
S47. J.F. Anderson, A. Hall-Martín, D.A. Russell, J. Zool.207, 53 (1985).
S48. R. Royo-Torres, thesis, Universidad de Zaragoza (2005). S49. F. Seebacher, J. Vert. Paleontol.21, 51 (2001).
