Supporting Online Material for

Transcription

1 Supporting Online Material for A Giant European Dinosaur and a New Sauropod Clade Rafael Royo-Torres,* Alberto Cobos, Luis Alcalá This PDF file includes: *To whom correspondence should be addressed. royo@dinopolis.com SOM Text Figs. S1 to S4 Tables S1 to S5 References Published 22 December 2006, Science 314, 1925 (2006) DOI: /science

2 Supporting Online Material for: A GIANT EUROPEAN DINOSAUR AND A NEW SAUROPOD CLADE Rafael Royo-Torres 1*, Alberto Cobos 1 and Luis Alcalá 1 1 Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel-Dinópolis. Avenida de Sagunto, E Teruel, Spain. *To whom correspondence should be addressed, royo@dinopolis.com 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). 6. Supporting Online Material References.

3 1. Geographic and stratigraphic setting Fig. S1. Geographic setting of the Barrihonda-El Humero site in Riodeva (Teruel Province, Spain): the type locality of Turiasaurus riodevensis.

4 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.

5 2. Excavation map of the Turiasaurus riodevensis type locality (Barrihonda-El Humero) Fig. S3. Excavation map: Barrihonda-El Humero, Riodeva (Teruel, Spain)

6 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) Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus??????????????????? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus??????????????????? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus??????????????????? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus??????????????????? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus?? ?? 0??? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus?????? Turiasaurus?????? 0 1 1? Galveosaurus?????? 0 1?? Losillasaurus ??????? Turiasaurus ???? ? 1 1 Galveosaurus 1 1????????? ? Losillasaurus ? Turiasaurus ? 0 0? ? Galveosaurus 0? 1 1??? 0? ? Losillasaurus ??????? 0 0??? 0 Turiasaurus 1 1 0? ??????????? Galveosaurus 1 1 0?? 0? 0???????????

7 Losillasaurus ? 0??? ? Turiasaurus???? 0??? 0?????????? Galveosaurus? 0 0 0??? 0? ???? Losillasaurus 0 0???????????????? 0 Turiasaurus?????????? 0 0?????? 0 Galveosaurus???? 1????? 0 0??? 0? Losillasaurus 2 0????? ?? Turiasaurus ??? ? Galveosaurus 2 0 0???? ??????? Losillasaurus 1 0???? 1 1??????????? Turiasaurus ?????? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus??????? 0??? 0??????? Turiasaurus??????????????????? Galveosaurus??????? 0 0 0? 0 0?????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus??? 1? 0? 0 1 0?? Galveosaurus???????????? 1?????? Losillasaurus??????????????????? Turiasaurus 1 1? 1? 1 1??? 1 1??? Galveosaurus??????????????????? Losillasaurus???? 0 Turiasaurus? 1? 1 0 Galveosaurus???? 1

8 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 lengths of the femur and tibia of Turiasaurus at: 2219 and 1365 mm, respectively.

9 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 References Ampelosaurus atacis / 630 / 395 / / / / / S18 Aragosaurus ischiaticus / / / / 1260 / / 1360 / / / / 170 / S19 Brachiosauridae indet. MIWG / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S20 Cetiosaurus oxoniensis / 1370 / 1236 / 930 / / / / / S12, S21 "Cetiosauriscus greppini" / / / / / / 520 / / / 600 ca / / / / / / S22 Cetiosauriscus stewarti / / / / / 1360 / / / 210 / / S8, S11 "Chondrosteosaurus gigas" / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S23 Dinheirosaurus lourinhanensis 710 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S24 Eucamerotus foxi / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S25 Galveosaurus herreroi / / / / / / / / / / 1500 S2, S7 Histriasaurus boscarollii / / / / / / / / / / / / / S26 Lirainosaurus astibiae / / / / / / / / / S27 Losillasaurus giganteus 410 / / ca 810 ca 330 ca 1834* 1114* / / / / / S5 Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis 500 / 300 / 1670 / / / / S28, S29 Lusotitan atalaiensis / / / 2050 ca 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 ca 200 ca 700 / * 1365* 1440 ca * estimated; ca: approximately

10 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 References Amphicoelias fragillimus / / / 1920 ca / / / / / / * / / / / / / / S35,S36 Argentinosaurus huinculensis PVPH-1 / / / / 1810* / / / ca / 1550 / / / / / S37, S38, S39 Antarctosaurus giganteus MLP / / / / / / / / / / 2350 / / / / / / / S38 Brachiosaurus brancai HMN SII 1155 / / * / * 1150* 1190 / * S40, S41 Brachiosaurus brancai HMN XV2 1300* / / 1320* 2660* / 2400* / / / 2350* / 1340 / / / 2900* / S40 Paralititan stromeri CGM / / / / / / 1690 / / / 2054* / / / / / / / S39 Puertasaurus reuili MPM / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S42 Sauroposeidon proteles OMNH / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S43 Seismosaurus halli NMMNH 3690 / / / 1000* / / / / / / / / / / / / / / S36, S44 Supersaurus vivianae BYU 5501 / / / / 2700 / / / / / 2600* / / / / / / / S40 Turiasaurus riodevensis ca 200 ca 700 / ca 1365 ca 1440 ca * estimated; ca: approximately

11 5. Mass and length estimation of Turiasaurus riodevensis Estimations of dinosaurs body mass have produced varied results. For example, for the basal titanosauriform sauropod Brachiosaurus brancai, the following quite different mass estimates have been proposed (in metric tons): 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 (C h ) and femur (C f ) in mm, according to the following formula proposed for quadrupedal dinosaurs: W = C h+f 2.73 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 circumference of the Turiasaurus femur could range between 794 mm and 902 mm.

12 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 from Peñarroya de Tastavins (S48) MPZ-99/9 Sauropod from the Morrison Formation (USA) CPT-M01 Sauropod from the Morrison Formation (USA) CPT-M02 Cast of Bellusaurus sui (China) CPT-221 Cast of Brachiosaurus brancai (HMN SII) CPT-211 Aragosaurus ischiaticus MMG-SS Turiasaurus riodevensis CPT-1241 Femur total length (mm) A= distal shaft circumference at 16% of the femur total length (mm) B= midshaft circumference at 50% of the femur total length (mm) Difference 82% 92% 92% 81% 87.5% 90% Applying the formula from Anderson et al. (1985) (S47): Minimum estimated weight in g = ( ) 2.73 Maximum estimated weight in g = ( ) 2.73 So, the body mass of Turiasaurus could range between and metric 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:

13 51.05 metric tons using length of the femur (fl = 2219 mm, estimated) metric tons using distal width of the femur across the condyles (fw = 620 mm) and 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) = (total length in m) 1.46 the length of Turiasaurus would range between about 36 m (minimum) and 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. SKULL AXIAL SKELETON APPENDICULAR SKELETON TOTAL Seismosaurus (S44 ) Skull elements * Very fragmentary remains Turiasaurus (this paper) Teeth * 8 (3 complete) 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

14 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. Aragonesa 15, 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. Evolució 32, 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 S7. B. Sánchez-Hernández, Zootaxa 1034, 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 S9. Y. Luo, C. Wang, Acta Geol. Sin. 74, 132 (2000) S10. P. Yadagiri, Records Geol. Surv. India 11, 102 (1988). S11. A.S. Woodward, Proc. Zool. Soc. London 26, 232 (1905). S12. P. Upchurch, J. Martin, J. Vert. Paleontol. 23, 208 (2003). S13. P.C. Sereno et al., Science 286, 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 S16. H. Ouyang, Y. Ye, The First Mamenchisaurian Skeleton with Complete Skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi (Sichuan Science and Technology Press, Chengdu, 2002), pp 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 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. Palevol 3, 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, Palaeontology 38, 187 (1995). S26. F. Dalla Vecchia, Geol. Croatica 51, 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. Portugal 2, 1 (1957). S29. P. Dantas et al., Comun. Inst. Geol. Mineiro 84, 91 (1998). S30. M.T. Antunes, O. Mateus, Comp. Rend. Palevol 2, 77 (2003). S31. F. V. Huene, Monog. Geol. Palaeontol. 1, 1 (1932).

15 S32. D. Glut, Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia (McFarland & Company Inc. Publishers, 1997), pp S33. R. Wild, Stutt. Beit. Natur. ser. B 41, 1 (1978). S34. G.A. Mantell, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 140, 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, Ameghiniana 30, 271 (1993). S38. G.V. Mazzetta, P. Chistiansen, R.A. Fariña, Hist. Biol. 16, 71 (2004). S39. J.B. Smith et al., Science 292, 1704 (2001). S40. G.S. Paul, Hunteria 2, 1 (1988). S41. P. Christiansen, GAIA 14, 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). S50. J. Peczkis, J. Vert. Paleontol. 14, 520 (1994).