No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Longbone histology of the Tendaguru sauropods: implications for growth and biology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 February 2016
Abstract
A new sampling technique for fossil bone (coring with a 5/8″ bit) was used to sample longbones of all four sauropod genera from the Upper Jurassic Tendaguru beds of Tanzania for paleohistological study. Brachiosaurus and Barosaurus are represented by growth series of humeri and femora, while Dicraeosaurus could be sampled in fewer specimens and only one bone of Janenschia was available. Although all samples are dominated by fibrolamellar bone tissue, taxa can be distinguished by the degree and nature of bone remodeling and the presence and spacing of a peculiar kind of growth line (here termed “polish lines”). In addition, Barosaurus bone revealed two types of histology, tentatively interpreted as sexual morphs. The Tendaguru sauropods show a common growth pattern in which growth is determinate but sexual maturity is achieved well before maximum size is reached. For Brachiosaurus and Barosaurus, size at sexual maturity can be estimated and was reached at about 40% and 70% maximum size, respectively. Quantification of growth is possible in Janenschia using polish lines: the specimen studied reached sexual maturity at ≥11 years, attained maximum size at ≥26 years, and died at ≥38 years.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Literature Cited
Amprino, R. 1947. La structure du tissu osseux envisagée comme expression de différences dans la vitesse de l'accroisement. Archives de Biologie 58:315–330.Google Scholar
Castanet, J. 1974. Etude histologique des marques squelettiques de croissance chez Vipera aspis L. (Ophidia, Viperidae). Zoologica Scripta 3:137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanet, J., and Smirina, E. 1990. Introduction to the skeletochronological method in amphibians and reptiles. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie et Biologie Animale, 13e série, 11:191–196.Google Scholar
Castanet, J., Francillon-Vieillot, H., Meunier, F. J., and Ricqlès, A. d. 1993. Bone and individual aging. Pp. 245–283in Hall, B. K., ed., Bone, Vol. 7. Bone growth—B. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.Google Scholar
Castanet, J., Grandin, A., Abourachid, A., and de Ricqlès, A. 1996. Expression de la dynamique de croissance dans la structure de l'os périostique chez Anas platyrhynchos. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, série III, Sciences de la Vie 319:301–308.Google Scholar
Chinsamy, A. 1994. Dinosaur bone histology: implications and inferences. In Rosenberg, G. D. and Wolberg, D. L., eds., DINOfest: proceedings of a conference for the general public, March 24, 1994. Paleontological Society Special Publication 7:213–227. Indianapolis, Ind.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinsamy, A., and Dodson, P. 1995. Inside a dinosaur bone. American Scientist 83:174–180.Google Scholar
Chinsamy, A., Chiappe, L. M., and Dodson, P. 1995. Mesozoic avian bone microstructure: physiological implications. Paleobiology 21:561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, K. 1998. Histological quantification of growth rates in Apatosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18:36A.Google Scholar
Dunham, A. E., Overall, K. L., Porter, W. P., and Forster, C. A. 1989. Implications of ecological energetics and biophysical and developmental constraints for life-history variation in dinosaurs. In Farlow, J. O., ed. Paleobiology of the dinosaurs. Geological Society of America Paper 238:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farlow, J. O., and Brett-Surman, M. K., eds. 1997. The complete dinosaur. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Farlow, J. O., Dodson, P., and Chinsamy, A. 1995. Dinosaur biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francillon-Vieillot, H., de Buffrénil, V., Castanet, J., Géraudie, J., Meunier, F. J., Sire, J. Y., Zylberberg, L., and de Ricqlès, A. 1990. Microstructure and mineralization of vertebrate skeletal tissues. Pp. 471–530in Carter, J. G., ed. Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, processes and evolutionary trends, Vol. 1. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Gross, W. 1934. Die Typen des mikroskopischen Knochenbaues bei fossilen Stegocepahlen und Reptilien. Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 203:731–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, W.-D. 1999. The taphonomy of dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania) based on field sketches of the German Tendaguru expedition (1909–1913). Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 2:25–61.Google Scholar
Janensch, W. 1914a. Übersicht über die Wirbeltierfauna der Tendaguru-Schichten, nebst einer kurzen Charakterisierung der neu aufgeführten Arten von Sauropoden. Archiv für Biontologie 3:81–110.Google Scholar
Janensch, W. 1914b. Bericht über den Verlauf der Tendaguru-Expedition. Archiv für Biontologie 3:17–58.Google Scholar
Janensch, W. 1961. Die Gliedmaßen und Gliedmaßengörtel der Sauropoden der Tendaguru-Schichten. Palaeontographica 7(Suppl.):177–235.Google Scholar
Jarman, P. 1983. Mating systems and sexual dimorphism in large, terrestrial, mammalian herbivores. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 58:485–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klevezal, G. A. 1996. Recording structures of mammals: determination of age and reconstruction of life history. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
McIntosh, J. S., Brett-Surman, M. K., and Farlow, J. O. 1997. Sauropods. Pp. 264–290in Farlow, and Brett-Surman, 1997.Google Scholar
Padian, K. 1997. Physiology. Pp. 552–557in Currie, P. J. and Padian, K., eds. Encyclopedia of dinosaurs. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Reid, R. E. H. 1981. Lamellar-zonal bone with zones and annuli in the pelvis of a sauropod dinosaur. Nature 292:49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. E. H. 1997a. Dinosaurian physiology: the case for “intermediate” dinosaurs. Pp. 449–473in Farlow, and Brett-Surman, 1997.Google Scholar
Reid, R. E. H. 1997b. How dinosaurs grew. Pp. 403–413in Farlow, and Brett-Surman, 1997.Google Scholar
Ricqlès, de A. 1968. Recherches paléohistologiques sur les os longs des Tétrapodes. I. Origine du tissu osseux plexiforme des Dinosauriens Sauropodes. Annales de Paléontologie 54:133–145.Google Scholar
Ricqlès, de A. 1976. Recherches paléohistologiques sur les os longs des Tétrapodes. VII. Sur la classification, la signification fonctionelle et l'histoire des tissus osseux des Tétrapodes. Annales de Paléontologie 62:71–126.Google Scholar
Ricqlès, de A. 1980. Tissue structures of dinosaur bone: functional significance and possible relation to dinosaur physiology. Pp. 103–139in Thomas, R. D. K. and Olson, E. C., eds. A cold look at the warm-blooded dinosaurs. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Ricqlès, de A. 1983. Cyclical growth in the long limb bones of a sauropod dinosaur. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 28:225–232.Google Scholar
Ricqlès, A. deMeunier, F. J., Castanet, J., and Francillon-Vieillot, H. 1991. Comparative microstructure of bone. Pp. 1–78in Hall, B. K., ed. Bone, Vol. 3. Bone matrix and bone specific products. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.Google Scholar
Rimblot-Baly, F., de Ricqlès, A., and Zylberberg, L. 1995. Analyse paléohistologiques d'une série de croissance partial chez Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis (Jurassique moyen): essai sur la dynamique de croissance d'un dinosaure sauropode. Annales de Paléontologie 81:49–86.Google Scholar
Sander, P. M. 1990. Skeletochronology in the small Triassic reptile Neusticosaurus. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie et Biologie Animale, 13e série, 11:213–217.Google Scholar
Varricchio, D. J. 1997. Growth and embryology. Pp. 282–288in Currie, P. J. and Padian, K., eds., Encyclopedia of dinosaurs. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Wild, R. 1991. Janenschia n.g. robusta (E. Fraas 1908) pro Tornieria robusta (E. Fraas 1908) (Reptilia, Saurischia, Sauropodomorpha). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde Serie B (Geologie und Paläontologie) 173:1–4.Google Scholar