Content uploaded by Vertebrata Palasiatica
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vertebrata Palasiatica on Feb 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
第48 卷摇第1期
2010 年1月摇摇摇摇摇摇摇 古 脊 椎 动 物 学 报
VERTEBRATA PALASIATICA 摇摇摇摇摇摇摇摇摇摇 pp.19 -26
摇 figs.1 -2
中国河南晚白垩世地层一枚可能属于重爪
龙亚科(兽脚亚目:棘龙科)的牙齿化石1)
洪大卫1摇徐摇星1摇王德友2
(1 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所摇北京摇 100044)
(2 河南省国土资源研究院摇郑州摇 450000)
摘要:中国河南晚白垩世中段地层马家村组 发现了一枚大型兽脚龙类 牙齿。该牙牙体 长,呈
圆锥状,横断面卵圆形,沿长轴微向后缘弯曲,前后缘均有大量锯齿状突起,这些特征显示其
很可能是重爪龙类牙齿。这可能代表了重爪龙类在亚洲地区的首次发现,也是该类恐龙在晚
白垩世地层中的首现,由此表明重爪龙类在时间和地域分布上较之前研究观点更为广泛。综
合棘龙科的化石形态学以及推知的生态学证据看,较之其他兽脚类,棘龙类化石记录很少,很
可能意味该类动物数量确实稀少,造成这种现象的原因可能是其过分特化的身体形态。
关键词:亚洲,兽脚类,恐龙,棘龙类,生态
中图法分类号:Q915. 864摇 文献标识码:A摇 文章编号:1000-3118(2010)01 -0019-08
A PROBABLE BARYONYCHINE (THEROPODA:SPINOSAURIDAE)
TOOTH FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS OF
HENAN PROVINCE,CHINA
David W. E. HONE1摇 XU Xing1摇 WANG De鄄You2
(1 Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Paleoanthropology,Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing
摇 100044 dhone@ ivpp. ac. cn)
(2 Scientific Academy of Land and Resources of Henan Zhengzhou 450000)
Abstract摇 A single large theropod tooth was recovered from the middle Upper Cretaceous Majiacun For鄄
mation, Henan Province, China. The morphology of the tooth strongly suggests that it belongs to a bary鄄
onychine spinosaurid theropod based on the following features: long, conical tooth with a sub鄄circular
cross鄄section, slight recurvature along the length of the tooth and numerous fine denticles on both anteri鄄
or and posterior carinae. This tooth therefore may represent the first record of the baryonychines in
Asia, and the first in the Late Cretaceous. This suggests that the baryonychines were more widely distri鄄
buted both geographically and temporally than previously thought. Based on the gross morphology and
inferred ecology of spinosaurids as a whole, we note that these animals are surprisingly rare in the fossil
record compared to other theropod clades. This suggests that in life they may have been genuinely rare
animals, perhaps as a result of their extreme morphological specialisation.
Key words摇 Asia, theropod, dinosaur, spinosaurid, ecology
1) 中国科学院百人计划、中国科学院外籍青年访问学者奖学金计划和河南省 2007 年度两权项目资助。
摇收稿日期:2009-09 -07
20摇摇摇 古摇脊摇椎摇动摇物摇学摇报48 卷
1摇 Introduction
Spinosaurid theropods are an interesting and highly specialised clade of non鄄avian dino鄄
saurs. Despite their large size and wide temporal and geographic distribution they are known only
from isolated teeth and a few skeletal remains (Holtz et al., 2004; Dal Sasso et al., 2005).
Accurate identification of isolated spinosaurid teeth has proven difficult given their varied mor鄄
phology (Medeiros, 2006) and similarity to the teeth of other Mesozoic reptiles, most notably
crocodiles (e. g. see Holtz et al., 2004; Buffetaut et al., 2008), yet they remain an interesting
and unusual case of extreme specialisation in theropod evolution ( Holtz et al., 2004; Rayfield
et al., 2007) .
The Spinosauridae is a clade of basal tetanuran theropods consisting of two closely related
groups, the Spinosaurinae and Baryonychinae (Holtz et al., 2004). Both are large bodied with
elongate jaws and ( for theropods) unusually long , straight and sub鄄cylindrical teeth ( Holtz,
1998) . Spinosaurids are interpreted as active predators of both other dinosaurs and fish based
on their morphology (Holtz et al., 2004; Rayfield et al., 2007 and references therein) and
stomach contents ( Charig and Milner, 1997), and are thought to have lived primarily in and
around freshwater ( Holtz, 1998; Milner, 2003; Amiot et al., 2009).
Currently there are only two confirmed records of spinosaurids from Asia, an Early Creta鄄
ceous spinosaurine from Thailand (Siamosaurus—Buffetaut and Ingavat, 1986) and spinosau鄄
rine teeth from southern China that may belong to the same or a similar genus (Buffetaut et al.,
2008) . Here we report the first spinosaurid from the Late Cretaceous of Asia based on an isola鄄
ted tooth. The tooth is referred to the Baryonychinae and represents the first record of this clade
in Asia and the first in the Late Cretaceous. This significantly extends the geographic and tem鄄
poral range of this clade.
Institutional abbreviations摇 XMDFEC, Xixia Museum of Dinosaur Fossil Eggs of China.
IVPP, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, China.
2摇 Locality information
The tooth was collected from the Majiacun Formation, Sanlimiao, Xixia County, Henan
Province. The bed from which the fossil was recovered is in the mid鄄section of the formation, so
although the formation spans the Late Coniacian through to the Late Santonian ( Wang and
Feng, 2008:103) , the tooth is likely from the middle Santonian. The tooth bearing beds are a
set of light purple and red muddy siltstones and fine calcareous sandstone.
The Majiacun Formation has also yielded dinosaur eggs, including Dendroolithus and Pa鄄
raspheroolithus, and invertebrate traces ( Scoyenia) ( Wang and Feng , 2008: 103 - 104) . Al鄄
though dinosaur skeletal remains have been recovered from this formation, they have yet to be
described.
3摇 Description
Tooth morphology摇 The specimen ( XMDFEC V0010, casts are also housed at the IVPP
as IVPP FV*1786) is a single, well preserved tooth crown missing the very tip and with some
minor breaks (see Fig. 1). The root is not preserved. Given the quality of preservation of the
tooth and the lack of evidence of any form of tumbling or transport, it is likely that this was a
tooth shed from the jaws of the animal during life, rather than becoming separated from the cra鄄
nium after death. There is some wear on the base of the crown with missing and discoloured en鄄
amel. The maximum length of the preserved tooth is 52 mm, and probably only a few more mil鄄
1期 洪大卫等:中国河南晚白垩世地层一枚可能属于重爪龙亚科(兽脚亚目:棘龙科)的牙齿化石 21摇摇摇
limeters are missing from the tip. The tooth is 15 mm long anterioposteriorly and 9 mm labiolin鄄
gually, measured at the base for a Crown Base Ratio (CBR) of 0. 6.
The tooth is long, tapers evenly to the tip and is very slightly D鄄shaped in cross鄄section be鄄
ing somewhat more flat on the lingual face and bowed on the labial face (though this is overall
much closer to a circular cross鄄section than a more normal laterally compressed theropod tooth
as is common for spinosaurids) . The tooth exhibits a gentle posterior recurvature along its
length. In anterior and posterior view, it shows a slight sinusoidal curve labio鄄lingually ( see
Fig. 1) , a feature that does not appear to be the result of breakage or distortion.
Fig. 1摇 Tooth XMDFEC V0010 seen in (left to right) labial, anterior, lingual and posterior views
Scale bar = 10 mm
The tooth has clearly defined carinae on both the anterior and posterior faces, and both
have small, fine serrations (denticles). The denticles have suffered some wear, which makes
them hard to make out along most of the length of the tooth but in places are clear and well鄄pre鄄
served. The denticles are similar in morphology on both faces and run from the base of the tooth
to the break at the tip. There are 24 denticles per 5 mm on the anterior face of the tooth (mea鄄
sured at the midpoint) for a ratio of 4. 8 per mm. The denticles are more worn on the posterior
face and had to be measured at a point distal to the midpoint and over only 4 mm. This gave a
total of 18 denticles over 4 mm and thus 22. 5 over 5 mm, or 4. 5 per mm (see Fig. 2 ). The
Denticle Size Difference Index (Rauhut and Werner, 1995) is therefore 1. 09, indicating that
these are very similar on the anterior and posterior carinae.
The enamel surface of the tooth is largely smooth and without the strong dorso鄄ventral orna鄄
mentation seen in many spinosaurid teeth (see below). There are exceptionally faint anteropos鄄
terior flutes on the lateral surfaces of the tooth but these are widely spaced and shallow.
Identification摇 Identification of this tooth as theropodan rather than from another reptilian
clade is difficult as in the past spinosaurid teeth having been confused with crocodiles and plio鄄
saurs as well as other reptiles ( e. g. see S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007; Buffetaut et al.,
2008) . However, the combination of characters ( and especially the presence of both anterior
22摇摇摇 古摇脊摇椎摇动摇物摇学摇报48 卷
Fig. 2摇 Denticles on the distal
posterior carina of XMDFEC V0010
seen in lingual view
Scale bar = 2 mm
and posterior carinae with fine denticles in combination with
the curvature of the tooth—S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007 )
can be used to separate the tooth from other non鄄spinosaurid
reptiles, notably pliosaurs. Although several clades of croco鄄
diles (e. g. sebecosuchians and pristichampsids) have ‘zipho鄄
dont爷 teeth—that is those with carinae and denticles (Riff and
Kellner, 2001; Turner and Calvo, 2005) and some of which
are laterally compressed, these can still be distinguished from
theropod teeth. In this case the tooth is more strongly recurved
and more laterally compressed than those of ziphodont croco鄄
diles and the denticles are finer. This suggests that this is in鄄
deed a theropod tooth.
Further complexity is however added by the distribution
of characters seen in spinosaurine and baryonychine teeth
(e. g. see Medeiros, 2006; Canudo et al., 2008) and the fact
that many teeth assigned to either clade were not associated
with diagnostic skeletal material. With the loss of the holotype
Spinosaurus material ( see Buffetaut, 1989), and the absence
of a detailed description of Suchomimus ( Sereno et al., 1998;
Holtz et al., 2004) we are left to rely on the holotype of Bary鄄
onyx (Charig and Milner, 1997) alone for the baryonychines
and the holotype of Irritator ( Sues et al ., 2002 ) for the spi鄄
nosaurines, with only partial jaws or skulls available for some
other specimens (e. g. see Taquet and Russell, 1998). De鄄
scriptions of isolated teeth are therefore typically based around
a few key characters that clearly vary within the two clades
(they can be strongly present through to reduced or even absent) and can appear in either.
Spinosaurine tooth crowns are typically straight, circular in cross鄄section, with strong en鄄
amel ornamentation ( vertically orientated ridges) and have carinae lacking denticles ( Sues et
al., 2002; Holtz et al., 2004; Medeiros, 2006; S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007; Buffetaut et
al., 2008). In contrast, baryonychine tooth crowns are generally slightly curved posteriorly
along their length, have a slightly compressed and oval cross鄄section, show reduced ornamenta鄄
tion (often present on only the lingual face) and have fine, densely packed denticles on their
carinae ( Charig and Milner, 1997; Sereno et al., 1998; Taquet and Russell, 1998; Ruiz鄄
Ome觡aca et al., 2005; S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007) .
However, there are significant degrees of variation seen in the two clades, with for example
some spinosaurine teeth being described with reduced ornamentation ( Medeiros, 2006;
S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007 ) and with some degree of lateral compression ( Medeiros,
2006) or some serrations on the carinae ( Canudo et al., 2008) . There are also teeth ascribed
to Baryonychinae with missing carinae ( S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007 ) and with strong or
even absent ornamentation ( Ruiz鄄Ome觡aca et al., 2005; S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007).
While not commented on in the literature to any great extent, spinosaurine teeth are typically
larger than those of the baryonychines, as the former were absolutely larger animals on average
(Dal Sasso et al., 2005; Hone et al., 2005) and the baryonychines also had approximately
twice as many teeth in the dentary as the spinosaurines (Buffetaut, 1989) , though perhaps a
similar number in the maxilla (Dal Sasso et al., 2005) .
The presence of close to five denticles per mm on the carinae of the tooth is quite close to
that of previously reported counts for other baryonychine teeth. These have been recorded as ap鄄
proximately 7 per mm for a Baryonyx鄄like tooth from Portugal (Buffetaut, 2007) and a range of
1期 洪大卫等:中国河南晚白垩世地层一枚可能属于重爪龙亚科(兽脚亚目:棘龙科)的牙齿化石 23摇摇摇
6-13 per mm for baryonychines reported by Ruiz鄄Ome觡aca et al. (2005)—though it is not al鄄
ways clear where these were measured and in the case of the latter, counts were higher in smal鄄
ler teeth. However, the values for XMDFEC V 0010 are also close to (though higher than) the
count of 2 - 4 denticles per mm made on a spinosaurine tooth from Tendaguru by Buffetaut
(2008). The count for the present tooth is therefore a little lower than may be expected for a
baryonychine but higher than for spinosaurines, but close to published figures for both clades.
The denticles are a little larger closer to the distal part of the tooth which may explain the slight鄄
ly lower count on the posterior face and at the tip, there are as few as 2 -3 per mm. This has
not been recorded in spinosaurids before, but this may be an absence in the literature as op鄄
posed to a novel feature of this tooth.
Overall the tooth presented here is clearly a much closer match to the baryonychine mor鄄
phology than the spinosaurine one. The tooth lacks any ornamentation ( more common in bary鄄
onychines), and has clearly defined carinae with very fine denticles (denticles are more com鄄
monly present in baryonychines, though the denticles counts themselves are somewhat ambiva鄄
lent given the diversity seen in spinosaurid teeth). It is laterally compressed to a degree seen in
other baryonychines ( e. g. c. f. S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007 ), is curved posteriorly along
its length, and is relatively small (being similar in size to the smaller teeth of both Suchomimus
(based on photographs provided by S. Brusatte) and Baryonyx—Charig and Milner, 1997).
The slight sinusoidal curvature of the tooth when seen in anterior view has not previously been
reported in spinosaurids, although teeth of Suchomimus show some lingual curvature (based on
photographs provided by S. Brusatte). The asymmetrically compressed cross鄄section is similar
to the teeth illustrated by Buffetaut (2008) and has also been noted in some other cases (e. g.
see Canudo et al., 2008) .
The possibility remains therefore that this is either a highly unusual spinosaurine tooth with
a large number of baryonychines鄄like features, or less likely, belongs to a ziphodont crocodile.
However, the weight of the evidence suggests that our interpretation is correct. We therefore re鄄
fer this tooth to the Baryonychinae.
4摇 Discussion
The assignment of this tooth to the baryonychine branch of the spinosaurids significantly ex鄄
tends their known range both biogeographically and temporally. While spinosaurids as a whole
are known from four continents and from the Late Jurassic to the Late Cretaceous (see Table
1) , the baryonychines were formerly unknown either in the Late Cretaceous or in Asia. While
spinosaurid teeth are certainly common in at least some formations (e. g. Medeiros, 2006) they
are on the whole rather rare as fossils. Combined with the difficulty of distinguishing them from
Table 1摇 Temporal and geographic distribution of spinosaurid remains
Continent Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous Late Cretaceous
Spinosaurine
Asia — Skeletal material and teeth —
Europe — Teeth —
Africa — Skeletal material and teeth Skeletal material and teeth
South America — Skeletal material and teeth Teeth
Baryonychine
Asia — — Tooth—reported here
Europe — Skeletal material and teeth —
Africa Teeth Skeletal material and teeth —
South America — — —
摇 摇 Note: Possible spinosaurid teeth have also been reported from the Upper Cretaceous of Uzbekistan (Holtz et al., 2004) ,
but this has yet to be verified. Data taken from: Buffetaut, 1989, 2008; Buffetaut et al., 2008; Holtz et al., 2004; Medeiros
2006; S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez et al., 2007.
24摇摇摇 古摇脊摇椎摇动摇物摇学摇报48 卷
the teeth of other reptiles, this makes even isolated cases without the support of associated ske鄄
letal material, worthy of note.
It is interesting to note just how rare spinosaurids as a whole are. Although there are re鄄
cords of teeth from numerous formations (and in some cases the teeth themselves are numerous,
though this is common for theropods in general), skeletal material is conspicuous by its ab鄄
sence. Apart from the partial skeletal material on which names have been erected (i. e. Spi鄄
nosaurus,Baryonyx,Suchomimus,Irritator,Cristatusaurus,Angaturama: see Holtz et al.,
2004 and references therein) very little else has been reported ( e. g. see Buffetaut, 1989,
2007; Dal Sasso et al., 2005) and these additional specimens are primarily jaw fragments con鄄
taining teeth. Even the name鄄bearing specimens are incomplete and several comprise only par鄄
tial skulls. Based on the large number of both cranial and postcranial characters that are diag鄄
nostic for spinosaurids (e. g. see Sereno et al., 1998; Holtz et al., 2004), and the interest
which the clade attracts, it is unlikely that isolated material has remained misdiagnosed or unre鄄
ported in the literature. Spinosaurid skeletal material can therefore be considered rare.
This rarity is surprising as spinosaurids have several features which might lead to a bias in
favour of their being fossilised and recovered more frequently than other theropod clades. Even
allowing for a misidentification of the tooth presented in this paper, they were clearly wide鄄
spread (being present in Africa, Europe, South America and Asia—Holtz, 1998; Buffetaut et
al., 2008) and long鄄lived ( present from the later Late Jurassic, through to at least the early
Late Cretaceous - in excess of 50 million years at least, and the date of their inferred split from
the megalosaurids would increase this still further - Holtz et al., 2004). Furthermore they were
large animals, comparable in size, if not bigger than other large bodied theropods ( e. g. allo鄄
saurines, tyrannosaurines—Dal Sasso et al., 2005; Hone et al., 2005) , and perhaps most im鄄
portantly, seem to have favoured aquatic habitats (Milner, 2003; Holtz et al., 2004; Amiot et
al., 2009) . All of these factors imply that, for a given population of spinosaurids and of other
theropods, one might expect spinosaurids to be relatively common in the fossil record. If they
favoured aquatic environments then they would be more likely to die in, or close to, water and
thus be more prone to burial, and their large size would tend to favour their preservation and
eventual recovery. Their extensive geographical range and temporal distribution implies that
they had sufficient opportunities to enter the fossil record in numerous sites at numerous times.
Two factors complicate this issue somewhat, but do not detract from the overall assertion of
rarity. One argument against this implied bias for high preservation is that fact that there are no
spinosaurids known from North America which has some of the most extensive Mesozoic terrestri鄄
al fossil beds and most intense collecting seen for dinosaurs. However, there are also spinosau鄄
rids known in Asia and Europe which have been studied intensely and with extensive beds,
which should therefore ameliorate this factor. Also, since spinosaurids are seen in Africa, Eu鄄
rope and South America, it is reasonable to speculate that they were present in North America
and have simply yet to be recovered which does support the concept of genuine rarity. Second鄄
ly, a more important caveat is that spinosaurids certainly appear to have been at their peak in
the Early Cretaceous (based on diversity and number of specimens) —a time that is relatively
poorly represented in the rock record ( Fara and Benton, 2000) . As such, it is possible that
the inferred rarity of spinosaurids is masked by a reduced rock record in which they could be
preserved. However, while this clearly would reduce the number of specimens or taxa that
might be recovered, they remain rare in both the Late Jurassic and Late Cretaceous in which
they were present despite the extensive rocks available there.
While direct comparisons to other theropod clades would be difficult to quantify and qualify
(and is beyond the scope of this study), there are probably less than 20 spinosaurid skeletal
specimens described in the literature, and the majority of which consist of only partial jaws.
This is far fewer specimens than are known from some individual theropodan genera (there are
1期 洪大卫等:中国河南晚白垩世地层一枚可能属于重爪龙亚科(兽脚亚目:棘龙科)的牙齿化石 25摇摇摇
more than 60 specimens known for Allosaurus alone, and more than 30 each for Tyrannosaurus
and Tarbosaurus, with another three tyrannosaurs known from at least five partially complete
skeletons—see Holtz et al., 2004 and Holtz, 2004), let alone comparable clades. It seems
therefore a strong possibility that spinosaurids were genuinely rare animals.
Spinosaurids were clearly highly specialised animals with numerous diagnostic features in
their anatomy, especially relating to their cranium and associated with prey capture and consump鄄
tion ( e. g. Charig and Milner, 1997; Holtz, 1998; Sereno et al., 1998; Rayfield et al., 2007).
It has been noted that this extreme specialisation may have allowed them to avoid competition with
other theropods by targeting fish as a substantial part of their diet (Holtz, 1998), though it is also
clear that they ate a variety of other foods including dinosaurs (Charig and Milner, 1997) and
pterosaurs (Buffetaut et al., 2004) either as prey or through scavenging. However, while compe鄄
tition with other theropods might well have been alleviated, spinosaurids would have faced compe鄄
tition for food from other piscivorous predators such as crocodiles and the various other aquatic
reptiles of the Mesozoic. Holtz et al. (2004) noted that the increased terrestrial mobility of spi鄄
nosaurids compared to, for example, a large crocodilian ( and obviously greater yet compared to
obligate aquatic reptiles) may have allowed them to exploit habitats at the margins of water bodies
by moving from ‘pond to pond爷 to find food, and to this can be added that perhaps they could
therefore exploit environments that other large bodied predators could not.
This combination of factors and inferred lifestyle would correlate with their rarity. If spi鄄
nosaurids were specialised for marginally productive habitats ( which would fit with their range
of diet, which seems broader than has been recorded for other theropod clades) and were avoi鄄
ding competition both from other theropods and crocodilians, this would support the currently
observed data. These factors may have led to populations( some of which may have been large)
of highly specialised species ( one may be specialised as well as an excellent opportunist) per鄄
sisting in environments which could not support other clades, and were only occasionally present
in habitats that could support other taxa.
If spinosaurids were specialised predators with unusual lifestyles (as seems likely) , then
whilst they were exploiting a different niche to other theropods, this niche was apparently not
broad. While occurring over a wide geographic and temporal range, spinosaurids were limited
in both the number of taxa and perhaps the size of the individual populations compared to more
‘terrestrially爷 based and more ‘ typical爷 theropodan predators and thus these two factors ( spe鄄
cialisation and niche occupation) may be closely correlated.
Acknowledgements摇 DWEH is supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. We are grate鄄
ful to Romain Amiot for discussions of spinosaurid teeth and access to rare literature, and
thanks also to Eric Buffetaut, Phil Currie, Corwin Sullivan and Alex Kellner for discussions on
tooth identity. Thanks to Steve Brusatte for photographs of Suchomimus teeth for comparison and
to Jonah Choiniere for help with constructing Fig. 2. Special thanks to Guo Yu for translation of
the abstract into Chinese.
References
Amiot R, Buffetaut E, L佴cuyer C et al., 2009. Oxygen isotope analysis of continental apatites from Mesozoic formations of Thai鄄
land: environmental and ecological significance. Geol Soc London Spec Publ, 315: 271 -283
Buffetaut E, 1989. New remains of the enigmatic dinosaur Spinosaurus from the Cretaceous of Morocco and the affinities be鄄
tween Spinosaurus and Baryonyx. Neues Jahrb Geol Pal覿ont, Abh, 1989: 79-87
Buffetaut E, 2007 . The spinosaurid dinosaur Baryonyx ( Saurischia, Theropoda) in the Early Cretaceous of Portugal. Geol
Mag, 144: 1021 -1025
Buffetaut E, 2008. Spinosaurid teeth from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru, Tanzania, with remarks on the evolutionary and bio鄄
26摇摇摇 古摇脊摇椎摇动摇物摇学摇报48 卷
geographical history of the Spinosauridae. In: Mid鄄Mesozoic Life and Environments-Cognac (France) . 26-28
Buffetaut E, Ingavat R, 1986. Unusual theropod teeth from the Upper Jurassic of Phu Wiang, northeastern Thailand. Rev
Pal佴obiol, 5: 217-220
Buffetaut E, Martill D, Escuilli佴 F, 2004. Pterosaurs as part of a spinosaur diet. Nature, 430: 33
Buffetaut E, Suteethorn V, Tong H et al., 2008. An Early Cretaceous spinosaurid theropod from southern China. Geol Mag,
145: 745 -748
Canudo J I, Gasulla J M, G佼mez鄄Fern觃ndez D et al., 2008. Primera evidencia de dientes aislados atribuidos a Spinosauridae
(Theropoda) en el Aptiano inferior (Cret觃cico Inferior) de Europa: Formaci佼n Arcillas de Morella (Espa觡a) . Ameghini鄄
ana, 45: 649 -662
Charig A J, Milner A C, 1997. Baryonyx walkeri a fish eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey. Bull Nat Hist Mus London
(Geol), 53: 11-70
Dal Sasso C, Maganuco S, Buffetaut E, 2005. New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with re鄄
marks on its size and affinities. J Vert Paleont, 25: 888-896
Fara E, Benton M J, 2000 . The fossil record of Cretaceous tetrapods. Palaios, 15 : 161-165
Holtz T R, 1998. Spinosaurs as crocodile mimics. Science, 282: 1276-1277
Holtz T R, 2004. Tyrannosauroidea. In: Weishampel D B, Dodson P, Osmolska H eds. The Dinosauria, 2nd ed. Berkeley:
University of California Press. 111 -136
Holtz T R, Molnar R E, Currie P J, 2004. Basal Tetanurae. In: Weishampel D B, Dodson P, Osmolska H eds. The Dinosau鄄
ria, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. 71-110
Hone D W E, Keesey T M, Pisani D et al., 2005. Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope爷s Rule. J Evol Biol, 18:
587-595
Medeiros M A, 2006. Large theropod teeth from the Eocenomanian of northeastern Brazil and the occurrence of Spinosauridae.
Rev Brasil Paleont, 9: 333 -338
Milner A C, 2003. Fish鄄eating theropods: a short review of the systematics, biology and palaeobiology of spinosaurs. J Int Pale鄄
ont Dinosaurios Entoro, 2: 129 -138
Rauhut O W M, Werner C, 1995. First record of the Family Dromaeosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) in the Cretaceous of
Gondwana (Wadi Milk Formation, northern Sudan) . Palaeont Z, 69: 475-489
Rayfield E, Milner A C, Xuan V B et al., 2007. Functional morphology of spinosaur ‘crocodile mimic爷 dinosaurs. J Vert Pal鄄
eont, 27: 892 -901
Riff D, Kellner A W A, 2001. On the dentition of Baurusuchus pachecoi Price (Crocodyliformes, Metasuchia) from the Upper
Cretaceous of Brazil. Bol Mus Nacional Geol, 59: 1-15
Ruiz鄄Ome觡aca J I, Canudo J I, Cruzado鄄Caballero P et al., 2005. Baryonychine teeth ( Theropoda: Spinosauridae) from the
Lower Cretaceous of La Cantalera (Josa, NE Spain) . Darm Beitr Natur, 14: 59-63
S觃nchez鄄Hern觃ndez B, Benton M J, Naish D, 2007. Dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates from the Late Jurassic and Early
Cretaceous of the Galve area, NE Spain. Palaeogeogr, Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol, 249: 180-215
Sereno P C, Beck A L, Dutheuil D B et al., 1998. A long鄄snouted predatory dinosaur from Africa and the evolution of spi鄄
nosaurids. Science, 282: 1298 -1302
Sues H鄄D, Frey E, Martill D M et al., 2002. Irritator challengeri, a spinosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Lower Cre鄄
taceous of Brazil. J Vert Paleont, 22: 535-547
Taquet P, Russell D A, 1998 . New data on spinosaurid dinosaurs from the Early Cretaceous of the Sahara. C R Acad Sci,
Paris, Sci Terre Plan侉tes, 327: 347-353
Turner A H, Calvo J O, 2005. A new sebecosuchian crocodyliform from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. J Vert Paleont, 25:
87-98
Wang D Y, Feng J C, 2008. Dinosaur Eggs and Skeletons from Henan Province in China. Beijing: Geological Publishing
House. 1-320
