Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2020View details →

FIGURE 25 in LARGE SCAPHITID AMMONITES (HOPLOSCAPHITES) FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS (UPPER CAMPANIAN–LOWER MAASTRICHTIAN) OF NORTH AMERICA: ENDLESS VARIATION ON A SINGLE THEME

FIGURE 25. Hoploscaphites crassus (Coryell and Salmon, 1934), macroconch. A–D. BHI 4292, Baculites baculus Zone, Pierre Shale, Cedar Creek Anticline, east-central Montana. A, Right lateral; B, apertural; C, ventral; D, left lateral. Arrow indicates the base of the body chamber.

Fig. 12 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 12. Results of the cladistic analyses based of Matrix 3 (SOM 8) and Matrix 4 (SOM 9) based from Prieto-Márquez (2013), showing the phylogenetic position of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov.; Matrix 3 resulted in 2 most parsimonious trees, and Matrix 4 resulted in one fully resolved cladogram. The strict consensus tree based on Matrix 3 (characters scored as-is, cladogram 3) was identical to the most parsimonious tree based on Matrix 4 (ontogenetic character removed, cladogram 4), except that some clades, marked by "X", were collapsed in cladogram 3. Bootstrap, Bremer support values, Consistency and Retention indices of the phylogenetic trees are also shown. For the clades collapsed in the cladogram 3, these values are substituted by a dash. Those indices and steps of the parsimonious trees based from Matrix 3 are also shown in the parentheses below the tree.

Fig. 11 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 11. Results of the cladistic analyses of Matrix 1 (SOM 6) and Matrix 2 (SOM 7) based from Xing et al. (2014), showing the phylogenetic position of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. Matrix 1 resulted in 288 most parsimonious trees (MPTs), and Matrix 2 resulted in 160 MPTs. The strict consensus tree based on Matrix 1 (characters scored as-is, cladogram 1) was identical to the strict consensus tree based on Matrix 2 (ontogenetic characters removed, cladogram 3), except that some clades, marked by "X" were collapsed in cladogram 1. Bootstrap, Bremer support values, Consistency and Retention indices of the strict consensus trees are also shown. For the clades collapsed in the cladogram 1, these values are substituted by a dash. Those indices and steps of the parsimonious trees are also shown in the parentheses below the tree.

Fig. 10 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 10. Dentary comparison of size class 2 Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. (A, UAMES 4946, left; C, UAMES 12941, right) from the late Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska, dentary in lateral view; and size class 2 Edmontosaurus annectens Marsh, 1892 (B, BHI-6218, cast, reversed) from the late Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, USA, right dentary in lateral view. Note that U. kuukpikensis has a shorter edentulous process than E. annectens. C. Right dentary of U. kuukpikensis showing how the proximal edentulous process length and dental battery length are defined. D. Dentary regression analyses. Biplot of posterior symphyseal process length versus dental battery length. U. kuukpikensis has a shorter symphyseal process than in E. annectens. When the regressions show statistically indistinguishable slope values but statistically significant differences in elevation, P values are marked with an asterisk. Because the lines for E. regalis and U. kuukpikensis are statistically indistinguishable, only one is shown.

Fig. 9. A in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 9. A. Quadratojugal regression analyses. Biplot of the lateral exposure width of the quadratojugal versus dentary length and quadratojugal shown in lateral view of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis is similar to Edmontosaurus annectens in the lateral exposure width of the quadratojugal, but different from Edmontosaurus regalis. The 95% confidence interval of U. kuukpikensis dentary length is also shown by the bi-directional arrow. When the regressions show statistically indistinguishable slope values but statistically significant differences in elevation, P values are marked with an asterisk. B. Right quadratojugal of U. kuukpikensis (UAMES 4298) from the early Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska, showing how the lateral exposure width is defined.

Fig. 7 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 7. Postorbital comparison of a size class 3 Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. (A, UAMES 33308) from the early Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska, right postorbital in medial (A1) and anterior (A2) views; size class 2 Edmontosaurus annectens Marsh, 1982 (B, ROM 53513, reversed) from the late Maastrichtian Lance Formation, Wyoming, USA, left postorbital in medial (B1) and anterior (B2) views; and adult Kundurosaurus nagornyi C, AENM 2/921-6) from the Maastrichtian Udurchukan Formation, Kundur, Russia, left postorbital in medial view (from Godefroit et al. 2012: fig. 6). Note that size class 3 of U. kuukpikensis does not possess a deep posterior orbital pocket seen in the size class 2 specimens of E. annectens, although the articular surface with the frontal is nearly identical. D. Left postorbital of E. annectens (CMN 8509) from the late Maastrichtian Lance Formation, Saskatchewan, Canada, showing how the jugal process width is defined. E. Postorbital regression analyses. Biplots of the width of the jugal process measured at one-quarter distance from its dorsal end versus dentary length. U. kuukpikensis has a narrower jugal process than Edmontosaurus regalis. For E. regalis and U. kuukpikensis the numbers in the parentheses are those calculated when the minimum dentary length, not average, is adopted as the body size proxy. When the regression lines have statistically indistinguishable slope values but show statistically significant differences in elevation, P values are marked with an asterisk. The 95% confidence interval of U. kuukpikensis dentary length is also shown by the bi-directional arrow.

Fig. 6 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 6. Maxilla comparison of a size class 2 Edmontosaurus annectens Marsh, 1892 from the late Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation, Montana, USA (A, LACM 23502, right maxilla in lateral view) and a size class 1 Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. from the early Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska (B, UAMES 4327, right maxilla in lateral view). U. kuukpikensis has a relatively low maxilla compared to its length. The height (H) to length (L) ratio is 0.32 whereas that of size class 2 E. annectens is 0.41.

Fig. 8 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 8. Jugal comparison of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. (A, UAMES 14174, right, size class 3; D, UAMES 4922, left, size class 1) from the Prince Creek Formation, Maastrichtian, Alaska; Edmontosaurus annectens Marsh, 1892 (B, ROM 53518, left, size class 2) from the late Maastrichtian Lance Formation, Wyoming, USA, in medial (B1) and lateral (B2) views; and adult Edmontosaurus regalis Lambe, 1917 (C, CMN 2289, left, reversed) from the late Campanian Edmonton Formation, Alberta, Canda. A, B1, C. Anterior processes in medial views, the dashed lines delineate the posterior border of the anterior process. In U. kuukpikensis this border is angled more strongly than in Edmontosaurus. D, B2. Left jugal in lateral view. Note that U. kuukpikensis has a shallower posterior constriction compared to E. annectens. B2 shows how the dorsal length and the posterior constriction are defined. E. Jugal regression analyses. Dorsal length versus posterior constriction of jugal. This suggests the shallower posterior constriction of U. kuukpikensis is not attributable to ontogeny.

Fig. 5 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 5. Premaxilla comparison of a size class 1 Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. from the early Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska (A, UAMES 12995, anterior portion of right premaxillae in dorsal view, lacking the vestibular promontory and lateral cicumnarial cavity); adult Edmontosaurus regalis Lambe, 1917 from the late Campanian Edmonton Formation, Alberta, Canada (B, CMN 2289); and size class 3 Edmontosaurus annectens Marsh, 1892 from the late Maastrichtian Lance Formation, Wyoming, USA (C, ROM 53526). Photographs (A1–C1) and explanatory drawings (A2–C2).

Fig. 2 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 2. Temporal distribution of Edmontosaurus species and Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. from the Prince Creek Formation in the Late Cretaceous.

Fig. 3 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 3. Histogram of hadrosaurid bones from the Liscomb bonebed (Prince Creek Formation) for which at least 10 specimens are known. Size is standardized by the mean of size classes 1 and 2 for each bone. The relative size is adjusted so that the mean size of the size class 1 specimens becomes 1. The hypothesis of normal distribution for all samples, and samples whose relative sizes range 0.88–1.52, are both rejected (p << 0.001). The hypothesis of normal distribution for specimens whose relative size range 0.88–1.12 was not rejected (p = 0.25). Relative sizes of juvenile E. annectens specimens are also shown at the bottom. Note that due to insufficient numbers of corresponding bone types, size class 3 individuals of E. annectens are not shown in the histogram. For raw data, see SOM 3.

Fig. 4 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 4. Cranial reconstruction of Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis gen. et sp. nov. from the early Maastrichtian Prince Creek Formation, Alaska, in left lateral view. Photograph (A) and bone interpretation (B).

Fig. 1 in A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska

Fig. 1. Study area in northern Alaska, USA (A) and location of the Liscomb bonebed (B). C. Paleogeographic reconstruction of North America at 70 Ma Blakey.2009); the box indicates the approximate position of Alaska at that time.

Fig. 1 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 1. Paleogeographic distribution of Elazigina (open circles) and Laffitteina (red circles) in latest Maastrichtian (A) and Paleocene (B). Records for the Maastrichtian are from Rahaghi (1992); Inan (1988, 2005); Schlüter et al. (2008); Goldbeck and Langer (2009); Hottinger (2014 and the references herein); and this work. Records for the Paleocene are from Rahaghi (1992); Inan (2005); Hottinger (2014 and the references herein); Serra-Kiel et al. 2016); and Benedetti et al. (2018). Maps are from Scotese (2013, 2014).

Fig. 4 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 4. Rotaliid foraminifer Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (A, holotype) from the Maastrichtian of Rod Abad section, Iran; axial (A, B, D, I, K), subaxial (E–H, J, L, N, O), oblique (C), and transversal-basal (M) sections. A–D, G, J–O. APNU-Tf12 (type-level). F, H, N. APNU-Tf11. E. APNU-Tf4. Abbreviations: f, feathers; pi, piles; pl, umbilical plug; sc, spiral canal.

Fig. 6. A–F in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 6. A–F. Facies from the Tarbur Formation of Rod Abad section, Iran. A, C, D. Packstone with Pseudomphalocyclus blumenthali Meriç, 1980 (o) and Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (e). B, E. Packstone-wackestone with Fissoelphidium operculiferum Smout, 1955 (f), Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (e), and mollusc fragments. F. Packstone-grainstone with Loftusia (lo) and echinoderm fragments (ec). G, H. Orbitokathina sp. G. APNU-Tf14. H. APNU-Tf12. Scale bars A–F, 1 mm; G, H, 0.5 mm.

Fig. 3 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic columns from Mandegan (A) and Rod-Abad (B) sections with position of the studied samples and distribution of Elazigina siderea sp. nov.

Fig. 5 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 5. Rotaliid foraminifer Elazigina siderea sp. nov. from the Tarbur Formation of Rod Abad (A, C, D, F–J) and Mandegan (B, E, K) sections, Iran; transversal (A, C, E, J), transversal-basal (B, O), transversal-oblique (D, F–I, L), and tangential (K, M, N, P) sections. C, J, L, M. APNU-Tf12 (typelevel). D, G–I, P. APNU-Tf11. A, N. APNU-Tf10. F. APNU-Tf14. O. APNU-Tf4. B, E. APNU-Rt53. K. APNU-Rt55. Abbreviations: f, feathers; fo, folia; is, intraseptal canals; pi, piles; pl, umbilical plug; pr, proloculus; up, umbilical plate; sc, spiral canal.

Fig. 2 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran

Fig. 2. Position (asterisked) of studied localities in the general map of Iran (A) and position of Rod-Abad section (B).