Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2008View details →

Fig. 1 in Crouching theropod and Navahopus sauropodomorph tracks from the Early Jurassic Navajo Sandstone of USA

Fig. 1. Stratigraphic column of the Navajo Sandstone outcrop at Coyote Buttes. The studied tracks are all found at the top of the middle zone of bioturbation. The Coyote Buttes locality is located on Bureau of Land Management property (accessible by permit only) at the border between Utah and Arizona at 36°59'58''N, 112°00'35''W. Ichnofabric index 1–5 is zero to total bioturbation.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2008View details →

Fig. 4 in Crouching theropod and Navahopus sauropodomorph tracks from the Early Jurassic Navajo Sandstone of USA

Fig. 4. Trackway of Navahopus coyoteensis isp. nov., as shown by Loope and Rowe (2003) and here reinterpreted as a sauropodomorph dinosaur walking up the lee slope of a dune. Note the elongate traces from the claws being dragged through the sediment. The present day slope is approximately 25°, due to compaction of the sediments. The original angle of slope was around 32° which is the residual angle of slope of dry sand after shearing (Allen 1984). Hammer is 30 cm long.

Fig. 5 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 5. Principal components analysis of "Sue" quarry dromaeosaurid teeth. Analysis contained variables height, FABL, basal width, and denticles/ mm. PC 1 ([0.40 FABL]+[0.1 basal width]+[0.54 height]-[0.74 denticles/ mm]) explained 77.53% of the variance. PC 2 ([0.06 FABL]+[0.03 basal width]+[0.79 height]+[0.61 denticles/mm]) explained 20.17% of the variance. PC 3 ([0.91 FABL]+[0.08 basal width]-[0.29 height]+[0.28 denticles/ mm]) explained 2.30% of the variance.

Fig. 2 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 2. Scanning electron image of select theropod teeth from the late Maastrichtian "Sue" locality, USA. A–D. Dromaeosauridae: FMNH PR 2893 A), FMNH PR 2896 (B), FMNH PR 2897 (C), FMNH PR 2899 (D). E. Troodontidae: FMNH PR 2900. F. Avialae: FMNH PR 2901. G. Tyrannosauridae: FMNH PR 2902. Scale bars 1 mm (refer to Table 1 for measurements of each tooth).

Fig. 4 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 4. Principal components analysis of troodontid teeth from Hell Creek and Lance formations (×) and alleged troodontid tooth FMNH PR 2901 from the "Sue" quarry (circle). Analysis contained variables height, FABL, and denticles/mm. PC 1 ([0.45 FABL]+[0.20 basal width]+[0.68 height]-[0.55 denticles/mm]) explained 48.04% of the variance. PC 2 ([0.01 FABL]+[0.03 basal width]+[0.62 height]+[0.78 denticles/mm]) explained 40.73% of the variance. PC 3 ([0.88 FABL]+[0.05 basal width]-[0.37 height]+[0.28 denticles/mm]) explained 9.46% of the variance.

Fig. 3 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 3. Principal components analysis of Richardoestesia teeth from Hell Creek and Lance formations (circles) and dromaeosaurid tooth FMNH PR 2899 from the Sue quarry (cross). Analysis contained variables height, FABL, and denticles/mm. PC 1 ([0.28 FABL]+[0.94 height]-[0.19 denticles/mm]) explained 76.36% of the variance. PC 2 ([0.03 FABL]+[0.18 height]+[0.98 denticles/mm]) explained 22.51% of the variance. PC 3 ([0.96 FABL]-[0.28 height]+[0.02 denticles/mm]) explained 1.13% of the variance.

Fig. 1 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 1. Principal components analysis of all teeth from the "Sue" theropod sample, Sankey (2008) tooth database (except Paronychodon and Richardoestesia), and Smith et al. (2005; Deinonychus, Dromaeosaurus, and Troodon). Principal components: (1) ([0.41 FABL]+[0.1 basal width]+[0.90 height]-[0.07 denticles/mm]) explained 77.01% of variance; (2) ([-0.03 FABL]+[0.02 basal width]+[0.09 height]+[1 denticles/mm]) explained 16.58% variance; and (3) ([0.82 FABL]+[0.40 basal width]-[0.41 height]+[0.05 denticles/mm]) 5.00% variance.

Fig. 7 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 7. Biplot of dromaeosaurid teeth from "Sue" quarry (dots) and Sankey (2008) database (crosses) measuring height versus denticles/mm. Ovals are the 95% confidence ellipses for each dataset, Sue quarry solid oval and Sankey database in dashed oval. Sue specimens are designated by the specimen number that follows FMNH PR in each instance.

Fig. 6 in Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation "Sue" Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons

Fig. 6. Principal components analysis of "Sue" quarry dromaeosaurid teeth (dots) in addition to the dromaeosaurid teeth (crosses) included in Sankey (2008). Analysis contained variables height, FABL, and denticles/mm. Basal width was not included because this variable was not included in the Sankey (2008) dataset. PC 1 ([0.38 FABL]+[0 basal width]+[0.90 height]-[0.23 denticles/mm]) explained 89.91% of the variation. PC 2 ([-0.36 FABL]-[0.01 basal width]+[0.38 height]+[0.85 denticles/mm]) explained 6.91% of the variation. PC 3 ([0.85 FABL]-[0.01 basal width]-[0.24 height]+[0.47 denticles/mm]) explained 3.17% of the variation. Ovals are the 95% confidence ellipses for each dataset, "Sue" quarry solid oval and Sankey database in dashed oval. Sue specimens are designated by the specimen number that follows FMNH PR in each instance.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2013View details →

Fig. 2 in The endocranial morphology and inner ear of the abelisaurid theropod Aucasaurus garridoi

Fig. 2. Abelisaurid theropod Aucasaurus garridoi Coria, Chiappe, and Dingus, 2002, from the Upper Cretaceous of North Patagonia (MCF-PVPH 236). Digital reconstruction of the right inner ear in lateral (A), dorsal (B), anterior (C), and posterior (D) views.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2013View details →

Fig. 1 in The endocranial morphology and inner ear of the abelisaurid theropod Aucasaurus garridoi

Fig. 1. Abelisaurid theropod Aucasaurus garridoi Coria, Chiappe, and Dingus, 2002 (MCF-PVPH 236), from the Upper Cretaceous of North Patagonia, in dorsal (A) and right lateral (B) views. Volume rendering of the braincase (semi-transparent) and cranial endocast (A 1, B1), and line drawings of brain and inner ear (A 2, B2).

Fig. 3 in Theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of the South Pyrenees Basin of Spain

Fig. 3. Theropod dinosaurs teeth from upper Campanian–Upper Maastrichtian, Spain. A.?Pyroraptor olympius Allain and Taquet, 2000, DPM-MON-T1, Montrebei. B, C.?Dromaeosauridae indet. B. MPZ2004/6, Blasi 2B. C. DPM-FON6-T2, Fontllonga 6. D–L.?Richardoestesia sp., Laño. D. MCNA 14610. E. MCNA 14607. F. MCNA 14606. G. MCNA 14608. H. MCNA 14609. I. MCNA 14611. J. MCNA 14568. K. MCNA 14607. L. MCNA 14619. M–P. Coelurosauria indet. M. DPM-MON-T6, Montrebei. N. DPM-MON-T3, Montrebei. O. MPZ98/80, Montrebei. P. MPZ98/82, Blasi 2B. Q.?Paronychodon sp., MPZ98/76, Blasi 2B. All lateral views. Scale bars 1 mm.

Fig. 2 in Theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of the South Pyrenees Basin of Spain

Fig. 2. Theropod dinosaurs teeth from upper Campanian–lower Maastrichtian, Laño. A, D. Theropoda indet. Morphotype 2. A. MCNA 14522. D. MCNA 1853. B, C.?Pyroraptor olympius Allain and Taquet, 2000. B. MCNA 14623. C. MCNA 14624. E–H. Theropoda indet. Morphotype 1. E. MCNA 1852. F. MCNA 14520. G. MCNA 14521. H. MCNA 2205. All lateral views. Scale bars 5 mm.

Fig. 5 in Theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of the South Pyrenees Basin of Spain

Fig. 5. Bivariate analysis comparing height (in mm) against posterior denticles per millimeter,?Dromaeosauridae,?Pyroraptor olympius, and?Richardoestesia from the South Pyrenees area are compared against a sample of Dromaeosaurus, Saurornitholestes, Richardoestesia, and Troodon from the collections of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, the Richardoestesia-like tooth from the site of Suterranya, Catalonia, Spain (Prieto-Márquez et al. 2000) and Pyroraptor olympius Allain and Taquet, 2000 from Provence (Ronan Allain, personal communication 2013).

Fig. 7 in The dentition of megalosaurid theropods

Fig. 7. Graphical results of the discriminant analysis of 232 teeth belonging to 7 taxa whose dentition was separated into mesial and lateral teeth, along the first two canonical axes of maximum discrimination in the dataset (Eigenvalue of Axis 1 = 7.99, which accounted for 50.73% of the variation; Eigenvalue of Axis 2 = 4.52, which accounted for 28.73% of the variation). Log-transformed CBL (crown base), CBW (crown base width), CH (crown height), AL (apical length), MCL (mid-crown length), MCW (mid-crown width), MC (mesiocentral denticle density), and DC (distocentral denticle density) were used in the analysis, and 84.48% of the specimens were correctly classified to their respective taxa and dentition type (see SOM 5).

Fig. 8 in The dentition of megalosaurid theropods

Fig. 8. Graphical results of the discriminant analysis of 81 teeth belonging to 7 taxa of Megalosauridae, and one indeterminate tetanuran ("Megalosaurus dunkeri"), along the first two canonical axes of maximum discrimination in the dataset (Eigenvalue of Axis 1 = 5.8, which accounted for 71% of the variation; Eigenvalue of Axis 2 = 1, which accounted for 12.36% of the variation). Raw data of CBL (crown base), CBW (crown base width), CH (crown height), AL (apical length), MCL (mid-crown length), MCW (mid-crown width), MDE (mesiobasal denticles extent), CTU (crown transverse undulation density), DMT (dentine thickness mesially), DDT (dentine thickness distally), DLAT (dentine thickness labially), DLIT (dentine thickness lingually), MA (mesioapical denticle density), MB (mesio-basal denticle density), MC,(mesiocentral denticle density), DA (distoapical denticle density), DB (distobasal denticle density), DC (distocentral denticle density) were used in the analysis, and 65.48% of the specimens were correctly classified to their a priori genera (see SOM 6).

Fig. 6 in The dentition of megalosaurid theropods

Fig. 6. Graphical results of the discriminant analysis of 393 teeth belonging to 33 taxa and 11 groupings of large ziphodont theropods along the first two canonical axes of maximum discrimination in the dataset (Eigenvalue of Axis 1 = 2.52, which accounted for 65.75% of the variation; Eigenvalue of Axis 2 = 0.89, which accounted for 23.24% of the variation). Log-transformed CBL (crown base), CBW (crown base width), CH (crown height), AL (apical length), MCL (mid-crown length), MCW (mid-crown width), MC (mesiocentral denticle density), and DC (distocentral denticle density) were used in the analysis, and 68.19% of the specimens were correctly classified to their respective clades (see SOM 4). Morphospace occupation of megalosaurid teeth is delimited by a dashed line.

Fig. 4 in Theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of the South Pyrenees Basin of Spain

Fig. 4. Principal component analysis of the South Pyrenees Basin sample and the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology sample; a chart displaying two first principal components, PC1 and PC2.

Fig. 1. A in Theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of the South Pyrenees Basin of Spain

Fig. 1. A. Locations of the palaeontological sites of Laño, Vicari 4, Montrebei, Fontllonga 6, Figuerola 2, and Blasi. B. Correlation of the uppermost Cretaceous and lowermost Tertiary deposits in the southern Pyrenees, showing the stratigraphic levels of the studied localities. MPU, Mid-Paleocene unconformity; S1, S2, depositional sequences (Robador 2005).

Fig. 5 in The dentition of megalosaurid theropods

Fig. 5. Graphical results of the discriminant analysis of 995 teeth belonging to 62 theropod taxa and 19 groupings along the first two canonical axes of maximum discrimination in the dataset (Eigenvalue of Axis 1 = 7.561, which accounted for 61.52% of the variation; Eigenvalue of Axis 2 = 2.62, which accounted for 21.38% of the variation). Log-transformed CBL (crown base), CBW (crown base width), CH (crown height), AL (apical length), MCL (mid-crown length), MCW (mid-crown width), MC (mesiocentral denticle density), and DC (distocentral denticle density) were used in the analysis, and 70.97% of the specimens of nonavian theropods were correctly classified to their respective clades (see SOM 3). Morphospace occupation of megalosaurid teeth is delimited by a dashed line.