Find research datasets worth reusing

FIG. 11 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 11. — Pelvic girdle elements of Pelagosaurus typus Bronn, 1841: A, B, BRLSI M.1417.1; A, left ilium in lateral view; B, left ilium in medial view; C, BRLSI M.1410, left ischium in lateral view; D, BRLSI M.1420, right pubis in posterior view. Cross indicates posterior. Arrow points anteriorly. Scale bars: 1 cm.

FIG. 21 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 21. — Pelvic and thoracic girdle elements of Cricosaurus bambergensis (Sachs, Young, Abel & Mallison, 2019) (Sachs et al. 2019), NKMB-P-Watt14/274 (holotype): A, overview of pelvic girdle and hindlimb; B, overview of thoracic girdle and forelimb; C, detail of pelvic girdle. Modified from Sachs et al. (2019). Scale bars: 1 cm.

FIG. 17 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 17. — Left ilium of Cricosaurus araucanensis (Gasparini & Dellapé, 1976), MLP 72-IV-7-1 (holotype) and right ischium and left pubis of MLP 72-II-27-6 (referred): A, left ilium of MLP 72-IV-7-1 in lateral view; B, left ischium of MLP 72-IV-7-1 in lateral view; C, left ischium of MLP 72-II-27-6 in medial view; D, left pubis of MLP 72-II-27-6 in anterior view. Arrow points anteriorly. Target indicates anterior. Pictures of Cricosaurus araucanensis (MLP 72-IV-7-1 and MLP 72-II-27-6), courtesy of Dr Yanina Herrera. Scale bars: 1 cm.

FIG. 7 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 7. — Snapshot of the pelvic girdle of the alligatoroid Palaeosuchus palpebrosus (Cuvier, 1807), RVC-JRH-PP1: A, in anterior view; B, in lateral view. Note the orientation of the pubes. Cross indicates posterior view. Arrow points anteriorly. CT scan courtesy of Professor John Hutchinson (see https://skfb.ly/6ByyV). Scale bars: 1 mm.

FIG. 13 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 13. — Pelvic girdle elements of Thalattosuchus superciliosus (Blainville, 1853), NHMUK PV R 2054: A, left ilium in lateral view; B, left ischium in lateral view; C, left pubis in lateral view; D, right pubis in anterior view; E, left pubis in anterior view; F, left ilium in medial view. Target indicates anterior. Arrow points anteriorly. Scale bars: 1 cm.

FIG. 6 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 6. — Reconstruction of the pelvic girdle in anterior view of Suchodus durobrivensis Lydekker, 1890, NHMUK PV R 2618: A, erroneous reconstruction based on the hypothesis of a short pubic symphysis (orange) similar to extant crocodylians; B, legitimate reconstruction based on the hypothesis of a long pubic symphysis (orange) as opposed to extant crocodylians; C, right ilium, second sacral, and left pubis in anterior view; D, snapshot in anterior view of the pelvic girdle of the alligatoroid Palaeosuchus palpebrosus Cuvier, 1807 (RVC-JRH-PP1, Fig. 7). Pubes are colored in black. CT scan courtesy of Professor John Hutchinson (see https://skfb.ly/6ByyV). Target indicates anterior. Scale bars: 1 cm.

FIG. 16 in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 16. — Left ilium of Cricosaurus araucanensis (Gasparini & Dellapé, 1976), MLP 72-IV-7-1 (holotype): A, lateral view; B, medial view; C, dorsal view; D, anterior view. Arrow points anteriorly. Target indicates anterior. 3D models of Cricosaurus araucanensis (MLP 72-IV-7-1), courtesy of Dr Yanina Herrera. Scale bar: 1 cm.

FIG. 2. — 3D in Form and function of the pelvic girdle of Thalattosuchia and Dyrosauridae (Crocodyliformes)

FIG. 2. — 3D model of the skeleton of the holotype Congosaurus bequaerti Dollo, 1914 illustrating the conventions of bone orientation used in the following text: A, diagonally oriented to illustrate both the sagittal and coronal plane; B, in dorsal view to illustrate the coronal plane; C, in lateral view to illustrate the sagittal plane.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2017View details →

Fig. 3 in A new occurrence of Dakotasuchus kingi from the Late Cretaceous of Utah, USA, and the diagnostic utility of postcranial characters in Crocodyliformes

Fig. 3. Comparative morphology of coracoids (A–D) and dorsal scutes E–H) in coelognathosuchians from the medial Cretaceous of North America. Right coracoids in lateral view and right dorsal scutes in ventral view. A, E. Dakotasuchus kingi Mehl, 1941, OMNH 34500, Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Cenomanian), Utah, USA. B, F. Dakotasuchus kingi Mehl, 1941, KWU uncatalogued (holotype), Dakota Formation (Cenomanian), Kansas, USA. C, G. Woodbinesuchus byersmauricei Lee, 1997, SMU 74626 (holotype), Woodbine Formation Cenomanian), Texas, USA. D, H. Terminonaris robusta Wu, Russell, and Cumbaa, 2001, SMNH P2411.1 (coracoid is inverted), Keld Member of the Favel Formation (Turonian), Saskatchewan, Canada. Images modified from Mehl (1941), Lee (1997), and Wu et al. (2001). Images are not to scale.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2017View details →

Fig. 2. Representative elements ofgoniopholidid crocodyliform Dakotasuchus kingi Mehl, 1941, OMNH 34500 from OMNH locality V828 in A new occurrence of Dakotasuchus kingi from the Late Cretaceous of Utah, USA, and the diagnostic utility of postcranial characters in Crocodyliformes

Fig. 2. Representative elements ofgoniopholidid crocodyliform Dakotasuchus kingi Mehl, 1941, OMNH 34500 from OMNH locality V828, Mussentuchit Member, Cedar Mountain Formation, Cenomanian. A. Right cervical rib in ventral (A1) and dorsal (A2) views. B. Right coracoid in lateral (B1), caudal (B2), and medial (B3) views. C. Dorsal vertebra in cranial (C1), caudal (C2), lateral (C3), and dorsal (C4) views. D. Right radius in medial (D1) and lateral (D2) views. E. Dorsal scute in dorsal (E1) and ventral (E2) views. F. Ventral scute in dorsal (F1) and ventral (F2) views. G. Close-up views of neural canal in dorsal vertebrae, illustrating distinctive heart shape (white arrows); G1, OMNH 34500 vertebra in caudal view; G2, D. kingi holotype vertebra mold in cranial view. H. Tooth in labiolingual (H1), basal (H2), and mesiodistal (H3) views.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2017View details →

Fig. 1 in A new occurrence of Dakotasuchus kingi from the Late Cretaceous of Utah, USA, and the diagnostic utility of postcranial characters in Crocodyliformes

Fig. 1. Map of the western United States (A) with the approximate locations of the holotype in Salina, Kansas (KWU uncatalogued; circle) and referred specimen in Emery County, Utah (OMNH 34500; star) and map of Emery County (B) with the approximate location of V868 (star) and the distribution of the Mussentuchit Member (grey area) (modified from Cifelli et al. 1999).

Fig. 4 in A new bernissartiid crocodyliform from the Lower Cretaceous Wessex Formation (Wealden Group, Barremian) of the Isle of Wight, southern England

Fig. 4. Simplified cladogram showing the phylogenetic placement of Koumpiodontosuchus aprosdokiti gen. et sp. nov. (IWCMS2012.203/4) from the Barremian Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, UK, and Bernissartiidae (asterisk), based on the results of the implied weighting analysis. For explanation see the text and data provided in the SOM (available at http://app.pan.pl/SOM/app60-Sweetman_etal_SOM.pdf).

Fig. 5. A in A new bernissartiid crocodyliform from the Lower Cretaceous Wessex Formation (Wealden Group, Barremian) of the Isle of Wight, southern England

Fig. 5. A reconstruction of Koumpiodontosuchus aprosdokiti gen. et sp. nov. feeding on the viviparid gastropod Viviparous cariniferous Sowerby, 1826 (in Sowerby 1826–29). Smaller gastropods shown include Prophysa sp. Illustration by Mark Witton.

Fig. 3 in A new bernissartiid crocodyliform from the Lower Cretaceous Wessex Formation (Wealden Group, Barremian) of the Isle of Wight, southern England

Fig. 3. Bernissartiid crocodyliform Koumpiodontosuchus aprosdokiti gen. et sp. nov. from the Barremian Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, UK. Holotype specimen IWCMS 2012.203–204, in dorsal (A), occipital (B), ventral (C), and left lateral (D) views. Photographs (A –D), schematic repre1 1 sentations to show anatomical features including sutures between bones (A 2 –D 2). "?" in B 2 denotes an indeterminate bone fragment adhering to the left lateral margin of the foramen magnum.

Fig. 2 in A new bernissartiid crocodyliform from the Lower Cretaceous Wessex Formation (Wealden Group, Barremian) of the Isle of Wight, southern England

Fig. 2. Schematic lithological log of the upper part of the Wessex Formation exposed in the cliff and on the foreshore in the vicinity of Yaverland on the south east coast of the Isle of Wight. Modified from Radley (1994) with additional data.

FIGURE 2 in Big-headed marine crocodyliforms and why we must be cautious when using extant species as body length proxies for long-extinct relatives

FIGURE 2. Comparative view of three fossil thalattosuchian crocodylomorphs: (1) teleosaurid Platysuchus multiscrobiculatus SMNS 9930; (2) basal metriorhynchoid Pelagosaurus typus MTM M62 2516; and (3) metriorhynchid Cricosaurus suevicus SMNS 9808. Scale bars equal 50 cm.

FIGURE 1 in Big-headed marine crocodyliforms and why we must be cautious when using extant species as body length proxies for long-extinct relatives

FIGURE 1. Comparative view of four fossil teleosaurid crocodylomorphs used in the regression analyses: (1) Steneosaurus bollensis GPIT/RE/1193/2; (2) Steneosaurus priscus MNHN.F CNJ 78a; (3) Steneosaurus bollensis MH unnumbered A; and (4) Steneosaurus bollensis MH unnumbered B. Scale bars equal 100 cm.

FIGURE 4 in Big-headed marine crocodyliforms and why we must be cautious when using extant species as body length proxies for long-extinct relatives

FIGURE 4. Comparative least-squares regression gradient plot, of cranial length-to-total length, with the solid line representing Teleosauridae, and the dashed lines representing (1) Crocodylus, (2) Alligator, (3) Gavialis, and (4) Metriorhynchidae, respectively.

FIGURE 5 in Big-headed marine crocodyliforms and why we must be cautious when using extant species as body length proxies for long-extinct relatives

FIGURE 5. Comparative view of estimated body length of large-bodied teleosaurids (see Table 8). (1) Machimosaurus rex (holotype); (2) Machimosaurus hugii (referred specimen from Krebs, 1968); (3) Machimosaurus mosae (neotype, grey silhouette is the lost holotype); (4) Machimosaurus buffetauti (holotype, grey silhouette is the specimen from Buffetaut, 1982b); (5) Steneosaurus edwardsi (referred specimen from Johnson et al., 2015); (6) Steneosaurus obtusidens (holotype); (7) Steneosaurus bollensis (based on MH unnumbered A). The skull drawings are modified from (Fanti et al., 2016 and Young et al., 2014). Scale bar equals 1 m.

FIGURE 3 in Big-headed marine crocodyliforms and why we must be cautious when using extant species as body length proxies for long-extinct relatives

FIGURE 3. Bivariate plots of cranial (1, 3) and femoral lengths (2, 4) plotted against total lengths for complete specimens only (1, 2) and for all specimens (3, 4). In each case a line of least-squares regression is fitted along with a shaded area representing the confidence interval around the regression model.