Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:09:02.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Morphological variation in small theropods and its meaning in systematics: evidence from Syntarsus rhodesiensis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2010

Kenneth Carpenter
Affiliation:
Denver Museum of Natural History
Philip J. Currie
Affiliation:
Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Alberta
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Because they are small and their bones fragile, small theropods are usually found as poorly preserved fossils. It is, therefore, often difficult to identify morphological features that clearly and unequivocally characterize individual small theropod taxa, to distinguish them from each other. This legacy of fragility has unquestionably handicapped studies of small theropod systematics in the past. Several authors have recently published cladistic analyses of archosaur lineages, including the theropods, but the picture remains somewhat murky as their cladograms are not easily reconciled with each other. Perhaps this is also partly attributable to study material that is incomplete and poorly preserved.

The Early Jurassic (terminal Karoo) Syntarsus rhodesiensis is a small theropod taxon based on material that is both quantitatively adequate and qualitatively excellent as far as preservation is concerned. Partial remains of more than 30 individuals have been recovered from one of three known localities in the fine-grained aeolian Forest Sandstone Formation of Zimbabwe, southern Africa. The fossiliferous bed in this unusually rich locality suggests that a single event caused the catastrophic mass death of a socially gregarious group.

Syntarsus shows clear and consistent morphological variation that is bimodally distributed in the sample examined. The variation affects particularly the trochanters and muscle scars of the femur, but it has also been observed in other elements of the skeleton. I conclude that the morphological variation shown by the known Syntarsus sample reflects clear sexual dimorphism, and not taxonomic diversity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Dinosaur Systematics
Approaches and Perspectives
, pp. 91 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×