Eudibamus skull revisited

Unfortunately,
requests for hi-rez images of the skull of Eudibamus (Berman et al. 2000) have gone unanswered.

Fortunately,
an image from a Stuart Sumida lab pdf file (Fig. 1) provides the best image I’ve seen so far. Even so, it could be better.

Figure 1. GIF movie of the skull of Eudibamus along with a DGS interpretation of the elements. A reconstruction (Fig. 2) appears to 'make sense" but I'd still like to see better resolution.

Figure 1. GIF movie of the skull of Eudibamus along with the original (line art) interpretation and a DGS interpretation of the elements. Where are the teeth in the line art? They are not indicated. A reconstruction based on the DGS tracings (Fig. 2) appears to ‘make sense” but I’d still like to see better resolution. The presumed mandible here does not have the appearance of the rest of the bones. The mandible is based on a possible impression that looks like it has teeth. These could be pick marks. Black lines in the color tracing appear to represent palatal elements that basically match those of Petrolacosaurus.

Eudibamus is still considered a bolosaurid
(Fig. 2) in traditional paleontology, but it nests with basal diapsids, like Petrolacosaurus, in the large reptile tree. We looked at Eudibamus earlier here, here and here.

Figure 2. Eudibamus skull revised here with new data compared to bolosaurids, on the left, and basal diapsids, on the right. Post crania for bolosaurids is very fragmentary. Bolosaurids are related to pareiasaurs and turtles, all derived from millerettids. Can you see why Eudibamus was confused with bolosaurids?

Figure 2. Eudibamus skull revised here with new data compared to bolosaurids, on the left, and basal diapsids, on the right. Post crania for bolosaurids is very fragmentary. Bolosaurids are related to pareiasaurs and turtles, all derived from millerettids. Can you see why Eudibamus was confused with bolosaurids?

This skull remains confusing.
This is only an attempt at understanding it. Higher resolution and color would be helpful. The original authors did not publish a skull reconstruction, nor did they label individual skull bones. I wonder if they were just as confused, even with the skull in front of them.

 Eudibamus reconstruted.

Figure 3. Eudibamus reconstructed. This will probably not be the last such attempt. But I think it is the most accurate so far.

References
Berman, DS, Reisz RR, Scott D, Henrici AC, Sumida SS and Martens T 2000. Early Permian bipedal reptile. Science 290: 969-972.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s