Juvenile cervical found in giant Tanystropheus

Added September 21, 2020:
Think about a bubble net, as in humpback whales, coming form the long, dead=air storage vessel that is that elongate trachea. That long neck rotating like an inverted cone to surround confused fish just above the jaws.

This is part 2
of an earlier post on the PIMUZ T 2790 specimen of Tanystropheus (Exemplar P in Wild 1973; Figs. 1, 2). This is the post where mistakes are acknowledged, reason for those mistakes are considered and corrections are posted.

Figure 1. Tafel 14 from Wild 1973, an incomplete large Tanystropheus described by Spiekman et al. 2020. Unfortunately the entire specimen was not shown in the paper.

Figure 1. Tafel 14 from Wild 1973, an incomplete large Tanystropheus described by Spiekman et al. 2020. Unfortunately the entire specimen was not shown in the paper, so I thought this PIMUZ T 2790 specimen was new.

Earlier
two small skull bones were re-identified.

What Spiekman et al. considered the quadratojugal (a slender cheekbone) was re-identifed as an ectopterygoid (a slender palate bone).

What Spiekman et al. considered a possible ectopterygoid was re-identified as a cervical #2. It turns out, that was the correct identification, but for a much smaller animal, a juvenile Tanystropheus (Fig. 2), for which no other bones are represented on the slab. That may be why it was difficult for Spiekman et al. to confidently identify.

Figure 2. Closeup of figure 1 providing a comparative view of the enigma bone in brown here identified as cervical #2, but less than half the size of the same bone in the PIMUZ adult specimen.

Figure 2. Closeup of figure 1 providing a comparative view of the enigma bone in brown here identified as cervical #2, but less than half the size of the same bone in the PIMUZ adult specimen. Note the fusion of the supraoccipigtal (SOC) in the Spiekman et al. reconstruction.

Earlier I identified the enigma bone as cervical #2,
figuring it was half the length of the two succeeding bones, not realizing cervical #3 was cropped short by Spiekman et al. (arrow in Fig. 2) and cervical #2 was already present. Seeing the entirety of the fossil in Wild 1973 (Fig. 1) made everything traceable and clear.

Thanks to co-author, Stephen Spiekman, for making this connection known in an email.

In their paper, Spiekman et al. did not identify 
the PIMUZ T 2790 specimen as Exemplar P from Wild 1973.  I thought the PIMUZ specimen was new. I think it was a mistake that they cropped out much of the original plate (Fig. 1) because it left readers, like me, confused.

So, that’s what happened. 
Mistakes were made. Corrections were made. These get lumped on to the 100,000+ mistakes and corrections made here over the past nine years.


References
Spiekman SNF et al. (6 co-authors) 2020. Aquatic Habits and Niche Partitioning in the
Extraordinarily Long-Necked Triassic Reptile Tanystropheus. Current Biology 30:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.07.025
Wild R 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). – Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen 95: 1-162 plus plates.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.