Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
14 November 2012 Unique Bone Histology in Partial Large Bone Shafts from Upper Triassic of Aust Cliff, England: An Early Independent Experiment in Gigantism
Ragna Redelstorff, P. Martin Sander, Peter M. Galton
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Two giant partial bone shafts, possible femora, from the Rhaetian Bone Bed (Upper Triassic) of Aust Cliff in SW England continue to conceal their origin. The most striking characteristic of these bones is their size, showing that dinosaur-like gigantism had already evolved by the Late Triassic. Based on their characteristic, columnar shaft morphology, it was previously suggested they came from a prosauropod or stegosaur. The bone histology of both specimens is very similar: the cortex is always rather thin, not exceeding 10 mm, and is of fibrolamellar type with longitudinal primary osteons. The primary osteons show a rather unusual feature, the development of a secondary osteon inside the primary one. The bone surface in both specimens shows open vascular canals, suggesting that the animals were still growing at the time of death, but an external fundamental system (EFS) is visible in the outermost cortex of specimen BRSMG Cb3870. The external cortex shows dense growth marks, but their annual nature is difficult to ascertain. The bones are probably dinosaurian, as indicated by the fibrolamellar bone, and possibly belong to an unknown basal sauropodomorph lineage. Alternatively, some very large pseudosuchians may have evolved fibrolamellar bone independently as an adaptation for reaching giant size.

Introduction

Identification of fossils can be challenging, especially if only isolated bones or, even worse, incomplete isolated bone fragments are preserved. Such fragments can be significant if they are of an unusual size and/or shape. In total, five partial shafts of large long bones have been found in the historically important Rhaetic Bone Bed near the base of the Westbury Formation (Upper Triassic) at Aust Cliff near Bristol, SW England (Storrs 1994; Galton 2005). The Westbury Formation was deposited in a shallow marine sedimentary environment during a transgressive period of the Westbury Sea, as indicated by finds of a rich fish fauna mainly represented by teeth (summarised by Storrs 1994). Rhaetian fissure fills and cave deposits are also known from SW England, indicating nearby landmasses that were inhabited by large terrestrial animals (e.g., Galton 1998, 2007; Whiteside and Marshall 2008). This is indicated by the find of the basal sauropodomorph Camelotia borealis represented by a partial skeleton (femur length of 1008 mm) discovered near the base of Westbury Formation of nearby Wedmore, Somerset (Galton 1998). This skeleton was identified as a basal sauropodomorph (melanorosaurid prosauropod), but is now regarded as a basal sauropod (Yates 2007, 2010).

Two of the long bone shafts were destroyed in November, 1940 but, based on the original unillustrated descriptions (Stutchbury 1850; Sanders 1876; Reynolds 1946), they were tentatively assigned by Galton (2005) to Dinosauria incertae sedis and Camelotia borealis. Because of the large size and columnar form of the bone shafts, Galton (2005) considered only dinosaurian bones in his comparison. Of the surviving elements, Galton (2005) assigned one to Dinosauria incertae sedis and the other two tentatively to Stegosauria, because of their distinctive columnar shape with an oval cross-section, the width being greater transversely than anteroposteriorly. If this is correct, these specimens would push the fossil record of stegosaurs back into the Late Triassic.

Currently, the earliest evidence for stegosaurs are the footprints and trackways of Deltapodus brodricki from the Middle Jurassic (Aalenian) of Yorkshire, NE England (Whyte and Romano 2001; Whyte et al. 2007). The earliest skeletal evidence consists of isolated bones from the Lower and Middle Bathonian of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, England (Galton and Powell 1983) and associated bones from the Bathonian of western Siberia (Averianov and Krasnolutskii 2009). Articulated skeletons are known of Huayangosaurus taibaii from the Bathonian-Callovian of China (Zhou 1984; Sereno and Dong 1992; Maidment et al. 2006) and of “Lexovisaurus durobrivensis” from the early-middle Callovian near, Peterborough, England (Galton 1985; now Loricatosaurus priscus, Maidment et al. 2008).

Butler et al. (2006) noted that the Aust Cliff bones lack any stegosaurian synapomorphies, a result of their being weathered fragments, as well as the absence of Early Jurassic stegosaurs, and the small size of all known Triassic ornithischians. They concluded that, although the bones “probably represent fragmentary femora of large dinosaurs (possibly sauropods)”, they cannot be identified “with confidence beyond Reptilia indet.” (Butler et al. 2006: 627). Irmis et al. (2007: 15) argued that extensive cancellous bone or trabeculae do not provide a phylogenetic signal because it can relate to biomechanics and life history, and they identified the bones as indeterminate Tetrapoda. Maidment et al. (2008: 385), who regarded them as indeterminate reptiles, also noted the presence of other large reptiles, such as thecodontians, in the Late Triassic. As regards the absence of Early Jurassic Stegosauria, the group would have been present at least in the Toarcian as indicated by the earliest occurrence of its sister group, the Ankylosauria (Thompson et al. 2012), the first record of which is a nodosaurid represented by a collection of 30 associated plates of four types from the upper unit of the Kota Formation of the Pranhita-Godavari Valley, India (Nath et al. 2002; for stratigraphy see Bandyopadhyay and Sengupta 2006; Bandyopadhyay et al. 2010; P. Yadagiri, personal communication 2001; S. Bandyopadhyay, personal communication 2012).

While these views may be correct from the point of view of a synapomorphy-based identification, certain taxa such as dicynodonts can be excluded from consideration because they do not have a straight shaft in any long bone. Also the marine reptiles of the Latest Triassic (ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs) can be excluded from consideration because they do not reach anywhere near the size of the Aust Cliff bone shafts, do not have long straight shafts in their long bones, and differ completely in their histology.

Institutional abbreviations.—BRSMG, Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, Bristol, UK.

Other abbreviations.—EFS, external fundamental system; LAG, line of arrested growth.

Material and methods

The two large partial bones (BRSMG Cb3869 and BRSMG Cb3870) sampled by us were collected from the Rhaetic Bone Bed of the Westbury Formation at Aust Cliff, SW England. Judging from their straight, columnar shape and large size (Table 1), the specimens most likely represent midshafts of femora (Galton 2005). Measurements are given in Table 1. Camelotia borealis was not accessible for histological sampling because it is known only from the holotype femur.

We sampled both bone shafts using the core drilling method described in Sander (2000) and Stein and Sander (2009). The sampling location in BRSMG Cb3870 and Cb3869 was determined by the area of the shaft showing the seemingly best preserved bone surface (Fig. 1A, B, respectively). To obtain the thickest cortex possible, i.e., the optimal growth record, from a core sample, long bones need to be sampled exactly at midshaft (Sander 2000), but this could not be controlled sufficiently in the two Aust Cliff specimens. The drill cores were processed into thin sections and studied with a Leica DMLP microscope at University of Bonn and a Nikon Eclipse E200 Microscope at University of Cape Town.

Table 1.

Preserved lengths and circumferences measured and total lengths estimated for BRSMG Cb3869 and Cb3870. Note disagreement with growth mark counts.

t01_607.gif

Results

Notably, both samples show a very similar but rather unusual bone histology (Fig. 2A, B), suggesting that they pertain to the same taxon. The cortex is thin in BRSMG Cb3870, not exceeding 10 mm, and surrounds a large medullary area filled with an extensive web of trabeculae (Fig. 2A), while in BRSMG Cb3869, the cortex is about three times thicker (Fig. 2B). The primary bone is fibrolamellar, consisting of primary osteons in a matrix of woven-fibred bone. Primary osteons are oriented exclusively longitudinally. They are relatively immature in that the vascular canal remains large, and there are only a few lamellae of centripetally deposited bone. Both samples show one striking feature, however, that only becomes apparent upon close inspection, which is that, towards the deeper cortex, many of the primary osteons harbour a secondary osteon (Fig. 3A1, A2, B1, B2). These second ary osteons may also be termed immature in that only a few lamellae are present (arrows in Fig. 3A1, A2, B1, B2). The secondary osteon is clearly separated from the primary osteon surrounding it by a resorption line, which appears slightly undulating and, unlike a LAG (line of arrested growth), cuts into structures of the previously deposited tissue of the primary osteon (Fig. 3A1, A2, B1, B2). Erosion cavities decrease in size towards the bone surface (white arrow in Fig. 3B5) and, in most cases, show an at least partial thin lining of lamellar bone (black arrow in Fig. 3B5).

Fig. 1.

Photographs in different views of long bone shafts of BRSMG Cb3870 (A) and Cb3869 (B) from the Westbury Formation of Aust Cliff near Bristol, UK; in anterior (A1, B1), ?lateral (A2, B2), posterior (A3, B3), ?medial (A4, B4), proximal (B5) and distal (A6, B6) views; cut and ground surface in distal view (A5). The specimens represent notably straight shafts of large long bones, presumably femora. Core sample location indicated by the black circle. Note that in BRSMG Cb3870 only a small area of outer bone surface is preserved, constraining the sample location. Modified from Galton (2005).

f01_607.jpg

In BRSMG Cb3870, an almost avascular outermost cortex is visible (Figs. 2A, 3B3), which still retains a few vascular canals opening to the surface. Just below the bone surface, the specimen shows 10 or 11 distinctive and closely spaced growth marks that form a characteristic convoluted pattern because of their incorporation of the superficial blood vessels during growth (Fig. 3B4). These LAGs may represent a rather thick external fundamental system (EFS; Fig. 3B4), but this is difficult to determine because of the thinness of the cortex. Alternatively, they may represent slow growth in a zonal pattern. There are 30 or 31 LAGs in total (Fig. 3B3), including the 10 or 11 below the bone surface (Fig. 3B4), but the annual nature of these LAGs is difficult to evaluate because of their close spacing.

Fig. 2.

Bone histology of long bone shafts from the Upper Triassic near Bristol, UK. A. BRSMG Cb3870, a thin cortex, consisting of fibrolamellar bone with longitudinal vascular architecture. The deeper part of the cortex shows abundant erosion cavities and secondary osteons, grading into cancellous bone. B. BRSMG Cb3869, the cortex is thicker and has less distinctive growth marks but shows the same histology as BRSMG Cb3870. Up to 13 or 14 annuli (arrows) occur in the middle and outer cortex of the primary compact bone. The deep cortex becomes increasingly cancellous as a result of abundant large erosion cavities.

f02_607.jpg

BRSMG Cb3869 represents a younger individual. The drill bit did not penetrate the entire cortex, the recovered thickness being about 10 mm. However, the inner to mid cortex appears cancellous due to numerous erosion cavities (Fig. 2B), suggesting that it was not much thicker. Erosion cavities are scarce and unfilled in the outer cortex (arrows in Fig. 3A3) and more frequent in the inner cortex. Here, the cavities are either filled by a thin line of lamellar bone or remain unfilled. The secondary osteons inside the primary osteons are filled with lamellar bone only up to half of their diameter (Fig. 3A3), giving them the characteristic immature appearance as noted above. The outermost cortex is less vascularised with simple longitudinal vascular canals, some of which are open to the bone surface, suggesting that the animal was still growing slowly at the time of death. There appears to be an annulus in the outermost cortex, which is quite broad and has a stripey appearance, similar to an accumulation of growth marks, and may thus be interpreted as an EFS (Fig. 3A3). Growth marks are much less distinctive in BRSMG Cb3869 than in BRSMG Cb3870. Up to possibly 13 or 14 annuli (arrows in Fig. 2B) occur in the mid to outer cortex of this sample (number 14 may be an EFS).

Based on their bone histology, the two partial femoral shafts are likely from the same species, one being somatically mature and the other younger.

Discussion

Life history variation.—Based on shaft circumference, the histologically younger BRSMG Cb3869 is slightly larger than histologically older BRSMG Cb3870 (Table 1). However, circumference measurements may be in error in the latter because extensive pre-burial erosion and/or weathering resulted in partial loss of the cortex. The differences between the two specimens may, however, also be a result of different growth histories. BRSMG Cb3869 formed annuli instead of LAGs, i.e., growth was slowed down periodically but not arrested at any time as far as the record shows in the unremodelled primary bone. Continuous, although not even, growth may impact on the specimen's terminal size, e.g., periodically arrested growth results in smaller body size than periodically slowed down growth. This is supported by the distinctly thicker cortex in the younger, annuli-forming specimen BRSMG Cb3869. The presence of LAGs in the one and of annuli in the other specimen may be (i) an ecological signal, (ii) sexual dimorphism, or (iii) intraspecific variation.

Regarding hypothesis (i), BRSMG Cb3869 may have experienced more agreeable, consistent weather conditions than BRSMG Cb3870. Wikelski and Thom (2000) described changes in the growth history of an individual of the marine iguana Amblyrhynchus christatus from Galapagos, the original body length of which decreased about 20% in only two years as a result of low availability of food during “El Nino” events and resumed growing after environmental conditions normalised.

Regarding hypothesis (ii), female reproduction requires a vast amount of energy and, thus, growth may be arrested during reproduction periods. Egg-shelling requires additional calcium, which in crocodilians is resorbed from the bones (e.g., Wink and Elsey 1986; Wink et al. 1987; Schweitzer et al. 2007), hence the resorption (erosion) cavities. The latter are indeed extensive in the LAG-forming specimen BRSMG Cb3870, implying a possible female sex. Linking LAGs with reproduction would imply annual reproduction cycles, which does occur in wild crocodiles but their reproduction frequency is usually rather variable from annually to every 2–5 years (Joanen and McNease 1971; Lance 1989; Kofron 1990).

Uniqueness of the bone tissue of the Aust Cliff specimens.—The cortical bone histology of the long bone shafts from Aust Cliff is unlike any described in the literature so far. Since the histology of both bones is the same, showing the same peculiarities, they very likely pertain to the same taxon. While the cortex of both bones is rather thin in the sections, this represents only a minimum thickness because of the poorly controlled sampling location. However, Galton (2005) pointed out the rather thin cortex of the Aust Cliff shafts apparent in the terminal fracture surfaces. Only serial sectioning or µCT imaging would resolve the true cortex thickness of these bones.

The uniqueness of the histology lies in the development of the primary and secondary osteons, with the latter developed within the former (Fig. 3A1, A2, B1, B2). Normal secondary osteons, while commonly following preexisting primary vascularity, cut across existing primary osteon boundaries and other existing structures. This is because the cutting cone of normal secondary osteons is roughly the size of primary osteons and thus obliterates the primary osteon. Cutting across primary osteons is only rarely the case in the Aust Cliff bones where the cementing line of the secondary osteon is within the lamellae of the primary osteon. In fact, the cementing line only becomes apparent at close inspection with the compound microcope, using higher magnifications, a nearly closed diaphragm, and a condensor. The cutting cone of the secondary osteons must have been distinctly smaller than usual, and osteoclast activity was influenced by the preexisting lamellae of the primary osteon. In fact, we are unsure whether to call these structures proper secondary osteons or, more descriptively, primary osteons with a twophase centripetal deposition.

Fig. 3.

Detailed bone histology of the femoral shafts from the Upper Triassic near Bristol, UK. A. BRSMG Cb3869, primary osteon modified by a secondary osteon that developed inside the primary one; A2, close-up of A1, a secondary osteon within a primary osteon clearly shows a resorption line (white arrows indicate lamellae deposited in the secondary osteon); A3, the outermost cortex poorly vascularized and containing unfilled erosion cavities (black arrows). B. BRSMG Cb3870, resorption cutting through the lamellae of the primary osteon (discordant) or following them (concordant); B2, close-up of B1, the resorption line of the secondary osteon clearly cuts through the tissue of the primary osteon (black arrows indicate lamellae deposited in the secondary osteon); B3, up to 19 LAGs (white arrows) occuring in the primary cortex, complemented by 11 or 12 in the external fundamental system (B4); B5, erosion cavities showing a thin lining of lamellar bone (black arrow) or none at all (white arrow). Image in polarised light.

f03_607.jpg

A clue to understanding this remodelling pattern may be the numerous resorption cavities deeper in the cortex, which show a similar thin lining of lamellar bone as the secondary osteons (Fig. 3B5). The secondary osteons inside the primary ones may be part of the same remodelling process acting in the inner cortex, except that it was less extensive in the outer cortex, resulting in only a little resorption before redeposition commenced again (Fig. 4). During a later resorption phase, the unfilled resorption cavities were possibly formed. For the lack of modern examples of the peculiar tissue of the Aust Cliff bone shafts, its exact mode of formation remains difficult to understand.

Histological comparison with other Late Triassic large tetrapods.—Based on morphology and microanatomy, i.e., the large size and the straight shaft of the partial femora and their thin cortex, Galton (2005) suggested affinity of the giant Aust Cliff bones with two types of dinosaurs, namely prosauropods or stegosaurs. A similarly straight shaft is also found in Sauropoda, which had been excluded by Galton (2005) based on their thicker cortex, and in large pseudosuchian archosaurs (Niedźwiedzki et al. 2012). As noted above, the apparent thinness of the cortex may be an artefact of the location of sampling sites and fracture planes. Thus, we will enter into a closer comparison of the histology of the Aust Cliff specimens with these four taxa, namely Pseudosuchia, basal Sauropodomorpha, Sauropoda, and Stegosauria.

Fig. 4.

Flow diagram explaining the peculiar patterns of remodelling seen in the Aust Cliff bones BRSMG Cb3869 and Cb3870. In a simple vascular canal, lamellar bone is deposited centripetally forming a primary osteon. In the Aust Cliff shafts, the inner lamellae of this primary osteon are later resorbed from the inside. When erosion stops before the entire primary osteon is resorbed, leaving a resorption line within the primary osteon, new lamellae can be deposited and a secondary osteon forms within the primary one. With ongoing resorption, an erosion cavity forms, the size of which exceeds the one of the former primary osteon. When resorption stops, deposition of lamellar bone can resume.

f04_607.jpg

The histological diversity of Triassic crurotarsan archosaurs has been described comprehensively by de Ricqlès et al. (2003, 2008), including large-bodied forms such as phytosaurs and rauisuchians. Longitudinal vascular canals, primary and secondary osteons as well as numerous growth marks are shared with the Aust Cliff bones. A modification of the fibro-lamellar bone complex, which is characterised by not highly developed woven bone, occurs in the deep cortex, i.e., during early development, of some archosaurs (de Ricqlès et al. 2003, 2008). Among basal sauropodomorphs, the histology of Plateosauridae such as Plateosaurus (Klein and Sander 2007) and Massospondylus (Chinsamy 1993) is well known and differs from that of the Aust Cliff specimens in having laminar fibrolamellar bone and few secondary osteons. The histology of other basal sauropodomorphs is similar to that of Plateosauridae (e.g., de Ricqlès 1968; Chinsamy 1993; Klein and Sander 2007). The Aust Cliff bones are also unlike Sauropoda, which uniformly have laminar fibrolamellar bone usually lacking growth marks (Sander 2000; Klein and Sander 2008; Sander et al. 2011). This histology is even seen in the earliest sauropods such as the large cf. Isanosaurus from the Late Triassic of Thailand (Buffetaut et al. 2000, 2002; Sander et al. 2004). Finally, stegosaur bone histology resembles that of the Aust Cliff bones in having fibrolamellar bone with predominantly longitudinal primary osteons (Redelstorff and Sander 2009; Hayashi et al. 2009), but stegosaurs lack the peculiar secondary osteons inside the primary osteons and show normal secondary osteons instead.

The Aust Cliff bones simply do not offer a good match with any previously described histologies. The presence of fibrolamellar bone would suggest dinosaurian affinity, possibly with an unknown lineage of sauropodomorphs. Alternatively, very large pseudosuchian archosaurs may have had a bone histology different from that described for other non-dinosaurian archosaurs, particularly the smaller rauisuchians, by de Ricqlès et al. (2003, 2008). Pseudosuchian affinities of the Aust Cliff bones have gained in credibility because a very large one (femur length ca. 700 mm) has recently been described from Poland, Smok wawelski (Niedźwiedzki et al. 2012), that occurs in sediments only slightly older than the Westbury Formation. Previously, Late Triassic non-dinosaurian archosaurs of such large size (up to 6–7 m), with pillar-like hind limbs, had been known only from Argentina (Bonaparte 1981). Very large size in such non-dinosaurian archosaurs could have evolved by an increase in growth rate, resulting in the fibrolamellar bone seen in the Aust Cliff specimens. Testing this hypothesis would require histological sampling of this material. To narrow down the affinities of the large Aust Cliff bones, we furthermore hope that the Camelotia material can be histologically sampled in the future.

Conclusions

The unique bone histology of the two sampled partial femoral shafts from the Rhaetian Westbury Formation at Aust Cliff England, encompasses fibrolamellar bone with longitudinal primary osteons, most of which are modified by secondary remodelling. Growth marks are common as either LAGs or annuli, indicating cyclical growth. In the older specimen, BRSMG CB3870, LAGs become gradually more narrow-spaced towards the bone surface, where they form an EFS. The bone tissue of the younger but slightly larger specimen, BRSMG Cb3869, contains annuli rather than LAGs. This variation in type of growth marks in combination with body size may indicate stronger and weaker interruptions of growth as a response to ecological variation or sexual dimorphism.

Based on the geological age, the bone size and the straight shaft, the affinity of the Aust Cliff bones can only be sought among certain dinosaurs (basal sauropodomorphs, Sauropoda and Stegosauria) or large pseudosuchian archosaurs. However, all sauropodomorphs have a laminar vascular architecture, pseudosuchians lack fibrolamellar bone, and stegosaurs, while having longitudinal primary osteons, lack the secondary modification seen in the Aust Cliff bones. In addition, the fossil record of the latter only begins in the Middle Jurassic, at least 25 Ma years later than the age of the Westbury Formation. While it is clear that the Aust Cliff femora represent an early experiment in a graviportal stance and gigantism, it is unclear at present in which (presumably archosaurian) lineage this experiment took place.

Acknowledgements

We thank Roger Vaughan (Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, UK) for collection access and permission to sample the specimens. PMG thanks Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay (Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India) and P. Yadagiri (Geological Survey, Hyderabad, India) for information concerning the Kota ankylosaur. We would also like to thank the reviewers and the editor Michael J. Benton for helpful comments on and improvement of the manuscript. This study was partly funded by the DFG (contribution number 92 of the DFG Research Unit 533, ‘‘Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: The Evolution of Gigantism'').

References

1.

A.D. Averianov and S.A. Krasnolutskii 2009. Stegosaur remains from the Middle Jurassic of West Siberia. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences 313: 153–167. Google Scholar

2.

S. Bandyopadhyay and D.P. Sengupta 2006. Vertebrate faunal turnover during the Triassic-Jurassic transition: an Indian scenario. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin 37: 77–85. Google Scholar

3.

S. Bandyopadhyay , D.D. Gillette , S. Ray , and D.P. Sengupta 2010. Osteology of Barapasaurus tagorei (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Jurassic of India. Palaeontology 53: 533–569. Google Scholar

4.

J.F. Bonaparte 1981. Descripción de 'Fasolasuchus tenax' y su significado en la sistematica y evolución de los Thecodontia. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia” 3: 55–101. Google Scholar

5.

E. Buffetaut , V. Suteethorn , G. Cuny , H. Tong , J. Le Loeuff , S. Khansubha , and S. Jongautchariyakul 2000. The earliest known sauropod dinosaur. Nature 407: 72–74. Google Scholar

6.

E. Buffetaut , V. Suteethorn , J. Le Loeuff , G. Cuny , H. Tong , and S. Khansubha 2002. The first giant dinosaurs: a large sauropod from the Late Triassic of Thailand. Comptes Rendus Paleovol 1: 103–109. Google Scholar

7.

R.J. Butler , L.B. Porro , and A.B. Heckert 2006. A supposed heterodontosaurid tooth from the Rhaetian of Switzerland and a reassessment of the European Late Triassic record of Ornithischia (Dinosauria). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 2006 (10): 613–633. Google Scholar

8.

A. Chinsamy 1993. Bone histology and growth trajectory of the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus (Owen). Modern Geology 18: 319–329. Google Scholar

9.

P.M. Galton 1985. British plated dinosaurs (Ornithischia, Stegosauridae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5: 211–254. Google Scholar

10.

P.M. Galton 1998. Saurischian dinosaurs from the Upper Triassic of England: Camelotia (Prosauropoda, Melanorosauridae) and Avalonianus (Theropoda, ?Carnosauria). Palaeontographica, Abteilung A 250: 155–172. Google Scholar

11.

P.M. Galton 2005. Bones of large dinosaurs (Prosauropoda and Stegosauria) from the Rhaetic Bone Bed (Upper Triassic) of Aust Cliff, southwest England. Revue de Paléobiologie 24: 51–74. Google Scholar

12.

P.M. Galton 2007. Notes on the remains of archosaurian reptiles, mostly basal sauropodomorph dinosaurs, from the 1834 fissure fill (Rhaetian, Upper Triassic) at Clifton in Bristol, southwest England. Revue de Paléobiologie 26: 501–591. Google Scholar

13.

P.M. Galton and H.P. Powell 1983. Stegosaurian dinosaurs from the Bathonian (Middle Jurassic) of England, the earliest record of the family Stegosauridae. Géobios 16: 219–229. Google Scholar

14.

S. Hayashi , K. Carpenter , and D. Suzuki 2009. Different growth patterns between the skeleton and osteoderms of Stegosaurus (Ornithischia: Thyreophora). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 123–131. Google Scholar

15.

R.B. Irmis , W.G. Parker , S.J. Nesbitt , and J. Liu 2007. Early ornithischian dinosaurs: the Triassic record. Historical Biology 19: 3–22. Google Scholar

16.

T. Joanen and L. McNease 1971. Propagation of the American alligator in captivity. Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 25: 106–116. Google Scholar

17.

N. Klein and P.M. Sander 2007. Bone histology and growth of the prosauropod Plateosaurus engelhardti MEYER, 1837 from the Norian bonebeds of Trossingen (Germany) and Frick (Switzerland). Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 169–206. Google Scholar

18.

N. Klein and P.M. Sander 2008. Ontogenetic stages in the long bone histology of sauropod dinosaurs. Paleobiology 34: 248–264. Google Scholar

19.

C.P. Kofron 1990. The reproductive cycle of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). Journal of Zoology 221: 477–488. Google Scholar

20.

V.A. Lance 1989. Reproductive cycle of the American alligator. American Zoologist 29: 999–1018. Google Scholar

21.

S.C.R. Maidment , G. Wei , and D.B. Norman 2006. Re-description of the postcranial skeleton of the Middle Jurassic stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26: 944–956. Google Scholar

22.

S.C.R. Maidment , D.B. Norman , P.M. Barrett , and P. Upchurch 2008. Systematics and phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 6: 367–407. Google Scholar

23.

T.T. Nath , P. Yadagiri , and A.L. Moitra 2002. First record of armoured dinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Kota Formation, Pranhita-Godavari Valley, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Geological Society of India 59: 575–577. Google Scholar

24.

G. Niedź wiedzki , T. Sulej , and J. Dzik 2012. A large predatory archosaur from the Late Triassic of Poland. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57: 267–276. Google Scholar

25.

R. Redelstorff and P.M. Sander 2009. Long and girdle bone histology of Stegosaurus: implications for growth and life history. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 1087–1099. Google Scholar

26.

S.H. Reynolds 1946. The Aust section. Proceedings of the Cotteswold Naturalists' Field Club 29: 29–39. Google Scholar

27.

A. de Ricqlès 1968. Recherches paléohistologiques sur les os longs des tetrapodes. I. Origine du tissu osseux plexiforme des dinosauriens sauropodes. Annales de Paléontologie 54: 133–145. Google Scholar

28.

A. de Ricqlès , K. Padian , and J.R. Horner 2003. On the bone histology of some Triassic pseudosuchian archosaurs and related taxa. Annales de Paléontologie 89: 67–101. Google Scholar

29.

A. de Ricqlès , K. Padian, F. Knoll , and J.R. Horner 2008. On the origin of high growth rates in archosaurs: Complementary histological studies on Triassic archosauriforms and the problem of a “phylogenetic signal” in bone histology. Annales de Paléontologie 94: 57–76. Google Scholar

30.

P.M. Sander 2000. Long bone histology of the Tendaguru sauropods: Implications for growth and biology. Paleobiology 26: 466–488. Google Scholar

31.

P.M. Sander , N. Klein , E. Buffetaut , G. Cuny , V. Suteethorn , and J. Le Loeuff 2004. Adaptive radiation in sauropod dinosaurs: bone histology indicates rapid evolution of giant body size through acceleration. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 4: 165–173. Google Scholar

32.

P.M. Sander , A. Christian , M. Clauss , R. Fechner , C.T. Gee , E.-M. Griebeler , H.-C. Gunga , J. Hummel , H. Mallison , S.F. Perry , H. Preuschoft , O.W.M. Rauhut , K. Remes , T. Tütken , O. Wings , and U. Witzel 2011. Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biological Reviews 86: 117–155. Google Scholar

33.

W. Sanders 1876. On certain large bones in Rhaetic beds at Aust Cliff, near Bristol. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections 1875 45: 80–81. Google Scholar

34.

M.H. Schweitzer , R.M. Elsey , C.G. Dacke , J.R. Horner , and E.-T. Lamm 2007. Do egg-laying crocodilian (Alligator mississippiensis) archosaurs form medullary bone? Bone 40: 1152–1158. Google Scholar

35.

P.C. Sereno and Z. Dong 1992. The skull of the basal stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii and a cladistic analysis of Stegosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12: 318–343. Google Scholar

36.

K. Stein and P.M. Sander 2009. Histological core drilling: a less destructive method for studying bone histology. In : M.A. Brown , J.F. Kane , and W.G. Parker (eds.), Methods In Fossil Preparation. Proceedings of the First Annual Fossil Preparation and Collections Symposium, 69–80. Petrified Forest National Park, Holbrook, Arizona. Google Scholar

37.

G.W. Storrs 1994. Fossil vertebrate faunas of the British Rhaetian (latest Triassic). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 112: 217–259. Google Scholar

38.

S. Stutchbury 1850. On a large cylindrical bone found by Mr. Thompson in the “Bone-bed” of Aust Cliff, on the Severn. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections 1849 19: 67. Google Scholar

39.

R.S. Thompson , J.C. Parish , S.C.R. Maidment , and P.M. Barrett 2012. Phylogeny of the ankylosaurian dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 10: 301–312. Google Scholar

40.

D.I. Whiteside and J.E.A. Marshall 2008. The age, fauna and palaeoenvironment of the Late Triassic fissure deposits of Tytherington, South Gloucestershire, UK. Geological Magazine 145: 105–147. Google Scholar

41.

M.A. Whyte and M. Romano 2001. Probable stegosaurian dinosaur tracks from the Saltwick Formation (Middle Jurassic) of Yorkshire, England. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 112: 45–54. Google Scholar

42.

M.A. Whyte , M. Romano , and D.J. Elvidge 2007. Reconstruction of Middle Jurassic dinosaur-dominated communities from the vertebrate ichnofauna of the Cleveland Basin of Yorkshire, UK. Ichnos 14: 117–129. Google Scholar

43.

M. Wikelski and C. Thom 2000. Marine iguanas shrink to survive “El Nino”. Nature 403: 37–38. Google Scholar

44.

C.S. Wink and R.M. Elsey 1986. Changes in femoral morphology during egg-laying in Alligator mississippiensis. Journal of Morphology 189: 83–188. Google Scholar

45.

C.S. Wink , R.M. Elsey , and E.M. Mill 1987. Changes in femoral robusticity and porosity during the reproductive cycle of the female alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Journal of Morphology 93: 317–321. Google Scholar

46.

A.M. Yates 2007. The first complete skull of the Triassic dinosaur Melanorosaurus Haughton (Sauropodomorpha: Anchisauria). Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 9–55. Google Scholar

47.

A.M. Yates 2010. A revision of the problematic sauropodomorph dinosaurs from Manchester, Connecticut and the status of Anchisaurus Marsh. Palaeontology 53: 739–752. Google Scholar

48.

S.W. Zhou 1984. The Middle Jurassic dinosaurian fauna from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan. Volume 2: Stegosaurs [in Chinese with English summary]. 51 pp. Chongquing: Sichuan Scientific and Technological Publishing House, Sichuan.  Google Scholar
© 2014 R. Redelstorff et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Ragna Redelstorff, P. Martin Sander, and Peter M. Galton "Unique Bone Histology in Partial Large Bone Shafts from Upper Triassic of Aust Cliff, England: An Early Independent Experiment in Gigantism," Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59(3), 607-615, (14 November 2012). https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2012.0073
Received: 9 July 2012; Accepted: 10 November 2012; Published: 14 November 2012
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
bone histology
Dinosauria
England
fibrolamellar bone
primary osteon
Reptilia
secondary osteon
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top