Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Paulina Jiménez-Huidobro; Michael W. Caldwell (2019). "A New Hypothesis of the Phylogenetic Relationships of the Tylosaurinae (Squamata: Mosasauroidea)". Frontiers in Earth Science. 7 (47): 47. Bibcode: 2019FrEaS...7...47J. doi: 10.3389/feart.2019.00047. The type specimen of M. missouriensis was first described in 1834 by Richard Harlan based on a snout fragment found along the river's Big Bend. [22] He coined the specific epithet and initially identified it as a species of Ichthyosaurus [28] but later as an amphibian. [29] The rest of the skull had been discovered earlier by a fur-trapper, and it eventually came under the possession of prince Maximilian of Weid-Neuwied between 1832 and 1834. The fossil was delivered to Georg August Goldfuss in Bonn for research, who published a study in 1845. [30] The same year, Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer suspected that the skull and Harlan's snout were part of the same individual. This was confirmed in 2004. [22] Because the genus Mosasaurus was not coined at the time, the original identifier, Samuel L. Mitchill, described the fossil as a lizard monster or saurian animal resembling the famous fossil reptile of Maestricht [ sic]." [25] Cuvier doubted whether the two specimens were related. The congeneric relationship was eventually confirmed by James Ellsworth De Kay in 1830, [25] and the New Jersey fossil was named Mosasaurus dekayi in his honor. [26] The taxon was declared a nomen dubium in 2005, [2] and other fossils attributed to it were reidentified as M. hoffmannii. [27]
The number of prisms in M. conodon and number of lingual prisms in M. lemonnieri are uncertain. [42] Michael Everhart; John W. M. Jagt; Eric W. A. Mulder; Anne S. Schulp (2016). Mosasaurs—how large did they really get?. 5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting—A Global Perspective on Mesozoic Marine Amniotes. The third species was described in 1881 from fragmentary fossils in New Jersey by Edward Drinker Cope, who thought it was a giant species of Clidastes and named it Clidastes conodon. [31] In 1966, it was reidentified as a species of Mosasaurus. [11] [32] In his description, Cope does not provide the etymology for the specific epithet conodon, [31] but it is suggested that it could be a portmanteau meaning "conical tooth", derived from the Ancient Greek κῶνος ( kônos, "cone") and ὀδών ( odṓn, "tooth"), probably in reference to conical surface teeth smooth of the species. [33] Rempert, Trevor; Vinkeles Melchers, Alexander P.M.; Rempert, Ashley N.; Haque, Muhammad R.; Armstrong, Andrew. "Occurrence of Mosasaurus hoffmannii Mantell, 1829 (Squamata, Mosasauridae) in the Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco". Journal of Paleontological Sciences.Cyrus C. Greene (2018). Osteohistology And Skeletochronology Of an Ontogenetic Series Of Clidastes (Squamata: Mosasauridae): Growth And Metabolism In Basal Mosasaurids (MS). Fort Hays State University. M. lemonnieri is a controversial taxon, and there is debate on whether it is a distinct species or not. [37] In 1967, Dale Russell argued that M. lemonnieri and M. conodon are the same species and designated the former as a junior synonym per the principle of priority. [38] In a 2000 study, Lingham-Soliar refuted this based on a comprehensive study of existing M. lemonnieri specimens, [36] which was corroborated by a study on the M. conodon skull by Takehito Ikejiri and Spencer G. Lucas in 2014. [11] In 2004, Eric Mulder, Dirk Cornelissen, and Louis Verding suggested M. lemonnieri could be a juvenile form of M. hoffmannii based on the argument that significant differences could be explained by age-based variation. [39] However, the need for more research to confirm any hypotheses of synonymy was expressed. [40] Another case of presumed niche partitioning between Mosasaurus and Prognathodon from the Bearpaw Formation in Alberta was documented in a 2014 study by Konishi and colleagues. The study found a dietary divide between M. missouriensis and Prognathodon overtoni based on stomach contents. Stomach contents of P. overtoni included turtles and ammonites, providing another example of a diet specialized for harder prey. In contrast, M. missouriensis had stomach contents consisting of fish, indicative of a diet specialized in softer prey. It was hypothesized that these adaptations helped maintain resource partitioning between the two mosasaurs. [9] Description [ edit ] Life restoration of a mosasaur ( Platecarpus tympaniticus) informed by fossil skin impressions a b c Elizabeth L. Nicholls and Anthony P. Russell (1990). "Paleobiogeography of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway of North America: the vertebrate evidence". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 79 (1–2): 149–169. Bibcode: 1990PPP....79..149N. doi: 10.1016/0031-0182(90)90110-S.
a b c T. Lynn Harrell Jr.; Alberto Pérez-Huerta (2014). "Habitat preference of mosasaurs indicated by rare earth element (REE) content of fossils from the Upper Cretaceous marine deposits of Alabama, New Jersey, and South Dakota (USA)". Netherlands Journal of Geosciences. 94 (1): 145–154. doi: 10.1017/njg.2014.29. S2CID 128587386. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Takehito Ikejiri; Spencer G. Lucas (2014). "Osteology and taxonomy of Mosasaurus conodon Cope 1881 from the Late Cretaceous of North America". Netherlands Journal of Geosciences. 94 (1): 39–54. doi: 10.1017/njg.2014.28. S2CID 73707936. Eric Mulder; Bert Theunissen (1986). "Hermann Schlegel's investigation of the Maastricht mosasaurs". Archives of Natural History. 13 (1): 1–6. doi: 10.3366/anh.1986.13.1.1. The role of dominant ocean predator was once held by marine reptiles that resembled modern dolphins, known as ichthyosaurs. Those animals were succeeded by the plesiosaurs, which were then replaced by the mosasaurs, according to the Naranjo Museum of Natural History. After mosasaurs disappeared, crocodilians increased in numbers and took over the role of large marine predators, according to the Netherlands Journal of Geosciences study.
The Types of Teeth Found in the Mosasaurus
Mosasaurs had double-hinged jaws a Martinus van Marum (1790). Beschrijving der beenderen van den kop van eenen visch, gevonden in den St Pietersberg bij Maastricht, en geplaatst in Teylers Museum (in Dutch). Vol.9. Verhandelingen Teylers Tweede Genootschap. pp.383–389. a b c d e f g h i j k Nathalie Bardet (2012). "Maastrichtian marine reptiles of the Mediterranean Tethys: a palaeobiogeographical approach". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 183 (6): 573–596. doi: 10.2113/gssgfbull.183.6.573. Michael W. Caldwell (2007). "Ontogeny, anatomy and attachment of the dentition in mosasaurs (Mosasauridae: Squamata)". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 149 (4): 687–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00280.x. Isolated bones suggest some M. hoffmannii may have exceeded the lengths of the Penza specimen. One such bone is a quadrate (NHMM 003892) which is 150% larger than the average size, which Everhart and colleagues in 2016 reported can be extrapolated to scale an individual around 18 meters (59ft) in length. It was not stated whether they applied Russell's 1967 ratio. [54]
Great Deal 
New Comment