The Princeton Field Guides to Pterosaurs and Mesozoic Sea Reptiles

[VD231991]

The upcoming field guide to Mesozoic marine reptiles by Gregory Paul is now available for preview on Google Books, and while Paul himself accepts that Eiectus longmani is a different taxon from the diagnostic Kronosaurus material from the type horizon of K. queenslandicus and follows the latest taxonomic schemes for thalattosuchians adopted by Michela Johnson and colleagues (e.g. breakup of Steneosaurus into multiple genera, erection of Thalattosuchus for the Callovian metriorhynchine referred to Metriorhynchus), he also elevates to full genus rank the subgenera Tenuirostria and Longirostria that were coined by Arkhangelsky (1998) for the Platypterygius species described from North America and Australia respectively based on published phylogenies recovering Platypterygius as polyphyletic. 

Arkhangelsky, M.S. (1998). On the Ichthyosaurian genus Platypterygius. Paleontological Journal 32 (6): 611–615.

[DinoToyForum]

@Everything_Dinosaur have put out a short review of the Marine Reptiles book: https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/_archives/2022/10/02/princeton-field-guide-to-mesozoic-sea-reptiles.html?fbclid=IwAR3YnDwePRuC4eGCbJB5iMahye1z2XT02Kzh-ZkEJkdLHFPzEEQy4NSDhq8

Who can tell me what's wrong with this Cryptoclidus skeletal reconstruction?

[CityRaptor]

That it is a different Plesiosaur? I'm not an expert on Plesiosaurs, but Cryptoclidus has a shorter neck and a longer head.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cryptoclidus_eurymerus_Tubingen.JPG#/media/File:Cryptoclidus_eurymerus_Tubingen.JPG

[DinoToyForum]

That it is a different Plesiosaur? I'm not an expert on Plesiosaurs, but Cryptoclidus has a shorter neck and a longer head.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cryptoclidus_eurymerus_Tubingen.JPG#/media/File:Cryptoclidus_eurymerus_Tubingen.JPG

You got it! It's clearly the skeleton of Muraenosaurus, a completely different plesiosaur. In addition to the proportional differences there are multiple other anatomical differences between Cryptoclidus and Muraenosaurus, they are both well established genera.

[suspsy]

Has Paul previously proposed that Muraenosaurus is a species of Cryptocleidus? Either way, it doesn't surprise me. This is on par with lumping a whole bunch of ceratopsids in either Chasmosaurus or Centrosaurus.

I still plan on getting this book, though.

[triceratops83]

My Australian seller finally listed Mesozoic Sea Reptiles, so I preordered a copy. I've been so looking forward to this!

[DinoToyForum]

Has Paul previously proposed that Muraenosaurus is a species of Cryptocleidus? Either way, it doesn't surprise me. This is on par with lumping a whole bunch of ceratopsids in either Chasmosaurus or Centrosaurus.

I still plan on getting this book, though.

Not that I'm aware of and no modern plesiosaur palaeontologist would contemplate it. Cryptoclidus was once regarded as a subgenus of Muraenosaurus in 1892, but that was in 1892. These days, it would be akin to lumping Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus. So, it's either an honest mistake, or a ridiculous and damaging superficial decision.

[ceratopsian]

It might be no more than the publishing firm muddling up very similar images at the layout stage.  I remember a legendary fiasco at the publishing firm that I worked for in the late 1980s.  A map was printed - with a handwritten comment still in place on the artwork saying something like "insert town X here".  So these things happen.

[DinoToyForum]

It might be no more than the publishing firm muddling up very similar images at the layout stage.  I remember a legendary fiasco at the publishing firm that I worked for in the late 1980s.  A map was printed - with a handwritten comment still in place on the artwork saying something like "insert town X here".  So these things happen.

Yeah, I'd usually assume it was an honest mistake, but Greg Paul does have a habit of lumping established taxa.

[ceratopsian]

Indeed he does. We'll just have to wait and see. And we look forward to your critique of the volume in due course.

It might be no more than the publishing firm muddling up very similar images at the layout stage.  I remember a legendary fiasco at the publishing firm that I worked for in the late 1980s.  A map was printed - with a handwritten comment still in place on the artwork saying something like "insert town X here".  So these things happen.

Yeah, I'd usually assume it was an honest mistake, but Greg Paul does have a habit of lumping established taxa.

[HD-man]

Thanks postsaurischian for sharing this!   The Princeton Field Guide to Mesozoic Sea Reptiles looks exciting!  I'm very happy it's being produced!  I've modified the title and first post of this thread to include details of the sea reptile field guide including the day it will be released.

& it's coming out around the same time as Naish's "sea reptiles" book, which is quite coincidental: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Sea-Reptiles-Monsters-Deep/dp/1588347273

For those who don't know, the release date has since been changed to Feb 2023, so we'll have to wait a while longer That's too bad, especially given the problems w/GSPaul's book.

[Remko]

I received the "Sea Reptiles" book today.

As usual, wonderful artwork. Although I must confess that many animals, especially the Ichthyosaurs, are drawn, well, somewhat different by Paul than most other artists depict them.

Beautiful book though, as is the Pterosaur book. Although Witton's is till my favorite.

[DinoToyForum]

I received the "Sea Reptiles" book today.

As usual, wonderful artwork. Although I must confess that many animals, especially the Ichthyosaurs, are drawn, well, somewhat different by Paul than most other artists depict them.

Beautiful book though, as is the Pterosaur book. Although Witton's is till my favorite.

Is Muraenosaurus listed?

[Remko]

Is Muraenosaurus listed?

Yes, it is. And as some has already suggested, I think it's a misprint by the publisher. As with many animals, Paul included a skeletal diagram and depiction of the living animal.

The name Cryptoclidus eurymerus is used twice on following pages.
First on page 111 with very large fore flippers, shorten and heavier neck and larger skull.
Then again on page 112 with an animal with smaller flippers, longer and more slender neck and smaller skull. That's the image shown in the earluer post with the Everything dinosaur review.

The two species are listed after eachother. So the second image indeed is Muraenosaurus leedsii.

[DinoToyForum]

Is Muraenosaurus listed?

Yes, it is. And as some has already suggested, I think it's a misprint by the publisher. As with many animals, Paul included a skeletal diagram and depiction of the living animal.

The name Cryptoclidus eurymerus is used twice on following pages.
First on page 111 with very large fore flippers, shorten and heavier neck and larger skull.
Then again on page 112 with an animal with smaller flippers, longer and more slender neck and smaller skull. That's the image shown in the earluer post with the Everything dinosaur review.

The two species are listed after eachother. So the second image indeed is Muraenosaurus leedsii.

Thanks for the explanation, I'm glad it was an honest mistake!

[Sim]

I received the pterosaur and Mesozoic sea reptiles guides as Christmas presents from my mum.  I'm finding them interesting.  From the pterosaur guide Paul explains that pycnofibers were hollow, a characteristic of feathers in contrast to solid mammal hair.  I had been wondering what the difference between filamentous feathers and hair was, now I know.

Paul also writes how it could be possible pterosaurs were sometimes bipedal based on some footprints and the book includes an illustration which has two bipedal Nyctosaurus.  There is also an illustration of a bipedal Eudimorphodon in the book.  Speaking of illustrations, Tyrannosaurus is in one picture with Triceratops and Quetzalcoatlus and it has no feathers, in contrast to the Tyrannosaurus in Paul's second dinosaur guide.  So I guess he thinks Tyrannosaurus was most likely featherless now.

There's also a nice illustration of Preondactylus and Eudimorphodon and Longisquama, although the Longisquama doesn't have those unique scale things and looks like a drepanosaur!  I'm not sure what to make of that.  I was surprised the wukongopterid section was so short, it turns out it's because Paul lumped most of them in Wukongopterus lii, heh.  He also thinks Nemicolopterus is most likely a young Sinopterus.

I also found it funny that there's been all that fuss over separating Tupandactylus from Tapejara... and Paul unites them under the genus Tapejara again.  He also suggests Tupandactylus navigans could be the female of T. imperator.  I went on Wikipedia to compare Paul's claim that the size of T. imperator has been "underappreciated" and that its wingspan was 7-8m, making it the first gigantic pterosaur, something different to the size estimates on Wikipedia...  and while on Wikipedia I came across a 2022 paper that shows branched feathers from Tupandactylus!  It looks like pycnofibers really are feathers.

I'll stop here tonight.  I plan to finish going through the pterosaur guide tomorrow and then move onto the sea reptiles guide.

[suspsy]

The T. rex attacking the Triceratops in the pterosaur guide is the exact same illustration from Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, so Paul probably just didn't bother to modify it.

[Halichoeres]

I'm not really inclined to follow Paul's lead on taxonomy. Still, I'm glad to see another dedicated marine reptile book, there's few enough of those!

[Sim]

I finished going through the pterosaur book today.  Perhaps unsurprisingly Paul lumps Geosternbergia and Dawndraco into Pteranodon as Pterandon sternbergi, something I agree with.  Something novel though is he keeps maysei as a valid third species of Pteranodon.

[Sim]

I've finally got round to reading the sea reptiles book and I'm enjoying it!  Unlike the dinosaur and pterosaur versions, this book is showing me species I was not familiar with.  I'm going through this book more slowly than the dinosaur and pterosaur versions because of the greater quantity of new information to take in from the sea reptiles book.

Paul keeps Kronosaurus separate from Eiectus, acknowledging that the diagnostic material has the new name but that it may be challenged in the future by reapplying the name Kronosaurus to the diagnostic remains.

Something I've found interesting is that Paul proposes that Megacephalosaurus is the adult of Brachauchenius.  I wonder if that's possible, since Megacephalosaurus was separated from Brachauchenius.