| Chilesaurus | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Cast of the holotype skeleton | |
Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Clade: | Dinosauria |
| Clade: | Saurischia |
| Clade: | Theropoda (?) |
| Genus: | †Chilesaurus Novaset al. 2015 |
| Species: | †C. diegosuarezi |
| Binomial name | |
| †Chilesaurus diegosuarezi Novaset al. 2015 | |
Chilesaurus is an extinctgenus of herbivorousdinosaur. While its exact classification is uncertain, many researchers believe it is atheropod, with a minority of academics suggesting that it may be anornithischian. Thetype and only known species so far isChilesaurus diegosuarezi.[1]Chilesaurus lived between 148-147 million years ago (Mya) in theLate Jurassic period ofChile.[2] Showing a combination of traits fromtheropods,ornithischians, andsauropodomorphs, this genus has far-reaching implications for the evolution of dinosaurs, such as whether the traditionalsaurischian-ornithischian split is superior or inferior to the proposed groupOrnithoscelida.[3] This however, has been contested by several other authors, who believe that the weight of evidence supports its membership within Theropoda, and possibly as a member ofTetanurae.[4][5]
Chilesaurus was first discovered on 4 February 2004 by a seven-year-old named Diego Suárez. He and his parents, the geologists Manuel Suárez and Rita de la Cruz, were searching for decorative stones in theAysén Region, and uncovered a vertebra and rib from what would later be namedChilesaurus. More specimens were found that were assigned to various dinosaur species in 2008 but were later recognized as belonging to additional individuals ofChilesaurus.[6] One reason this realization took time was thatChilesaurus has such a bizarre combination of traits, coupled with the fact that the remains were discovered alongsife a few bones from an unrelateddiplodocidsauropod.[7]
In 2015, the type speciesC. diegosuarezi was named and described byFernando Emilio Novas,Leonardo Salgado,Manuel Suárez,Federico Lisandro Agnolín,Martín Dario Ezcurra,Nicolás Chimento,Rita de la Cruz,Marcelo Pablo Isasi,Alexander Omar Vargas, andDavid Rubilar-Rogers. The generic name is derived fromChile (the country where it was discovered) and thelatinizedGreek suffix "saurus", meaning "lizard". Thespecific name honors Diego Suárez.[1]
The holotype,SNGM-1935, was found in a layer of theToqui Formation dating from the lateTithonian. It consists of an articulated, rather complete skeleton with skull of a juvenile individual, lacking the feet and most of the tail. Four other partial skeletons (specimens SNGM-1937, SNGM-1936, SNGM-1938, and SNGM-1888) and several single bones (specimens SNGM-1889, SNGM-1895, SNGM-1901, SNGM-1894, SNGM-1898, SNGM-1900, and SNGM-1903) are theparatypes. They represent juvenile and adult individuals.[1]
Theholotype ofChilesaurus is relatively complete. It includes a partially complete skull andmandible, a complete series ofneck andback vertebrae, most of theribcage, a complete arm and leg, most of the hips, shoulders, and a few of the front-mosttail vertebrae. However, the lack of a complete tail makes a full estimation of its size imprecise. The holotype itself, which represents a skeletally immature individual, is estimated to have been about 1.6 m (5.2 ft) long in life. There are several paratypes representing at least four individuals at varying stages ofontogenetic maturity. The largest of these, believed to be an adult, was used to infer that the full length of an adultChilesaurus would have been about 3.2 m (10.5 ft).[1]
Chilesaurus can be distinguished from all other dinosaurs by a combination of unique features. It has a very shortpremaxillary bone, a uniquelyquadrilaterally-shapedcoracoid bone with thickened outer edges, a hand with only two clawed fingers (the third finger being highly reduced) with very shortenedphalanges, and several features of the hip and ankle bones that are distinct from all othertheropods. However, one of the most distinctive unusual features ofChilesaurus is its spatula-shaped, elongated teeth, which protrude forwards out of their sockets. Suchdentition would be unique among theropods, and is typical for aherbivore, indicatingChilesaurus was a plant-eater. IfChilesaurus was a theropod, it would be only one of a handful of non-coelurosaurian theropods to evolve herbivory, alongsideLimusaurus,Berthasaura, and possibly others.[1] Another apparent adaptation for herbivory is the backward-pointingpubic bone in the pelvis, which has been interpreted as an adaptation for developing the more complex digestive apparatus necessaru to digest plants. Such a pelvic arrangement is typical forornithischians, which has led some authors to suggest thatChilesaurus may be a member of that group.[8]
The hind limb ofChilesaurus is less adapted for running than many other groups of dinosaurs. This is inferred from the presence of a small cnemial crest on the front top of the shinbone, and a broad foot with a weight-bearing first toe. These adaptations would have made running for long periods of time much less efficient, and they are generally not present in animals which are known to have been proficcient runners. However, it is possible thatChilesaurus could defend itself relatively strong arms which bore a large claw on the first finger.[1]
In its original description,Chilesaurus was found to be a very basally-branching member of thetheropod cladeTetanurae. An abbreviated version of the cladogram produced by the authors of that paper is shown below.[1]
In 2017, Baron and Barrett proposed thatChilesaurus may instead be a basal ornithischian. The publication in which this was proposed also resurrected the previously-discredited "Ornithoscelida hypothesis", which suggested that theropods shared a more recent common ancestor withornithischians than withsauropodomorphs.[8][9] Less than a year later in 2018, Müller and colleagues published a reply to Baron & Barrett (2017), arguing that their phylogenetic dataset actually suggested thatChilesaurus was a basal sauropodomorph rather than an ornithischian.[10] Baron and Barrett reached out to the other team of authors to inform them that they had accidentally published a faulty early version of their dataset with many traits scored incorrectly, and that their original results were based on an edited final dataset. They corrected their original publication and supplied the final dataset to Müller and colleagues, who agreed that it supported the placement ofChilesaurus in Ornithischia as had been originally argued by Baron and Barrett in 2017.[10][3] However, Müller and colleagues also noted that Baron and Barrett did not test the original proposal ofChilesaurus as a theropod, and that its classification remained uncertain.[10] Below is a cladogram illustrating the classification proposed by Baron & Barrett (2017), which placesChilesaurus as the most basal ornithischian.[8]
In a latter re-revision of his own datasets, Baron concluded thatChilesaurus remains enigmatic and could be either a theropod or an ornithischian, while noting that its affinities as a theropod were more generally supported by other authors.[11] In his major work on theropod classification in 2024, Andrea Cau recoveredChilesaurus as a sister taxon ofTetanurae.[4] Fonseca and colleagues conducted a similar work on the classification of ornithischians, which also recoveredChilesaurus as a theropod.[5]
A full osteological description ofChilesaurus was published as part of the PhD thesis of Nicolás Roberto Chimento Ortiz in 2018. In it, he noted the likely theropod affinities of the taxon, highlighting elements such as the structure of the metatarsals, characteristics of the tibia, and the opisthopubic pelvis.[12]
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)Supplementary Material
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
