Name:
Platecarpus
(Flat wrist).
Phonetic: Plat-e-car-pus.
Named By: Edward Drinker Cope - 1869.
Synonyms: Holcodus coryphaeus, Holcodus
ictericus, Holcodus mudgei, Holosaurus, Lestosaurus coryphaeus,
Lestosaurus felix, Lestosaurus gracilis, Lestosaurus ictericus,
Lestosaurus latifrons, Lestosaurus simus, Liodon ictericus, Liodon
mudgei, Platecarpus anguliferus, Platecarpus coryphaeus, Platecarpus
felix, Platecarpus gracilis, Platecarpus ictericus, Platecarpus
latifrons, Platecarpus mudgei, Platecarpus simus, Platecarpus tectulus,
Sironectes?.
Classification: Chordata, Reptilia, Squamata,
Mosasauridae, Plioplatecarpinae, Plioplatecarpini.
Species: P. tympaniticus (type).
Diet: Carnivore.
Size: 4.3 meters long.
Known locations: Potentially cosmopolitan
distribution with fossils located in North America, South America,
Eurasia, Australia. Most fossils located within the USA in what was
once the Western Interior Seaway.
Time period: Santonian to early Campanian of the
Cretaceous.
Fossil representation: Remains of multiple
individuals, some of them revealing impressions of soft tissues.
Research
into Platecarpus has arguably advanced our
understanding of the
mosasaurs
more than any other genera, part of this being down to the
number of known Platecarpus fossils. Some of
these specimens of
Platecarpus are so well preserved that they actually
reveal impression
of soft tissues of body parts like the internal organs. This level of
preservation was down to the relatively small size of Platecarpus
(four meters may sound big but compare that to the fifteen meter plus
monsters such as Tylosaurus
at the larger end of the scale and you’ll have an idea)
which made it easier for the body to be rapidly buried by sediment.
Burying of the body is vital for the fossilisation process as without
it the remains are destroyed by a combination of scavengers feeding off
the body and environmental factors like erosion of the bones.
A
Platecarpus fossil (LACM 128319) not only has
a scleral ring
(the bony structure that supports the shape of the eye) but possibly
also remains of the retina. This retina also shows the presence of
what are thought to be melanosomes, a cell that contains melanin,
study of which may one day reveal the colour of Platecarpus’s
eyes.
Impressions of what appear to be internal organs are also present,
as well as a reddish colouration of some areas of the rock which is
taken as presence of haemoglobin in the blood of Platecarpus.
Haemoglobin is the part of red blood cells that carry oxygen, as
formed by the intake of iron as part of the diet (as a predator
Platecarpus would have gotten this from digesting
prey that had in turn
digested trace amounts of iron in their diets). Just as iron can be
seen to rust into a brownish red colour, the iron from the
haemoglobin can stain rocks into a similar colour.
Another
key area that reveals a valuable insight into mosasaur biology is the
preservation of cartilaginous rings of the trachea. Commonly known as
the windpipe this carried air to the lungs, but the key revelation
here is that the junction of the bronchi is also preserved. The fact
that this actually splits into two is evidence that mosasaurs had two
working lungs. This allowed for a greater inference for mosasaur
evolution as one theory was that the mosasaurs evolved from terrestrial
monitor lizards while another suggested that their ancestors were
snakes. Snakes though usually have one lung that is considerably more
developed than another, the weaker lung being barely functional to
vestigial (present but no longer used); while in other snakes the
lung is completely absent. The split in the trachea suggests two
working lungs and a monitor lizard lineage (Later discoveries such as
Dallasaurus
and Russellosaurus
further support this theory).
The area
where the junction occurs is also interesting as it takes place before
the trachea passes beneath the forelimbs, whereas in land lizards the
junction is at the same point as the forelimbs.
The
area of the digestive tract shows a concentration of fish parts such as
scales, not only revealing the prey specialisation of Platecarpus,
but giving a clue to its metabolism and internal workings. The fact
that material passes through so quickly that harder parts like scales
are not fully processes suggests that the digestive system was
incapable of doing so. This could suggest a system that was close to
operating upon the principals of a cold blooded metabolism. Cold
blooded metabolisms take longer to process food and as such increases
the risk of it decomposing inside the body before it’s digested,
poisoning the animal in the process. This is why many reptiles
will not eat if they are too cold, and may even regurgitate food
rather than having it rot inside them. In the case of Platecarpus
(and also for another mosasaur named Globidens)
it would seem that
prey was only digested for the softer fleshier parts while the harder
parts were passed out as waste rather than being left in the system.
It
would however be an error to assume mosasaurs were just sluggish marine
lizards. The Cretaceous seas were warmer than what they are today,
and there are other factors to consider as well like potential
gigantothermy. In short this is where an animal has a low surface
area to body mass ratio (i.e. thickly built) which means the very
body itself can insulate the internal parts so that they retain heat.
This increases the internal metabolism, and evidence for this
occurrence can be seen today in so called ‘traditionally
cold-blooded’ animals like large sharks. These factors combined
with the currently available fossil evidence can be taken as suggesting
that mosasaurs had cold-blooded metabolisms, but were possibly
slightly higher than their related terrestrial ancestors.
Skin
impressions show that Platecarpus had different
scales over different
parts of its body. On the main body and under the tail the scales
were rhomboid and arranged in diagonal rows, but most importantly
they were arranged so that the back of the scales would overlap the
scales of the row behind them. This arrangement suggests that the
scales were developed to increase hydro-dynamic efficiency by reducing
resistance and allowing water to pass over them as Platecarpus
swam
forwards. The scales on the upper portions of the tail however were
similar to those on the body but larger, possibly to help with the
rigidity of the tail (more on that in the section below). The
scales on the tip and upper surface of the snout were hexagonal and did
not touch one another, with these scales possibly occurring here
because this was the part of the body that would have had the most
contact with prey items. The scales on the jaws were similar to the
body but longer, again possibly to increase hydro-dynamic efficiency.
Not
much is known about Platecarpus’s olfactory
ability (sense of
smell), but a clue as to how well it was developed, as well as
potential hunting behaviour comes from the fact that the nostrils are
forward on the snout and face out sideways, something that
may indicate a directional sense of smell. This is easy enough to
explain when you think about how you have ears on the sides of your
head. Unless a sound comes from directly in front or directly behind
you, one ear nearest will always pick up the sound a fraction of a
second before the other one. This may not sound much but that is all
it takes for your brain to register the difference, which is why you
might turn to face the direction of the sound even though you don’t
actually make a conscious decision to do so. Nostrils facing out to
the sides in opposite directions will both pick up scents, but the
one closest to the direction of the source will register first. Also
by being near the tip of the snout the nostrils would have been in the
best possible place to pick up smells, and if Platecarpus
detected
blood it would not only know that they was either a fresh kill or
wounded animal in the water, but which direction it was in. On a
related note, mosasaurs like Platecarpus may have
actually breathed
in through their mouths when taking air on the surface as this would
allow for a faster transference of air, which reduced their time on
the surface where they may have been vulnerable to attack from other
predators that they would not have been able to see coming up from
below.
Not
to forget the actual bones, the skull of Platecarpus
is markedly
different to other mosasaurs in that the skull and snout are
proportionately shorter. It is feasible that this shortness may
have been a visual aid as the orbits (the part of the skull where the
eyes fit into) are angled to face slightly forwards, suggesting a
degree of stereoscopic vision. Other mosasaurs, such as Mosasaurus
itself are thought to have had lacked stereoscopic vision because
their eyes faced more out to the sides with a large snout out in front
that would have created a ‘blind spot’ right in front of the
skull. The shorter snout of Platecarpus however
meant that it did not
have such a handicap, and it may have been able to gauge distances
between itself and prey. This would give Platecarpus
an edge in
hunting smaller prey like fish which would require a good visual fix
for effective capture. Platecarpus also has one
of the lowest numbers
of teeth among mosasaurs, in part a result of the shorter snout.
The teeth themselves are not specifically adapted to work on just fish
however, and as such Platecarpus may have
occasionally tried for
other prey types such as squid and ammonites.
Platecarpus
and the evidence for a mosasaur tail fluke
Platecarpus
was long suspected as having a tail fluke similar to the primitive
ichthyosaurs, something which was confirmed in a later discovery when
a new Platecarpus specimen was discovered with soft
tissue impressions
that revealed it had a crescent shaped tail fluke. This discovery
alone
turned the study of mosasaurs upside down on its head as the long held
reconstruction of mosasaurs gave them all long eel like tails that
trailed behind their bodies.
The
first clues for mosasaurs like Platecarpus having
tail flukes came
through focused study of one portion of the tail where the caudal
vertebrae were very different in shape and proportion to the other
vertebra. These vertebra had centra (the round central portion)
that were shorter than the centra of other vertebrae which meant that
these vertebrae could bend further. The neural spines of these
vertebra however were wedge shaped, and just like the chevron shaped
stones that you see in an archway these caused a naturally occurring
bend in the tail when placed together which saw the tip pointed down at
an angle. Impressions of soft tissue completed the picture with the
presence of a crescent shaped tail fluke, although the lower lobe
of the tail, the lobe the vertebrae and main body of tissue ran into
was probably more developed. This tail is considered a case of
convergent evolution as the same arrangement was seen in the early
Triassic with the development of primitive ichthyosaurs.
It
is not just the shape of the tail that is important however but the way
that it worked. The neural spines of the vertebrae also have grooves
which are thought to have been support for ligaments that ran down the
vertebrae to stiffen the part of the tail that arced downwards. With
the lower tail, which supported the fluke, stiffened, Platecarpus
could make more efficient use of the fluke. It’s like if you think
about paddling a canoe, your arms flex and move to drive the oar,
but the oar is stiff so that more of the motion from your arms is
transmitted into the water for increased push. As such Platecarpus
would not have to expend energy in flexing muscles all the way down the
tail, just to the point of the bend.
The
fact that Platecarpus was developing a stronger
swimming tail suggests
that this was a mosasaur that was developing an increasing reliance
upon speed in its hunting behaviour. As noted above the remains of
fish have been found in concentrated deposits within Platecarpus
fossils. Clearly this represents a shift towards fish as a primary
prey source which makes Platecarpus different from
the other mosasaurs
that had a large prey preference, and as such it’s possible that
the mosasaurs that went after larger and slower prey may have retained
eel like tails, only needing to use a sudden burst of speed for
ambushing tactics.
The
newly acquired speed from developing this tail fluke would have seen
mosasaurs like Platecarpus becoming the fastest
known marine reptiles
of the late Cretaceous oceans (advanced ichthyosaurs were probably
faster but disappear from the fossil record at the end of the Turonian
period ninety million years ago, long before Platecarpus
appeared), and while larger mosasaurs were a potential threat,
they may not have had the speed to catch smaller mosasaurs in a
straight race. This meant that the only predators that were a threat
in both killing ability and speed were fish, specifically larger
Cretaceous sharks like Cretoxyrhina.
Although sharks in general can
only maintain strong bursts of speed for short periods, there is
strong fossil evidence of Cretoxyrhina feeding upon
marine reptiles.
Since this article was first uploaded, another genus of mosasaur named Proganthodon that was once thought to have had an eel-like tail, has since been discovered to also have had a tail fluke similar to Platecarpus.
Further reading
- On the reptilian orders Pythonomorpha and Streptosauria. -
Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 12:251-266 -
Edward Drinker Cope - 1869.
- A Mounted Skeleton of Platecarpus. - The Journal
of Geology vol 18 -
S. W. Williston - 1910.
- A new genus of mosasaurs from Mexico, and notes on the pelvic girdle
of Platecarpus. - Denison University Bulletin,
Journal of the
Scientific Laboratories 29(10):383-400. - M. G. Mehl - 1930.
- The vertebrate fauna of the Selma Formation of Alabama. Part IV. The
turtles of the family Toxochelyidae. - Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs
3(4):145-277 - R. Zangerl - 1953.
- The Skull of American Mosasaurs - D. A. Russel - 1964.
- Notes on mosasaurs from Texas. - The Texas Journal of Science
21(1):69-80. - J. T. Thurmond - 1969.
The vertebrate fauna of the Selma Formation of Alabamam: Part VII The
Mosasaurs. - Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs 3(7):365-380. - D. A. Russell -
1970.
- The mosasaur "Angolasaurus" bocagei
(Reptilia: Mosasauridae) from the
Turonian of Angola re-interpreted as the earliest member of the genus
Platecarpus. - Palaeont. Z. 68 (1/2): 267–282. - T.
Lingham-Soliar -
1994.
- Les mosasaures (Squamata) du Cretace Superieur du Bassin
Basco-Cantabrique. - Geobios 20:19-26. - N. Bardet, J. C. Corral
& X. Pereda Superbiola - 1997.
- The marine vertebrate faunas from the Late Cretaceous phosphates of
Syria. - Geological Magazine 137(3):269-290. - N. Bardet, H. Cappetta,
X. Pereda Suberbiola, M. Mouty, A. K. Al Maleh, A. M. Ahmed, O. Khrata
& N. Gannoum - 2000.
- Stratigraphic distribution and habitat segregation of mosasaurs in
the Upper Cretaceous of western and central Alabama, with an historical
review of Alabama mosasaur discoveries. - Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 22 (1): 91–103. - C. R. Kiernan - 2002
- First record of the mosasaur Platecarpus Cope,
1869 from South
America and its systematic implications. - Revista Brasileira de
Paleontologia 8(1):5-12. - P. Bengtson & J. Lindgren - 2005.
- A review of Australian mosasaur occurences. Netherlands Journal of
Geosciences - Geologie en Mijnbouw 84(3):307-313 - B. P. Kear, J. A.
Long & J. E. Martin - 2005.
- Tylosaurus kansasensis, a new species of
tylosaurine (Squamata,
Mosasauridae) from the Niobrara Chalk of western Kansas, USA.
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences - Geologie en Mijnbouw 84(3):231-240
- M. J. Everhart - 2005.
- Redescription of the holotype of Platecarpus tympaniticus
Cope, 1869
(Mosasauridae: Plioplatecarpinae), and its implications for the alpha
taxonomy of the genus. - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
30(5):1410-1421- T. Konishi, M. W. Caldwell & G. L. Bell Jr. -
2010.
- Convergent evolution in aquatic tetrapods: insights from an
exceptional fossil mosasaur. PLoS One 5(8):e11998 - J. Lindgren, M. W.
Caldwell, T. Konishi & L. M. Chiappe - 2010.
- Two new plioplatecarpine (Squamata, Mosasauridae) genera from the
Upper Cretaceous of North America, and a global phylogenetic analysis
of plioplatecarpines - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Vol 31, Issue
4 - Takuya Konishi & Michael W. Caldwell - 2011.