Знамо эту статейку). Как раз многое из неё смыкал при составлении статьи по роду. Меня просто с понталыку сбил тот череп, что вверху страницы.
Вот ссыль для скачивания, если ещё кто не знаком:
С.В. Савельев, А.В. Лавров. "Окаменевшие мозги"

Кайл :

Palaeonictis
http://i038.radikal.ru/0911/99/d82a48711b40t.jpghttp://i060.radikal.ru/0911/69/54e6cb329f56t.jpghttp://i010.radikal.ru/0911/9c/67f4d099941dt.jpg

Саня, статью по мегистотерию будешь доделывать в ПДФ ?

Yarshea cruenta
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/pah … 04_JVP.pdf
Dissopsalis carnifex
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/b … /N0603.pdf

Отредактировано Revs (21 November 2009 00:08:54)

Интересно, а сарк был пальцеходящим, полустопоходящим или стопоходящим? Есть ли у кого какие-нибудь мысли по этому поводу?
Патрик, вродь, пальцеходящий. Оксиена (люпина) тоже...

Revs :

Интересно, а сарк был пальцеходящим, полустопоходящим или стопоходящим? Есть ли у кого какие-нибудь мысли по этому поводу?
Патрик, вродь, пальцеходящий. Оксиена (люпина) тоже...

Никак нет, в отличие от гиенодонтид, оксиениды имели стопоходящие или полустопоходящие конечности (см., например, диагноз семейства в "Основах палеонтологии").

Revs :

Алекс :

А сам череп очнь схож с патриофелисом,только лицевая часть еще короче, и скорее всего более мощный относительно!

Та ну как это "короче"? Я ж как раз в одну пикчу впихал черепундели и сарка, патрика и оксиены - там видно, что у сарка морда чуть длиннее
http://s40.radikal.ru/i087/0911/ad/1a51276eca37.jpg

Вроде череп сарка второй,а не первый?

Revs :

Конечно, второй. Прикинь расстояние от глазницы до кончика носовых костей сарка и патрика...

В Википедии написано,что череп относительно короче ,чем у патрика,за счет чего? http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0% … 0%BE%D0%BD

Revs :

За счёт длины черепной коробки/ задней части черепа. Опять же, на сравнительной схеме реально видно...

Значит пропорции несколько были отличны от патриофелиса!

Алекс :

...выложи реконструкцию еще в тему креодонты.

Хорошо, закидываю всю подборку):

Ох, огромадное спасибо автору трёхмерной модели и ролика!
"Razor Jaws" - skull & brain cast of the creodont Hyaenodon

Revs :

Сравнивал верхний зубной ряд гигаса (p4-m2) с таковыми на прорисовке черепа хорридуса - у гигаса он относительно выглядит короче, но зубные коронки выше. ИМХО - возможно, череп гигаса выглядел короче примерно на 15-20%, чем у хорридуса, но был помассивнее и выше.

Если у кого есть желание скачать себе ролик в предыдущем посте:
http://narod.ru/disk/15670355000/video.flv.html
Это просто ценнейшая вещь для реконструирующих)!

Рома, значит череп гигаса выглядел иначе? И был меньше 60см длины?

Revs :

Похоже да. Возможно, что около 55-56 см в длину.

Реконструкцию гигаса будешь делать с учетом новых данных ? Хоридус был среднего размера ,интиресно сравнить его череп с мелкими видами , есть ли у него  такие изменения ,как у гигаса к хоридусу?

For Alex.......... SHHHHHH,


http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1264/tble1fig1nsm.jpg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1070/fig2nsm.jpg


Recent paleontological fieldwork in Egypt has led to recovery of new specimens of the rare and poorly known creodont, Megistotherium osteothlastes, the world's largest known terrestrial meat-eater with an estimated body mass of 880 kg (Savage, 1973). The two new specimens, one lower jaw with p4-m3 and another fragmentary specimen with ml-2, were collected from the early Miocene Moghara Formation of northern Egypt (Fourtau, 1918; Said, 1962). Previously, Megistotherium was known only from a cranium without tooth crowns, four fragments of a second cranium, and nine postcranial specimens from Miocene rocks at Jebel Zelten, Libya (Savage, 1973); it also may be represented by one poorly preserved mandible from Pakistan (Forster Cooper, 1924) and undescribed specimens from East Africa (M. Pickford, pers. comm.). The Moghara specimens include the first known intact tooth crowns, thus providing new morpho-logical information about the genus, and allowing more precise comparisons to other closely related hyaeno-dontine genera.

Creodonts are a diverse and geographically wide-ranging group of Paleocene-Pliocene carnivores phy-letically unrelated to true Carnivora. Among the largest of the creodonts are members of the subfamily Hyaenodontinae, which includes, among others, the well-known genera Apterodon, Pterodon, and Hyaeno-don (Mellett, 1977; Savage, 1965, 1978). Hyaenodontines differ from other creodonts in their relatively simple, blade-like molars (M1-2 and m2-3) reminiscent of the carnassials (P4 and ml) in Felidae. In the original description of Megistotherium, Savage (1973) suggested that this genus was closely related to Pterodon and the giant hyaenodontine Hyainailouros known from the Miocene of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Hyainailouros is known only from elements not represented in the Jebel Zelten sample of Megistotherium, such as fragmentary lower jaws and teeth (de Beaumont, 1970; Helbing, 1925; Pilgrim, 1932). Until now, generic differentiation between Megistotherium and Hyainailouros has been based primarily on the greater size of the latter (Savage, 1973). The presence of fossil mammals at Moghara has been known since the early part of the century (Black-enhorn, 1901; Fourtau, 1918), but collecting in the area has been infrequent since then. Recent Duke University expeditions to collect Oligocene vertebrates from the Egyptian Fayum, however, also have included collecting trips to Wadi Moghara, where the two specimens of Megistotherium described herein were recovered in November, 1986. Megistotherium is the second large hyaenodontine to be recovered from Moghara. An isolated upper tooth from Moghara that originally was identified as Hyaena sp. ind. (Fourtau, 1918) and later designated the holotype of Hyainailouros fourtaui (Savage, 1973; Von Koenigswald, 1947) is too small to be attributed to Megistotherium. The fluvio-marine Moghara Formation in which these fossils were found is exposed on a high escarpment forming the northern rim of the Qattara Depression about 60 km S of el Alamein, Egypt. The formation consists of >200 m of variegated sandstones and marls with abundant silicified wood, invertebrates, and vertebrates (Said, 1962:204-209). The terrestrial mammalian fauna is dominated by anthracotheres, pro-boscideans, rhinocerotids, suids, tragulids, and cercopithecoid primates.


SYSTEMATICS
Order Creodonta Cope, 1875
Family Hyaenodontidae Leidy, 1869
Subfamily Hyaenodontinae Trouessart, 1885
Genus Megistotherium Savage 1973


Revised diagnosis.-Gigantic hyaenodontine; single large upper incisor; large upper canine, laterally placed with respect to other teeth; palate constricted near P1-2; P3-4 three-rooted; P4 width greater than length; M1-2 trenchant; M3 small, transverse (Savage, 1973). Mandible deep and bowed forming thick horizontal torus along inferior edge; p4 differs from that of other hyaenodontines in being obliquely oriented with respect to the axis of the mandible; p4 further differs from that of Hyainailouros in bearing a small, trenchant hypoconid; ml differs from that of Pterodon and Hyaenodon in its extreme size reduction, and the lack of differentiated cusps and crests; m2-3 resemble those of most hyaenodontines but differ from Apterodon in having long blade-like paraconids and (at least on m2) small hypoconids. Typea nd only knowns pecies.-M. osteothlastesS avage1 973.

Referred specimens.-Duke University Primate Center (DPC) 6611, right mandible with p4-m3; un-numbered Cairo Geological Museum (CGM) specimen (DPC field number 86-1261), right mandibular fragment with ml-2; both from Duke Primate Center locality MGL-10 East, early Miocene Moghara Formation, Egypt. Measurements are provided in Table 1.


FIG. 1.-Buccal view of right mandible bearing p4-m3 of Megistotherium osteothlastes (DPC 6611). The inset shows DPC 6611 drawn to the same scale as a polar bear (Ursus maritimus) mandible, one of the largest extant terrestrial carnivores. Description and comparisons.-The specimen (DPC 6611) is well-preserved and contains the intact crowns of p4-m2 and the mesial half of m3. The corpus is exceptionally robust, with maximum depth occurring below the m2-3 contact (Fig. 1). In cross section, the corpus is bowed markedly (concave buccally, convex lingually) forming a thick, nearly horizontal torus along the inferior border of the mandible strongly developed under p4 but weaker posteriorly. A relatively small mental foramen is present directly below ml. The p4 is a simple tooth with one dominant cusp (protoconid) and a small hypoconid arising from the postprotocristid; a preprotocristid and paraconid are absent (Fig. 2). The ml is much smaller than the other preserved teeth, and consists only of a rounded, blunt tubercle lacking sharp crests or cusps. The m2 is a high, trenchant tooth with a dominant protoconid, a long blade-like paraconid set obliquely to the tooth row (slanting mesiolingually away from the protoconid), and a small hypoconid on the distal border of the tooth. A sharp crest runs the length of each cusp; a short notch interrupts the crest between paraconid and protoconid. Distinct wear facets for occlusion with upper teeth are especially evident on the lingual side of the paracristid, the mesiobuccal side of the protoconid, and on the summit of the hypoconid. The m3 is substantially larger than m2 but resembles it in structure. The nearly unworn paraconid is long and blade-like and rises in height as it slants mesiolingually away from the protoconid. Most of the protoconid and the distal border of the m3 are broken off. The CGM specimen (field number 86-1261) resembles DPC 6611 but is even larger. The roots of the CGM specimen are exposed on the lingual side, showing that m2 has two robust roots, one centered beneath the paraconid, the other beneath the protoconid and hypoconid. As in DPC 6611, the first molar is a small, rounded nub. The single cylindrical root of ml is of greater diameter than the enamelled crown. Discussion.-The two new Moghara specimens are from individuals as large or probably larger than those represented at Jebel Zelten, although the extent of the size difference can be encompassed within a single species. The two Moghara specimens differ markedly in size from each other; the CGM specimen is 5-16% larger than DPC 6611 in linear dimensions, but because the teeth exhibit nearly identical morphology and because they were found at the same locality they probably belong to a single species. The size difference between the two, whether a result of individual variation or sexual dimorphism, has implications for distin-guishing various species of Hyainailouros, which in known features differ from each other mainly by size. Thus, specimens allocated to H. nyanzae, H. fourtaui, and H. sulzeri may belong to a single species, as also suggested by Savage (1973). The Moghara specimens allow the first direct comparisons between the lower dentition of Megistotherium and other hyaenodontines. In discernable details, the crowns of m2-3 in Megistotherium are nearly identical to those of Hyainailouros but for the much greater size of Megistotherium (Table 1). In these two genera, and also in Pterodon and Hyaenodon, the molar paraconids form greatly elongated anterior blades, whereas the talonids are reduced to a single small trenchant cusp. In Apterodon the talonid is longer than the paraconid.

The p4 of Megistotherium differs from that of all other hyaenodontines in its oblique orientation relative to the axis of the mandible and tooth row. The long axis and shearing blade of p4 (mesiobuccal to distolingual) lies at an angle of approximately 400 from the axis of the mandible. The p4 of other hyaenodontines forms a blade oriented nearly parallel to the mandible. The oblique orientation of the premolar may be associated with the marked constriction of the palate observed in the skull of Megistotherium (Savage, 1973). The p4 of Megistotherium further differs from that of Hyainailouros in having a small trenchant hypoconid on the distal border of the tooth that is completely absent in H. sulzeri. Pterodon and Hyaenodon also have small hypoconids on p4.

The greatest morphological difference between the known lower dentition of Megistotherium and other hyaenodontines is the relative size and structure of ml. As characteristic of hyaenodontine genera, ml of Pterodon and Hyaenodon is smaller than other cheek teeth, but it retains a distinct pattern of cusps and crests similar to that of the other lower molars. In Megistotherium, ml is reduced to a much greater degree and lacks evidence of differentiated cusps or crests. The crown of ml is unknown in Hyainailouros, but a lower jaw of H. sulzeri exhibits a small gap between p4 and m2 that suggests extreme size reduction of ml in that genus also (de Beaumont, 1970; Helbing, 1925). In all hyaenodontine genera, ml shows extreme occlusal wear, often worn to the roots. Mellett (1977) demonstrated that the ml of Hyaenodon erupts precociously to serve as a "foil" against dP4, then later wears against adult P4. In Megistotherium (and perhaps Hyainailouros) ml does not participate in shearing function but serves only as a stop against adult P4, which occludes with ml and the hypoconid of p4 (absent in Hyainailouros).

Results of comparisons herein are consistent with Savage's (1973) hypothesis that Megistotherium is related closely to Hyainailouros and Pterodon. In known elements, Megistotherium differs from Hyainailouros mainly in the oblique orientation of p4, the presence of a hypoconid on p4, and greater size. These three features by themselves are of dubious value for justifying two separate genera. However, as a conservative measure, Megistotherium should be retained as a distinct genus until better specimens of Hyainailouros are found, especially upper teeth and cranial elements that could demonstrate additional similarities or differences between the two genera. Megistotherium shares with Hyaenodon and Pterodon several derived features of the dentition, such as nearly complete reduction of the talonid, elaboration of the paraconid blade, and size reduction of ml. It also shows unique derived features such as presence of only one upper incisor and the structurally simplified ml. Megistotherium lacks certain specializations present only in Hyaenodon, such as the loss of M3. Based on these morphological features, and temporal and geographic information, we hypothesize that Megistot-herium and Hyainailouros shared a common ancestor probably derived from a large Oligocene species of Pterodon, such as P. africanus from the Fayum, Egypt (Andrews, 1903).

The occurrence of M. osteothlastes at Moghara and Jebel Zelten adds to evidence of faunal similarities between the two sites. Among the other shared taxa are the proboscideans Gomphotherium angustidens and G. pygmaeus, the anthracotheres Brachyodus and Hyoboops, the tragulid Dorcatherium (Savage and Hamilton, 1973), and the cercopithecoid Prohylobates (Delson, 1979). The faunal similarities between Moghara and Jebel Zelten may reflect geographic proximity, temporal equivalence, or both. The links among these North African deposits, the East African Miocene sites, and the Dera Bugti Beds of Pakistan are less clear. A mandible from the Bugti Beds preserving only p2-3 has been attributed to Megistotherium largely on the basis of its tremendous size, and its allocation must be considered tentative in the absence of more complete material (Savage, 1973).

The Miocene was a period of evolutionary diversity for giant carnivores; hyaenodontine creodonts attributed to Megistotherium and Hyainailouros are known from the Miocene of Africa (Savage, 1973, 1978) and Eurasia (de Beaumont, 1970; Forster Cooper, 1924; Helbing, 1925; Pilgrim, 1932). These giant creatures appear to be related closely to large African creodonts of Oligocene age such as Pterodon africanus, one of the largest species of that genus, present in the Oligocene Jebel Qatrani Formation of the Fayum, Egypt (Andrews, 1903). The early occurrence of large hyaenodontines in Africa, and their later diversity during the Miocene, suggests that Africa may have been the center of evolution for the group containing Hy-ainailouros and Megistotherium. The sharp-bladed tooth crowns of Megistotherium show that, like other large hyaenodontines, it was specialized for meat-eating. Large hyaenodontines possibly evolved originally as specialized predators or scavengers of the massive herbivores endemic to Africa, such as embrithopods and proboscideans.

We gratefully acknowledge the valuable assistance in field operations provided by the Egyptian Geological Survey and the Moghara field crew of 1986: Y. Attia of the Geological Museum, Cairo, who discovered DPC 6611, A. Rasmussen, who found the CGM specimen, P. Chatrath, A. van Nieveldt, and J. Brown. We thank P. Holroyd-Vychodil and M. Gagnon for comments on the manuscript. Recent research in Egypt has been supported by National Science Foundation grants in anthropology (BNS 86-07392 and BNS 83-10913) to ELS.

Domning, D.P. (1978). "Sirenia." Evolution of African Mammals. pp. 573-581.

Egi, Naoko. (2001). "Body Mass Estimates in Extinct Mammals from Limb Bone Dimensions: the Case of North American Hyaenodontids." Palaeontology. Vol. 44, Issue 3, Page 497.

Leakey, L.S.B. and R.J.G. Savage (Editors). (1976). Fossil Vertebrates of Africa. Academic Press Inc.,U.S.

Savage, R.J.G. (1973). "Megistotherium, gigantic hyaenodont from Miocene of Gebel Zelten, Libya." Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 22(7):485-511.

Также в меню.   

Grrraaahhh, На форуме есть тема " Литература" там можна оставить свое сообщение с нужной для Вас статьи ,или книги ,и возможно у кого то из форумчан она есть !

Да, я планирую, чтобы писать в литературе форум для помощи.

В базе Зоометода, кстати, ничего из того, что он упомянул, нет?
Вы смотрели списки Зоометода, Grrraaahhh?
Правда, у него жесткое правило - он чаще всего дает статьи в обмен, а не просто так. Хотя бывает, что и так можно скачать, даром.

Я немного знаком с zoometoda. У меня нет проблем, чтобы сделать обмен, есть хорошие конфеты торговли для кого-то с сладкоежек. После Нового Года, я буду стараться для торговли, но я, возможно, потребуется помощь из-за языкового барьера. Потому что литература доступ для меня это сильный, я только желание небольшой список литературы обмена. Другой вопрос, я спросил ранее - делает охоте и ведении агентства Дальнего Востока обеспечить онлайновый доступ к докладу и старые данные? Кроме того, есть ли члены Форума знать о русских "Летопись природы" отчеты? Я видел раньше интерактивные отчеты, копии с 1997 -1998, но я хочу доступ к полной 2000 & 2001 докладов, если это возможно.

Кстати, хотя вы запрашиваете для меня не сделало статью усилий - я получил хорошую литературу по Miracinonyx. Cheetah была одна из моих любимых животных, как мальчик. Дайте время организовать & я буду производить данные в 2010 году (BTW - Где можно найти Miracinonyx форуме теме).