Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Antunes, Miguel Telles
Data de Publicação: 2019
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
eng
Título da fonte: Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)
Texto Completo: https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014
Resumo: As shown here on the basis of bitten teeth, the diet of the huge, lower to early upper Miocene Tomistoma lusitanica included some of the largest contemporaneous, terrestrial mammals, including adult or senile gomphotheres (Gomphotherium angustidens). One of the latter would be, in a rough estimate, about 50 years old at death. Bite impressions are discussed, including marks resulting from impact, intense attrition and eventual crushing. The teeth of very large-sized tomistomines would have a not restricted to prehension role, they also acted as true cone devices for crushing hard parts. Crushing - non-tectonic efects - have also been observed on a suid fossil. The so far obtained results may point out that the very basic reason of the extant false-gharial, Tomistoma schlegelii’s prevailing ichthyophagy may be human pressure that prevents them to attain their possible maximum size, and hence to capture larger prey. The importance of immigration from Asia and biogeographic ainities is stressed. This seems obvious after the simultaneous presence of Tomistoma and Gavialis in westernmost Eurasia. Diferent data from North Africa do not contradict these views. Extrapolations based on the Miocene false-gharials contribute to a better understanding of the surviving species. Similarity is even greater if account is taken of the closer morphological cranial features between the fossil forms under study and the largest known skull of all extant crocodilians, a T. schlegelii. Estimations of Tomistoma lusitanica’s overall length, somewhat in excess of 8 meters, conirm this form attained a giant size. These top predators undoubtedly preyed or scavenged upon very large prey. They also scavenged on corpses. Tomistoma lusitanica undoubtedly was one of the largest crocodilians that ever existed and whose maximum dimensions seem to have attained those of the Siwaliks’ Rhamphosuchus crassidens, long regarded as the Neogene nec plus ultra in size. Tomistoma lusitanica was one of the largest crocodilians from all times, and even the largest western Eurasia reptile after the age of the dinosaurs.
id UFRJ-21_da7d7e53db4c226f7b6612ec872a5ea3
oai_identifier_str oai:www.revistas.ufrj.br:article/27014
network_acronym_str UFRJ-21
network_name_str Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and SizeHuge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and SizeTomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegeliiTomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegeliiAs shown here on the basis of bitten teeth, the diet of the huge, lower to early upper Miocene Tomistoma lusitanica included some of the largest contemporaneous, terrestrial mammals, including adult or senile gomphotheres (Gomphotherium angustidens). One of the latter would be, in a rough estimate, about 50 years old at death. Bite impressions are discussed, including marks resulting from impact, intense attrition and eventual crushing. The teeth of very large-sized tomistomines would have a not restricted to prehension role, they also acted as true cone devices for crushing hard parts. Crushing - non-tectonic efects - have also been observed on a suid fossil. The so far obtained results may point out that the very basic reason of the extant false-gharial, Tomistoma schlegelii’s prevailing ichthyophagy may be human pressure that prevents them to attain their possible maximum size, and hence to capture larger prey. The importance of immigration from Asia and biogeographic ainities is stressed. This seems obvious after the simultaneous presence of Tomistoma and Gavialis in westernmost Eurasia. Diferent data from North Africa do not contradict these views. Extrapolations based on the Miocene false-gharials contribute to a better understanding of the surviving species. Similarity is even greater if account is taken of the closer morphological cranial features between the fossil forms under study and the largest known skull of all extant crocodilians, a T. schlegelii. Estimations of Tomistoma lusitanica’s overall length, somewhat in excess of 8 meters, conirm this form attained a giant size. These top predators undoubtedly preyed or scavenged upon very large prey. They also scavenged on corpses. Tomistoma lusitanica undoubtedly was one of the largest crocodilians that ever existed and whose maximum dimensions seem to have attained those of the Siwaliks’ Rhamphosuchus crassidens, long regarded as the Neogene nec plus ultra in size. Tomistoma lusitanica was one of the largest crocodilians from all times, and even the largest western Eurasia reptile after the age of the dinosaurs.As shown here on the basis of bitten teeth, the diet of the huge, lower to early upper Miocene Tomistoma lusitanica included some of the largest contemporaneous, terrestrial mammals, including adult or senile gomphotheres (Gomphotherium angustidens). One of the latter would be, in a rough estimate, about 50 years old at death. Bite impressions are discussed, including marks resulting from impact, intense attrition and eventual crushing. The teeth of very large-sized tomistomines would have a not restricted to prehension role, they also acted as true cone devices for crushing hard parts. Crushing - non-tectonic efects - have also been observed on a suid fossil. The so far obtained results may point out that the very basic reason of the extant false-gharial, Tomistoma schlegelii’s prevailing ichthyophagy may be human pressure that prevents them to attain their possible maximum size, and hence to capture larger prey. The importance of immigration from Asia and biogeographic ainities is stressed. This seems obvious after the simultaneous presence of Tomistoma and Gavialis in westernmost Eurasia. Diferent data from North Africa do not contradict these views. Extrapolations based on the Miocene false-gharials contribute to a better understanding of the surviving species. Similarity is even greater if account is taken of the closer morphological cranial features between the fossil forms under study and the largest known skull of all extant crocodilians, a T. schlegelii. Estimations of Tomistoma lusitanica’s overall length, somewhat in excess of 8 meters, conirm this form attained a giant size. These top predators undoubtedly preyed or scavenged upon very large prey. They also scavenged on corpses. Tomistoma lusitanica undoubtedly was one of the largest crocodilians that ever existed and whose maximum dimensions seem to have attained those of the Siwaliks’ Rhamphosuchus crassidens, long regarded as the Neogene nec plus ultra in size. Tomistoma lusitanica was one of the largest crocodilians from all times, and even the largest western Eurasia reptile after the age of the dinosaurs.Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroAntunes, Miguel Telles2019-07-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/2701410.11137/2017_3_117_130Anuário do Instituto de Geociências; Vol 40, No 3 (2017); 117-130Anuário do Instituto de Geociências; Vol 40, No 3 (2017); 117-1301982-39080101-9759reponame:Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)instacron:UFRJporenghttps://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014/14754https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014/14755Copyright (c) 2019 Anuário do Instituto de Geociênciashttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2019-07-30T20:09:28Zoai:www.revistas.ufrj.br:article/27014Revistahttps://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/indexPUBhttps://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/oaianuario@igeo.ufrj.br||1982-39080101-9759opendoar:2019-07-30T20:09:28Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online) - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
title Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
spellingShingle Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
Antunes, Miguel Telles
Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
title_short Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
title_full Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
title_fullStr Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
title_full_unstemmed Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
title_sort Huge Miocene Crocodilians From Western Europe: Predation, Comparisons with the “False Gharial” and Size
author Antunes, Miguel Telles
author_facet Antunes, Miguel Telles
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv

dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Antunes, Miguel Telles
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
topic Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
Tomistoma lusitanica; Miocene; Predation; gomphotheres; Tomistoma schlegelii
description As shown here on the basis of bitten teeth, the diet of the huge, lower to early upper Miocene Tomistoma lusitanica included some of the largest contemporaneous, terrestrial mammals, including adult or senile gomphotheres (Gomphotherium angustidens). One of the latter would be, in a rough estimate, about 50 years old at death. Bite impressions are discussed, including marks resulting from impact, intense attrition and eventual crushing. The teeth of very large-sized tomistomines would have a not restricted to prehension role, they also acted as true cone devices for crushing hard parts. Crushing - non-tectonic efects - have also been observed on a suid fossil. The so far obtained results may point out that the very basic reason of the extant false-gharial, Tomistoma schlegelii’s prevailing ichthyophagy may be human pressure that prevents them to attain their possible maximum size, and hence to capture larger prey. The importance of immigration from Asia and biogeographic ainities is stressed. This seems obvious after the simultaneous presence of Tomistoma and Gavialis in westernmost Eurasia. Diferent data from North Africa do not contradict these views. Extrapolations based on the Miocene false-gharials contribute to a better understanding of the surviving species. Similarity is even greater if account is taken of the closer morphological cranial features between the fossil forms under study and the largest known skull of all extant crocodilians, a T. schlegelii. Estimations of Tomistoma lusitanica’s overall length, somewhat in excess of 8 meters, conirm this form attained a giant size. These top predators undoubtedly preyed or scavenged upon very large prey. They also scavenged on corpses. Tomistoma lusitanica undoubtedly was one of the largest crocodilians that ever existed and whose maximum dimensions seem to have attained those of the Siwaliks’ Rhamphosuchus crassidens, long regarded as the Neogene nec plus ultra in size. Tomistoma lusitanica was one of the largest crocodilians from all times, and even the largest western Eurasia reptile after the age of the dinosaurs.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-07-30
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv

dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014
10.11137/2017_3_117_130
url https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014
identifier_str_mv 10.11137/2017_3_117_130
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
eng
language por
eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014/14754
https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/aigeo/article/view/27014/14755
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 Anuário do Instituto de Geociências
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 Anuário do Instituto de Geociências
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Anuário do Instituto de Geociências; Vol 40, No 3 (2017); 117-130
Anuário do Instituto de Geociências; Vol 40, No 3 (2017); 117-130
1982-3908
0101-9759
reponame:Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)
instname:Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
instacron:UFRJ
instname_str Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
instacron_str UFRJ
institution UFRJ
reponame_str Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)
collection Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Anuário do Instituto de Geociências (Online) - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv anuario@igeo.ufrj.br||
_version_ 1797053539710664704