Sauroniops pachytholus

[gigadino96]

Profile
Name: Sauroniops pachytholus
Length: Unknow
Mass: Unknow
When: Late Cretaceous, ?Cenomanian?, about 95 mya
Where: Africa
Classification: Animalia, Chordata, Reptilia, Saurischia, Theropoda, Carnosauria, Carcharodontosauridae, Sauroniops, Sauroniops pachytolus

Sauroniops pachytholus is a kind of Carcharodontosauridae lived in the Upper Cretaceous of Morocco. It is a dinosaur described recently in 2012 by paleontologists Italian Andrea Cau,  Marco Della Vecchia and Matteo Fabri. Its name, which means "Eye of Sauron", refers to the main antagonist of the "Lord of the Rings", Sauron. This dinosaur is known only from a single bone above the eye socket. The holotype of this species is MPM 2594, and it is just a left frontal bone. 


Holotype of Sauroniops, MPM 2594.

The frontal has a length of 186 millimeters, and the lacrimal contact is 73 mm high. This is particularly carnivorous dinosaur compared to other Carcharodontosauridae, because it has a thickening of the skull more typical of Abelisauridae.  The authors explained this thickening of the skull as an adaptation to the display, or to strengthen the skull. It was originally classified as a derived member of the Carcharodontosauridae, but a larger cladistic analysis showed Sauroniops as a basal member of the Carcharodontosauridae, as a sister-taxon of Eocarcharia.  

 

[theropod]

Theropod Database Entry: archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Sauroniopspachytholus

Description-Paper: www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20110043.html

Second paper (may be uploaded someday): www.academia.edu/2108796/A_thick-skulled_theropod_Dinosauria_Saurischia_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Morocco_with_implications_for_carcharodontosaurid_cranial_evolution

And I think you confused something. There is no lacrimal known, this is, as you already stated, merely an isolated frontal. Maybe you mean the lacrimal contact?

[gigadino96]

Jun 1, 2013 16:35:10 GMT 5 theropod said:

Theropod Database Entry: archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Sauroniopspachytholus

Description-Paper: www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20110043.html

Second paper (may be uploaded someday): www.academia.edu/2108796/A_thick-skulled_theropod_Dinosauria_Saurischia_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Morocco_with_implications_for_carcharodontosaurid_cranial_evolution

And I think you confused something. There is no lacrimal known, this is, as you already stated, merely an isolated frontal. Maybe you mean the lacrimal contact?

Yes, yes, sorry, I'm confused.

[theropod]

found the second paper!
www.dinosaures-web.com/sites/default/files/publications/Cau%20et%20al.%202012.pdf

[creature386]

Cau discusses the phylogeny:
translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.de/2015/06/un-attacco-frontale-dagli-alleati.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

[dinosauria101]

From theropod: Sauroniops' size based on Acrocanthosaurus

The size of the frontal of Sauroniops (Cau et al. 2012) is similar the largest known specimens of Acrocanthosaurus (NCSM 14345 has frontals 191mm long vs 186mm in Sauroniops, additionally the frontal of Sauroniops is considerably wider and more massive, 135mm for a single frontal vs 214mm for both frontals combined in Acrocanthosaurus [Eddy & Clarke 2011]) and Carcharodontosaurus (SGM-DIN 1 has a very similar frontal size based on the figures in Sereno et al. 1996, and Sauroniops’ frontal fits its skull nicely when superimposed). And that’s not something some fanboy on the internet made up, the describers explicitely state its size is similar to the aforementioned Acrocanthosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus specimens as well as the holotype of Giganotosaurus, they even provide a rough total length estimate of 10-12m, and this assessment (Cau et al. 2013) is followed by other authors as well (Candeiro et al. 2018), and is reproducible, as I just demonstrated.
These similar-sized taxa are all at least ~12m long and 6-7t in mass, so it stands to reason that Sauroniops, as another carcharodontosaur with very similar skeletal dimensions, is in that same size range. Neither the original descriptions nor any subsequent published work, nor the direct comparison between the frontal and those of related taxa, seem to provide a shred of support for this animal being just 9m long, in fact with the very obvious point of the single known element being similar in size to 11.5-13.5m theropods, I don’t really understand how anything like conclusive support for this would be possible. Say frontals of a 9m theropod were also similar in size (not to say that that’s the case). Even then, that wouldn’t be evidence in favour of that size estimate, but evidence that its size can not be reliably determined based on just a frontal, which I tend to agree with anyway. That’s an important distinction.

EDIT:

creature386
How did you get this quote block? I can't quote a post outside of its thread for some reason