Post by theropod on Oct 20, 2013 20:24:00 GMT 5
Allosaurus fragilis is a medium-to-large-sized carnosaur from the Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian/Tithonian) of North America.
Artwork by Pilsator on Deviantart
The species was originally named by Marsh in 1877, with several others being erected but then sunk into A. fragilis (eg. Antrodemus valens, Labrosaurus ferox, Epanterias amplexus, Creosaurus).
The taxonomic status of some species such as A. jimmadseni and A. atrox is still unclear. This profile will include them all (hence "A. fragilis sensu lato"=sensu smith, 1998), because they are best regarded in direct comparison.
Since the holotype is hardly diagnostic, USNM 4734 has been proposed as a neotype, but was not designated so far. Furthermore, Madsen (1976) lists DINO 2560 as the Neotype, without it being approved for however.
Holotype: YPM 1930; fragmentary skeleton including some axial and appendicular elements, ribs and a tooth
Topotype/Paratype/proposed Neotype: USNM 4734 (7.4-7.7m); Partial skull (68.2cm), large part of axial and appendicular skeleton (femur=77cm, Tibia=69cm, Humerus=31cm) (Chure, 2000)
Proposed Neotype: DINO 2560 (=UUVP 6000); Nearly complete cranium (84.5cm) and postcranium (femur=85/88cm, Tibia=73/74.5cm)
Population ecology/referred specimens: Many specimens are known (likely over 100), with at least 47 in the Cleveland Lloyd bonebed alone (Of these, 82% are considered subadult or juvenile, with femur lenghts below 56cm) (Gates, 2005)
Several near-complete skeletons, countless isolated remains from several Quarries from the Morrison formation, most notably Cleveland Lloyd, Dinosaur National Monument, Howe, Dana and Como Bluff (Mortimer [online], PaleoDB)
Smallest adults: ~6-7m, largest 10-12m (AMNH 680, AMNH 5767 etc.), average ~8-9m. 7-8m MOR 693 was estimated at ~1.5t, with contracted-ribcage and conservative models at ~1.4 and 1.3t respectively (Bates et al., 2009).
Important specimens:
SMA 0005 & MOR 693: most complete known specimens, among the smallest adults, probably referrable to Chures 2000 nomen nudum A. "jimmadseni"
AMNH 680, NMMNH P-26083 & AMNH 5767: largest known specimens (1m, 1.04m femora and 33cm coracoid & 25cm axis respectively)
Diagnosis:
A. jimmadseni: "compared to A. fragilis- cranial narial fossa less well defined; row of neurovascular foramina below antorbital fenestra in maxilla; large foramen between lacrimal and jugal at posteroventral corner of antorbital fossa; larger maxillary antrum; rounded lacrimal horn (distortion?); lateral pneumatic recess of lacrimal absent (distortion?); lateral vertical ridge on lacrimal horn; lacrimal horn not rugose; straight ventral margin of jugal; parietals fused posteriorly; parietals taller than wide in posterior view; basipterygoid recess well marked and invasive; myohyloid foramen nearly enclosed ventrally; retroarticular process shorter posteriorly; teardrop-shaped internal mandibular fenestra; nineteen dentary teeth; axial intercentrum rotated dorsally; axial intercentrum with flared rim; odontoid process of axis tall and narrow in anterior view; third cervical neural spine slanted posteriorly; fourth through sixth neural spines more anteroposteriorly elongate; cervical pleurocoels change in size throughout the vertebral column; cervical epipophyses mediolaterally compressed; eleven cervical vertebrae; main hypapophysis on presacral 11; accessory ossifications on the anterior and posterior edges of proximal caudal neural spines; more pronounced notch between acromion process and anterior coracoid edge; scapular blade not as expanded distally; coracoid extremely thin anteriorly; more gracile ulna; longer thinner olecranon process; ulnar entocondyle lower; straighter ulnar shaft; proximal and distal ulnar ends offset by about 45 degrees; low vertical ridge above acetabulum; anteroposteriorly elongate obturator notch in pubis delimited by triangular processes; pubic boot less tall and massive; femoral head is directed ventromedially; strongly developed mediodistal crest on femur; less curved cnemial crest; elongate proximolateral corner of pedal phalanx III-2. "
A. fragilis: "two large laterally open lacrimal foramina; proportionally shorter metacarpal I than A. "jimmadseni"."
A. atrox: "two large laterally open lacrimal foramina; proportionally shorter metacarpal I than A. "jimmadseni"."
Source: archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Allosaurusfragilis
From Chure 2000
Morphology, Anatomy and Ontogeny:
Allosaurus fragilis generally exhibits the typical proportions of a basal carnosaur or allosauroid.
There are 10 cervical, 13 dorsal and 5 sacral vertebrae. The postsacral vertebral collumn is relatively long, compromising 53 vertebrae (Holtz et al. 2004).
The arms are moderately to very long for a large-bodied theropod. The neck is relatively long, with long but low neural spines, the skull moderately to very deep, often very narrow and moderately large (but not disproportionately hypertrophied like in some more derived relatives) and ranges from an anteroposteriorly compressed (eg USNM 5434) to moderately elongate (eg MOR 693, DINO 2560) shape (often but not always subtriangular or rectangular). The teeth are medium- to short-crowned and relatively uniform along the lateral toothrow, while premaxillary teeth are significantly broader and more rounded. The toothrow varies from almost straight to strongly concave.
The torso is relatively short and narrow but deep, the ilia, ischia and pubes large and robust, the femora robust and typically about 12-15% longer than the tibiae, with a pronounced negative allometry of relative tibia and metatarsal lenght in larger specimens (ie. smaller and younger individuals were more cursorial, as is common in theropods)(Foster & Chure 2006). It is generally agreed Allosaurus was an active animal capable of approaching comparatively high speeds for a large organism (Madsen 1976).
Strong individual variation is present, as can be expected for an taxon with such a comparatively large sample, distribution and a problematic taxonomy.
The relatively large, highly robust forelimbs are indicative of use in prey aquisition, probably as meathooks, as supported by the shape of the strong, hypertrophied manual unguals. The manus and antebrachia were restricted to the transverse plane in their movement, and the whole arm probably couldn't reach anteriorly beyond the head (Carpenter 2002; Senter & Robins 2006), however the very flexible (Snively et al. 2013), S-curved neck may have faciliated their use in gripping prey.
The forelimb of MOR 693 measures 94cm, roughly 3 times the humeral lenght (2.95), 30% longer than the scapulocoracoid and 27% longer than the femur (Currie & Carpenter 2000). The forelimb of USNM 4734 measures 65.5cm (Middleton & Gatesy 2000). Brachia, antebrachia and manus are all roughly similar in lenght.
The jaw mechanics and neck muscles of this theropod deserve some special attention, with many factors indicating a very important role of the cervical musculature in ventroflexion and pulling (Snively et al., 2013; Snively et al., 2007; Anton et al., 2003; Rayfield et al., 2001; Bakker, 1998), augmenting relatively weak jaw adductors. The upper jaw exhibits a very high stress resistence to vertically directed loads (Rayfield et al., 2001), the cranium and mandible were moderately kinetic (compromise: Snively et al., 2006/Farlow et al., 1976).
The endocast of Allosaurus fragilis resembles that of a crocodilian in shape, and compared to coelurosaurs is more plesiomorphically "reptilian" as opposed to avian. The specimen UUVP 294 has a total endocast volume of 169 ml of which 46.7 ml are composed of cerebrum (Rogers 1998; Larson 2000).
Allosaurus' growth pattern resembles that of other studied dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex, with the most rapid growth occurring at an age of ~15 years, gradually accellerating and slowing down again. The maximum age and size was likely reached at roughly 22-28 years (Bypee et al., 2006).
Life reconstruction?
Skull restoration and comparison?
>Skeletal diagrams of DINO 2560 and MOR 693 (Hartman 2013)?
Myological restoration of A. fragilis?
Ethology and Palaeoecology:
Allosaurus fragilis specimens are often found in large numbers, absolute and relative to the area as well as relative to other dinosaurs (accounting for 75% of all theropods found in it's range, and 66% of all dinosaur specimens in Cleveland Lloyd (Gates 2005).
This is suggestive of great abundance and success of the taxon, and possibly gregarious behaviour (a hypothesis further supported by the ornamentative lacrimal crests).
As can be concluded from their neuroanatomy (Rogers 1998; Larson 2000) such behaviour is plausible for Carnosaurs. They have absolutely and sometimes relatively larger brains and cerebra than extant reptiles capable of group foraging (indicative of at least equal cognitive abilities). Modern crocodilians and monitor lizards can probable serve as a good template in these regards. Social behaviour would have greatly faciliated the predation upon sauropods several times its own size (Farlow 1976).
Allosaurus is commonly regarded as a hunter of large sauropods, as well as stegosaurs, and probably smaller ornithopod prey. The former are supported by the presence of bite marks attributable to Allosaurus on bones of sauropods such as Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus as well as the large stegosaur Stegosaurus (Hone & Rauhut, 2009), and a puncture on an Allosaurus' vertebra consistent with the shape and size of a Stegosaurus thagomizer, proving that it fed on and hunted these animals.
While it is apparent from its anatomy and various ghashlike feeding marks that Allosaurus, like most theropods, did not commonly crush bones of it's prey, numerous trampled bones are associated with Allosaurid foraging (Gates, 2005), and even tough they are comparatively rare, a large absolute number of bite marks is reported.
Various pathologies have been recognised on this taxon's fossil record. The specimen MOR 693 in particular displays numerous (at least 14) anomalies all over its skeleton. Other reported injuries are foot and chevron amputation, likely resulting from a bite injury, severe craniomandibular trauma and numerous stress fractures. The lack of correlation in pedal stress fractures with locomotory mechanics has been interpreted to suggest prey handling with the feet was employed. (Rothschild et al. 2001; Molnar 2001)
References/Literature:
#ALLOSAURUS FRAGILIS: A REVISED OSTEOLOGY
Madsen
utah.ptfs.com/Data/Library2/publications/dc023515.pdf
#Exploring Dinosaur Neuropaleobiology
Rogers
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9808455
#FOREBRAIN ENLARGEMENT AMONG NONAVIAN THEROPOD DINOSAURS
Larson et al., 2000
www.researchgate.net/publication/232681928_FOREBRAIN_ENLARGEMENT_AMONG_NONAVIAN_THEROPOD_DINOSAURS/file/72e7e51cadb4fb175b.pdf
#Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation extinct ecosystem—a synthesis
Turner & Peterson, 2004
#HINDLIMB ALLOMETRY IN THE LATE JURASSIC THEROPOD DINOSAUR ALLOSAURUS, WITH COMMENTS ON ITS ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
Foster & Chure, 2006
www.academia.edu/228976/HINDLIMB_ALLOMETRY_IN_THE_LATE_JURASSIC_THEROPOD_DINOSAUR_ALLOSAURUS_WITH_COMMENTS_ON_ITS_ABUNDANCE_AND_DISTRIBUTION
#A Morphometric Analysis of Allosaurus
Smith, 1998
www.jstor.org/stable/4523878
#Feeding behaviour and bone utilization by theropod dinosaurs
Hone & Rauhut, 2009
www.academia.edu/230302/Feeding_behaviour_and_bone_utilization_by_theropod_dinosaurs
#Theropod stress fractures and tendon avulsions as a clue to activity
Rothschild et al., 2001
books.google.at/books?id=mgc6CS4EUPsC&lpg=PA337&dq=Theropod+paleopathology&pg=PA331&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Theropod%20stress%20fractures&f=false
#Theropod paleopathology: a literature survey
Molnar, 2001
books.google.at/books?id=mgc6CS4EUPsC&lpg=PA337&dq=Theropod+paleopathology&pg=PA331&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pathology&f=false
#The Late Jurassic Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry as a Drought-Induced Assemblage
Gates, 2005
www.jstor.org/stable/27670351
#Brontosaur Killers: Late Jurassic Allosaurids as Sabre-tooth Cat Analogues
Bakker, 1998
www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000779-MG-
DOC-web.PDF
#Cranial Design and Function in a large theropod Dinosaur
Rayfield et al. 2001
www.academia.edu/286996/Cranial_Design_and_Func-
tion_In_a_Large_Theropod_Dinosaur
#The muscle-powered Bite of Allosaurus (Dinosauria; Theropoda): an Interpretation of cranio-dental Morphology:
Antón et al. 2003
estudiosgeol.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgeol/article/viewFi-
le/106%7D%7D%3C/102
#Functional Variation of Neck Muscles and their Relation to feeding Style inTyrannosauridae and other large Theropod Dinosaurs
Snively et al. 2007
www.ohio.edu/people/es180210/Snively%20pdfs/snively_russell_theropo-
d_necks.pdf
#Multibody dynamics model of head and neck function in Allosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda)
Snively et al. 2013
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2013/389-allosaurus-feeding
#A NEW SPECIES OF ALLOSAURUS FROM THE MORRISON FORMATION OF DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT (UT-CO) AND A REVISION OF THE THEROPOD FAMILY ALLOSAURIDAE.
Chure, 2000
www.researchgate.net/publication/230891064_A_new_species_of_Allosaurus_from_the_Morrison_Formation_of_Dinosaur_National_Monument_%28UT-CO%29_and_a_revision_of_the_theropod_family_Allosauridae
#HOW BIG WAS ‘BIG AL’? QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF SOFT TISSUE AND OSTEOLOGICAL UNKNOWNS ON MASS PREDICTIONS FOR ALLOSAURUS (DINOSAURIA:THEROPODA)
Bates et al., 2009
palaeo-electronica.org/2009_3/186/186.pdf
#THE CASE OF "BIG AL" THE ALLOSAURUS: A STUDY IN PALEODETECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS
Breithaupt, 2001
www.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_6/breithaupt.htm
#The Skull of Creosaurus
Osborn, 1903
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/1510
#Basal Tetanurae/ Tyrannosauroidea in The DINOSAURIA
Holtz (et al.), 2004
#Sizing the Jurassic theropod dinosaur Allosaurus: assessing growth strategy and evolution of ontogenetic scaling of limbs.
Bypee et al., 2006
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16380967
#Speculations about the Diet and Foraging Behavior of Large Carnivorous Dinosaurs
Farlow, 1976
www.jstor.org/stable/2424244
#PaleoDB
paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=52962
paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=157544
#The Theropod Database
Mortimer
archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Allosaurusfragilis
Artwork by Pilsator on Deviantart
The species was originally named by Marsh in 1877, with several others being erected but then sunk into A. fragilis (eg. Antrodemus valens, Labrosaurus ferox, Epanterias amplexus, Creosaurus).
The taxonomic status of some species such as A. jimmadseni and A. atrox is still unclear. This profile will include them all (hence "A. fragilis sensu lato"=sensu smith, 1998), because they are best regarded in direct comparison.
Since the holotype is hardly diagnostic, USNM 4734 has been proposed as a neotype, but was not designated so far. Furthermore, Madsen (1976) lists DINO 2560 as the Neotype, without it being approved for however.
Holotype: YPM 1930; fragmentary skeleton including some axial and appendicular elements, ribs and a tooth
Topotype/Paratype/proposed Neotype: USNM 4734 (7.4-7.7m); Partial skull (68.2cm), large part of axial and appendicular skeleton (femur=77cm, Tibia=69cm, Humerus=31cm) (Chure, 2000)
Proposed Neotype: DINO 2560 (=UUVP 6000); Nearly complete cranium (84.5cm) and postcranium (femur=85/88cm, Tibia=73/74.5cm)
Population ecology/referred specimens: Many specimens are known (likely over 100), with at least 47 in the Cleveland Lloyd bonebed alone (Of these, 82% are considered subadult or juvenile, with femur lenghts below 56cm) (Gates, 2005)
Several near-complete skeletons, countless isolated remains from several Quarries from the Morrison formation, most notably Cleveland Lloyd, Dinosaur National Monument, Howe, Dana and Como Bluff (Mortimer [online], PaleoDB)
Smallest adults: ~6-7m, largest 10-12m (AMNH 680, AMNH 5767 etc.), average ~8-9m. 7-8m MOR 693 was estimated at ~1.5t, with contracted-ribcage and conservative models at ~1.4 and 1.3t respectively (Bates et al., 2009).
Important specimens:
SMA 0005 & MOR 693: most complete known specimens, among the smallest adults, probably referrable to Chures 2000 nomen nudum A. "jimmadseni"
AMNH 680, NMMNH P-26083 & AMNH 5767: largest known specimens (1m, 1.04m femora and 33cm coracoid & 25cm axis respectively)
Diagnosis:
A. jimmadseni: "compared to A. fragilis- cranial narial fossa less well defined; row of neurovascular foramina below antorbital fenestra in maxilla; large foramen between lacrimal and jugal at posteroventral corner of antorbital fossa; larger maxillary antrum; rounded lacrimal horn (distortion?); lateral pneumatic recess of lacrimal absent (distortion?); lateral vertical ridge on lacrimal horn; lacrimal horn not rugose; straight ventral margin of jugal; parietals fused posteriorly; parietals taller than wide in posterior view; basipterygoid recess well marked and invasive; myohyloid foramen nearly enclosed ventrally; retroarticular process shorter posteriorly; teardrop-shaped internal mandibular fenestra; nineteen dentary teeth; axial intercentrum rotated dorsally; axial intercentrum with flared rim; odontoid process of axis tall and narrow in anterior view; third cervical neural spine slanted posteriorly; fourth through sixth neural spines more anteroposteriorly elongate; cervical pleurocoels change in size throughout the vertebral column; cervical epipophyses mediolaterally compressed; eleven cervical vertebrae; main hypapophysis on presacral 11; accessory ossifications on the anterior and posterior edges of proximal caudal neural spines; more pronounced notch between acromion process and anterior coracoid edge; scapular blade not as expanded distally; coracoid extremely thin anteriorly; more gracile ulna; longer thinner olecranon process; ulnar entocondyle lower; straighter ulnar shaft; proximal and distal ulnar ends offset by about 45 degrees; low vertical ridge above acetabulum; anteroposteriorly elongate obturator notch in pubis delimited by triangular processes; pubic boot less tall and massive; femoral head is directed ventromedially; strongly developed mediodistal crest on femur; less curved cnemial crest; elongate proximolateral corner of pedal phalanx III-2. "
A. fragilis: "two large laterally open lacrimal foramina; proportionally shorter metacarpal I than A. "jimmadseni"."
A. atrox: "two large laterally open lacrimal foramina; proportionally shorter metacarpal I than A. "jimmadseni"."
Source: archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Allosaurusfragilis
From Chure 2000
Morphology, Anatomy and Ontogeny:
Allosaurus fragilis generally exhibits the typical proportions of a basal carnosaur or allosauroid.
There are 10 cervical, 13 dorsal and 5 sacral vertebrae. The postsacral vertebral collumn is relatively long, compromising 53 vertebrae (Holtz et al. 2004).
The arms are moderately to very long for a large-bodied theropod. The neck is relatively long, with long but low neural spines, the skull moderately to very deep, often very narrow and moderately large (but not disproportionately hypertrophied like in some more derived relatives) and ranges from an anteroposteriorly compressed (eg USNM 5434) to moderately elongate (eg MOR 693, DINO 2560) shape (often but not always subtriangular or rectangular). The teeth are medium- to short-crowned and relatively uniform along the lateral toothrow, while premaxillary teeth are significantly broader and more rounded. The toothrow varies from almost straight to strongly concave.
The torso is relatively short and narrow but deep, the ilia, ischia and pubes large and robust, the femora robust and typically about 12-15% longer than the tibiae, with a pronounced negative allometry of relative tibia and metatarsal lenght in larger specimens (ie. smaller and younger individuals were more cursorial, as is common in theropods)(Foster & Chure 2006). It is generally agreed Allosaurus was an active animal capable of approaching comparatively high speeds for a large organism (Madsen 1976).
Strong individual variation is present, as can be expected for an taxon with such a comparatively large sample, distribution and a problematic taxonomy.
The relatively large, highly robust forelimbs are indicative of use in prey aquisition, probably as meathooks, as supported by the shape of the strong, hypertrophied manual unguals. The manus and antebrachia were restricted to the transverse plane in their movement, and the whole arm probably couldn't reach anteriorly beyond the head (Carpenter 2002; Senter & Robins 2006), however the very flexible (Snively et al. 2013), S-curved neck may have faciliated their use in gripping prey.
The forelimb of MOR 693 measures 94cm, roughly 3 times the humeral lenght (2.95), 30% longer than the scapulocoracoid and 27% longer than the femur (Currie & Carpenter 2000). The forelimb of USNM 4734 measures 65.5cm (Middleton & Gatesy 2000). Brachia, antebrachia and manus are all roughly similar in lenght.
The jaw mechanics and neck muscles of this theropod deserve some special attention, with many factors indicating a very important role of the cervical musculature in ventroflexion and pulling (Snively et al., 2013; Snively et al., 2007; Anton et al., 2003; Rayfield et al., 2001; Bakker, 1998), augmenting relatively weak jaw adductors. The upper jaw exhibits a very high stress resistence to vertically directed loads (Rayfield et al., 2001), the cranium and mandible were moderately kinetic (compromise: Snively et al., 2006/Farlow et al., 1976).
The endocast of Allosaurus fragilis resembles that of a crocodilian in shape, and compared to coelurosaurs is more plesiomorphically "reptilian" as opposed to avian. The specimen UUVP 294 has a total endocast volume of 169 ml of which 46.7 ml are composed of cerebrum (Rogers 1998; Larson 2000).
Allosaurus' growth pattern resembles that of other studied dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex, with the most rapid growth occurring at an age of ~15 years, gradually accellerating and slowing down again. The maximum age and size was likely reached at roughly 22-28 years (Bypee et al., 2006).
Life reconstruction?
Skull restoration and comparison?
>Skeletal diagrams of DINO 2560 and MOR 693 (Hartman 2013)?
Myological restoration of A. fragilis?
Ethology and Palaeoecology:
Allosaurus fragilis specimens are often found in large numbers, absolute and relative to the area as well as relative to other dinosaurs (accounting for 75% of all theropods found in it's range, and 66% of all dinosaur specimens in Cleveland Lloyd (Gates 2005).
This is suggestive of great abundance and success of the taxon, and possibly gregarious behaviour (a hypothesis further supported by the ornamentative lacrimal crests).
As can be concluded from their neuroanatomy (Rogers 1998; Larson 2000) such behaviour is plausible for Carnosaurs. They have absolutely and sometimes relatively larger brains and cerebra than extant reptiles capable of group foraging (indicative of at least equal cognitive abilities). Modern crocodilians and monitor lizards can probable serve as a good template in these regards. Social behaviour would have greatly faciliated the predation upon sauropods several times its own size (Farlow 1976).
Allosaurus is commonly regarded as a hunter of large sauropods, as well as stegosaurs, and probably smaller ornithopod prey. The former are supported by the presence of bite marks attributable to Allosaurus on bones of sauropods such as Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus as well as the large stegosaur Stegosaurus (Hone & Rauhut, 2009), and a puncture on an Allosaurus' vertebra consistent with the shape and size of a Stegosaurus thagomizer, proving that it fed on and hunted these animals.
While it is apparent from its anatomy and various ghashlike feeding marks that Allosaurus, like most theropods, did not commonly crush bones of it's prey, numerous trampled bones are associated with Allosaurid foraging (Gates, 2005), and even tough they are comparatively rare, a large absolute number of bite marks is reported.
Various pathologies have been recognised on this taxon's fossil record. The specimen MOR 693 in particular displays numerous (at least 14) anomalies all over its skeleton. Other reported injuries are foot and chevron amputation, likely resulting from a bite injury, severe craniomandibular trauma and numerous stress fractures. The lack of correlation in pedal stress fractures with locomotory mechanics has been interpreted to suggest prey handling with the feet was employed. (Rothschild et al. 2001; Molnar 2001)
References/Literature:
#ALLOSAURUS FRAGILIS: A REVISED OSTEOLOGY
Madsen
utah.ptfs.com/Data/Library2/publications/dc023515.pdf
#Exploring Dinosaur Neuropaleobiology
Rogers
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9808455
#FOREBRAIN ENLARGEMENT AMONG NONAVIAN THEROPOD DINOSAURS
Larson et al., 2000
www.researchgate.net/publication/232681928_FOREBRAIN_ENLARGEMENT_AMONG_NONAVIAN_THEROPOD_DINOSAURS/file/72e7e51cadb4fb175b.pdf
#Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation extinct ecosystem—a synthesis
Turner & Peterson, 2004
#HINDLIMB ALLOMETRY IN THE LATE JURASSIC THEROPOD DINOSAUR ALLOSAURUS, WITH COMMENTS ON ITS ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
Foster & Chure, 2006
www.academia.edu/228976/HINDLIMB_ALLOMETRY_IN_THE_LATE_JURASSIC_THEROPOD_DINOSAUR_ALLOSAURUS_WITH_COMMENTS_ON_ITS_ABUNDANCE_AND_DISTRIBUTION
#A Morphometric Analysis of Allosaurus
Smith, 1998
www.jstor.org/stable/4523878
#Feeding behaviour and bone utilization by theropod dinosaurs
Hone & Rauhut, 2009
www.academia.edu/230302/Feeding_behaviour_and_bone_utilization_by_theropod_dinosaurs
#Theropod stress fractures and tendon avulsions as a clue to activity
Rothschild et al., 2001
books.google.at/books?id=mgc6CS4EUPsC&lpg=PA337&dq=Theropod+paleopathology&pg=PA331&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Theropod%20stress%20fractures&f=false
#Theropod paleopathology: a literature survey
Molnar, 2001
books.google.at/books?id=mgc6CS4EUPsC&lpg=PA337&dq=Theropod+paleopathology&pg=PA331&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pathology&f=false
#The Late Jurassic Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry as a Drought-Induced Assemblage
Gates, 2005
www.jstor.org/stable/27670351
#Brontosaur Killers: Late Jurassic Allosaurids as Sabre-tooth Cat Analogues
Bakker, 1998
www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000779-MG-
DOC-web.PDF
#Cranial Design and Function in a large theropod Dinosaur
Rayfield et al. 2001
www.academia.edu/286996/Cranial_Design_and_Func-
tion_In_a_Large_Theropod_Dinosaur
#The muscle-powered Bite of Allosaurus (Dinosauria; Theropoda): an Interpretation of cranio-dental Morphology:
Antón et al. 2003
estudiosgeol.revistas.csic.es/index.php/estudiosgeol/article/viewFi-
le/106%7D%7D%3C/102
#Functional Variation of Neck Muscles and their Relation to feeding Style inTyrannosauridae and other large Theropod Dinosaurs
Snively et al. 2007
www.ohio.edu/people/es180210/Snively%20pdfs/snively_russell_theropo-
d_necks.pdf
#Multibody dynamics model of head and neck function in Allosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda)
Snively et al. 2013
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2013/389-allosaurus-feeding
#A NEW SPECIES OF ALLOSAURUS FROM THE MORRISON FORMATION OF DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT (UT-CO) AND A REVISION OF THE THEROPOD FAMILY ALLOSAURIDAE.
Chure, 2000
www.researchgate.net/publication/230891064_A_new_species_of_Allosaurus_from_the_Morrison_Formation_of_Dinosaur_National_Monument_%28UT-CO%29_and_a_revision_of_the_theropod_family_Allosauridae
#HOW BIG WAS ‘BIG AL’? QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF SOFT TISSUE AND OSTEOLOGICAL UNKNOWNS ON MASS PREDICTIONS FOR ALLOSAURUS (DINOSAURIA:THEROPODA)
Bates et al., 2009
palaeo-electronica.org/2009_3/186/186.pdf
#THE CASE OF "BIG AL" THE ALLOSAURUS: A STUDY IN PALEODETECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS
Breithaupt, 2001
www.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_6/breithaupt.htm
#The Skull of Creosaurus
Osborn, 1903
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/1510
#Basal Tetanurae/ Tyrannosauroidea in The DINOSAURIA
Holtz (et al.), 2004
#Sizing the Jurassic theropod dinosaur Allosaurus: assessing growth strategy and evolution of ontogenetic scaling of limbs.
Bypee et al., 2006
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16380967
#Speculations about the Diet and Foraging Behavior of Large Carnivorous Dinosaurs
Farlow, 1976
www.jstor.org/stable/2424244
#PaleoDB
paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=52962
paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=157544
#The Theropod Database
Mortimer
archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Carnosauria.htm#Allosaurusfragilis
