Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Mosasaurus hoffmanni reconstruction and size by Rimasuchus Mosasaurus hoffmanni reconstruction and size by Rimasuchus
English description:
Silhouette of CCMGE 10/2469 (also 
PRM 2546) with measurements. Based on material by Grigoriev (2014), Lingham-Soliar (1995), Konishi et al. (2011; 2014), Mulder (1990)Schulp et al. (2006), Bardet and Tunoglu (2002), Street and Caldwell (2016), Russell (1967), Ikejiri & Lucas (2015).
Key to abbreviations:
DCL - Dorsal skull lenght.
LJL - Lower jaw lenght.
TL - Total lenght.
Vertebral column (by 
Lindgren et al., 2011):
C - Cervical.
Ad - A
nterior dorsal.
Pd - P
osterior dorsal.
P - Pygal.
I - I
ntermediate caudal.
T - Terminal.

Yes, largest M. hoffmanni really was more than 16-17 meters (especially some fragmentary specimens like ~26 cm quadrate 
NHMM 603092 and ~17 cm humerus TSMHN 11252) in length, despite some erroneous claims that Mosasaurus have head (actually lower jaw, i.e. maximum length of skull) to body length ratio like ~1:7 or ~1:8, but not 1:10. In fact, species of this genus have a very small skull relative to body size in comparison with Prognathodon (see skull height - cervical vertebrae height ratio in Prognathodon overtoni and Mosasaurus missouriensis by Konishi et al., 2011 and 2014), and a proportionally longer tail than Prognatohodon and Clidastes (see Lindgren et al., 2011; fig. 12), that exceeded the precaudal section of the vertebral column by 20% in length (in really, very simular to Plotosaurus, the closest relative of Mosasaurus), as well as proportionally larger and more robust vertebrae. There is no way make a lower jaw to body length ratio less than 1:10 or 1:9, that was originally proposed by Russell (1967). The only thing we do not know is the exact number of M. hoffmanni dorsal vertebrae (in other Mosasaurus their number varies from 31 or 32 to 38 or 39), but even the lowest number, 31 or 32, will not make lower jaw to body length ratio less than 1:9.
Moreover, the M. hoffmanni was very massive, having a "barrel-shaped" chest (is NOT eel-like body) and was heavier than a Tylosaurus of a comparable length. In my calculation based on volume of reconstruction in pixels, CCMGE 10/2469 weighed as much as 26675 kg! It is unlikely that largest Tylosaurus (14 or may be 15 m based on very fragmentary specimens) weighed more than 10-15 tons. In this way Mosasaurus was largest member of Mosasaruidae and was comparable in size with largest jurassic Pliosaurus and Cenozoic marine superdpredators such a Lyviatan melvelli and Basilosaurus cetoides.
M. hoffmanni also had a very small flippers in comparison with body size (even the giant isolated humerus TSMHN 11252 smaller than humerus of most Tylosaurus pembinensis specimens) and probably was not very agile. However, this was compensated by great strength, size, cutting teeth and huge bite force (by scaling from lower jaw of Tupinambis merianae the bite force of CCMGE 10/2469 would be ~111000 Newtons!; bite force of T. merianae taken from Schaerlaeken et al., 2012). In addition to the fact that M. hoffmanni was a "big game hunter" that adapted to catch, tearing and consuming a very large prey items (Poynter, 2011; Russell, 1967; Lingham-Soliar, 1995), many fossil evidences demonstrate a very aggressive intraspecific and interspecific behavior in this species (Lingham-Soliar T. 1998, 2004; Schulp et al., 2006). "Sea tyrannosaurus" - is a fully deserved nickname!
Unfortunately, my Mosasaurs skeleton reconstruction is not good enough to put it in public view.
Mosasaurus genus speciemens reviewed to create this silhouette:
Mosasaurus hoffmannii: primarily CCMGE 10/2469 (and cast PRM 2546), holotype MNHN AC 9648, NHMM 006696, NHMM 009002, NHMM 1993024, NHMM 002006, TSMHN 17281, TSMHN 11252, BMNH 42929, BMNH 11262, IRSNB R26, IRSNB R25, IRSNB R27, IRSNB R12 and HU.JMB-0057-99 .
Mosasaurus maximus (=M. hoffmannii): NJSM 11053 and TMM 313.
Mosasaurus beaugei: OCP-DEK/GE 303 and OCP-DEK/GE 83.
Mosasaurus missouriensis: TMP 2008.036.0001, TMP 2008.036.0001, USNM 8086 and KUVP 1034.
Mosasaurus conodon: AMNH 1380, MOR 006 and TSJC 1998.2.
Mosasaurus lemonnieri: IRSNB 3127, IRSNB 3201 and IRSNB 3210.
Mosasaurus spp. (species is not identified): UCMP 61221, SDSM 452, FMNH P26956 and DMNH 21006.
Actually, silhouette based mainly on BMNH 42929, MNHN AC 9648, NHMM 006696, IRSNB 1624, R26, R12, NHMM 1993024, Mosasaurus missouriensis, TMP 2008.036.0001 and UCMP 61221.
References:
Lingham-Soliar T. (1995), "Anatomy and functional morphology of the largest marine reptile known, Mosasauruhs offmanni (Mosasauridae, Reptilia) from the Upper Cretaceous, Upper Maastrichtian of The Netherlands".
Street and Caldwell (2016), "Rediagnosis and redescription of Mosasaurus hoffmannii (Squamata: Mosasauridae) and an assessment of species assigned to the genus Mosasaurus".
Bardet and Tunoglu (2002), "The First Mosasaur (Squamata) from the Late Cretaceous of Turkey".
Russell D. A., (1967), "Systematics and Morphology of American Mosasaurs".
Lindgren, J., Polcyn, M.J. and Young, B.A., (2011), "Landlubbers to leviathans: evolution of swimming in mosasaurine mosasaurs".
D. V. Grigoriev (2014), "Giant Mosasaurus hoffmanni (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Penza, Russia.
Ikejiri, T. and Lucas, S.G., (2015), "Osteology and taxonomy of Mosasaurus conodon Cope 1881 from the Late Cretaceous of North America".
Anne S. Schulp, Geert H.I.M. Walenkamp, Paul A.M. Hofman, Yvonne Stuip & Bruce M. Rothschild, (2006), "Chronic bone infection in the jaw of Mosasaurus hoffmanni (Squamata)".
Poynter Jeremy (2011), "Using dental microwear analysis to predict feeding types in mesozoic marine reptiles".
Lingham-Soliar T. (1998), "Unusual death of a Cretaceous giant".
N. Bardet, X. P. Suberbiola, M. Iarochene, F. Bouyahyaoui, B. Bouya, (2004), "Mosasaurus beaugei Arambourg, 1952 (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the Late Cretaceous phosphates of Morocco".
L. B. Halstead (1991). "Dinosaur Studies - Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of Richard Owen's Dinosauria".
Schaerlaeken V., Holanova V., Boistel R., Aerts P., Velensky P., Rehak I., Andrade D.V., Herrel A., (2012), "Built to bite: feeding kinematics, bite forces, and head shape of a specialized durophagous lizard, Dracaena guianensis (teiidae)".
Lingham-Soliar T. (2004), "Palaeopathology and injury in the extinct mosasaurs (Lepidosauromorpha, Squamata) and implications for modern reptiles".
Takuya Konishi, Michael G. Newbrey, Michael W. Caldwell, (2014), "A small, exquisitely preserved specimen of Mosasaurus missouriensis (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the upper Campanian of the Bearpaw Formation, western Canada, and the first stomach contents for the genus".
Takuya Konishi , Donald Brinkman , Judy A. Massare & Michael W. Caldwell, (2011), "New exceptional specimens of Prognathodon overtoni (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the upper Campanian of Alberta, Canada, and the systematics and ecology of the genus".
Eric W.A. Mulder (1990), "Transatlantic latest Cretaceous Mosasaurs (Reptilia, Lacertilia) from the Maastrichtian type area and New Jersey".
Also, credits to Mosasaurus hoffmanni historically accurate 3D model (made with consultation by Anne Schulp, Johan Lindgren, Takuya Konishi, Michael Polcyn and Dylan Bastiaans) by Therelic187.

Updates:
05.01.18 - fixed massive back that appeared during reconstruction of soft tissues on composite skeleton.

Русское описание:
Силуэт образца CCMGE 10/2469 (также PRM 2546) с измерениями. По материалам
Grigoriev (2014), Lingham-Soliar (1995), Konishi et al. (2011; 2014), Mulder (1990), Schulp et al. (2006), Bardet and Tunoglu (2002), Street and Caldwell (2016), Russell (1967), Ikejiri & Lucas (2015).
Сокращения на рисунке:
DCL - дорсальная длина черепа.
LJL - длина нижней челюсти.
TL - общая длина.
Отделы позвоночного столба (по Lindgren et al., 2011):
C - шейный.
Ad - передний спинной.
Pd - задний спинной.
P - крестцовый.
I - промежуточный хвостовой.
T - терминальный хвостовой.
Да, крупнейшие M. hoffmanni действительно достигали более 16-17 метров в длину (особенно некоторые фрагментарные экземпляры, такие как квадратная кость NHMM 603092 длиной ~26 см и плечевая кость 
TSMHN 11252 длиной ~17 см), несмотря на некоторые ошибочные утверждения о том, что представители рода Mosasaurus имеют отношение головы (фактически нижней челюсти, т.е. максимальной длины черепа) к общей длине тела, например ~ 1:7 или ~ 1:8, но не 1:10. Виды этого рода имеют очень маленький череп относительно размеров тела по сравнению с Prognathodon (см. соотношение высоты черепа и высоты шейного позвонка у Prognathodon overtoni и Mosasaurus missouriensis от Konishi et al., 2011 и 2014 гг.) и пропорционально более длинный хвост чем у Prognathodon и Clidastes (см. Lindgren et al., 2011, рис. 12), который превышает длину предкаудальной части позвоночного столба на 20% (на самом деле, подобно Plotosaurus, ближайшему родственнику Mosasaurus), а также пропорционально большие и более надежные позвонки. Невозможно сделать более большое отношение челюсти к общей длине тела менее 1:10 или 1:9, что было первоначально предложено еще Russel (1967). Это факт. Единственное, чего мы не знаем, это точное число спинных позвонков у M. hoffmanni (у других представителей рода их число варьируется от 31 или 32 до 38 или 39), но даже самое низкое число, 31 или 32, не будет увеличивать длину челюсти относительно общей длины тела в отношение менее 1:9.
Кроме того, M. hoffmanni был очень массивным, имеющим «бочкообразную» грудную клетку (никакого гибкого 
«угреподобного» тела!) и был тяжелее, чем Tylosaurus сопоставимой длины. По моим расчетам, основанным на объеме реконструкции в пикселях, CCMGE 10/2469 весил целых 26675 кг! Маловероятно, что наибольший тилозавр (14 или может 15 м на основе очень фрагментарных образцов) весил более 10-15 тонн. Таким образом мозазавр был самым крупным представителем семейства Mosasaruidae и был сопоставим по размеру с крупнейшими юрскими плиозаврами и кайнозойскими суперхищниками, такими как Lyviatan melvelli и Basilosaurus cetoides.
У M. hoffmanni также были очень маленькие ласты по сравнению с размером тела (даже гигантская изолированная плечевая кость TSMHN 11252 меньше плечевой кости большинства образцов Tylosaurus pembinensis) и, вероятно, он был не очень подвижным. Тем не менее, это компенсировалось большой силой, размерами, режущими зубами и огромной силой укуса (путем масштабирования от нижней челюсти Tupinambis merianae сила укуса CCMGE 10/2469 была бы ~111000 ньютонов! Сила укуса T. merianae взята из Schaerlaeken et al., 2012). В дополнение к тому факту, что M. hoffmanni был охотником на крупную добычу, который адаптировался чтобы ловить, разрывать и потреблять очень крупных животных (Poynter, 2011; Russell, 1967; Lingham-Soliar, 1995), многие образцы демонстрируют очень агрессивное внутривидовое и межвидовое взаимодействие у этого вида (Lingham-Soliar T. 1998, 2004; Schulp et al., 2006). «Морской тираннозавр» - это полностью заслуженное прозвище!
К сожалению, моя реконструкция скелета M. hofmanni недостаточно хороша, чтобы представить ее на всеобщее обозрение.
Представители рода Mosasaurus, рассмотренные для создания этого силуэта:
Mosasaurus hoffmannii: прежде всего CCMGE 10/2469 (и копия PRM 2546), голотип MNHN AC 9648, NHMM 006696, NHMM 009002, NHMM 1993024, NHMM 002006, TSMHN 17281, TSMHN 11252, BMNH 42929, BMNH 11262, IRSNB R26, IRSNB R25, IRSNB R27, IRSNB R12 и HU.JMB-0057-99.
Mosasaurus maximus (= M. hoffmannii): NJSM 11053 и TMM 313.
Mosasaurus beaugei: OCP-DEK / GE 303 и OCP-DEK / GE 83.
Mosasaurus missouriensis: TMP 2008.036.0001, TMP 2008.036.0001, USNM 8086 и KUVP 1034.
Mosasaurus condon: AMNH 1380, MOR 006 и TSJC 1998.2.
Mosasaurus lemonnieri: IRSNB 3127, IRSNB 3201 и IRSNB 3210.
Mosasaurus spp. (виды не идентифицированы): UCMP 61221, SDSM 452, FMNH P26956 и DMNH 21006.
Актуально, силуэт основан в основном на
 BMNH 42929, MNHN AC 9648, NHMM 006696, IRSNB 1624, R26, R12, NHMM 1993024, Mosasaurus missouriensis, TMP 2008.036.0001 и UCMP 61221.
References:
Список литературы:
Lingham-Soliar T. (1995), "Anatomy and functional morphology of the largest marine reptile known, Mosasauruhs offmanni (Mosasauridae, Reptilia) from the Upper Cretaceous, Upper Maastrichtian of The Netherlands".
Street and Caldwell (2016), "Rediagnosis and redescription of Mosasaurus hoffmannii (Squamata: Mosasauridae) and an assessment of species assigned to the genus Mosasaurus".
Bardet and Tunoglu (2002), "The First Mosasaur (Squamata) from the Late Cretaceous of Turkey".
Russell D. A., (1967), "Systematics and Morphology of American Mosasaurs".
Lindgren, J., Polcyn, M.J. and Young, B.A., (2011), "Landlubbers to leviathans: evolution of swimming in mosasaurine mosasaurs".
D. V. Grigoriev (2014), "Giant Mosasaurus hoffmanni (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Penza, Russia.
Ikejiri, T. and Lucas, S.G., (2015), "Osteology and taxonomy of Mosasaurus conodon Cope 1881 from the Late Cretaceous of North America".
Anne S. Schulp, Geert H.I.M. Walenkamp, Paul A.M. Hofman, Yvonne Stuip & Bruce M. Rothschild, (2006), "Chronic bone infection in the jaw of Mosasaurus hoffmanni (Squamata)".
Poynter Jeremy (2011), "Using dental microwear analysis to predict feeding types in mesozoic marine reptiles".
Lingham-Soliar T. (1998), "Unusual death of a Cretaceous giant".
N. Bardet, X. P. Suberbiola, M. Iarochene, F. Bouyahyaoui, B. Bouya, (2004), "Mosasaurus beaugei Arambourg, 1952 (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the Late Cretaceous phosphates of Morocco".
L. B. Halstead (1991). "Dinosaur Studies - Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of Richard Owen's Dinosauria".
Schaerlaeken V., Holanova V., Boistel R., Aerts P., Velensky P., Rehak I., Andrade D.V., Herrel A., (2012), "Built to bite: feeding kinematics, bite forces, and head shape of a specialized durophagous lizard, Dracaena guianensis (teiidae)".
Lingham-Soliar T. (2004), "Palaeopathology and injury in the extinct mosasaurs (Lepidosauromorpha, Squamata) and implications for modern reptiles".
Takuya Konishi, Michael G. Newbrey, Michael W. Caldwell, (2014), "A small, exquisitely preserved specimen of Mosasaurus missouriensis (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the upper Campanian of the Bearpaw Formation, western Canada, and the first stomach contents for the genus".
Takuya Konishi , Donald Brinkman , Judy A. Massare & Michael W. Caldwell, (2011), "New exceptional specimens of Prognathodon overtoni (Squamata, Mosasauridae) from the upper Campanian of Alberta, Canada, and the systematics and ecology of the genus".
Eric W.A. Mulder (1990), "Transatlantic latest Cretaceous Mosasaurs (Reptilia, Lacertilia) from the Maastrichtian type area and New Jersey".
Также большое спасибо Mosasaurus hoffmanni historically accurate 3D model (сделано с консультацией Anne Schulp, Johan Lindgren, Takuya Konishi, Michael Polcyn и Dylan Bastiaans) от Therelic187.

Обновления:
05.01.18 - исправлена массивная куполообразная спина, появившаяся при реконструкции мягких тканей на композитном скелете.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconovleg:
Ovleg Featured By Owner May 7, 2018
If (a big if) these estimates are correct, Mosasaurus may represent the largest macropredatory reptile on record.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2017
Very funny.
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017
......WHAT? It really was that big?!
Reply
:iconrimasuchus:
Rimasuchus Featured By Owner Edited Nov 9, 2017
As show my measurements of postcranial remains and weight calculation, yes, it was that big.

But my lower size estimate of CCMGE 10/2469 gives a slightly smaller size: ~15.4 m and ~21 t. I do not know which one is more correct. There are two possible models for reconstructing the postcranial skeleton of Mosasaurus hoffmanni.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Edited Nov 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Holy hell! 110.000 Newtons of bite force would make it the second strongest biter known to science, after the largest Tyrannosaurus. Also, 29 tonnes is huge, but I think it is probably excessive. (I am currently leaning more towards the 7 tonnes and ~13 m proposed by Incinerox, seeing as he has the only rigorous Mosasaurus skeletal to date. However, I also intend to make my own skeletals to verify this (and perform GDI´s on them as well, along with Liodon, Plioplatecarpus and Prognathodon.
Overall, very nice work. I might get some use out of the top view in future projects, can I have permission to use it one day? (not certain I will).
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2017
Hey, what about Megalodon? I mean, I don't really know whether those bite force estimates are valid.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
IF the 110.000 N is accurate for Mosasaurus (which I doubt) then yes, it would actually be a much harder biter than C.megalodon (which would be 31100 N for the largest specimens). 

Now, I don´t think Mosasaurus actually bit that hard, because it was obtained scaling tegu lizard. Tegu´s are renowned for being extraordinarly hard biters for their size. Scaling from Carinodens estimes from Schulp et al, I get ~40.000 N for Mosasaurus. This is still a tougher bite than is estimated for C.megalodon and seems more reasonable than the 100.000+ estimates. These are all sustained biteforces. Max. biteforces are about three times higher than that, so ~90.000 for megalodon and 120.000 for Mosasaurus

Carinodens is a durophagous mosasaur, so I suggest lowering the bite force a bit but not too much.
Reply
:iconovleg:
Ovleg Featured By Owner May 6, 2018
Carcharocles bite forces estimates are in the 180 000 N.
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2017
Thanks - Although Megalodon certainly had a powerful bite, Mosasaurus' bite force is more impressive. But yeah, they hunted in different ways and had different kinds of teeth.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yep. Sharks just shear away flesh with their brutal saw teeth. They don´t need  a super strong bite force.
Mosasaurus itself is hypothesized to employ death-rolls, which required a strong grip.
Reply
:iconrimasuchus:
Rimasuchus Featured By Owner Edited Nov 7, 2017
Mosasaurus don't employ a "death roll". Or rather, maybe they can (due to a robust akinetic skull), but this was not main method of killing and consuming of large prey items. Lower jaw of Mosasaurus could move back and forth due to the movable quadrate bone (streptostyly), and this allowed to sawing the captured prey as well as stabilize jaw during a hard bite. The teeth of M. hoffmanni are very complex and have many cutting edges in addition to the two serrated carinae.
I use Tupinambis merianae for scaling the bite force of M. hoffmanni, because Lingham-Soliar (1995) mentioned that musculus adductor group of M. hoffmanni was simular in structure with m. adductor group of Tupinambis and Xenosaurus. And second important for bite force muscle, m. pseudotemporalis protundus, would generate similar force for functional stability and prevent the turning of jaw.

And yes, you can use my reconstruction in your own future projects.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ok. Interesting.

Thank you!
Reply
:iconacepredator:
acepredator Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2017
I think mosasaurs (at least all the ones with cutting teeth, so Mosasaurus, Tylosaurus, Liodon, etc) basically ratcheted their lower jaw back and forth to saw through a prey item to kill/dismember it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:
 
×



Details

Submitted on
October 15, 2017
Image Size
124 KB
Resolution
1510×1027
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
923 (6 today)
Favourites
7 (who?)
Comments
17
Downloads
7