Kronosaurus

[Kronosaurus]

This picture shows a preparator (Arnie Lewis) working on the 9 foot long (3 meter) skull of Kronosaurus queenslandicus at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.  Note that this is the original "smooth" reconstruction of the back of the skull (circa 1957-58), lacking the parietal crest.

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/kronosar.html

There is a man near the skull and how we can see this skull is less then 3 meters, isnt it?

[Mike]

Hard to say what was going on in a 50+ year old photograph... Note that this is the original (incorrect) version of the skull... The picture comes from Natural History magazine, volume 68, (January, 1959), p. 22 and 23.... The poorly written, original caption reads, "Huge head, some 10 feet long, is studied by Harvard technician. Unlike Kronosaurus, other marine lizards had long necks that ended in small heads." ...   My caption is a little better.....

I've never seen this photograph published anywhere else... it is certainly not the one shown in the completed exhibit at Harvard. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it...

Much of what we see of this skull and the more accurate reconstruction is fabrication... Romer and Lewis (1959, p. 2) noted that "“Erosion had destroyed much of the outer parts of the nodules, so that, for example, most of the superficial bones of the skull had been destroyed,..”

... and also that (p. 3), "our animal has about four times the linear dimensions of Andrews' restored skeleton with a total length, as restored, of 1280 cm. - about 42 feet. The head, however, is relatively larger in Kronosaurus, making up slightly over one-fourth of the total length, whereas in Peloneustes the skull is but one-fifth the length of the animal.

Romer, A. S. and A. D. Lewis. 1959. A mounted skeleton of the giant plesiosaur Kronosaurus. Breviora 112:1-15.

Curiously, while the article describes the post cranial portion of the remains in some detail , it virtually ignores further mention of the skull. They may have deferred to earlier articles that they cite....

Longman, H. A. 1924. Some Queensland fossil vertebrates. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 8:16-28.
Longman, H. A. 1930. Kronosaurus queenslandicus. A gigantic Cretaceous pliosaur. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 10: 1-7.
Longman, H.A.  1932. Restoration of Kronosaurus queenslandicus. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 10:98.
White, T. E. 1935. On the skull of Kronosaurus queenslandicus Longman. Occasional Papers of the Boston Society of Natural History 8: 219-228.
White, T. E. 1940. Holotype of Plesiosaurus longirostris Blake and classification of the plesiosaurs. Journal of Paleontology 14: 451-467.


Regards,

Mike
   
 
 

[Kronosaurus]

And this is correct skull?

But where there are true bones?

[Mike]

Yes, that is the current version of the skull/skeleton.... As for which bones are real?? .... Maybe Colin McHenry will tell us that...

Here's what Romer and Lewis (1959, p. 1-2) wrote about the condition of the skeleton when found:

"The specimen had been entombed, in an articulated state, dorsal surface up, in a limestone matrix. In recent times, however, the skeleton had been subject to erosion, so that it consisted essentially of a series of limestone nodules, freed from the underlying strata and nearly completely buried in the soil. Skull, neck, trunk and part of the tail were contained in a linear series of 15 nodules of varied size. Of these the first had been displaced and overturned; the others, however, appear to have undergone little or no displacement. Erosion had destroyed much of the outer parts of the nodules, so that, for example, most of the superficial bones of the skull had been destroyed, part or all of many of the neural spines had vanished, and the girdles, ribs and abdominal armor are incomplete. Erosion had, further, destroyed some of the contacts between successive blocks, but because of their seemingly undisturbed position, interpolation of materials once filling the gaps can be made with considerable confidence. No trace of the pectoral limbs was preserved. The pelvic limbs were present in normal articulation, extending out on either side from the large block containing the pelvic region, but even the femora were badly weathered and the more distal regions of the "flippers" were very poorly preserved."

VERY big, but not very pretty....

Mike

[Kronosaurus]

Thanx, and why the thread about macromerus is locked? I would like to ask is the "monster"  or Aramberi or "monster" from Svalbard belongs to genus Liopleurodon?

[Mike]

Krono,
I don't know why the thread is locked, but would suggest that some of your questions cannot be answered because we simply do not know what the relationships are at this point... we are dealing with one-of-a-kind, fragmentary specimens separated by thousands of kilometers of distance and millions of years of time..... and no easy answers....

Mike

[Kronosaurus]

Written that Krono's skull was 3 meters long, but on pictures it's not looks like that. It realy was 3 meters, or it is "gigantomania"? On reconstruction on your website Krono's skull is about 2,5 meters long how I can see (there is a woman standing near the skeleton).

[Mike]

Posed photograph from a postcard. I understand from one of the people who worked on the reconstruction that she was a relatively short woman... other than that, I've not seen actual measurements....

Mike

[richardforrest]

... It realy was 3 meters, or it is "gigantomania"? ...

The technical term is "godzillaisation"! (a term I coined and whose use appears to be spreading).

[Kronosaurus]

That's what I want to say. The skull wasnt 3 meters long as its written. This is (how richardforrest said) - godzillaisation.

[Kronosaurus]

Another girl with kronosaur's skeleton.
I think it's even 2 meters.

[Mike]

Krono,
I'm not promoting the 3 m skull length... I really don't know (or care that much)... and agree that it may be subject to inflation (godzillisation)

Please note that the girl is standing some distance in front of the skull, not right next to it.... she is outside the glass case.. and at least 2 m from the skull, so comparing her height to the length of the skull is going to give you some bad numbers.

Some numbers to play with....

Romer and Lewis (1959) estimated the length of the rear paddle at 2.3 m....

The length of some of the vertebrae are noted as:

======================================
(Table, page 5) Centra. Measurements (in mm.) of
some of the best preserved centra are as follows :

Centrum #   Length     Width      Height
  4        102       181       193
  9         93        180       210
15       114       182      233
20       123       202      225
27      145       213      217
35      143       205      208
42       136       182      201
50      118       180      198
54      108       157       172
======================================

 .... the largest dorsal vertebrae average about 14 cm in length....

Regards,

Mike

[Kronosaurus]

I

Please note that the girl is standing some distance in front of the skull, not right next to it.... she is outside the glass case.. and at least 2 m from the skull, so comparing her height to the length of the skull is going to give you some bad numbers.

I see.

BTW, in www.oceansofkansas.com written about length of skull - 9 feet (3 meters), but 9 feet isn't 3 meters, just - 2,74 meter. If reconstruction of krono is right and if it had 2,74 meter skull - his total length will be around 11 meters.

[Mike]

SIGH!   

[Kronosaurus]

Sorry, but maybe my English not good enough, and there is a problem with understanding.