4.2 Article

A THEROPOD NESTING TRACE WITH EGGS FROM THE UPPER CRETACEOUS (CAMPANIAN) TWO MEDICINE FORMATION OF MONTANA

Journal

PALAIOS
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 362-372

Publisher

SEPM-SOC SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY
DOI: 10.2110/palo.2014.052

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0847777]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences [0847777] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A nesting trace preserved in alluvial floodplain deposits in the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation at the Willow Creek anticline in north-central Montana contains four crushed theropod eggs referable to the oospecies Continuoolithus canadensis. These eggs immediately overlie the lower surface of a 35-cm-long x 7-cm-thick, dark-green mudstone lens, surrounded by reddish-purple mudstone. The long axes of three eggs are parallel to one another and to the lower boundary of the lens, whereas the fourth egg lies at a 30 degrees angle to the others. A thin, 1-cm-thick organic horizon overlies the eggs, suggesting they were buried with some vegetation. Geometric modeling of the slightly asymmetrical C. canadensis eggs yields a volume and mass of approximately 194 cm 3 and 205 g for each egg. This method provides a more accurate estimation for the surface area than allometric equations that are based on modern bird eggs because of the elongate shape of many non-avian theropod eggs. Pore density and water vapor conductance (G(H2O)) calculated from one egg in the trace and five additional C. canadensis eggs from the Willow Creek anticline vary across three regions. High, moderate, and very low G(H2O) characterize the equatorial zone, blunt, and tapering poles, respectively. The average G(H2O) for all eggs exceeds that of an avian egg of similar mass by 3.9x, thus supporting sedimentologic evidence of substrate burial during incubation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available