High-latitude neonate and perinate ornithopods from the mid-Cretaceous of southeastern Australia

Paleontology: Snow falling on dinosaurs

A treasure trove of dinosaur bones and teeth from Northern Alaska - many from juveniles and yearlings - reveals that dinosaurs lived year-round in the cold and dark environment of the high Arctic.

Nesting at extreme polar latitudes by non-avian dinosaurs

The unexpected discovery of non-avian dinosaurs from Arctic and Antarctic settings has generated considerable debate about whether they had the capacity to reproduce at high latitudes-especially the larger-bodied, hypothetically migratory taxa. Evidence for dinosaurian polar reproduction remains very rare, particularly for species that lived at the highest paleolatitudes (>75°). Here we report the discovery of perinatal and very young dinosaurs from the highest known paleolatitude for the clade-the Cretaceous Prince Creek Formation (PCF) of northern Alaska. These data demonstrate Arctic reproduction in a diverse assemblage of large- and small-bodied ornithischian and theropod species. In terms of overall diversity, 70% of the known dinosaurian families, as well as avialans (birds), in the PCF are represented by perinatal individuals, the highest percentage for any North American Cretaceous formation. These findings, coupled with prolonged incubation periods, small neonate sizes, and short reproductive windows suggest most, if not all, PCF dinosaurs were nonmigratory year-round Arctic residents. Notably, we reconstruct an annual chronology of reproductive events for the ornithischian dinosaurs using refined paleoenvironmental/plant phenology data and new insights into dinosaur incubation periods. Seasonal resource limitations due to extended periods of winter darkness and freezing temperatures placed severe constraints on dinosaurian reproduction, development, and maintenance, suggesting these taxa showed polar-specific life history strategies, including endothermy.

Assessing ontogenetic maturity in extinct saurian reptiles

Morphology forms the most fundamental level of data in vertebrate palaeontology because it is through interpretations of morphology that taxa are identified, creating the basis for broad evolutionary and palaeobiological hypotheses. Assessing maturity is one of the most basic aspects of morphological interpretation and provides the means to study the evolution of ontogenetic changes, population structure and palaeoecology, life-history strategies, and heterochrony along evolutionary lineages that would otherwise be lost to time. Saurian reptiles (the least-inclusive clade containing Lepidosauria and Archosauria) have remained an incredibly diverse, numerous, and disparate clade through their ~260-million-year history. Because of the great disparity in this group, assessing maturity of saurian reptiles is difficult, fraught with methodological and terminological ambiguity. We compiled a novel database of literature, assembling >900 individual instances of saurian maturity assessment, to examine critically how saurian maturity has been diagnosed. We review the often inexact and inconsistent terminology used in saurian maturity assessment (e.g. 'juvenile', 'mature') and provide routes for better clarity and cross-study coherence. We describe the various methods that have been used to assess maturity in every major saurian group, integrating data from both extant and extinct taxa to give a full account of the current state of the field and providing method-specific pitfalls, best practices, and fruitful directions for future research. We recommend that a new standard subsection, 'Ontogenetic Assessment', be added to the Systematic Palaeontology portions of descriptive studies to provide explicit ontogenetic diagnoses with clear criteria. Because the utility of different ontogenetic criteria is highly subclade dependent among saurians, even for widely used methods (e.g. neurocentral suture fusion), we recommend that phylogenetic context, preferably in the form of a phylogenetic bracket, be used to justify the use of a maturity assessment method. Different methods should be used in conjunction as independent lines of evidence when assessing maturity, instead of an ontogenetic diagnosis resting entirely on a single criterion, which is common in the literature. Critically, there is a need for data from extant taxa with well-represented growth series to be integrated with the fossil record to ground maturity assessments of extinct taxa in well-constrained, empirically tested methods.