ca. 125,000,000 years ago, Early Cretaceous (early Aptian), San Remo, (87 km southeast of Melbourne), Victoria, Australia.
Under the 24-hour sunlight of the south polar summer, a 2.5 metre long ceratosaurian theropod hisses at a potential threat as she slinks back to her lair after a hunting foray. Grasped in her foreclaws is a dromaeosaurid chick.
This is a largely hypothetical reconstruction, based on an isolated astragalocalcaneum (NMV P221202) from the Early Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation at San Remo, Victoria. Although only 6 cm wide, this fragment provides sufficient anatomical data to provide the first unambiguous evidence for an Australian ceratosaur.
In addition to the astragalocalcaneum, I've also incorporated a few other bits and pieces of fragmentary Victorian theropod - including some Masiakasaurus-like teeth from Flat Rocks. The end result is a sort of generalised "proto-Masiakasaur". The presence of dromaeosaurs in EK Victoria is based on isolated teeth.
REFERENCE Fitzgerald EM, Carrano MT, Holland T, Wagstaff BE, Pickering D, Rich TH, Vickers-Rich P. (2012) First ceratosaurian dinosaur from Australia. Naturwissenschaften. 2012 May 3. [Epub ahead of print]
Excuse me, but one isolated bone does not provide sufficient anatomical data for an Australian ceratosaur - or any dinosaur for that matter. There's been many examples of dinosaurs classified by a few or only one bone, only to turn out wrong or to remain nomen dubium. There's been a lot of such claims from single bones found in Australia, especially by the Richs. While their claims are not impossible, a simpler explanation is convergant evolution. Some dinosaur group (or groups) native to Gondwana gave rise to dinos adapted to lifestyles similar to the more familiar Laurasian ones. Why not? Australia is famous for the same thing with marsupials. Why not with dinosaurs in a pretty much isolated Australia, even back then? Until a more complete skeleton is found, I'm sticking with that idea, instead of trashing current ideas of dinosaur emigration.
Primitive ceratosaurs, dromeosaurs, ceratopsians, "hypsilophodontids", ornithomimids, oviraptorosaurs, all were present when Laurasia was still connected to Gondwana in the early-mid jurassic, hence they must have gone for the ride when the 2 superconitinents separated. That is obviously why they are present in Australia, because they got there early, and only changed marginally by the early cretaceous.
Firstly, although the Riches are tacked on as last authors, primary research and writing for the manuscript was conducted by Matt Carrano (curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian Institution and theropod expert) and Erich Fitzgerald. The Riches oversaw the field collecting and preparation, but had nothing to do with the taxonomic determination of this specimen.
Secondly, it is widely recognised that astragali *are* diagnostic in different groups of theropods. The only theropods that have an intimately fused astragalocalcaneum are ceratosaurians and paravians. But, no paravian has a tall plate-like ascending astragalar process - but all ceratosaurs do. When I first saw the specimen I was struck by its similarity to that Masiakasaurus and Xenotarsosaurus.
Thirdly, how is identifying a specimen as a ceratosaur indicative of "familiar Laurasian" chauvanism? Cretaceous Gondwana is FULL of ceratosaurians (in South America, India, Africa and Madgascar) so we'd expect them in Australia, while there are hardly any ceratosaurs in Laurasia (just a few European abelisaurs). The paper alludes to similarities between the Victorian specimen and Elaphrosaurus plus Deltadromeus, both African (ie. Gondwanan) ceratosaurs.
Fourthly - since when was Mesozoic Australia isolated? It simply a lump of eastern Antarctica that did not acheive full separation until the Eocene - thus the Australian biota did not start "going its own way" until after the Cretaceous.
Firstly, although the Riches are tacked on as last authors, primary research and writing for the manuscript was conducted by Matt Carrano (curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian Institution and theropod expert) and Erich Fitzgerald. The Riches oversaw the field collecting and preparation, but had nothing to do with the taxonomic determination of this specimen.
Secondly, it is widely recognised that astragali *are* diagnostic in different groups of theropods. The only theropods that have an intimately fused astragalocalcaneum are ceratosaurians and paravians. But, no paravian has a tall plate-like ascending astragalar process - but all ceratosaurs do. When I first saw the specimen I was struck by its similarity to that Masiakasaurus and Xenotarsosaurus.
Thirdly, how is identifying a specimen as a ceratosaur indicative of "familiar Laurasian" chauvanism? Cretaceous Gondwana is FULL of ceratosaurians (in South America, India, Africa and Madgascar) so we'd expect them in Australia, while there are hardly any ceratosaurs in Laurasia (just a few European abelisaurs). The paper alludes to similarities between the Victorian specimen and Elaphrosaurus plus Deltadromeus, both African (ie. Gondwanan) ceratosaurs.
Fourthly - since when was Mesozoic Australia isolated? It simply a lump of eastern Antarctica that did not acheive full separation until the Eocene - thus the Australian biota did not start "going its own way" until after the Cretaceous.
"I caught this dromaeosaur chick myself, you know. That's why I didn't have time to get cleaned up for our tea!"