April 30, 2012
The Mysterious Teeth of Ostafrikasaurus
![]()

The tooth of Ostrafrikasaurus as seen from the front (A), tongue side (B), back (c) and cheek side (d). From Buffetaut, 2011.
There’s a lot we don’t know about spinosaurs. Even though a few of these croc-snouted animals are known from mostly complete skeletons—including Baryonyx and Suchomimus—many spinosaurs are known from only sparse bits and pieces. The large spinosaur Oxalaia from the Cretaceous rock of Brazil is known from two skull fragments, and only a few elements have been found from the newly announced Ichthyovenator. We know even less about another recently proposed spinosaur. Called Ostafrikasaurus, this dinosaur is represented by a pair of teeth.
Paleontologist Eric Buffetaut described the dinosaur teeth in the journal Oryctos. They were found a century ago by the German fossil expeditions to Tanzania. During that time, the field team collected more than 230 teeth attributable to Late Jurassic theropod dinosaurs, predators that lived among sauropods and stegosaurs around 150 million years ago. Determining exactly which dinosaurs these dental tidbits belonged to has been a persistent problem. Mammal teeth, with their various cusps and troughs, are often distinctive enough to identify genera and species, but isolated dinosaur teeth are not usually so informative. Many dinosaur species named from teeth alone have turned out to be synonyms of dinosaurs known from better material. Unless you have a detailed knowledge of the dinosaurs that lived in a particular area at a given time, attributing isolated teeth to particular dinosaurs is a risky proposition. Anatomical context is extremely important in these situations.
No surprise, then, that the teeth Buffetaut described have had a complicated history. German paleontologist Werner Janensch, who did much of the initial descriptive work on the Jurassic dinosaurs of Tanzania, thought that the serrated, ridged and slightly curved teeth probably belonged to a dinosaur O.C. Marsh named from the Jurassic of North America, “Labrosaurus.” (“Labrosaurus” is now considered a synonym of Allosaurus.) More recently, in 2000, paleontologists James Madsen and Samuel Welles suggested that the teeth belonged to a form of Ceratosaurus, a highly ornamented theropod typically found in the Late Jurassic rock of western North America. And in 2008, paleontologist Denver Fowler mentioned that these peculiar teeth from Tanzania might hint at a connection between ceratosaurs and spinosaurs. With this in mind, Buffetaut reexamined the strange teeth and concluded that they represent a hitherto unknown form of early spinosaur.
Buffetaut singled out two possible spinosaur teeth—specimens designated MB.R.1084 and MB.R.1091. Both of these teeth have relatively coarse serrations and a number of prominent vertical ridges along both sides of the teeth, with more on the tongue side than the cheek side. Overall, they look similar to the teeth of Baryonyx, and so Buffetaut created a new genus and species of dinosaur for the two teeth: Ostafrikasaurus crassiserratus.
If Ostafrikasaurus is a spinosaur, it would be the earliest known and could help elucidate what these dinosaurs were like before they became fish-catching specialists. But there’s too little material to be sure. The Ostrafrikasaurus teeth look similar to spinosaur teeth, but as previously recognized by other paleontologists, they also resemble ceratosaur teeth. We need a nice skull set with Ostrafrikasaurus-like teeth to determine what this dinosaur actually was. The same is true of a large claw found in the Late Jurassic strata of North America, currently attributed to Torvosaurus, that has been highlighted as possible evidence of a spinosaur. There may have been spinosaurs in North America, and their history might have stretched back 150 million years to the time of Apatosaurus, but definitive proof remains elusive. Until adequate fossil evidence turns up, the idea of Late Jurassic spinosaurs will be left hanging.
References:
Buffetaut, E. 2011. An early spinosaurid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania) and the evolution of the spinosaurid dentition. Oryctos. 10, 1-8
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI






















I’d be surprised if we don’t find some latest Jurassic spinosaurids one day given that spinosauroids like Eustreptospondylus were around in the Middle Jurassic. Sadly the teeth of Eustreptospondylus are lost so we don’t know if they possessed the combination of features seen in Ostafrikasaurus.
Such is the fault of so-called definitive morphologies. The weight of the material seems deliberately more ceratosaurian with some spinosaur micro-features. Is he correct? Can the material be localized within the jaw and not evidenced for general dental morphology? Something to investigate.
Your link to the Late Jurassic claw attributed to Torvosaurus goes to your post on Ichthyovenator. Is this correct? There is no mention of the Torvosaur claw in your post, unless it is mentioned in the paper itself. I’m very interested in learning more about this isolated claw. Thanks.
Chris – the claw is mentioned in the Ichthyovenator paper itself.
It’s worth noting that only the premaxillary and anterior dentary teeth of Ceratosaurus bear the fluting seen on these teeth. Back before my 2007 poster, Dr. Oliver Rauhut told me that ‘ceratosaur’ lateral teeth had not been found at Tendaguru. This is fairly surprising, although we are dealing with small sample sizes, and I do not know if this fact still stands. The potential ceratosaur link was really just put out as a ‘what-if’ scenario, and wasn’t the main emphasis of the poster.
Also, the closeup photo (Fig 2) in Buffetaut’s new paper seems to show the granular enamel that you see in baryonychines (which he notes), supporting his conclusion.
So its still interesting to pose the question I asked in my poster; what would ancestral baryonychine teeth look like? Which features ‘typical’ of baryonychines would be absent / less developed?
I’m also interested in that Torvosaurus claw. The carnivores of the American Jurassic are mind numbingly frustrating. We’ve been plumbing the Morrison for over 100 years and yet most are known from such fragmentary remains. They are barely known while allosaurus dominates the fossil record. I once saw someone suggest on here that Saurophaganax may be a carcharodontosaurid (citing that one is known from the Jurassic of, you guessed it, Tanzania. However, i don’t know if it too is based on just teeth). So if that claw turns out to be from a spinosaur, and Saurophaganax turns out to be it’s own entity, then that’s two more theropods known from jack squat. Plus they would just add to the enigma: the carnivore guild in the late Jurassic of North America was extremely diverse and yet (practically) all we find is Allosaurus. Hopefully this will get cleared up somewhat in the coming decades.
I have been working on theropod manual unguals for a while now and have presented on it at SVP (paper in the works). One thing I have seen in the distribution of claw shape among the various clades is that most, if not all, basal tetanurans have an enlarged digit I claw. This is true of allosauroids and spinosauroids and I think it may be a plesiomorphic trait for tetanurae. To say that the enlarged DI claw is definitive of spinosaurids is not evident when you look across allosaurs (think Neovenatorids) and spinosaurs. In fact I have seen some very large Allosaurus claws, as big as Baryonyx, Suchomimus, or Torvosaurus claws. Little differentiates spinosauroid from allosauroid claws, therefore saying that the BYU claw is evidence of a spinosaur is not supported. Even if it is not Torvosaurus, it is probably another allosauroid. We’ll need more diagnostic material before we can claim spinosaurs from the Morrison.
Australia also had these giant “lizards” known as Murra-bu-garda found near Lake Eyre.
See Rauhut (2011) in Spec. Pap. Palaeontol. for a detailed discussion of the ID of many Tendaguru theropod bits.
Isn’t it irresponsible to designate an isolated dinosaur tooth as holotype specimen? Why not just leave it as baryonychinae indet.?
@ Boesse: because even though mammal teeth are far more diagnostic, dinosaurs just have so much more clout in the public eye. Even though a new dinosaur is discovered, on average, every seven weeks, naming a new dinosaur is always a big deal. As such it feels like they try to name whatever they can from whatever is available. I mean, how many mammals and other cenozoic critters can you name that are based on a single specimen? Ok, now do the same for dinosaurs. Point is, it feels like dinosaurs never got out of their “butterfly collecting” phase. Even though paleontologist have been working hard these last 30 years to actually understand dinosaur biology, there still so much fanfare about finding and naming new species, as if that’s all paleontology is about.