Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 May 7;276(1662):1731-6.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1735. Epub 2009 Feb 25.

Allometry of Visceral Organs in Living Amniotes and Its Implications for Sauropod Dinosaurs

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Comparative Study

Allometry of Visceral Organs in Living Amniotes and Its Implications for Sauropod Dinosaurs

Ragna Franz et al. Proc Biol Sci. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Allometric equations are often used to extrapolate traits in animals for which only body mass estimates are known, such as dinosaurs. One important decision can be whether these equations should be based on mammal, bird or reptile data. To address whether this choice will have a relevant influence on reconstructions, we compared allometric equations for birds and mammals from the literature to those for reptiles derived from both published and hitherto unpublished data. Organs studied included the heart, kidneys, liver and gut, as well as gut contents. While the available data indicate that gut content mass does not differ between the clades, the organ masses for reptiles are generally lower than those for mammals and birds. In particular, gut tissue mass is significantly lower in reptiles. When applying the results in the reconstruction of a sauropod dinosaur, the estimated volume of the coelomic cavity greatly exceeds the estimated volume of the combined organ masses, irrespective of the allometric equation used. Therefore, substantial deviation of sauropod organ allometry from that of the extant vertebrates can be allowed conceptually. Extrapolations of retention times from estimated gut contents mass and food intake do not suggest digestive constraints on sauropod dinosaur body size.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlations of BM and organ mass in reptiles (solid line with diamonds), mammals (dashed line) and birds (dotted line) for the (a) heart (reptile, y=0.005x1.06; mammal, y=0.006x0.98; bird, y=0.009x0.94), (b) kidneys (reptile, y=0.006x0.95; mammal, y=0.007x0.85; bird, y=0.009x0.91), (c) liver (reptile, y=0.033x1.07; mammal, y=0.033x0.87; bird, y=0.033x0.88) and (d) gastrointestinal tissue (reptile, y=0.03x1.16; mammal, y=0.08x0.94; bird, y=0.09x0.99). Reptile data from this study (see the electronic supplementary material, appendix), mammal and bird regression lines from Calder (1996).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Wet contents mass of the total GIT in mammals (circles; data from Clauss et al. 2007a), birds (squares; data from Herd & Dawson 1984; Dawson et al. 1989; Grajal 1995) and reptiles (diamonds; data in the electronic supplementary material, appendix) in relation to BM.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 9 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback