Hubbry Logo
MosasaurMosasaurMain
Open search
Mosasaur
Community hub
Mosasaur
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mosasaur
Mosasaur
Mosasaur
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mosasaurs
Temporal range: Late Cretaceous, 94–66 Ma [1]
Mounted skeleton of a russellosaurine (Plesioplatecarpus planifrons)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Order: Squamata
Clade: †Mosasauria
Superfamily: †Mosasauroidea
Family: †Mosasauridae
Gervais, 1853
Subgroups

Mosasaurs (from Latin Mosa meaning the 'Meuse', and Greek σαύρος sauros meaning 'lizard') are an extinct group of large aquatic reptiles within the family Mosasauridae that lived during the Late Cretaceous. Their first fossil remains were discovered in a limestone quarry at Maastricht on the Meuse in 1764. They belong to the order Squamata, which includes lizards and snakes.

During the last 20 million years of the Cretaceous period (Turonian–Maastrichtian ages), with the extinction of the ichthyosaurs and pliosaurs, mosasaurids became the dominant marine predators. They themselves became extinct as a result of the K-Pg event at the end of the Cretaceous period, about 66 million years ago.

Description

[edit]
Life restoration of a mosasaur (Platecarpus tympaniticus) informed by fossil skin impressions

Mosasaurs breathed air, were powerful swimmers, and were well-adapted to living in the warm, shallow inland seas prevalent during the Late Cretaceous period. Mosasaurs were so well adapted to this environment that they most likely gave birth to live young, rather than returning to the shore to lay eggs as sea turtles do.[2]

The smallest-known mosasaur was Dallasaurus turneri, which was less than 1 m (3.3 ft) long. Larger mosasaurs were more typical, with many species growing longer than 4 m (13 ft). Mosasaurus hoffmannii, the largest known species reached up to 17 m (56 ft),[3] but it has been considered to be probably overestimated by Cleary et al. (2018).[4] .

Mosasaurs had a body shape similar to that of modern-day monitor lizards (varanids), but were more elongated and streamlined for swimming. Their limb bones were reduced in length and their paddles were formed by webbing between their long finger and toe bones. Their tails were broad and laterally compressed, terminating in a fluke-like structure that served as the primary source of propulsion.

Until recently, mosasaurs were assumed to have swum in a method similar to the one used today by conger eels and sea snakes, undulating their entire bodies from side to side. However, new evidence suggests that many advanced mosasaurs had large, crescent-shaped flukes on the ends of their tails, similar to those of sharks and some ichthyosaurs. Rather than use snake-like undulations, their bodies probably remained stiff to reduce drag through the water, while their tails provided strong propulsion.[5] These animals may have lurked and pounced rapidly and powerfully on passing prey, rather than chasing after it.[6] At least some species were also capable of aquaflight, flapping their flippers like sea lions.[7][8]

Early reconstructions showed mosasaurs with dorsal crests running the length of their bodies, which were based on misidentified remains of tracheal cartilage. By the time this error was discovered, depicting mosasaurs with such crests in artwork had already become a trend.[9][10]

Paleobiology

[edit]
Fossil shell of ammonite Placenticeras whitfieldi showing punctures caused by the bite of a mosasaur, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale
A tooth from a mosasaur

Mosasaurs had double-hinged jaws and flexible skulls (much like those of snakes), which enabled them to gulp down their prey almost whole. A skeleton of Tylosaurus proriger from South Dakota included remains of the flightless diving seabird Hesperornis, a marine bony fish, a possible shark, and another, smaller mosasaur (Clidastes). Mosasaur bones have also been found with shark teeth embedded in them.

One of the food items of mosasaurs were ammonites, molluscs with shells similar to those of Nautilus, which were abundant in the Cretaceous seas. Holes have been found in fossil shells of some ammonites, mainly Pachydiscus and Placenticeras. These were once interpreted as a result of limpets attaching themselves to the ammonites, but the triangular shape of the holes, their size, and their presence on both sides of the shells, corresponding to upper and lower jaws, is evidence of the bite of medium-sized mosasaurs. Whether this behaviour was common across all size classes of mosasaurs is not clear.

Virtually all forms were active predators of fish and ammonites; a few, such as Globidens, had blunt, spherical teeth, specialized for crushing mollusk shells. The smaller genera, such as Platecarpus and Dallasaurus, which were about 1-6 m (3¼-19⅔ ft) long, probably fed on fish and other small prey. The smaller mosasaurs may have spent some time in fresh water, hunting for food. Mosasaurus hoffmannii was the apex predator of the Late Cretaceous oceans, reaching 11 metres (36 ft) in length and 3.8 metric tons (4.2 short tons) in body mass.[11]

Soft tissue

[edit]
Scales of Tylosaurus proriger (KUVP-1075)

Despite the many mosasaur remains collected worldwide, knowledge of the nature of their skin coverings remains in its early stages. Few mosasaurid specimens collected from around the world retain fossilized scale imprints. This lack may be due to the delicate nature of the scales, which nearly eliminates the possibility of preservation, in addition to the preservation sediment types and the marine conditions under which the preservation occurred. Until the discovery of several mosasaur specimens with remarkably well-preserved scale imprints from late Maastrichtian deposits of the Muwaqqar Chalk Marl Formation of Harrana[12] in Jordan, knowledge of the nature of mosasaur integument was mainly based on very few accounts describing early mosasaur fossils dating back to the upper Santonian–lower Campanian, such as the famous Tylosaurus specimen (KUVP-1075) from Gove County, Kansas.[13]

Material from Jordan has shown that the bodies of mosasaurs, as well as the membranes between their fingers and toes, were covered with small, overlapping, diamond-shaped scales resembling those of snakes. Much like those of modern reptiles, mosasaur scales varied across the body in type and size. In Harrana specimens, two types of scales were observed on a single specimen: keeled scales covering the upper regions of the body and smooth scales covering the lower.[12] As ambush predators, lurking and quickly capturing prey using stealth tactics,[14] they may have benefited from the nonreflective, keeled scales.[12] Additionally, mosasaurs had large pectoral girdles, and such genera as Plotosaurus may have used their front flippers in a breaststroke motion to gain added bursts of speed during an attack on prey.[15]

Soft tissues in the head and neck of Platecarpus tympaniticus specimen LACM 128319: Tracheal rings are shown in the bottom three photographs.

More recently, a fossil of Platecarpus tympaniticus has been found that preserved not only skin impressions, but also internal organs. Several reddish areas in the fossil may represent the heart, lungs, and kidneys. The trachea is also preserved, along with part of what may be the retina in the eye. The placement of the kidneys is farther forward in the abdomen than it is in monitor lizards, and is more similar to those of cetaceans. As in cetaceans, the bronchi leading to the lungs run parallel to each other instead of splitting apart from one another as in monitors and other terrestrial reptiles. In mosasaurs, these features may be internal adaptations to fully marine lifestyles.[5]

Fibrous tissues and microstructures recovered from Prognathodon specimen IRSNB 1624

In 2011, collagen protein was recovered from a Prognathodon humerus dated to the Cretaceous.[16]

In 2005, a case study by A.S. Schulp, E.W.A Mulder, and K. Schwenk outlined the fact that mosasaurs had paired fenestrae in their palates. In monitor lizards and snakes, paired fenestrae are associated with a forked tongue, which is flicked in and out to detect chemical traces and provide a directional sense of smell. They therefore proposed that mosasaurs probably also had a sensitive forked tongue.[17]

Metabolism

[edit]

A study published in 2016 by T. Lyn Harrell, Alberto Pérez-Huerta and Celina Suarez showed that mosasaurs were endothermic. The study contradicted findings published in 2010 indicating mosasaurs were ectothermic. The 2010 study did not use warm-blooded animals for comparison but analogous groups of common marine animals. Based on comparisons with modern warm-blooded animals and fossils of known cold-blooded animals from the same time period, the 2016 study found mosasaurs likely had body temperatures similar to those of contemporary seabirds and were able to internally regulate their temperatures to remain warmer than the surrounding water.[18]

Coloration

[edit]

The coloration of mosasaurs was unknown until 2014, when the findings of Johan Lindgren of Lund University and colleagues revealed the pigment melanin in the fossilized scales of a mosasaur. Mosasaurs were likely countershaded, with dark backs and light underbellies, much like a great white shark or leatherback sea turtle, the latter of which had fossilized ancestors for which color was also determined. The findings were described in Nature.[19]

Teeth

[edit]

Mosasaurs possessed a thecodont dentiton, meaning that the roots were cemented deeply into the jaw bone. Mosasaurs did not use permanent teeth but instead constantly shed them. Replacement teeth developed within a pit inside the roots of the original tooth called the resorption pit. This is done through a distinctively unique eight-stage process. The first stage was characterized by the mineralization of a small tooth crown developed elsewhere that descended into the resorption pit by the second stage. In the third stage, the developing crown firmly cemented itself within the resorption pit and grew in size; by the fourth stage, it would be of the same size as the crown in the original tooth. Stages five and six were characterized by the development of the replacement tooth's root: in stage five the root developed vertically, and in stage six the root expanded in all directions to the point that the replacement tooth became exposed and actively pushed on the original tooth. In the seventh stage, the original tooth was shed and the now-independent replacement tooth began to anchor itself into the vacancy. In the eighth and final stage, the replacement tooth has grown to firmly anchor itself.[20]

Ontogeny and growth

[edit]

Mosasaur growth is not well understood, as specimens of juveniles are rare, and many were mistaken for hesperornithine birds when discovered 100 years ago. However, the discovery of several specimens of juvenile and neonate-sized mosasaurs unearthed more than a century ago indicate that mosasaurs gave birth to live young, and that they spent their early years of life out in the open ocean, not in sheltered nurseries or areas such as shallow water as previously believed. Whether mosasaurs provided parental care, like other marine reptiles such as plesiosaurs, is currently unknown. The discovery of young mosasaurs was published in the journal Palaeontology.[21]

Possible eggs

[edit]

A 2020 study published in Nature described a large fossilized hatched egg from Antarctica from the very end of the Cretaceous, about 68 million years ago. The egg is considered one of the largest amniote eggs ever known, rivalling that of the elephant bird, and due to its soft, thin, folded texture, it likely belonged to a marine animal. While the organism that produced it remains unknown, the egg's pore structure is very similar to that of extant lepidosaurs such as lizards and snakes, and presence of mosasaur fossils nearby indicates that it may have been a mosasaur egg. It is unknown whether the egg was laid on land or in the water. The egg was assigned to the newly described oospecies Antarcticoolithus bradyi.[22][23][24] However, it has been proposed that this egg belonged to a dinosaur.[25]

Environment

[edit]

Paleontologists compared the taxonomic diversity and patterns of morphological disparity in mosasaurs with sea level, sea surface temperature, and stable carbon isotope curves for the Upper Cretaceous to explore factors that may have influenced their evolution. No single factor unambiguously accounts for all radiations, diversification, and extinctions; however, the broader patterns of taxonomic diversification and morphological disparity point to niche differentiation in a "fishing up" scenario under the influence of "bottom-up" selective pressures. The most likely driving force in mosasaur evolution was high productivity in the Late Cretaceous, driven by tectonically controlled sea levels and climatically controlled ocean stratification and nutrient delivery. When productivity collapsed at the end of the Cretaceous, coincident with bolide impact, mosasaurs became extinct.[26]

Fossil jaw fragment of a mosasaurid reptile from Dolní Újezd by Litomyšl, Czech Republic

Sea levels were high during the Cretaceous period, causing marine transgressions in many parts of the world, and a great inland seaway in what is now North America. Mosasaur fossils have been found in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy[27] Bulgaria, the United Kingdom,[28][29] Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan,[30] Japan,[31] Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria,[32] Turkey,[33] Niger,[34][35] Angola, Morocco, Australia, New Zealand, and on Vega Island off the coast of Antarctica. Tooth taxon Globidens timorensis is known from the island of Timor; however, the phylogenetic placement of this species is uncertain and it might not even be a mosasaur.[36]

Mosasaurs have been found in Canada in Manitoba and Saskatchewan[37] and in much of the contiguous United States. Complete or partial specimens have been found in Alabama, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Georgia, as well as in states covered by the Cretaceous seaway: Texas, southwest Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas,[38] Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and the Pierre Shale/Fox Hills formations of North Dakota.[39] Lastly, mosasaur bones and teeth are also known from Colombia,[40] Brazil,[32] and Chile.[41]

Many of the so-called 'dinosaur' remains found on New Zealand are actually mosasaurs and plesiosaurs[citation needed], both being Mesozoic predatory marine reptiles.

The largest mosasaur currently on public display is Bruce, a 65–70%-complete specimen of Tylosaurus pembinensis dating from the late Cretaceous Period, approximately 80 million years ago, and measuring 13.05 m (42 ft 9.75 in) from nose tip to tail tip. Bruce was discovered in 1974 north of Thornhill, Manitoba, Canada, and resides at the nearby Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre in Morden, Manitoba. Bruce was awarded the Guinness Record for the largest mosasaur on public display in 2014.[42]

Discovery

[edit]
See also: Timeline of mosasaur research
The Mosasaurus hoffmannii skull found in Maastricht between 1770 and 1774

The first publicized discovery of a partial fossil mosasaur skull in 1764 by quarry workers in a subterranean gallery of a limestone quarry in Mount Saint Peter, near the Dutch city of Maastricht, preceded any major dinosaur fossil discoveries, but remained little known. However, a second find of a partial skull drew the Age of Enlightenment's attention to the existence of fossilized animals that were different from any known living creatures. When the specimen was discovered between 1770 and 1774, Johann Leonard Hoffmann, a surgeon and fossil collector, corresponded about it with the most influential scientists of his day, making the fossil famous. The original owner, though, was Godding, a canon of Maastricht cathedral.

When the French revolutionary forces occupied Maastricht in 1794, the carefully hidden fossil was uncovered, after a reward, it is said, of 600 bottles of wine, and transported to Paris. After it had been earlier interpreted as a fish, a crocodile, and a sperm whale, the first to understand its lizard affinities was the Dutch scientist Adriaan Gilles Camper in 1799. In 1808, Georges Cuvier confirmed this conclusion, although le Grand Animal fossile de Maëstricht was not actually named Mosasaurus ('Meuse reptile') until 1822 and not given its full species name, Mosasaurus hoffmannii, until 1829. Several sets of mosasaur remains, which had been discovered earlier at Maastricht but were not identified as mosasaurs until the 19th century, have been on display in the Teylers Museum, Haarlem, procured from 1790.

The Maastricht limestone beds were rendered so famous by the mosasaur discovery, they have given their name to the final six-million-year epoch of the Cretaceous, the Maastrichtian.

Classification

[edit]

Relationship with modern squamates

[edit]
Scientists continue to debate on whether monitor lizards (left) or snakes (right) are the closest living relatives of mosasaurs.
See also: Mosasauria § Relation with snakes or monitor lizards

Lower classifications

[edit]
Restoration of Opetiosaurus bucchichi, a basal mosasauroid
Life restoration of a mosasaurine, Globidens alabamaensis
Life restoration of a mosasaurine, Plotosaurus bennisoni
Restoration of a tylosaurine, Tylosaurus pembinensis

The traditional view of mosasaur evolution held that all paddle-limbed (hydropedal) mosasaurs originated from a single common ancestor with functional legs (plesiopedal). However, this was shaken with the discovery of Dallasaurus, a plesiopedal mosasauroid more closely related to the Mosasaurinae than other mosasaurs. Bell and Polycn (2005) grouped these outside mosasaurs into two clades: the Russellosaurina, whose basal members include plesiopedal genera (Tethysaurinae) of their own and derived members consisting of the Plioplatecarpinae and Tylosaurinae; and the Halisauromorpha, containing the Halisaurinae. The placement of Dallasaurus suggested that the Russellosaurina and Halisauromorpha may have evolved a hydropedal form independently, the former through the tethysaurines, meaning that their placement within the Mosasauridae creates an unnatural polyphyly and thus potentially invalid.[43][44] Caldwell informally proposed in a 2012 publication that the definition of a mosasaur must thus be redefined into one that does not consider russellosaurines and halisauromorphs as true mosasaurs, but as an independent group of marine lizards.[44]

However, phylogenetic studies of mosasaurs can be fickle, especially when wildcard taxa like Dallasaurus remain poorly understood. For example, some studies such as a 2009 analysis by Dutchak and Caldwell instead found that Dallasaurus was ancestral to both russellosaurines and mosasaurines,[45] although results were inconsistent in later studies.[46] A 2017 study by Simoes et al. noted that utilization of different methods of phylogenetic analyses can yield different findings and ultimately found an indication that tethysaurines were a case of hydropedal mosasaurs reversing back to a plesiopedal condition rather than an independent ancestral feature.[46]

The following cladograms illustrate the two views of mosasaur evolution. Topology A follows an ancestral state reconstruction from an implied weighted maximum parsimony tree by Simoes et al. (2017), which contextualizes a single marine origin with tethysaurine reversal.[46] Topologies B and C illustrate the multiple-origins hypothesis of hydropedality; the former follows Makádi et al. (2012),[47] while the latter follows a PhD dissertation by Mekarski (2017) that experimentally includes dolichosaur and poorly-represented aigialosaur taxa.[48] Placement of major group names follow definitions by Madzia and Cau (2017).[49]

Topology A:
Ancestral state reconstruction by Simoes et al. (2017)


  Iliac crest attached to sacral ribs
  Free-standing iliac crest
  Ambiguous state
Topology B:
Strict consensus of maximum parsimony by Makádi et al. (2012)


  Plesiopedal and plesiopelvic taxa
  Plesiopedal and hydropelvic taxa
  Hydropedal and hydropelvic taxa
  Taxa with unknown limb structure
Topology C:
Maximum clade credibility tree by Mekarski (2017)


  'Dolichosaur' taxa
  'Aigialosaur' taxa
  Mosasaur taxa


Phylogeny

[edit]
See also: List of mosasaurs

The following diagram illustrates simplified phylogenies of the three major mosasaur groups as recovered by Strong et al. (2020), Longrich et al. (2021), and Longrich et al. (2022).

Russellosaurina
Implied weighting maximum parsimony by Strong et al. (2020)[50]
Russellosaurina
Halisaurinae
Strict consensus of maximum parsimony by Longrich et al., (2021)[51]
Halisaurinae
Mosasaurinae
Maximum parsimony by Longrich et al. (2022)[52]
Mosasaurinae


Distribution

[edit]
Main article: List of mosasaur-bearing stratigraphic units

Though no individual genus or subfamily is found worldwide, the Mosasauridae as a whole achieved global distribution during the Late Cretaceous with many locations typically having complex mosasaur faunas with multiple different genera and species in different ecological niches.

Two African countries are particularly rich in mosasaurs: Morocco[53] and Angola.[54][55]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mosasaur

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mosasaurs were an extinct group of large marine squamate reptiles belonging to the family Mosasauridae, which dominated as apex predators in global oceans during the period, from about 98 to 66 million years ago. Characterized by their elongated, streamlined bodies, powerful laterally flattened tails for propulsion, and limbs modified into paddle-like flippers, mosasaurs ranged in size from small forms around 3 meters long to gigantic species exceeding 15 meters, such as Tylosaurus proriger and . These secondarily aquatic lizards evolved from terrestrial ancestors within the order, rapidly diversifying into over 40 genera that adapted to a fully pelagic lifestyle, with conical or serrated teeth suited for grasping slippery prey like , , ammonites, seabirds, and even other marine reptiles including smaller mosasaurs. Fossils of mosasaurs have been found worldwide, particularly in rock formations like the in , revealing their role in complex marine food webs before their abrupt during the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary event, likely triggered by the Chicxulub asteroid impact. Paleontological research continues to uncover details of their biology, including evidence from exceptional fossils showing viviparous reproduction and possible ecomorphological convergence, where multiple lineages independently evolved similar giant sizes and adaptations.

Description

General morphology

The term "mosasaur" derives from the genus name Mosasaurus, coined in 1822 by English geologist William Daniel Conybeare, combining the Latin Mosa (referring to the River in the , near the site of the first discoveries in the late ) and the Greek sauros (). Mosasaurs exhibited a highly derived as large, fully aquatic squamate reptiles, characterized by elongated snouts, streamlined torsos, four paddle-like limbs, and a powerful, laterally compressed tail fluke that facilitated efficient undulatory propulsion in marine environments. Their overall anatomy reflected adaptations from terrestrial varanoid ancestors, with modifications emphasizing hydrodynamic efficiency and maneuverability. The skull was robust and kinetic, featuring large orbits for enhanced , a mobile that allowed extensive jaw depression for prey capture, and marginal consisting of conical or posteriorly recurved teeth with smooth or serrated carinae suited to grasping elusive aquatic prey. The palatal complex was tightly integrated in many taxa, providing during forceful bites. Postcranially, mosasaurs possessed an extensive vertebral column comprising 200–400 vertebrae, enabling lateral flexibility for tail-powered swimming, along with that reinforced the abdominal wall against hydrostatic pressures. The limbs were transformed into broad, flipper-like appendages with hyperphalangy—increased phalangeal count in the autopodia—to maximize thrust and steering, while the and retained robust proximal elements for muscular attachment. Body proportions varied among major clades, reflecting ecological specializations; for instance, tylosaurines (e.g., ) displayed proportionally longer snouts and more slender, anguilliform bodies suited to open-water pursuits, whereas plioplatecarpines (e.g., Plioplatecarpus) had shorter snouts, deeper trunks, and more robust flippers indicative of agile, near-shore predation. impressions from exceptional fossils reveal similar to modern , supporting their squamate affinities.

Size and variation

Mosasauroids exhibited a wide range of body sizes, from diminutive early forms to gigantic apex predators. The smallest known species, Dallasaurus turneri, reached a total length of less than 1 meter, based on the nearly complete holotype from the Middle Turonian of . In contrast, the largest species, Mosasaurus hoffmannii, attained lengths of up to 17 meters and masses of 10-15 metric tons, as estimated from a partial including a massive quadrate and vertebrae from the of . These extremes highlight the group's evolutionary expansion in size disparity during the . Length estimates for mosasaurs are typically derived from vertebral counts and proportional scaling from dimensions, with complete skeletons providing baselines for incomplete specimens. Most genera feature around 7 , 50-80 dorsal vertebrae, and 40-60 caudal vertebrae, allowing approximations where total length is roughly 10-12 times the length for larger like Mosasaurus. For example, a 1.5-meter in M. hoffmannii scales to a 15-18 meter body using these ratios, corroborated by associated postcranial elements. Morphological variations among mosasaur species included differences in snout length and body depth, reflecting adaptations to diverse niches. Short-snouted forms like had robust, conical snouts suited for powerful bites on hard prey, contrasting with the elongated, slender snouts of , which extended well beyond the jawline for ramming or grasping. Body depth also varied; species such as possessed deep, barrel-shaped rib cages that enhanced buoyancy and stability in open water, while more slender builds in genera like Platecarpus suggested greater agility in coastal environments. Evidence for comes from comparative analyses of specimens, revealing robust versus slender builds within the same species. In Pluridens serpentis, larger individuals exhibit massively reinforced dentaries, interpreted as male traits under , while smaller, more gracile forms likely represent females. Similar patterns in vertebral robustness and limb proportions across populations indicate dimorphic differences in body mass and strength. Intraspecific variation is evident in fossil populations, with regional differences in vertebral dimensions and bone compactness. For instance, specimens from the show variations in centrum height and process length between North American and European finds, possibly reflecting local environmental influences on growth. High variability in rib further suggests individual or population-level adaptations in buoyancy control.

Paleobiology

Physiology and metabolism

Mosasaur physiology is inferred primarily from bone microstructure, stable isotope analysis, and rare soft-tissue preservation, revealing adaptations suited to a fully aquatic lifestyle. Bone histology of mosasaurs, such as fibrolamellar bone tissue with high vascular density and parallel-fibered matrix, indicates rapid growth rates comparable to those of extant endothermic or mesothermic vertebrates like tuna, suggesting elevated metabolic rates beyond those of typical ectothermic reptiles. Stable oxygen isotope ratios in mosasaur tooth enamel further support partial endothermy or effective thermoregulation, with body temperatures estimated 5–10°C higher than ambient seawater, enabling activity in cooler marine environments. These metabolic traits likely facilitated sustained swimming and predation in diverse oceanic habitats, though not full homeothermy as in mammals. Fossil skin impressions preserve evidence of pigmentation patterns, with melanophores indicating a dark dorsal surface and lighter ventral side for countershading camouflage in open water. In Prognathodon fossils from the Maastrichtian of Jordan, preserved eumelanosomes—spindle-shaped organelles rich in melanin—confirm this dorsoventrally countershaded coloration, similar to modern sharks and dolphins, which would have reduced visibility to prey and predators from above or below. Such pigmentation likely aided in crypsis during ambush hunting in well-lit surface waters. Soft-tissue evidence includes skin impressions showing small, overlapping, across the body, forming a low-drag akin to that of varanid but more streamlined for aquatic . In and other taxa, these , measuring about 1–2 mm in length, covered the flanks and , potentially channeling flow to enhance hydrodynamic efficiency without the need for larger osteoderms. Possible cartilage preservation in flippers is suggested by exceptional fossils like that of Carinodens, where soft-tissue outlines imply flexible, cartilaginous elements supporting the paddle-like limbs for fine maneuvering. is confirmed by the discovery of a near-term positioned tail-first in the body cavity of a mosasauroid specimen, indicating live birth without eggshells, an preventing of offspring in a marine environment. The respiratory system appears adapted for extended submersion, with inferred lung structures supporting dives lasting minutes to hours based on body size and oxygen storage capacity. Vertebral morphology, including elongated centra and possible pneumatic foramina in some taxa, hints at diverticula or air-filled extensions from the lungs that may have aided buoyancy control during prolonged underwater foraging, though direct evidence of air sacs remains elusive. Sensory is evidenced by enlarged endocranial cavities in mosasaur skulls, with expanded olfactory bulbs and peduncles indicating a strong for detecting prey in turbid or deep waters. Virtual reconstructions of Tethysaurus brains reveal optic lobes and tecta proportionally larger than in basal squamates, suggesting acute for and targeting fast-moving fish or ammonites, compensating for the aquatic medium's of . These neural adaptations underscore mosasaurs' role as active visual and chemosensory hunters in pelagic ecosystems.

Locomotion and sensory systems

Mosasaur locomotion relied primarily on axial undulation, with the tail serving as the main propulsive organ through lateral oscillations of a hypocercal, bilobed . Fossilized soft tissues in holtzwi reveal a crescent-shaped caudal with a downturned ventral lobe and lepidotrichia-supported rays, enabling efficient thrust generation akin to that in modern lamniform sharks, reducing drag and enhancing hydrodynamic performance during . The paired limbs, evolved into flippers, provided , lift, and fine control rather than primary ; forelimbs were typically larger and more robust than hindlimbs, functioning as hydrofoils to generate lateral forces for turning and stability, as evidenced by articulated forelimb skeletons in taxa like Platecarpus showing hyperphalangy and broadened phalanges for increased surface area. Hydrodynamic modeling of body form and indicates burst speeds up to 30–40 km/h for predatory pursuits, though sustained cruising was slower at around 2–3 m/s, limited by anguilliform to carangiform modes in most species. Sensory adaptations complemented these locomotory capabilities, facilitating prey detection in turbid or deep-water environments. Computed of the rostrum in antarcticus uncovers a dense network of branched neurovascular canals innervated by the , suggesting a heightened sensory array possibly for electroreception or mechanoreception via ampullae-like structures, enabling detection of bioelectric fields from hidden prey similar to those in crocodilians. Orbit orientation in several taxa, notably the forward-facing eyes of ponpetelegans with a binocular estimated at 35°, implies stereoscopic vision for precise during close-range hunting, diverging from the lateral orbits typical in more basal squamates. Buoyancy control was achieved through anatomical features allowing without constant swimming effort. Body cavity dimensions in well-preserved skeletons, such as those of , indicate space for an enlarged liver and paired lungs, which could be adjusted via respiratory mechanics to regulate trim and depth, akin to modern and aiding energy-efficient hovering or diving. Locomotory strategies varied among mosasaur taxa, reflecting ecological niches. Short-bodied forms like , with compact trunks and powerful tails, excelled as ambush predators using explosive bursts for short-distance attacks in coastal shallows. In contrast, long-bodied pursuit predators such as , featuring elongated pre-caudal regions and streamlined profiles, sustained higher speeds over open-water chases, supported by enhanced axial musculature and tail depth.

Diet and feeding mechanics

Mosasaur diets were predominantly carnivorous, encompassing a range of prey from soft-bodied organisms to hard-shelled invertebrates, as evidenced by direct fossil evidence and biomechanical analyses of dental structures. Piscivorous habits dominated in many taxa, with gut contents and coprolites revealing fish scales, bones, and semi-digested remains in species like Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus, indicating frequent predation on teleosts and elasmobranchs. Teuthophagous feeding on cephalopods, such as squid and small ammonites, is supported by conical tooth punctures on belemnite guards and ammonite shells, while durophagous specialists like Globidens and Carinodens targeted bivalves, turtles, and larger ammonites, as shown by associated stomach contents including crushed shell fragments in Globidens specimens from the Pierre Shale. A newly described species, Carinodens acrodon from the Maastrichtian of Morocco (as of 2025), further exemplifies durophagous adaptations with specialized teeth for crunching hard-shelled invertebrates. Three-dimensional dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA) of Maastrichtian mosasaurs further delineates broad dietary categories: one group focused on soft prey like fish and squid (e.g., Mosasaurus hoffmannii, Tylosaurus spp.), another on harder items (e.g., Globidens dakotensis), and a mixed group (e.g., Prognathodon spp.), though without strict partitioning among co-occurring species. Tooth morphology in mosasaurs was adapted for prey capture and processing, with most taxa featuring robust, conical marginal teeth suited for piercing and holding slippery prey like fish, as seen in the recurved, serrated crowns of and . In contrast, globidensine mosasaurs evolved specialized crushing dentition, including bulbous, low-crowned molars and rounded posterior teeth in and Carinodens, capable of exerting sufficient force to fracture shells of molluscs and arthropods, as demonstrated by experimental biomechanical tests on Carinodens jaw replicas. Tooth replacement was continuous and rapid, inferred from histological sections showing incremental growth lines in dentine and resorption pits at tooth bases in Clidastes propython and , with formation rates estimated at several weeks per tooth to maintain functional dentition despite wear from hard prey. Jaw mechanics facilitated versatile feeding, with a kinetic skull enabling streptostylic movement of the quadrate and intramembranous flexibility in the palate and suspensorium, allowing a wide gape for engulfing large prey relative to head size. In Plotosaurus bennisoni, this kinesis supported rapid jaw opening and closure, enhancing ambush predation on agile . Bite force estimates, derived from finite element analysis and lever arm models, indicate posterior forces exceeding 10,000 N in medium-sized taxa like the Miocene Zancleothys varolai, scaling to 10,000–20,000 N in larger species such as Mosasaurus hoffmannii based on adductor muscle reconstructions and robusticity. Tooth bending strength measurements from the confirm dietary specialization, with higher resistance to lateral forces in durophagous Globidens compared to piercing-adapted Mosasaurus. Feeding strategies included opportunistic predation and scavenging, with evidence of intraspecific from gut contents preserving partial skeletons of conspecifics and other mosasaurs. A Prognathodon kianda specimen from contains three dismembered juvenile mosasaurs (including one P. kianda and two other taxa), with bite marks and partial digestion indicating active predation rather than scavenging, representing the first confirmed in mosasaurs and highlighting tolerance for large, prey up to 57% of body length. Niche partitioning among sympatric species is suggested by complementary dental adaptations and microwear signatures, such as Globidens exploiting benthic while Tylosaurus targeted , reducing competition in diverse assemblages like those of the . Gastric digestion was highly acidic, inferred from the partial dissolution of prey remains in preserved gut contents, where smaller bones exhibit erosion pits and demineralization consistent with strong hydrochloric acid secretion. In the Prognathodon kianda specimen, ingested mosasaur bones show varying degrees of breakdown, with softer tissues fully digested and harder elements retaining structure, supporting efficient processing of diverse, high-protein meals in a marine endothermic metabolism.

Reproduction and growth

Fossil evidence indicates that mosasaurs were viviparous, giving birth to live young rather than laying eggs. The most direct proof comes from a gravid Carsosaurus specimen from the of , which contains at least four partial embryos preserved within its , positioned tail-first relative to the mother. These embryos were in an advanced developmental stage with well-ossified skeletons, mirroring the birthing orientation in extant viviparous to facilitate underwater delivery. Additional evidence includes a gravid Plioplatecarpus specimen from the of , apparently containing multiple embryos. The relative size of the neonates (approximately 12–15% of maternal body length) further supports , as it precludes the possibility of egg-laying in a fully aquatic lifestyle. Additional evidence for live birth derives from clusters of neonatal mosasaur fossils, including a partial Platecarpus skeleton, recovered from a single horizon in the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Chalk of . These specimens, all around 1 m in total length, exhibit perinatal features such as open neurocentral sutures and unerupted replacement teeth, confirming their newborn status. The co-occurrence of multiple neonates in an open-ocean deposit suggests that mosasaur mothers gave birth in pelagic settings, with offspring exhibiting precocial traits like immediate swimming capability and offshore dispersal. Clutch sizes are inferred to be relatively small, with at least four offspring documented in the Carsosaurus case, though comparisons to modern viviparous squamates suggest variability up to around 20 in larger species. Mosasaurs displayed determinate growth patterns, with rapid early ontogeny transitioning to slower rates in adulthood. Histological examination of long bones from species like Clidastes and Tylosaurus reveals dense vascularization and large osteocyte lacunae, indicative of elevated metabolic rates and fast tissue deposition during juvenility. Lines of arrested growth (LAGs) are infrequent or absent in juvenile femora and humeri, pointing to near-continuous accretion without pronounced seasonal pauses, unlike many extant reptiles. Quantitative estimates from bone apposition rates show juvenile growth exceeding 1.5–1.7 μm per day, translating to substantial somatic increases—potentially up to 50 cm annually in early years—far surpassing those of modern lizards. In adults, LAGs become more prominent, marking a deceleration phase that aligns with sauropsid growth trajectories. Sexual maturity likely occurred after 5–7 years, coinciding with the onset of LAGs in limb elements and a shift to indeterminate but subdued growth. bonebeds with size-frequency clusters support this timeline, showing individuals around 4–6 m in length transitioning to morphologies and behaviors. periods are estimated at 6–12 months based on embryonic development stages and annual growth ring counts in related squamate analogs, though direct mosasaur data remain limited. Rare fossil structures potentially linked to mosasaur eggs, such as those associated with Carinatemys turtles in deposits, have been proposed but are debated as likely non-mosasaurian, given the overwhelming evidence for .

Habitats and environments

Mosasauroids primarily occupied epicontinental seas and marginal marine environments during the , with the of and the serving as key habitats. These settings featured shallow, warm waters, where sea surface temperatures typically ranged from 25°C to 38°C, supporting high biological productivity. High global sea levels, driven by tectonic activity and expansion, facilitated widespread marine transgressions that expanded these shallow seas across continental interiors. Paleoceanographic conditions in these habitats were characterized by nutrient-rich zones, particularly along continental margins and within the seaways, which enhanced primary productivity and sustained diverse marine ecosystems. Mosasauroids are frequently associated with and formations, such as the Niobrara Chalk of the , reflecting deposition in clear, carbonate-rich neritic waters. Their preferred depth ranges were predominantly neritic, from 0 to 200 meters, though for example, Plioplatecarpus showed affinities for shallower environments, whereas and Platecarpus preferred deeper waters, based on rare earth element signatures in fossils. During the and stages, mosasauroid habitats experienced dynamic shifts due to eustatic sea-level fluctuations, including regressions that occasionally constricted seaway connectivity and altered local conditions. for euryhaline tolerances comes from taxa like Pannoniasaurus inexpectatus, whose fossils occur in brackish to freshwater deposits of the Tethys region, suggesting adaptability to varying salinities. Abiotic factors, such as oxygen levels, were inferred from associated like and invertebrates thriving in these productive but potentially stratified waters, with promoting oxygenation in surface layers while deeper zones may have been more anoxic.

Distribution and biogeography

Mosasaur fossils are known exclusively from marine deposits, spanning from the stage approximately 92 million years ago to the end of the stage at 66 million years ago. Their diversity peaked during the mid- to late , with the highest number of genera and species recorded in this interval, reflecting a global radiation of these marine squamates shortly before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction. Geographically, mosasaurs achieved a nearly cosmopolitan distribution, with remains reported from every continent, including high-latitude sites in , though no unequivocal freshwater occurrences are known. Fossil-bearing localities are concentrated in epicontinental seas and marginal marine environments of the time, with major assemblages from North America's , including the Niobrara Chalk of and the Eagle Ford Group of , which have yielded exceptionally preserved skeletons of genera such as Tylosaurus and Platecarpus. In , the Maastricht Formation of the has produced iconic specimens, while Africa's phosphates of host diverse faunas including Hainosaurus and . South American records, such as Yaguarasaurus columbianus from the Turonian Villegas Formation of , indicate early incursions into tropical western margins of the continent. Faunal provincialism is evident between the Western Interior Seaway and the Tethys Ocean, where distinct assemblages reflect geographic barriers like emerging landmasses, yet shared taxa such as Mosasaurus and Prognathodon across the Atlantic suggest episodic transoceanic dispersal via surface currents. Endemic forms highlight regional differentiation, including the high-latitude Kaikaifilu hervei from the Maastrichtian López de Bertodano Formation on Seymour Island, Antarctica, representing adaptation to polar waters. Recent discoveries, such as Jormungandr walhallaensis from the Campanian Pembina Member of the Pierre Shale in North Dakota, further illustrate localized diversity within the Western Interior. Preservation biases contribute to apparent abundance in certain regions, with lagerstätten like the Niobrara Chalk providing articulated skeletons due to rapid burial in oxygen-poor, chalky sediments that minimized disarticulation and scavenging.

Ecological roles and interactions

Mosasaurids occupied the niche in marine ecosystems, preying on a diverse array of organisms including , , seabirds, smaller marine reptiles, and cephalopods such as ammonites and nautiloids. Evidence for this role includes fossilized stomach contents and coprolites containing remains of and shelled cephalopods, as well as bite marks on shells and ammonite body chambers that match the conical teeth of mosasaurs like and . These interactions positioned mosasaurs at the top of food chains, where they regulated prey populations and exerted top-down control on community structure. Competition with other large marine vertebrates shaped mosasaur ecology, particularly with contemporaneous plesiosaurs and sharks, while earlier overlap with declining ichthyosaurs likely influenced initial diversification. Niche partitioning occurred through differences in body size, prey preferences, and foraging strategies; for instance, larger mosasaurs like Tylosaurus targeted high-mobility prey such as fish and smaller reptiles, whereas some plesiosaurs specialized in cephalopods or benthic organisms, reducing direct overlap. Sharks, including Cretoxyrhina, competed for similar mid-to-upper trophic prey like fish and smaller tetrapods, but mosasaurs' versatility in coastal and open-ocean habitats allowed them to dominate as ichthyosaurs and many pliosaurids waned. This competitive dynamic contributed to rapid mosasaur ecomorphological disparity during the Campanian stage. Stable isotope analyses of mosasaur confirm their occupation of high trophic levels as carnivores, with δ¹³C values often depleted in larger taxa (ranging from -12‰ to -18‰) indicating offshore on lipid-rich prey. These signatures align with those of modern apex predators like killer whales, underscoring mosasaurs' role in sustaining ecosystem balance via predation pressure. Bonebed accumulations of mosasaur remains suggest locally high population densities, potentially from gregarious schooling or catastrophic mortalities due to environmental like storms. Traumatic pathologies on cranial elements, including healed fractures and bite scars, further indicate intraspecific consistent with social interactions in dense groups. Indirect interactions included bioerosion of shells through feeding activities, where shell-crushing mosasaurs like Globidens fragmented ammonite and bivalve exoskeletons, contributing to post-mortem shell degradation and nutrient cycling in benthic environments. Such damage, observed as puncture and shear marks on cephalopod shells, enhanced decomposition rates and influenced shell accumulation in sedimentary records.

Evolutionary history

Origins and early evolution

Mosasauroids originated from semi-aquatic squamate ancestors within the Aigialosauridae, a group of basal anguimorph that exhibited transitional morphologies between terrestrial varanoids and fully aquatic forms during the early . Aigialosaurs, such as Aigialosaurus bucchichi, possessed elongated bodies, shortened limbs with webbed digits, and adaptations for near-shore marine life, marking the initial shift from terrestrial habitats around 90 million years ago in the stage. These basal forms represent the ancestral lineage to mosasaurs, with phylogenetic analyses placing them as the to more derived mosasauroids. The earliest known mosasauroids appear in the fossil record during the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, approximately 98-92 million years ago, with transitional taxa like Haasiasaurus gittelmani from documenting the initial aquatic invasion. Haasiasaurus, dated to about 98 Ma, features primitive cranial features and limb structures indicative of semi-aquatic locomotion, bridging aigialosaurs and later mosasaurs. Subsequent early forms, such as Tethysaurus nopscai from (~92 Ma), exhibit key innovations including further limb reduction toward paddle-like appendages, enhanced tail flukes for propulsion, and body elongation for streamlined swimming. In , turneri from (~92 Ma) represents another basal mosasauroid with retained terrestrial limb capabilities, such as functional claws and joint mobility, highlighting a where swimming adaptations coexisted with partial land affinity. Evolutionary drivers for this transition included widespread marine transgressions during the mid-Cretaceous, which expanded shallow coastal and epicontinental seaways, creating unoccupied niches following the decline of ichthyosaurs after the Cenomanian-Turonian oceanic anoxic event. This event, around 94-90 Ma, disrupted marine ecosystems and facilitated the rapid radiation of mosasauroids into these environments. Basal taxa like Tethysaurus and had less specialized skulls compared to later mosasaurs, with shorter snouts, conical teeth for grasping and soft-bodied prey, and robust quadrates suited for versatile feeding in near-shore habitats. The early evolutionary record of mosasaurs remains incomplete due to preservation biases, as Cenomanian-Turonian deposits are often anoxic and favor soft-tissue decay over skeletal fossilization, resulting in few articulated specimens from this interval. Gaps in the fossil sequence, particularly between aigialosaurs and definitive mosasaurs, underscore the challenges in tracing fine-scale transitions, though available evidence points to a rapid adaptation phase in Tethyan and Western Interior seaways.

Diversification and adaptations

Mosasaurid diversity reached its zenith during the Maastrichtian stage of the Late Cretaceous, with over 40 genera recognized across global marine deposits, reflecting a profound adaptive radiation that filled a wide array of ecological niches in the world's oceans. This peak in generic richness, building from earlier Campanian expansions, saw mosasaurs dominate as apex predators in epicontinental seas and open oceans, with subclades exhibiting specialized traits that partitioned resources. Within the Mosasaurinae, genera such as Globidens evolved durophagous dentition characterized by robust, bulbous teeth adapted for crushing hard-shelled prey like turtles and ammonites, enabling exploitation of benthic and shelly faunas unavailable to other marine reptiles. In contrast, the Tylosaurinae, including Tylosaurus, featured slender snouts and conical, recurved teeth suited to piscivory, targeting schools of fish and softer-bodied cephalopods in pelagic environments. Morphological adaptations among mosasaurs showed remarkable convergence with earlier marine reptiles like ichthyosaurs, particularly in the evolution of a fusiform body plan with a streamlined torso, reduced limbs transformed into flippers, and a powerful, vertically oriented tail fluke for efficient thunniform swimming. This hydrodynamic form, achieved independently by squamates, facilitated high-speed pursuits across vast oceanic distances, mirroring the body architecture of Mesozoic ichthyosaurs despite their distant phylogenetic origins. Ecomorphological disparity was pronounced in cranial and appendicular features; snout shapes varied from elongate and narrow in offshore predators to robust and short in nearshore ambush hunters, while limb proportions ranged from elongate paddles in basal forms to compact, high-aspect-ratio flippers in advanced taxa, correlating with habitat-specific locomotor demands and foraging strategies. Such variations underscore the clade's versatility in partitioning trophic levels, from durophagous benthic feeding to piscivorous open-water hunting. Recent phylogenetic studies as of 2024, including the description of Jormungandr walhallaensis, further support convergent evolution of gigantism across mosasaur lineages. The drivers of this diversification included eustatic sea-level fluctuations that expanded shallow epicontinental seaways, creating fragmented habitats conducive to as populations were isolated by emerging land barriers and oceanic currents. Enhanced prey availability, fueled by high marine productivity from nutrient in these dynamic basins, further promoted niche specialization, with cooling climates and tectonic activity amplifying regional across Tethyan and proto-Atlantic seaways. Key evolutionary events marked this radiation, including the invasion of high-latitude polar regions during the late and , evidenced by diverse mosasaur assemblages from Arctic localities like in , where taxa adapted to prolonged twilight and cooler waters through inferred ectothermic or regional endothermic strategies. Body size trends followed , with lineages exhibiting directional increase in maximum length—from less than 1 meter in the smallest basal forms to around 3 meters in early taxa, increasing to over 15 meters in giants like Mosasaurus and Tylosaurus—driven by competitive pressures and abundant resources that favored larger body plans for enhanced predatory efficiency. Despite these advances, mosasaur faunas from and the remain understudied, with fragmentary records from Patagonian formations and sparse Indo-Pacific sites like those in and hinting at untapped endemic diversity that could reveal additional adaptive innovations in isolated marginal seas.

and other mosasaurs abruptly disappeared approximately 66 million years ago at the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary, marking the end of the stage of the . This coincided with the Chicxulub asteroid impact in the and the ongoing massive eruptions of the in present-day , which together triggered profound global environmental changes. Fossil evidence indicates that mosasaurs persisted until the very latest , with well-preserved specimens from formations such as the New Egypt Formation in representing some of the stratigraphically highest records in . No mosasaur fossils have been confirmed in (early ) strata worldwide, confirming their complete extinction at the boundary. While direct associations of mosasaur bonebeds with the iridium-enriched clay layer— a hallmark of the K-Pg impact—are rare, the abrupt termination of mosasaur-bearing horizons below this layer in multiple global sites underscores the synchrony of their demise with the broader mass extinction. The primary causal factors for mosasaur extinction involved the catastrophic disruption of marine ecosystems, driven by from aerosols and dust lofted by the impact, as well as emissions from Deccan . This induced an "" lasting months to years, severely inhibiting sunlight penetration and causing a collapse in productivity—the base of the oceanic . As declined, so did populations of planktivorous and , triggering a that starved higher-level predators like mosasaurs, which depended on this rich for sustenance. Larger mosasaur species appear to have been disproportionately affected, likely owing to their elevated requirements and specialization as apex predators in a productivity-starved ; smaller-bodied taxa may have fared marginally better but still succumbed. Hypotheses proposing in deep-sea refugia, where conditions might have been less perturbed, remain untested due to limited sampling in such environments. In the aftermath, the disappearance of mosasaurs created an ecological vacuum at the top of marine food webs, with no immediate replacements among reptiles. This niche was gradually filled by archaic whales, such as Basilosaurus, emerging as dominant predators in the late Paleocene and Eocene, alongside the radiation of modern shark lineages that diversified to exploit the vacated roles.

Classification

Higher-level relationships

Mosasauria represents a derived within the order Squamata, the group encompassing modern and snakes, with its higher-level phylogenetic relationships remaining a subject of ongoing debate among paleontologists. Morphological analyses frequently position Mosasauria as basal members of , a major squamate subgroup that includes anguids (such as slow worms and glass lizards) and varanids (monitor lizards), rather than as close relatives of snakes (Serpentes). Alternative hypotheses, based on combined morphological and molecular data, suggest Mosasauria as the to snakes, implying a shared aquatic ancestry for these lineages, though this view has been challenged by evidence favoring terrestrial origins for serpents. estimates indicate that the divergence of Mosasauria from other squamate lineages occurred approximately 100–120 million years ago during the , aligning with the emergence of stem-mosasauroid forms in marine environments. Within , Mosasauria has been allied with , a superfamily that includes extant monitor lizards (genus Varanus), based on shared osteological features such as robust and elongated body plans adapted for predatory lifestyles. These affinities are supported by similarities in sensory structures, including potential evidence for forked tongues— a trait prominent in varanids for chemosensory detection via the —though direct preservation of soft tissues in mosasaurs remains elusive, leading to inferences from skeletal correlates like expanded choanal regions. Additionally, both groups exhibit traits suggestive of delivery potential, such as grooved marginal teeth, which may have facilitated in a manner akin to modern venomous monitors, though unequivocal evidence for functional venom glands in mosasaurs is lacking. The aquatic adaptations of mosasaurs parallel those seen in the evolutionary transition to snakes, particularly in the progressive limb reduction and elongation of the that facilitated undulatory . This convergence is exemplified by dolichosaurs, a group of semi-aquatic squamates from the , which mirrored early stages of mosasaur limb loss and body streamlining, suggesting repeated selective pressures for marine lifestyles within . A key controversy surrounds the hypothesis, which posits that mosasaurs, along with anguimorphs and advanced (such as colubroids and viperids), belong to a monophyletic characterized by ancestral systems derived from modified salivary glands. Proponents argue that morphological signals linking Mosasauria to these venomous lineages support inclusion in , potentially explaining shared dental specializations, while critics highlight inconsistencies with molecular phylogenies that place mosasaurs outside this group, emphasizing instead their anguimorph affinities. Fossil evidence bolstering these squamate origins includes transitional taxa like Adriosaurus, a small, lizard-like reptile from the of , which exhibits a of primitive squamate features (such as well-developed limbs) and derived traits (like an elongated trunk) that bridge terrestrial to fully aquatic mosasaurs. Phylogenetic analyses of Adriosaurus and related dolichosaurs consistently recover them as successive outgroups to snakes, with Mosasauria positioned as their sister taxon, reinforcing a stepwise aquatic radiation within basal anguimorphs.

Genera and species

Mosasauridae encompasses approximately 47 recognized valid genera and over 100 species, reflecting a diverse radiation of marine squamates, though taxonomic revisions continue to refine these counts. The family is traditionally divided into four principal subfamilies: Halisaurinae, , Plioplatecarpinae, and Tylosaurinae, each characterized by distinct cranial and dental features adapted to varied predatory niches. , the most speciose subfamily, includes about 11 genera such as Mosasaurus, Prognathodon, and Globidens, often featuring robust skulls and conical teeth suited for grasping prey. Tylosaurinae comprises roughly 4 genera, exemplified by Tylosaurus and Taniwhasaurus, notable for their elongate snouts and piercing, slender teeth indicative of a piscivorous lifestyle. Halisaurinae and Plioplatecarpinae are comparatively less diverse, with Halisaurinae encompassing genera like Halisaurus and Pluridens that exhibit primitive traits such as shorter rostra, while Plioplatecarpinae includes Plioplatecarpus, Platecarpus, and Yaguarasaurus, marked by more derived, blade-like marginal teeth for slicing flesh. The of Mosasauridae is hoffmannii, originally described from a partial rostrum discovered in the of the , serving as the benchmark for the and family. Recent taxonomic work has clarified or synonymized several taxa; for instance, in 2022, South African Maastrichtian material previously assigned to (Leiodon) cf. anceps was reclassified as a junior synonym of the new atrox, a durophagous mosasaurine with specialized crushing . Other post-2020 emendations include revisions to Yaguarasaurus species boundaries in , incorporating new cranial material to distinguish valid taxa from synonyms. Several historical names remain invalid or dubious due to inadequate diagnostic fossils. Macrosaurus, for example, is a nomen dubium based on fragmentary vertebrae from the Campanian of England, lacking unique features to warrant generic status and often considered indeterminate within Mosasauridae. Junior synonyms abound in the literature, such as early referrals of Prognathodon material to Liodon, which have been systematically resolved through phylogenetic analyses emphasizing dental and quadrate morphology. Notable recent additions highlight ongoing discoveries. In 2023, Ectenosaurus shannoni was erected for a partial skeleton from the Mooreville of , representing the ninth species in the plioplatecarpine genus Ectenosaurus and extending its known diversity in the equivalents. Similarly, Yaguarasaurus regiomontanus was described that year from a nearly complete in Mexico's Agua Nueva Formation, bolstering Plioplatecarpinae representation in southern Gondwanan assemblages. In 2024, the genus Khinjaria was described from , and in 2025, Oneirosaurus caballeroi was erected from , further illustrating ongoing taxonomic refinements. These findings underscore the persistent refinement of mosasaur through integrated morphological and stratigraphic data.

Phylogeny

Mosasauroid phylogeny is characterized by a basal grade of aquatic squamates including aigialosaurs, followed by the monophyletic Mosasauridae, which splits early into the sister clades Russellosaurina and . Russellosaurina encompasses subfamilies such as Tylosaurinae and Plioplatecarpinae, defined by synapomorphies including an elongated retroarticular process on the for improved gape and a reduced temporal bar. Mosasaurinae, in contrast, features taxa with more robust skulls and specialized for durophagy in some lineages. This topology is recovered consistently in cladistic analyses using morphological datasets of 100-150 characters scored across 30-50 taxa. Major phylogenetic analyses have employed parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods to test relationships, revealing robust support for the core clades. For instance, Simões et al. (2017) analyzed 111 characters and 40 taxa, yielding bootstrap values above 70% for the Russellosaurina-Mosasaurinae divergence and posterior probabilities exceeding 0.95 in Bayesian runs, highlighting the stability of the tree despite methodological differences. More recent work by Polcyn et al. (2025) updates these frameworks by incorporating additional taxa and stable isotope data to refine plioplatecarpine interrelationships within Russellosaurina and achieving bootstrap support over 60% for subclades previously unresolved. The placement of aigialosaurs remains controversial, with most analyses positioning them as stem-mosasaurs based on shared features like flattened skulls and paddle-like limbs, though alternative trees suggest they form a grade closer to dolichosaurs outside crown Mosasauridae. Temporal calibration of phylogenies using first appearance dates from (~100 Ma) to (~66 Ma) strata indicates diversification rates peaking at ~5-10 new lineages per million years during the Turonian-Coniacian interval, reflecting rapid radiation into marine niches. Sampling gaps persist in the early phylogeny, particularly for and forms, where fragmentary fossils limit resolution of basal nodes and underestimate initial diversity.

History of discovery

Early discoveries

The earliest recorded discovery of mosasaur fossils occurred in , when quarry workers unearthed a partial jawbone from chalk deposits in the St. Pietersberg hill near , . This specimen was acquired by Swiss-born army surgeon and naturalist Johann Leonhard Hoffmann (1710–1782), who initially interpreted it as the jaw of a large and referred to it as the "crocodile of the " after the nearby river. The fossil, now known as part of Mosasaurus hoffmanni, sparked early interest but was not formally studied until later. Between 1770 and 1774, a second, more complete skull was discovered in the same quarry, further fueling scientific curiosity. Early interpretations of these fossils varied widely, with some scholars proposing they belonged to a crocodile, a , or even a gigantic , reflecting the limited understanding of extinct marine reptiles at the time. In 1798, Dutch anatomist Adriaan Camper, son of Pieter Camper, reexamined descriptions of the Maastricht specimens and concluded they represented a giant , a view later supported by French naturalist , who in 1808 affirmed their reptilian nature based on . However, it was not until 1822 that English geologist William Conybeare formally named the genus , combining "Meuse" (Latinized as Mosa) with "sauros" (lizard), honoring its discovery site and lizard-like features. Cuvier adopted this name in his 1824 work, solidifying its taxonomic status. American discoveries began in the early , with the first reported mosasaur remains from coming from the Navesink Formation in , noted in 1818 by physician and naturalist Samuel L. Mitchill. In 1825, Richard Harlan, an American physician and paleontologist, described fragmentary mosasaur bones from greensand deposits, contributing to the growing recognition of these reptiles on the continent. Joseph Leidy, another key figure, expanded on these finds in the 1850s and 1860s, describing multiple specimens from and establishing mosasaurs as significant components of the fauna. A notable early specimen was Harlan's Mosasaurus missouriensis from 1834, based on material from the Midwest, though its type snout was later rediscovered in European collections. The 19th century saw intensified exploration during the so-called "Bone Wars," a fierce rivalry between paleontologists and from the 1870s onward. Their expeditions in the deposits, particularly in chalk beds, yielded dozens of mosasaur specimens, leading to the naming of numerous species such as Tylosaurus proriger by Marsh in 1872 and various taxa by Cope. Marsh's collections from the 1870s, including well-preserved skulls and skeletons from the , provided critical insights into mosasaur diversity and propelled the field forward, despite the acrimonious competition that sometimes prioritized quantity over careful analysis. These efforts resulted in over 20 new mosasaur species attributed to the rivals, transforming early understandings of these extinct predators.

Modern research and recent finds

In the mid-20th century, paleontologist Dale A. Russell advanced mosasaur classification through his 1967 monograph, Systematics and Morphology of American Mosasaurs, which provided a comprehensive framework for understanding their and based on North American specimens. This work established key morphological distinctions among genera and influenced subsequent research by emphasizing skeletal features for phylogenetic placement. By the 1990s, advancements in imaging technology, including early applications of computed tomography (CT) scanning, began revealing internal skull structures and traces of soft tissues in well-preserved specimens, enhancing interpretations of sensory capabilities and cranial mechanics. Recent fossil discoveries have continued to refine our understanding of mosasaur diversity and distribution. In 2023, paleontologists described Jormungandr walhallaensis, a new mosasaurine species from the near Walhalla, , based on a partial exhibiting unique vertebral morphology suggestive of enhanced flexibility. That same year, Ectenosaurus shannoni, a plioplatecarpine mosasaur, was identified from fragmentary remains in Alabama's Mooreville Chalk Formation, highlighting regional in the . In 2025, a significant mosasaur specimen dubbed "Walt"—named after the teenager who discovered it during a dig—was unearthed in southern , , representing one of the largest articulated skeletons from the region's deposits. Additional finds that year included multiple mosasaur fossils from the newly opened Edelman Fossil Park quarry in , where excavations exposed a rich bonebed yielding vertebrae and limb elements from the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Also in 2025, geologists in discovered a massive attributed to Mosasaurus hoffmannii near Starkville, estimated to belong to an individual over 30 feet long, marking the largest such fossil from the state. Methodological innovations have driven deeper insights into mosasaur biology. Since the 2010s, stable isotope analysis of tooth enamel and bone has elucidated dietary preferences, revealing niche partitioning among species—such as piscivory in Platecarpus versus durophagy in Globidens—through carbon and nitrogen ratios indicating marine trophic levels. Three-dimensional modeling, often derived from CT scans and laser scanning, has enabled biomechanical simulations of jaw function and locomotion, demonstrating powerful bite forces in genera like Tylosaurus exceeding 8,000 Newtons. In 2024, Michael J. Polcyn's comprehensive paleoecological study integrated fossil distributions with environmental data to reconstruct mosasaur habitats, showing correlations between sea-level changes and clade radiations in the Western Interior Seaway. Despite these advances, challenges persist in mosasaur due to biases in the record. Analyses of specimen completeness across 4,083 mosasaur s indicate that preservation quality varies significantly by and formation, with offshore marine deposits yielding more articulated skeletons than nearshore ones, potentially skewing diversity estimates. Squamate "megafilters"—geochemical and taphonomic processes that preferentially preserve robust bones while destroying delicate ones—further distort the record, as evidenced by the underrepresentation of small-bodied or juvenile squamates, including early mosasaurs. Ongoing debates surround the attribution of eggs to mosasaurs; while is confirmed by embryonic s, a 2020 analysis of a large soft-shelled egg from has sparked discussion on possible in some species, though its mosasaur origin remains tentative and most evidence supports live birth in open water. Mosasaur research has also intersected with popular culture, notably through portrayals in the franchise, where Mosasaurus is depicted as a massive , boosting public interest but often exaggerating sizes and behaviors. Scientific efforts, such as those by the Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre, have countered these inaccuracies by highlighting real specimens like "Bruce" the mosasaur to educate on accurate and conservation of fossil sites.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2918493/
  2. https://www.academia.edu/16711900/Physical_drivers_of_mosasaur_evolution
  3. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/mosasaur.htm
  4. https://biodiversity.ku.edu/exhibits/mosasaur
  5. https://geologymuseum.rutgers.edu/images/geology_museum/events/Ask_A_Geologist_Events/2020_Events/Activities/6-9_Mosasaur_Activity.pdf
  6. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/2009/07/meet-a-mosasaur/
  7. https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/meals-mighty-mosasaur
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7060338/
  9. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/massive-mosasaurs-may-have-evolved-more-than-once-180984156/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9130788/
  11. http://oceansofkansas.com/mosahoff.html
  12. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mosasaur
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358564788_THE_OLDEST_NORTH_AMERICAN_MOSASAURS_SQUAMATA_MOSASAURIDAE_FROM_THE_TURONIAN_UPPER_CRETACEOUS_OF_KANSAS_AND_TEXAS_WITH_COMMENTS_ON_THE_RADIATIONS_OF_MAJOR_MOSASAUR_CLADES
  14. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/peabody_museum_natural_history_bulletin/23/
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331904753_Insights_into_the_anatomy_and_functional_morphology_of_durophagous_mosasaurines_Squamata_Mosasauridae_from_a_new_species_of_Globidens_from_Morocco
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273205896_Unusual_histology_and_morphology_of_the_ribs_of_mosasaurs_Squamata
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-journal-of-geosciences/article/nomenclatural-note-on-mosasaurus-hoffmanni-squamata-mosasauroidea/445D94B04627551DCDF79107A81395B9
  18. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4266&context=theses
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27711031_Dallasaurus_turneri_a_new_primitive_mosasauroid_from_the_Middle_Turonian_of_Texas_and_comments_on_the_phylogeny_of_Mosasauridae_Squamata
  20. https://www.zin.ru/journals/trudyzin/doc/vol_318_2/tz_318_2_grigoriev.pdf
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/rediagnosis-and-redescription-of-mosasaurus-hoffmannii-squamata-mosasauridae-and-an-assessment-of-species-assigned-to-the-genus-mosasaurus/2330EA89F7ABAB6B51FAAB1FB4275A1E
  22. https://www.aaps-journal.org/pdf/JPS.C.22.0001.pdf
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121001294
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232691128_Skeletochronology_of_the_limb_elements_of_mosasaurs_Squamata_Mosasauridae
  25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12157
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3797777/
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12240
  28. https://phys.org/news/2016-05-scientists-cite-evidence-mosasaurs-warm-blooded.html
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259630092_Skin_pigmentation_provides_evidence_of_convergent_melanism_in_extinct_marine_reptiles
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2781907/
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3423
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1088892/
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256544915_Landlubbers_to_leviathans_Evolution_of_swimming_in_mosasaurine_mosasaurs
  34. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/16/9/548
  35. https://www.sci.news/paleontology/carinodens-acrodon-13558.html
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10636054/
  37. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/edited-volume/579/chapter/3803532/Stomach-contents-of-Globidens-a-shell-crushing
  38. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-journal-of-geosciences/article/feeding-the-mechanical-mosasaur-what-did-carinodens-eat/09A2B9E159FEAE793695B88BD29C57E1
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27711014_Feeding_the_Mechanical_Mosasaur_what_did_Carinodens_eat
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704977/
  41. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=peabody_museum_natural_history_postilla
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236871245_Aquatic_adaptation_cranial_kinesis_and_the_skull_of_the_mosasaurine_Plotosaurus_bennisoni
  43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2021.1986814
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375553327_REMARKABLY_WELL-PRESERVED_IN-SITU_GUT-CONTENT_IN_A_SPECIMEN_OF_PROGNATHODON_KIANDA_SQUAMATA_MOSASAURIDAE_REVEALS_MULTISPECIES_INTRAFAMILIAL_PREDATION_CANNIBALISM_AND_A_NEW_MOSASAURINE_TAXON
  45. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/3/205
  46. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2001.1796
  47. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12165
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pala.12165
  49. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/3123/
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11608640_Live_birth_in_Cretaceous_marine_lizards_mosasauroids
  51. https://theconversation.com/giant-sea-lizards-fossils-in-morocco-reveal-the-astounding-diversity-of-marine-life-66-million-years-ago-just-before-the-asteroid-hit-210085
  52. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/137/1-2/297/645498/Reconstructing-paleoenvironments-of-the-Late
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018213002514
  54. https://geokansas.ku.edu/mosasaur
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-journal-of-geosciences/article/habitat-preference-of-mosasaurs-indicated-by-rare-earth-element-ree-content-of-fossils-from-the-upper-cretaceous-marine-deposits-of-alabama-new-jersey-and-south-dakota-usa/21B06BB63FA7AA5CDC8B29530270A311
  56. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051781
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12381
  58. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/225/02_intro.html
  59. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sgf/bsgf/article/183/2/145/141508/On-the-last-mosasaurs-Late-Maastrichtian-mosasaurs
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667124001708
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667116303123
  62. https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/volume-464/issue-1/0003-0090.464.1.1/Jormungandr-walhallaensis--A-New-Mosasaurine-Squamata--Mosasauroidea-from/10.1206/0003-0090.464.1.1.full
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667122001793
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279339370_Stomach_contents_of_Globidens_a_shell-crushing_mosasaur_Squamata_from_the_Late_Cretaceous_Pierre_Shale_Group_Big_Bend_area_of_the_Missouri_River_central_South_Dakota
  65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3515798
  66. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/e90-042
  67. https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/scientists-discover-fossils-of-giant-sea-lizard-that-ruled-the-oceans-66-million-years-ago/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7164395/
  69. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12590
  70. https://www.fossilera.com/pages/about-mosasaurs
  71. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/4/291
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390962372_The_Evolution_of_Mosasaurid_Foraging_Behavior_Through_the_Lens_of_Stable_Carbon_Isotopes
  73. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/71D43AE7F3DB83143643E41B63BB7637/S0094837322000380a.pdf/latest_maastrichtian_middle_and_highlatitude_mosasaurs_and_fish_isotopic_composition_carbon_source_thermoregulation_strategy_and_thermal_latitudinal_gradient.pdf
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397351977_The_social_ecology_of_mosasaurs_as_evidenced_by_traumatic_paleopathologies
  75. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app44/app44-347.pdf
  76. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6F216CE9757CC75D49D1CCB4308D05A2/S0016774600021004a.pdf/review_of_the_taxonomy_and_systematics_of_aigialosaurs.pdf
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27711026_A_review_of_the_taxonomy_and_systematics_of_aigialosaurs
  78. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176773
  79. https://njgjournal.nl/index.php/njg/article/view/11662
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248553980_A_new_mosasauroid_Squamata_from_the_Late_Cretaceous_Turonian_of_Morocco
  81. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/321466169/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf
  82. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sgf/bsgf/article/179/6/605/88534/The-Cenomanian-Turonian-late-Cretaceous-radiation
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256544677_The_oldest_North_American_mosasaurs_Squamata_Mosasauridae_from_the_Turonian_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Kansas_and_Texas_with_comments_on_the_radiation_of_major_mosasaur_clades
  84. https://www.sci.news/paleontology/yaguarasaurus-regiomontanus-12480.html
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297758947_Rapid_evolution_diversification_and_distribution_of_mosasaurs_Reptilia_Squamata_prior_to_the_K-T_Boundary
  86. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=bio_chem_fac_pubs
  87. https://docentes.fct.unl.pt/omateus/files/polcyn_et_al_2014_physical_drivers_mosasaurs.pdf
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120301853
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256544585_Physical_Drivers_of_Mosasaur_Evolution
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25136-y
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27711027_Recent_mosasaur_discoveries_from_New_Jersey_and_Delaware_USA_stratigraphy_taphonomy_and_implications_for_mosasaur_extinction
  92. https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-bite-into-the-past-of-extinct-marine-reptiles
  93. https://paleonerdish.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/the-impact-winter-model/
  94. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-journal-of-geosciences/article/greensand-mosasaurs-of-new-jersey-and-the-cretaceouspaleogene-transition-of-marine-vertebrates/60F0808E2A2A4EC08DB91CFBD5D21668
  95. https://astrobiology.com/2024/03/post-impact-changes-in-earths-ocean-ecology.html
  96. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118199
  97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/origin-and-early-evolutionary-history-of-snakes/review-of-nonmosasaurid-dolichosaur-and-aigialosaur-mosasaurians-and-their-relationships-to-snakes/2A32A3A1896FB54DC9E4519C76DB0570
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/adriosaurus-and-the-affinities-of-mosasaurs-dolichosaurs-and-snakes/E112DF4C600A1A801BB67F0A13E0DACF
  99. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820967116
  100. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sgf/bsgf/article/183/1/7/314014/A-challenge-to-categories-What-if-anything-is-a
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27711013_Did_mosasaurs_have_forked_tongues
  102. https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-museum-of-comparative-zoology/volume-163/issue-2/0027-4100-163.2.47/THE-SQUAMATE-TREE-OF-LIFE/10.3099/0027-4100-163.2.47.full
  103. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/2/114
  104. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00047/full
  105. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2022.971968/full
  106. https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_name=Macrosaurus%20validus
  107. https://museums.ua.edu/new-mosasaur-species-from-alabama-discovered/
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397081132_Oneirosaurus_caballeroi_gen_et_sp_nov_a_new_mosasaur_from_Colombia
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5415187/
  110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316691994_Mosasauroid_phylogeny_under_multiple_phylogenetic_methods_provides_new_insights_on_the_evolution_of_aquatic_adaptations_in_the_group
  111. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sgf/bsgf/article/183/1/55/314027/a-new-look-at-faujas-de-saint-fond-s-fantastic
  112. https://blog.biodiversitylibrary.org/2015/10/fact-or-fiction-discovering-mosasaur.html
  113. https://core.ac.uk/download/552115056.pdf
  114. https://njgjournal.nl/index.php/njg/article/view/11656
  115. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/americas/mosasaur-fossil-jormungandr-walhallaensis-scn
  116. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/texas-teen-mosasaur-walt-canadian-fossil-discovery-centre-1.7598828
  117. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a68016997/new-jersey-fossil-park-mosasaur/
  118. http://www.msstate.edu/newsroom/article/2025/05/msu-researchers-both-mgs-geologists-help-unearth-giant-mosasaur-fossil
  119. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/282146
  120. https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_SVP_Program_Final3.pdf
  121. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/new-insights-into-the-evolution-and-paleoecology-of-mosasaurs-most-comprehensive-study-to-date
  122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324794772_The_Mosasaur_Fossil_Record_Through_the_Lens_of_Fossil_Completeness
  123. https://nhmlac.org/press/mosasaurs-snakes-and-lizards-megafilters-shape-reptile-fossil-collections
  124. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2377-7
  125. https://www.sci.news/paleontology/science-mosasaurs-offspring-open-ocean-02687.html
  126. https://pembinavalleyonline.com/articles/jurassic-world-hype-putting-mosasaurs-and-morden-museum-on-the-map
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.