SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Geological Society of India, Bangalore,
Memoir 27, 1994.
Sarkar, S. N. and Saha, A. K., Q. J.
Geol., Min. Metall. Soc. India, 1962, 34,
97–136.
Sarkar, S. N. and Saha, A. K., Geol.
Mag., 1963, 100, 69–92.
Naha, K., Sci. Cult., 1956, 22, 43–45.
Naha, K., Geol. Mag., 1959, 96, 137–140.
Naha, K., Q. J. Geol., Min. Metall. Soc.
India, 1965, 37, 41–95.
Bhattacharya, D. S. and Sanyal, P., In
Precambrian of the Eastern Indian
Shield (ed. Mukhopadhyay, D.), Geological Society of India, Bangalore,
Memoir 8, 1988, pp. 85–111.
Pradhan, A. K. and Srivastava, D. C., In
Recent Researches in Geology and Geo-
10.
11.
12.
13.
physics of the Precambrians (ed. Saha,
A. K.), Hindustan Publications, New
Delhi, 1996, pp. 1–14.
Mazumdar, S. K., Indian Miner., 1996,
93, 139–174.
Gupta, A. and Basu, A., North Singhbhum Proterozoic Mobile Belt, Eastern
India – A Review, M. S. Krishnan Centenary Volume, Geol. Surv. India Spec.
Publ. No. 55, 2000, pp. 195–226.
Haneberg, W. C., Cuspate–lobate folds
along a sedimentary contact, Los Lunas
Volcano, New Mexico. New Mexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
Bulletin 137, 1991, pp. 162–163.
Ghosh, S. K., Structural Geology Fundamentals and Modern Developments,
Pergamon Press, 1993.
14. Mondal, N., Problems of superposed
folding: An experimental study, unpublished Ph D thesis, Jadavpur University,
1991.
Received 12 September 2011; re-revised
accepted 20 November 2012
ALOKESH CHATTERJEE*
SHARMILA BHATTACHARYA
Department of Geology,
Presidency University,
86/1 College Street,
Kolkata 700 073, India
*For correspondence.
e-mail: alokesh@yahoo.com
India’s first dinosaur, rediscovered
‘Reasoning from analogy at Jubbulpore,
where some of the basaltic cappings of
the hills had evidently been thrown out of
craters long after this surface had been
raised above the waters, and become the
habitation both of vegetable and animal
life, I made the first discovery of fossil
remains in the Nerbudda valley. I went
first to a hill within sight of my house in
1828, and searched exactly between the
plateau of basalt that covered it, and the
stratum immediately below; and there I
found several small trees with roots,
trunks, and branches, all entire, and
beautifully petrified. They had been only
recently uncovered by the washing away
of a part of the basaltic plateau. I soon
after found some fossil bones of animals.’
–W. H. Sleeman1
So begins the history of Indian dinosaur
studies. The bones that Sleeman collected from the beds underlying the Deccan Traps at Jabalpur would soon embark
on ‘rambles’ of their own2. Sleeman sent
two fossil bones to G. G. Spilsbury, a
civil surgeon, who himself collected a
third bone from the same bed. In 1832,
Spilsbury sent all three to Calcutta antiquarian, James Prinsep. By 1862, these
fossil bones were presented to Thomas
Oldham, the first Director of the Geological Survey of India. Surgeon–
botanist Hugh Falconer, co-discoverer of
the Siwalik vertebrates3, provided the
first description of two bones, which he
identified as caudal vertebrae, and pre34
sented illustrations of the better preserved
element4. Falconer correctly identified
the vertebrae as reptilian but refrained
from coining a name for them, probably
because the manuscript, published posthumously, was not intended for publication. It was not until 1877 that Sleeman’s
discovery was finally recognized as a
new genus and species of sauropod dinosaur called Titanosaurus indicus (‘Indian
titan reptile’) by Richard Lydekker5. He
named a second species from Jabalpur,
T. blanfordi (‘Blanford’s titan reptile’),
just two years later6. At that time, only
approximately 115 dinosaur species had
been identified, less than 10% of the
1401 species known by 2004 (ref. 7).
After passing safely through many
hands for over the course of half a century, the original remains of T. indicus
went missing. It is not known exactly
when this happened, or even who was the
last to examine them, but we were not
able to find mention of first-hand observation of T. indicus bones subsequent to
Lydekker’s last treatment of them6. A
cast of the specimen is present in the
Natural History Museum, London
(NHMUK OR40867).
T. indicus holds a special place as
India’s first recorded dinosaur, discovered only four years after the discovery
of the first-named dinosaur Megalosaurus8 and 14 years before the name ‘Dinosauria’ was coined9. Like Megalosaurus
and other early-named dinosaurs such as
Iguanodon10 and Cetiosaurus11, Titanosaurus was based on limited material
whose diagnostic features were eventually made obsolete by the discovery of
more complete remains12,13. The first
such discoveries were made by Charles
Matley and Durgasankar Bhattacharji in
the early 1900s (refs 14 and 15). Excavations near the probable location of Sleeman’s original site in Jabalpur produced
the braincase and partial skeleton of Antarctosaurus septentrionalis16 (whose
genus name has since been changed to
Jainosaurus17), a partial postcranial
skeleton of a second, smaller individual
of the same genus18,19, as well as many
isolated bones. Many of the theropod
remains were shipped to London for
preparation and description in 1922 and
1925; most of them were returned to
India in 1936, along with a plaster cast of
the partial hind limb of Jainosaurus2.
There is no manifest for this shipment, so
it is not known exactly which specimens
made the trip to and from London. Barnum Brown visited Bara Simla and made
additional collections of theropod20 and
sauropod21,22 remains, which are housed
at the American Museum of Natural History. More recent excavations elsewhere
in India have added to the initial discoveries of Matley and Bhattacharji at Bara
Simla and Chhota Simla (Jabalpur). One
of most important was an accumulation
of several hundred bones21,23–25 in strata
just below a prolific egg-bearing horizon26,27 in Rahioli, western India. Another such locality was Dongargaon in
central India, some 335 km south of
Jabalpur. The Dongargaon locality
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 104, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2013
SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE
produced the most complete skeleton of
an Indian dinosaur, Isisaurus colberti
(formerly known as ‘Titanosaurus’ colberti), which is known from a braincase,
presacral, sacral and caudal vertebrae,
girdle bones and limb bones28,29. The
more recent discovery of scores of dinosaur bones in Balochistan, Pakistan30–32
also represents an important source of
information on dinosaurs of the Indian
subcontinent.
Beyond its historical and patrimonial
significance, what is the relevance of T.
indicus, if the species was based on limited material, now missing, deemed
insufficient to distinguish it from other
dinosaurs13? The material is relevant for
several reasons. First, Titanosaurus provided an initial glimpse at, and eventually
became the namesake for, the diverse,
late-surviving sauropod lineage Titanosauria33. Titanosaurs comprise more than
40 genera34, which have been recorded
from all continental landmasses, including Antarctica35. They are morphologically distinctive sauropods with elongate
skulls bearing narrow tooth crowns36,37,
presacral vertebrae with complex lamination38 and limbs that were slightly angled
outward in a wide-gauge posture39. Some
titanosaurs even possessed dermal
armour22,40 that may have functioned as a
mineral store that allowed them to survive in stressed environments41. In addition, Titanosaurus provided the first
indications of what Lydekker42 called a
‘remarkable community of type which
undoubtedly exists between the faunas of
southern continents of the world’. Recast
in today’s mobilist palaeogeographic
paradigm, the Indian subcontinent takes
on special significance as a large dispersal vector43 that began the Mesozoic
interlocked with other southern landmasses and ended it in isolation prior to
docking on Asia sometime in the early
Tertiary. Large continental tetrapods like
Titanosaurus and other dinosaurs can
provide insight into India’s relationship
with other landmasses, both southern and
northern. Last, and perhaps most significantly, inability of the scientific commu-
Figure 1. Currently missing Indian dinosaur fossils. a, b, Syntypic skull elements of the large
theropod Indosuchus raptorius. a, Skull roof K20/350 in dorsal view. b, Skull roof and braincase
K27/685 in dorsal and left lateral views16. c, Holotypic partial skeleton of the large theropod
dinosaur Lametasaurus indicus, including sacrum in ventrolateral view, right ilium in ventral
view (anterior towards bottom), and left tibia in lateral view44. d, Holotypic cervical vertebra
(K20/614) of the noasaurid Laevisuchus indicus16. Scale equals 10 cm for (a) and (b), 30 cm for
(c) and 5 cm for (d).
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 104, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2013
nity to access and study T. indicus is
symptomatic of a larger issue. There are
several Indian dinosaur specimens that
are currently missing, including both
small and large specimens of sauropod
and theropod dinosaurs. Notable missing
specimens include the partial postcranial
skeleton of the stocky-limbed, large
theropod Lametasaurus indicus44, skull
materials of both Indosaurus matleyi and
Indosuchus raptorius, parts of Jainosaurus septentrionalis and the small noasaurid theropod Laevisuchus indicus
and many theropod limb bones16 (Figure
1). The nonavailability of these elements
has seriously hindered efforts to understand the evolutionary history of Indian
dinosaurs and to decode their palaeobiogeographic connections to other southern
landmasses45,46. But are these bones lost,
or merely misplaced? Are efforts best
directed at retrieving these bones in collections or finding new bones in the
field?
The Geological Survey of India (GSI)
and the University of Michigan have
recently embarked on a programme to
recover missing fossil bones in museum
collections and to collect new bones
from field sites. Efforts at the Indian
Museum (Kolkata) and GSI repositories
have resulted in the recovery of the misplaced holotypic caudal vertebra of T.
indicus (Figure 2). The T. indicus holotype was stored together with bones of T.
blanfordi and with Triassic vertebrates of
the ‘Lydekker collection’47, also presumed missing. The bones were recovered from the vast fossil vertebrate and
Figure 2. Rediscovered holotypic caudal
vertebra of India’s first dinosaur, Titanosaurus indicus, in left lateral view. Roman
numerals inked on the bone refer to plate and
figure numbers; the other two numbers (GSI
‘2191’, ‘2194’) represent serial numbers as
recorded in the Specimen Register of the
Curatorial Division, GSI. Scale equals 5 cm.
35
SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE
3 – no accession number, stored outside the ‘normal’ area – suggest that
future rediscoveries may rely on visual
recognition of unlabelled specimens that
may be stored apart from other collections.
These results emphasize the importance of fossil repositories as secure
storage for historical objects that form
the basis for scientific research. These
objects constitute the primary record of
the evolutionary history of Greater India
and its past and present connections to
other landmasses.
Figure 3. Other rediscovered Indian dinosaur specimens. a, Abelisaurid femur (GSI K27/569)
in anterior view. b, Holotypic cervical vertebra of Laevisuchus indicus (GSI K20/613) in left lateral view. c, Cast of Jainosaurus cf. septentrionalis hind limb from Chhota Simla18,19, presented
by Natural History Museum (London) to Nagpur City Museum2 in 1936. The original specimens
are labelled as NHMUK 5903. d, Undescribed noasaurid caudal vertebra from the Matley Collection (GSI K20/612) in right lateral view. e, Holotypic caudal vertebra of Titanosaurus blanfordi
(GSI 2195) in right lateral view. Scale bar equals 10 cm for (a), 2 cm for (b), 30 cm for (c),
1.5 cm for (d) and 5 cm for (e).
invertebrate collection of the Curatorial
Division of GSI Headquarters at Kolkata.
The T. indicus caudal vertebra is preserved intact, based on comparisons with
drawings by Falconer and Lydekker4,5,
save a small portion of its cotylar rim
that is now broken. Recovery efforts
have also turned up several other bones
(Figure 3). The original syntypic caudal
vertebrae of T. blanfordi (one of which
later was removed from the type16) were
found with the T. indicus holotype. The
holotypic humerus of J. septentrionalis
(GSI K27/497) was found in several
pieces atop tall display cases in the Siwalik Gallery of the Indian Museum after
having gone unnoticed for decades48.
One of the holotypic cervical vertebrae
of the small theropod Laevisuchus indicus (GSI K20/613)16 was recently found
in three separate pieces in unmarked
boxes, together with other unnumbered
fragments in the Invertebrate Gallery of
the Indian Museum. A complete abelisaurid femur (GSI K27/569)16 was found
in five pieces in the Siwalik Gallery of
the Indian Museum. In that same cabinet,
36
a collection of theropod cranial, caudal,
and limb elements collected by Matley
but never described was found, along
with undescribed rib fragments of the
Chhota Simla specimen of Jainosaurus19,
still in their original wrappings. In each
of these instances, the specimen had no
accession number – either because it never
received one (e.g. T. indicus, T. blanfordi) or because the number had been
separated from it by breakage (e.g.
Laevisuchus, Jainosaurus). Recovery of
these specimens was more difficult
because individual specimens (often
fragments), rather than numbers, had to
be recognized. In several cases (e.g. T.
indicus, T. blanfordi, Jainosaurus), the
specimen had been shifted outside the
designated collection space, which had
been searched repeatedly.
Recovery of T. indicus and other misplaced fossils bodes well for retrieval of
other important missing specimens, such
as Lametasaurus indicus, Indosaurus
matleyi and Indosuchus raptorius (Figure
1). The circumstances associated with
the loss of the bones in Figures 2 and
1. Sleeman, W. H., Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, J. Hatchard
and Son, London, 1844, vol. 1, p. 478.
2. Carrano, M. T., Wilson, J. A. and Barrett, P. M., In Dinosaurs and other Extinct Saurians: A Historical Perspective
(eds Moody, R. T. J. et al.), Geological
Society, London, Special Publication,
2010, pp. 161–173.
3. Nair, S. P., Sci. Context, 2005, 18, 359–
392.
4. Falconer, H., In Palaeontological Memoirs and Notes of the late Hugh Falconer, Vol. 1, Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis
(ed. Murchison, C.), Robert Hardwicke,
London, 1868, pp. 414–416 (written in
1862 and published posthumously).
5. Lydekker, R., Rec. Geol. Surv. India,
1877, 10, 30–43.
6. Lydekker, R., Palaeontol. Indica (Ser.
4), 1879, 1, 20–33.
7. Benton, M. J., Biol. Lett., 2008, 6, 544–
547.
8. Buckland, W., Trans. Geol. Soc. London,
1824, 21, 390–397.
9. Owen, R., Rep. Br. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,
1842, 1841, 60–204.
10. Mantell, G., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 1825, 115, 179–186.
11. Owen, R., Proc. Geol. Soc. London,
1841, 3, 457–462.
12. Sues, H.-D., Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 1998,
55, 240–241.
13. Wilson, J. A. and Upchurch, P., J. Syst.
Palaeontol., 2003, 1, 125–160.
14. Matley, C. A., Rec. Geol. Soc. India,
1921, 53, 142–164.
15. Mohabey, D. M., J. Palaeontol. Soc.
India, 2011, 56, 127–135.
16. Huene, F. V. and Matley, C. A., Palaeontol. Indica, 1933, 21, 1–74.
17. Hunt, A. P., Lockley, M. G., Lucas, S. G.
and Meyer, C. A., Gaia, 1994, 10, 261–
279.
18. Swinton, W. E., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.
(Ser. 11), 1947, 14, 112–123.
19. Wilson, J. A., Barrett, P. M. and Carrano, M. T., Palaeontology, 2011, 54,
981–998.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 104, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2013
SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE
20. Chatterjee, S., J. Palaeontol., 1978, 52,
570–580.
21. Chatterjee, S. and Rudra, D. K., Mem.
Queensl. Mus., 1996, 39, 489–532.
22. D’Emic, M. D., Wilson, J. A. and Chatterjee, S., J. Vertebr. Palaeontol., 2009,
29, 165–177.
23. Mathur, U. B. and Pant, S. C., J. Palaeontol. Soc. India, 1986, 31, 22–25.
24. Mathur, U. B. and Srivastava, S., J. Geol.
Soc. India, 1987, 29, 554–566.
25. Dwivedi, G. N., Mohabey, D. M. and
Bandyopadhyay, S., Curr. Trends Geol.,
1982, 7, 79–87.
26. Mohabey, D. M., J. Geol. Soc. India,
1984, 25, 329–337.
27. Srivastava, S., Mohabey, D. M., Sahni,
A. and Pant, S. C., Palaeontogr., Abt. A,
1986, 193, 219–233.
28. Berman, D. S. and Jain, S. L., Ann. Carnegie Mus., 1982, 51, 405–422.
29. Jain, S. L. and Bandyopadhyay, S., J.
Vertebr. Palaeontol., 1997, 17, 114–136.
30. Malkani, M. S. and Anwar, C. M., Geol.
Surv. Pak. Inf. Release, 2000, 732, 1–16.
31. Wilson, J. A., Malkani, M. S. and Gingerich, P. D., Gondwana Geol. Mag.,
2005, 8, 101–109.
32. Malkani, M. S., J. Appl. Emerg. Sci.,
2006, 1, 108–140.
33. Bonaparte, J. F. and Coria, R. A.,
Ameghiniana, 1993, 30, 271–282.
34. Wilson, J. A., Actas de las III Jornadas
Internacionales sobre Paleontología de
Dinosaurios y su entorno. Salas de los
Infantes, Burgos, 2006, pp. 169–190.
35. Cerda, I. A., Carabajal, A. P., Salgado,
L., Coria, R. A., Reguero, M. A., Tambussi, C. P. and Moly, J. J., Naturwissenschaften, 2011, 99, 83–87.
36. Nowinski, A., Palaeontol. Pol., 1971,
25, 57–81.
37. Zaher, H. et al., PLoS ONE, 2011, 6,
e16663.
38. Salgado, L. and Powell, J. E., J. Vertebr.
Palaeontol., 2010, 30, 1760–1772.
39. Wilson, J. A. and Carrano, M. T., Paleobiology, 1999, 25, 252–267.
40. Bonaparte, J. F. and Powell, J. E., Mem.
Soc. Géol. Fr. (Nouvelle Sér.), 1980,
139, 19–28.
41. Curry Rogers, K. A., D’Emic, M. D.,
Rogers, R. R., Vickaryous, M. and Cagan,
A., Nature Commun., 2011, 2, 564–569.
42. Lydekker, R., An. Mus. Plata, 1893, 2,
1–14.
43. McKenna, M. C., In Implications of Continental Drift to the Earth Sciences (eds
Tarling, D. H. and Runcorn, S. K.), Academic Press, London, 1973, pp. 295–308.
44. Matley, C. A., Rec. Geol. Surv. India,
1924, 55, 105–109.
45. Novas, F. E., Agnolin, F. L. and Bandyopadhyay, S., Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc.
Nat., Nuevo Ser., 2004, 6, 67–103.
46. Carrano, M. T., Sertich, J. J. W. and
Loewen, M. A., Smithsonian Contrib.
Paleobiol., 2011, 35, 1–53.
47. Lydekker, R., Palaeontol. Indica (Ser.
4), 1885, 1, 1–38.
48. Wilson, J. A., D’Emic, M. D., Curry
Rogers, K. A., Mohabey, D. M. and Sen,
S., Contrib. Mus. Paleontol. Univ. Mich.,
2009, 32, 17–40.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The finding presented is the result of a joint collaborative
programme involving the Geological Survey
of India (GSI) and University of Michigan
Museum of Paleontology, under a Memorandum of Understanding for study of Late Cretaceous tetrapod fossils from the Lameta
Formation. For technical and logistic support,
we thank A. Sundaramoorty, Director General, GSI; Dr K. Rajaram, Deputy Director
General, PSS (retired); P. Sarkar, Director,
Curatorial Division, and D. V. R. Ramna
Murthy, Deputy Director General, GSI,
Lucknow. J.A.W. was supported by grants
from the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration Grant
8127-06, the Jurassic Foundation, and a Senior Fellowship from the American Institute of
Indian Studies.
Received 3 October 2012; accepted 15
November 2012
DHANANJAY M. MOHABEY1
SUBASHIS SEN2
JEFFREY A. WILSON3,*
1
Geological Survey of India
(Northern Region),
Lucknow 226 004, India
2
Geological Survey of India
(Central Headquarters),
Kolkata 700 016, India
3
Museum of Paleontology and
Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48109-1079, USA
*For correspondence.
e-mail: wilsonja@umich.edu
Mass stranding of pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Gray,
1846 in North Andaman coast
Pilot whale is a carnivorous marine
mammal described under the order Cetacea, suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales).
Though commonly called as ‘black fish’
or ‘pothead whales’, these mammals are
named as ‘pilot whales’ because it was
believed that pods were piloted by a
leader1,2. They are gregarious and frequently found with other small cetaceans. Pilot whales are one of the largest
members of the family Delphinidae. Two
extant species of pilot whales reported in
the world oceans are long-finned Globicephala melas (Traill, 1809) and shortfinned Globicephala macrorhynchus
Gray 1846. General appearance of short-
and long-finned whales is similar. However, the fin of the long-finned whales is
one-fifth or more of their body length
and one-sixth for that of short-finned
whales. Short-finned pilot whales have
fewer teeth, i.e. 7–9 short, sharply
pointed teeth in the front of each tooth
row, whereas it is 8–13 for long-finned
whales3. According to IUCN Red List,
both the species are insufficiently
known. Pilot whales are found in waters
nearly worldwide with long-finned pilot
whales living in temperate waters, and
short-finned pilot whales living in the
tropical and subtropical waters generally
in deep offshore areas of Indian, Atlantic
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 104, NO. 1, 10 JANUARY 2013
View publication stats
and Pacific Oceans. Both the species live
in groups of 20–60 individuals or more.
The population of G. macrorhynchus has
been estimated as 150,000 in the eastern
tropical Pacific Ocean and about 30,000
in the western Pacific, off the coast of
Japan2. Normally they prefer the waters
of the shelf break and slope2. Although
they primarily feed on squid4, pilot
whales consume fishes, including Atlantic cod, Greenland turbot, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, hake, blue whiting
and spiny dogfish2,5. These whales are
habituated to migrate seasonally inshore
and offshore in response to the dispersal
of their prey2. Pilot whales are often
37