It’s….
A digit of the English sauropod Cetiosauriscus. After yesterday’s entry it seemed a good idea to shift subjects a little and this is about as different as I can readily manage at short notice. Sauropods being what they are (an my knowledge of them being what it is) I’m not actually sure if this is manual or pedal, but well, it’s nice enough as sauropod digits go.
Dave Hone's Archosaur Musings 
This is from Chipping Norton – Isn’t this material of referred to Cetiosaurus, rather than Cetiosauriscus?
Paleontology Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd_n0lF_hAg 😉
Oh wow! Yep, this is different. I’ll bet it’s huge too.
Do you have the specimen number of this one?
Sorry, no. It is part of the holotype though so that should help you track ti down.
Of which holotype? I’m wondering because I saw the holotype of Cetiosauriscus (stewartii) at BMNH last year, and there is no digit resembling this specimen here… Maybe Jay is right that it’s rather a Cetiosaurus?
Anyway, thanks for sharing 🙂
This is on display in Oxford if that helps. I didn’t comment on Jay’s point as currently I’m without any of my papers on the subject so not really in a position to check anything.
Definitely, yes, thanks! So it must be Cetiosaurus (which has been synonymized with Cetiosauriscus by McIntosh 1990, but Upchurch & Martin 2003 showed that they are not the same, and Cetiosaurus is still valid).