"Dinosaurus" Lessem and Glut, 1993
Comments- Lessem and Glut (1993) included an entry for a genus named Dinosaurus in their popular book "The Dinosaur Society's Dinosaur Encyclopedia". This was supposed to be a theropod from the Late Cretaceous of India known from fragmentary ribs and a caudal vertebra. However, personal communication with Glut (2000) indicates that the entry was an error by Lessem and does not reflect any real specimen.
Dinosaurus is the name of two other proposed genera though. Dinosaurus murchisoni (Fischer, 1845) Fischer, 1847 is a junior synonym of the ?estemmenosuchid pan-mammal Brithopus priscus. Contra some sources, Seeley (1895) did not try to name another genus Dinosaurus, but rather described a femur he referred to Dinosaurus that has been subsequently referred to the dinocephalan pan-mammal Phreatosuchus qualeni. "Dinosaurus gresslyi" was named without a description by Rutimeyer (1856a), so was a nomen nudum. It needed to be renamed due to Fischer's genus anyway, so was officially described as Gresslyosaurus ingens by Rutimeyer later that year (1856b). As "Dinosaurus gresslyi" was invalid, Olshevsky's (2000) claim the species name should still be gresslyi is incorrect. The species is a plateosaurid and is often placed in Plateosaurus itself, though this is a matter of personal preference.
References- Fischer, 1845. Beitrag zur naeheren Bestimmung des von Hrn. Wangenheim von Qualen abgebildeten und beschriebenen Saurier-Schaedels. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 540-543.
Fischer, 1847. Bemerkungen uber das Schadel-Fragment, welches Herr Major Wangenheim von Qualen in dem West-Ural entdeckt und der Gesellschaft zur Beurteilung vorgelegt hat. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 20, 263-267.
Rutimeyer, 1856a. Dinosaurus gresslyi. Bibliotheque Universelle des Sciences Belles-Lettres et Arts, Geneve. September, 53.
Rutimeyer, 1856b. Reptilienknochen aus dem Keuper. Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft fur de Gesammten Naturwissenschaften. 41, 62-64.
Seeley, 1895. Researches on the structure, organization and classification of the fossil Reptilia. Part IX, section 1. On the Therosuchia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B. 185(21), 987-1018.
Lessem and Glut, 1993. The Dinosaur Society's Dinosaur Encyclopedia. New York: Random House.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.

Macrodontophion Zborzewski, 1834
Lochkovian-Eifelian, Early Devonian?
Dniester Series?, Podolia, Ukraine
Holotype- shell (25 mm)
Comments- This genus was not given a species name when described by Zborzewski (1834). Macrodontophion's holotype was described as a snake tooth close to ophisaurs (actually anguid lizards) and pythons. It was also said to be similar to rhyncholites (cephalopod mandibles) and Beloptera (a spirulid cephalopod). Because Megalosaurus was mentioned in the same paragraph that the name first appears (the description proper is in the plate explanation), it was assigned to Megalosauridae by general reviews in the 1900's (e.g. Romer, 1956, 1976; Steel, 1970), and stated to be an indeterminate theropod by Weishampel (1990). Zborzewski tentatively referred it to the Jurassic, Molnar (1990) described its age as Late Jurassic or Cretaceous, and Weishampel assigned it to the Jurassic Nikolayevskaya Oblast based on personal comminication from Kurzanov. However, Nessov (1995) suggested its age was Early Devonian based on the geology of the region, Zborzewski's description of the locality as "ancient red sandstone" rich in lizard and snake teeth, comparable to the red strata in the Early Devonian Dniester Series which is rich in Porolepis teeth.
Molnar noted the insignificant distal taper was unlike theropod teeth and could not verify it was dinosaurian, though in pers. comm. to Olshevsky (2000) he stated it could be crocodilian or plesiosaurian, and in 1991 pers. comm. with Glut (1997) stated the abruptly flared base and lateral crests are similar to some shells. Sues (pers. comm. 1988 in Glut, 1997) also believed it was nondinosaurian. Nessov noted several characters which differ from theropod teeth- curvature perpendicular to plane of lateral crests (carinae of theropods); rounded apex; winding crest along inside edge of curve on long axis of tooth. Nessov believed that among Devonion fossils, Macrodontophion was most similar to the distal pectoral spine of an antiarch placoderm. While I agree the specimen is certainly not theropod, it does not resemble antiarch pectoral spines either. These spines are ironically like theropod teeth in being flattened parallel to their plane of curvature, lack the basal flare of Macrodontophion, and consist of numerous plates unlike the latter taxon. Even if most of Macrodontophion is an internal mold, the lateral crests seem to be made of one piece each and are too large to be single plates of an antiarch spine. Another possibility is the cornual process of an osteostracan or heterostracan, which are common in the Dniester Series (Dumbrava and Blieck, 2005; Voichyshyn, 2006). These are made of a single component, but still flattened in the plane of curvature. I believe an internal mold of a mollusk or annelid shell is most likely as an identification. Hyoliths, for instance, can have conical shells which are curved perpendicular to their axis of flattening, as in Macrodontophion. Yet hyoliths seem to lack the basal flare and have a more triangular section than the oval drawn for Macrodontophion. A large number of conical Palaeozoic shells are known which have controversial and problematic identifications, generally as hyoliths, scaphopods, nautiloids, cornulitids, coleolids or even worm tubes. Until Macrodontophion is examined by an expert in these taxa, it is probably best to keep it as Lophotrochozoa incertae sedis.
References- Zborzewski, 1834. Apercu des recherches physiques rationelles, sur les nouvelles curiosites Podoli-Colhyniennes, et sur leurs rapports geologiques aves les autres localites. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 7, 224-254.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Molnar, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Carnosaurs". in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 306-317.
Weishampel, 1990. Dinosaurian distribution. in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 63-139.
Nessov, 1995. Dinosaurs of nothern Eurasia: New data about assemblages, ecology, and paleobiogeography. Institute for Scientific Research on the Earth's Crust, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg. 1-156.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.
Dumbrava and Blieck, 2005. Review of the pteraspidiform heterostracans (Vertebrata, Agnatha) from the Devonian of Podolia, Ukraine, in the Theodor Vascautanu collection, Bucharest, Romania. Acta Palaeontologica Romianiae. 5, 163-171.
Voichyshyn, 2006. New osteostracans from the Lower Devonian terrigenous deposits of Podolia, Ukraine. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 51(1), 131-142.

Kuphus Guettard, 1770
?= Succinodon Huene, 1941
K? putzeri (Huene, 1941) comb. nov.
= Succinodon putzeri Huene, 1941
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous-Early Danian, Paleocene
Nasilow greensand, Poland
Syntypes- (Museum der Universitat Tubingen coll?) lined tubes (lost) (Huene, 1941)
Referred- (ZPAL Mo. XV/1-25) lined tubes (Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, 1981)
Comments- Succinodon putzeri was originally described by Huene (1941) based on adjacent cylindrical fossils interpreted as titanosaurian (titanosaurine of Huene) sauropod teeth.
These were recognized by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska (1981) as being the calcareous lining of burrowing bivalve tubes, ascribed to the teredinid Kuphus sp.. As a named species cannot be sunk within unspecified 'sp.', this would technically be a new combination Kuphus putzeri. However, this combination has yet to be used, even online. While the authors could not locate Huene's type material in collections, they did describe numerous new specimens (ZPAL Mo. XV/1-25) from the same locality. The tubes are often crushed at one end, corresponding to supposed labiolingual compression noted by Huene, and the inner and outer tube walls are formed of different layers which could be confused with dentine and enamel. Huene described adjacent cylinders as being preserved in mandibular fragments, but it's uncertain whether this was merely an assumption based on the proximity of the "teeth" to each other, a misinterpretation of perhaps reworked sediment, or even fossilized wood as found at other localities.
Abdel-Gawad (1986) doubted their referral to Kuphus, instead assigning Succinodon to Teredinidae indet.. He first stated that Kuphus pallets (stemmed cup-like structures which seal the posterior siphon holes) and valves had never been found as fossils, but this doesn't mean they cannot be found and indeed have definitely been found since in fossil K. melitensis (Zammit Maempel, 1993). He also said that Kuphus differs because it's not found in wood unlike his specimens from the Dziurknow and Kazimierz localities, but the specimens from Nasilow (including Succinodon's types) are preserved in stone. Finally, Abdel-Gawad argued the morphology of the pallets differed, confusing the septa described by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska (perhaps homologous to the camerations described in Kuphus by Zammit Maempel) with pallets (which are as of yet unreported in the Polish material). Abdel-Gawad also stated the tubes are Cretaceous and not Paleocene, contra Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, but Machalski (pers. comm., 2015) confirms they are present in both the Danian layers and as reworked Cretaceous material.
Zammit Maempel refined Kuphus taxonomy to include only K. arenarius and K. melitensis, with other species which are based solely on tubes being indeterminate. The Nasilow material described by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska can still be compared to arenarius and melitensis however. Based on Zammit Maempel's diagnoses, putzeri resembles arenarius in being thinner-shelled, with weaker annulations, and melitensis in being less acute. Only the amount of taper can be determined from Huene's publication, and as his material is lost a neotype (preferrably including pallets and/or valves) would need to be established if putzeri were to be validated.
Another approach is that of Savrda and Smith (1996), who argued bivalve tubes should be covered by ichnotaxonomy instead. In this case the Nasilow material falls under Teredolites longissimus (Kelly and Bromley, 1984), using the revised diagnoses of Pickerill et al. (2003). This is primarily based on its elongation, and other Kuphus would be referred to this ichnospecies as well. As the tubes are secreted by and perminently occupied by the animals however, and consist of multiple calcifications with specialized structure, I think they should be considered body fossils instead of trace fossils.
References- Guettard, 1770. Memories sur differentes parties des Sciences et des Arts. 3, 139-143.
Huene, 1941. Ein obercretacischer Saurierrest aus Polen. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 1941(3), 85-91.
Putzer, 1942. Die oberste Kreide bei Bochotnica a. d. mittleren Weichsel. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie B. 12, 361-377.
Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, 1981. Bivalve nature of Huene's dinosaur Succinodon. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 26(1), 27-34.
Kelly and Bromley, 1984. Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology. 27, 793-807.
Abdel-Gawad, 1986. Maastrichtian non-cephalopod mollusks (Scaphopoda, Gastropoda and Bivalvia) of the Middle Vistula Valley, Central Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica. 36(1-3), 69-224.
Zammit Maempel, 1993. Kuphus melitensis, a new teredinid bivalve from the Late Oligocene Lower Coralline Limestone of Malta. Contributions to Tertiary and Quaternary Geology. 30(3-4), 155-175.
Savrda and Smith, 1996. Behavioral implications of branching and tube-lining in Teredolites. Ichnos. 4, 191-198.
Pickerill, Donovan and Portell, 2003. Teredolites longissimus Kelly & Bromley from the Miocene Grand Bay Formation of Carriacou, the Grenadines, Lesser Antilles. Scripta Geologica. 125, 1-9.

Gnathostomata Gegenbaur, 1874
Official Definition- crown(jaws synapomorphic with Scyliorhinus canicula) (Downs, 2020; Registration Number 255)
References- Gegenbaur, 1874. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Anatomie. Wilhelm Engelmann. 660 pp.
Downs, 2020. Gnathostomata C. Gegenbaur 1874 [J. P. Downs], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 674-679.

Chondrichthyes Huxley, 1880

Elasmobranchii Bonaparte, 1838

Hybodontoidea Owen, 1846
Comments- Phylogeny shown after Rees (2008).
References- Rees, 2008. Interrelationships of Mesozoic hybodont sharks as indicated by dental morphology - preliminary results. Acta Geologica Polonica. 58(2), 217-221.

Lonchidiidae Herman, 1977

Vectiselachos Rees and Underwood, 2002
? = Priscavolucris Gomez Pallerola, 1979
V? montsechi (Gomez Pallerola, 1979) new combination
= Priscavolucris montsechi Gomez Pallerola, 1979
= Lissodus palustris Gomez Pallerola, 1992
= Lissodus montsechi (Gomez Pallerola, 1979) Duffin, 2001
Late Berriasian-Early Barremian, Early Cretaceous
La Pedrera de Rubies Lithographic Limestones, Spain
Holotype- (LP-0088-G-IEI; was Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 4; holotype of Lissodus palustris) (~350 mm) cranium (33 mm), Meckel cartilage, ceratobranchial, teeth, few axial elements, scapulocoracoids (55 mm), propterygium, metapterygium, mesopterygium, radials, pectoral fins, scales
Comments- Gomez Pallerola (1979) originally identified the holotype as the skull, forelimbs and feathers of a Jurassic bird, naming it Priscavolucris montsechi (misspelled Priscavulucris in the figure captions). He later (1982) briefly reidentified it as a shark (cf. Selechia), which was apparent from the original photos. The skull was correctly identified, but the supposed humerus is a scapulocoracoid, the supposed radius and ulna are the basal fin elements, the wing itself is the pectoral fin with the feathers being its rays. The supposed metatarsus and pedal digits are a ceratobranchial and perhaps parts of adjacent gill arch elements (hypobranchial, epibranchial), while the supposed ribs may be ribs, neural spines or basiventrals. Gomez Pallerola later (1985, 1988) referred it to Lonchidion sp.. In 1992 he described it in detail as a new species- Lissodus palustris, as Lonchidion had been sunk into Lissodus by Duffin (1985). Duffin (2001) noted that while "It is obvious that the specimen is not a bird, so the generic name "Priscavolucris" falls as a junior synonym to Lissodus, but the species name montsechi must be retained, with L. palustris the junior synonym." This made the correct name for the taxon Lissodus montsechi. As noted above, Rees and Underwood (2002) revised Lissodus and kept it separate from Lonchidion. They were unable to examine L. montsechi, but stated as the teeth were "extremely poorly figured, this species is at present not possible to distinguish from the contemporary L. microselachos." However, L. montsechi differs from L. microselachos and all other Lonchidion species in having a row of granulae as in Vectiselachos. Whether it has the weakly crenulate occlusal crest of Vectiselachos ornatus is uncertain, as Gomez Pallerola (1992; translated) states "occlusal crest normally smooth or with small notches in it (only observable in some teeth), not being able to be sure if they are characteristics of the tooth or perhaps produced in the extraction of the fossil." Gomez Pallerola (1992) also found it most similar to Vectiselachos, which he used the junior synonym Lissodus pustulatus for. Notably Priscavolucris has seniority over Vectiselachos, although ornatus has 90 years of seniority over montsechi. Whether montsechi is really a Vectiselachos specimen and if so whether V. montsechi is a junior synonym of V. ornatus depends on reexamination of the montsechi holotype, though the individual is slightly smaller than described V. ornatus (dental mesiodistal length ~1.4-1.6 vs. 1.8-3.6 mm). If the identification is correct, LP-0088-G-IEI would be the only specimen of Vectiselachos known from more than teeth. Notably, several additional hybodont skeletons are known from the same locality, referred to Lonchidion sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 5) and Hybodus sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 7) by Gomez Pallerola (1985) and Lissodus sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplars 5 and 6) and Hybodontidae gen et sp. indet. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplars 7 and 8) by Pallerola (1992), but they were not evaluated here. Two juvenile skeletons (MCCM-LH-15500a,b and MCCM-LH-17338a,b) referred to Lonchidion sp. from the Late Barremian Calizas de La Huerguina Formation of Spain have been described by Soler-Gijon et al. (2016), but are much smaller (dental mesiodistal length 0.4 mm) and lack granulae so are probably correctly referred to Lonchidion.
References- Gomez Pallerola, 1979. Un ave y otras especies fosiles nuevas de la biofacies de Santa Maria de Meya (Lérida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 90(4), 5-18.
Gomez Pallerola, 1982. Nuevas aportaciones a la ictiofauna y a la flora del Neocomiense del Montsech de Rubies (Lérida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 93(3), 199-213.
Gomez Pallerola, 1985. Nuevos hybodontidos del Cretacico Inferior de Santa Maria de Meya (Lérida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 96(4), 372-380.
Gomez Pallerola, 1988. Nota sobre los peces elasmobranquios de las calizas litograficas del Cretacico Inferior del Montsec (Lérida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 99(5), 748-756.
Gomez Pallerola, 1992. Nota sobre los tiburones hybodontos de las calizas litograficas del Cretacico Inferior del Montsec (Lérida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 103(5), 783-813.
Soler Gijon and Poyato-Ariza, 1995. Overview of the Early Cretaceous chondrichthyan fauna from Montsec (Lérida, Spain). II International Symposium on Lithographic Limestones. Extended abstracts. 145-149.
Duffin, 2001. Synopsis of the selachian genus Lissodus Brough, 1935. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 221(2), 145-218.
Rees and Underwood, 2002. The status of the shark genus Lissodus Brough, 1935, and the position of nominal Lissodus species within the Hybodontoidea (Selachii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 22(3), 471-479.
Soler-Gijon, Poyato-Ariza, Maisey and Lane, 2016. Chondrichthyes. In Poyato-Ariza and Buscalioni (eds.). Las Hoyas: A Cretaceous Wetland. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. 103-113.
V. ornatus (Woodward, 1889) Rees and Underwood, 2002
= Acrodus ornatus Woodward, 1889
= Hylaeobatis ornata (Woodward, 1889) Patterson, 1966
= Lonchidion breve pustulatus Patterson, 1966
= Lissodus pustulatus (Patterson, 1966) Duffin, 1985
= Lissodus ornatus (Woodward, 1889) Batchelor and Ward, 1990
Hauterivian-Barremian, Early Cretaceous
Weald Clay Formation, England
References- Woodward, 1889. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History). 1. Elasmobranchii. British Museum. 474 pp.
Patterson, 1966. British Wealden sharks. Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History (Geology). 11(7), 283-350.
Duffin, 1985. Revision of the hybodont selachian genus Lissodus Brough (1935). Palaeontographica, Abteilung A. 188, 105-152.
Batchelor and Ward, 1990. Fish remains from a temporary exposure of Hythe Beds (Aptian-Lower Cretaceous) near Godstone, Surrey. Mesozoic Research. 2(4). 181-203.
Rees and Underwood, 2002. The status of the shark genus Lissodus Brough, 1935, and the position of nominal Lissodus species within the Hybodontoidea (Selachii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 22(3), 471-479.

Neoselachii Compagno, 1977

Selachimorpha Nelson, 1984

Galeomorphii Campagno, 1973

Lamniformes Berg, 1958

Odontaspidae Muller and Henle, 1839

Osteichthyes Huxley, 1880
Official Definition- crown(Latimeria chalumnae + Neoceratodus forsteri + Polypterus bichir + Acipenser sturio + Lepisosteus osseus + Amia calva + Perca fluviatilis) (Moore and Near, 2020; Registration Number 214)
References- Huxley, 1880. On the application of the laws of evolution to the arrangement of the Vertebrata and more particularly of the Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 43, 649-662.
Moore and Near, 2020. Osteichthyes T. H. Huxley 1880 [J. A. Moore and T. J. Near], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 684-689.

undescribed Osteichthyes (Isasmendi Mata, 2017)
Late Barremian-Early Aptian, Early Cretaceous
Enciso Group, unnamed site, Peña Cárcena, Igea, La Rioja, Spain
Material- (CPI 1621; = ICIPLR 33) tooth (13x5x4 mm)
Late Barremian-Early Aptian, Early Cretaceous
Enciso Group, Umbría de Costarrey 2, Igea, La Rioja, Spain
(CPI 1622; = ICIPLR 34) tooth (18x7.5x7 mm)
Comments- Isasmendi et al. (2019) were the first to publish on isolated Baryonychine indet. teeth from the Enciso Group, listing seven "found in the fossil levels of BC (ICIPLR 30 and 32), EP6 (ICIPLR 26), PC (ICIPLR 28 and 33) and UC (ICIPLR 27 and 29)" (translated). However, the final detailed description of these by Isasmendi et al. (2020) excluded ICIPLR 33 without comment.
Prior to these works, Isasmendi Mata (2017) wrote an unpublished study on nine teeth assigned to Baryonychinae gen. et. sp. indet.- ICIPLR 26-34. ICIPLR 33 and 34 appear more mesiodistally slender and are smaller than the other teeth, and Isasmendi has confirmed "for sure they were not spinosaurid teeth" (pers. comm., 5-2024). Isasmendi Mata also places the Igea teeth in a Morphotype 1 versus Morphotype 2 dichotomy, but only ICIPLR 34 is in Morphotype 2. His Morphotype 2 differs in having a concave lingual margin, less labiolingual compression (he had no estimate for ICIPLR 26's Crown Basal Width, so its low compression in Isasmendi et al. 2020 was unknown still), and greater number of labial and lingual flutes (14-16 vs. 5-10), and he concludes "it could belong to a different taxon." It and ICIPLR 33 are here assigned to Osteichthyes as some actinopterygians have similar teeth to spinosaurids, but pending further study their precise affinities remain unknown. ICIPLR 34 is like Isasmendi et al.'s (2020) morphotype 1 in having its mesial carina start "close to the cervix", but is like morphotype 2 in supposedly lacking mesial serrations and having low labiolingual compression (0.93). However, other teeth said to have no serrations by Isasmendi Mata were later found by Isasmendi et al. (2020) to have them on at least one carina (ICIPLR 26) or be too eroded to determine (ICIPLR 28, 29, 31), so ICIPLR 34's reported lack of serrations could be artifactual as well. ICIPLR 33 has a low amount of compression (.80) but within the range of overlap between morphotypes 1 and 2, and its mesial carina is unpreserved. Isasmendi Mata (2017) also specifies that "In Umbría de Costarrey, two fossil sites (Umbría de Costarrey 1 and Umbría de Costarrey 2) can be differentiated", stating ICIPLR 34 is from Umbría de Costarrey 2, while he (pers. comm., 5-2024) states that within Peña Cárcena ICIPLR 33 "comes from another fossiliferous level [w]ith no name." Between 7-2020 and 5-2021 specimen numbers changed at the Centro de Interpretación
Paleontológica de La Rioja, from ICIPLR to different CPI numbers, with the CPI numbers listed above being from Isasmendi (pers. comm., 5-2024) but as yet unpublished.
References- Isasmendi Mata, 2017. Study of isolated teeth of theropod dinosaurs: Spinosaurids of the Early Cretaceous of La Rioja in an Iberian context. Trabajo Fin de Grado en Geología. Universidad del Pais Vasco. 32 pp.
Isasmendi, S
aez-Benito, Torices and Pereda-Suberbiola, 2019. Restos
oseos de dinosaurios ter
opodos del Cret
acico Inferior de Igea (La Rioja). Zubía. 31, 181-186.
Isasmendi, S
aez-Benito, Torices, Navarro-Lorb
es and Pereda-Suberbiola, 2020. New insights about theropod palaeobiodiversity in the Iberian Peninsula and Europe: Spinosaurid teeth (Theropoda, Megalosauroidea) from the Lower Cretaceous of La Rioja (Spain). Cretaceous Research. 104600.

Actinopterygii Woodward, 1891
Official Definition- crown(Polypterus bichir + Acipenser sturio + Lepisosteus osseus + Amia calva + Perca fluviatilis) (Moore and Near, 2020: Registration Number 206)
Comments- Klein (1988) has been listed as the author of Actinopterygii, but uses Acanthopterygii instead (Moore and Near, 2020).
References- Klein, 1885. Beiträge zur Bildung des Schadels der Knochenfische II. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 41, 107-261.
Woodward, 1891. Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Vol. 2. British Museum (Natural History). 567 pp.
Moore and Near, 2020. Actinopterygii A. S. Woodward 1891 [J. A. Moore and T. J. Near], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 694-699.

unnamed actinopterygian (Jasinski, 2018)
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Naashoibito Member of Ojo Alamo Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (SMP VP-2430 in part; holotype of Dineobellator notohesperis) four vertebrae (4.12, 5.10 mm)
Comments- Jasinoski et al. (2020) describe an articulated string of four vertebrae as fused distal caudals of their new dromaeosaurid Dineobellator, but they are about half as long as tall (43-54%) unlike theropod distal caudals which are always much longer than tall. For a comparison, their centra are 75% as tall as the anterior face of the first caudal vertebra but 16-19% of its length, whereas in Deinonychus the caudal 75% as tall as the first (~caudal 15) is 143% its length. Instead, these small (4.12, 5.10 mm) and tall centra resemble actinopterygians, in both size and the presence of foramina and anteroposterior ridges which the authors attributed to prezygapophyseal rods. Multiple fish are present in the Alamo Wash local fauna including lepisosteids, although amiid and esocid vertebrae are also common in similar formations.
References- Jasinski, 2018. The integration of morphology, variation, and phylogenetics to better understand fossil taxa and their modern relatives. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 564 pp.
Jasinski, Sullivan and Dodson, 2020. New dromaeosaurid dinosaur (Theropoda, Dromaeosauridae) from New Mexico and biodiversity of dromaeosaurids at the end of the Cretaceous. Scientific Reports. 10:5105.

Sarcopterygii Romer, 1956
Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Perca fluviatilis) (Schultze and Arratia, 2004)

Actinistia Cope, 1872

Indocoelacanthus Jain, 1974
I? sp. (Jain, 1980)
= 'Kota bird' Anonymous?, 1979
Early Jurassic
Kota Formation, India
Material- (GSI coll.; Kota bird) partial skull (~166 mm), mandibles (~133 mm), cleithrum, scales
Comments- In 1979, the Indian popular press reported the discovery of a bird from the Early Jurassic Kota Formation of India. The find was attributed to Yadagiri, who claimed it was the oldest known bird and had a skull 150 mm long. Jain (1980) examined the specimen and identified it as a coelacanth skull. The supposed frontals are gulars, the supposed dentary is an infraorbital, the supposed radius and ulna (which are only a third of the skull's length, so would be far too short for a bird) are frontals, the supposed quadrate is an opercular, the supposed furcula is a cleithtrum and the supposed feathers are scales. Jain noted the skull is comparable to the Kota coelacanth Indocoelacanthus robustus (Jain, 1974) in gular, opercular and cleithral morphology, but differs in having two rows of mandibular denticulation. The absence of a skull roof made it difficult to compare in detail. He believed it could be a new species of Indocoelacanthus or a new genus of coelacanth. The specimen has not been examined since to my knowledge.
References- Jain, 1974. Indocoelacanthus robustus n. gen., n. sp. (Coelacanthidae, Lower Jurassic), the first fossil coelacanth from India. Journal of Paleontology. 48(1), 49-62.
Anonymous?, 1979. India Today. May 16-31. 4(10).
Jain, 1980. The continental Lower Jurassic fauna from the Kota Formation, India. In Jacobs (ed). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff. 99-123.

Tetrapoda Hatschek and Cori, 1896
Official Definition- crown(Homo sapiens + Caecilia tentaculata + Siren lacertina + Pipa pipa) (Laurin, 2020; Registration Number 106)
Other definitions- (Ascaphus truei + Homo sapiens) (Laurin, 2004)
References- Hatschek and Cori, 1896. Elementarcus der Zootomie in fünfzen Vorlesungen. Gustav Fischer. [pp]
Laurin, 2020. Tetrapoda B. Hatschek and C. J. Cori 1896 [M. Laurin], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 758-763.

Amphibia Linnaeus, 1758
Official Definition- (Caecilia tentaculata, Siren lacertina, Andrias japonicus, roteus anguinus, Rana temporaria < Homo sapiens) (Laurin, Arntzen, Báez, Bauer, Damiani, Evans, Kupfer, Larson, Marjanović, Müller, Olsson, Rage and Walsh, 2020; Registration Number 9)
Other definitions- (Ascaphus truei <- Homo sapiens) (Laurin, 2004)
References- Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I, Editio decima, reformata. Laurentius Salvius. 824 pp.
Laurin, Arntzen, Báez, Bauer, Damiani, Evans, Kupfer, Larson, Marjanović, Müller, Olsson, Rage and Walsh, 2020. Amphibia C. Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin, J. W. Arntzen, A. M. Báez, A. M. Bauer, R. Damiani, S. E. Evans, A. Kupfer, A. Larson, D. Marjanović, H. Müller, L. Olsson, J.-C. Rage and D. Walsh], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 764-771.

Gymnophionia Müller, 1832
Official Definition- crown(Caecilia tentaculata + Ichthyophis glutinosus + Rhinatrema bivittatum) (Wake, 2020; Registration Number 235)
Comments- While sometimes credited to Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1814), that work used Gymnophia.
References- Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814. Fine del prodromo d’erpetologia Siciliana. Speccio delle Scienze. 2, 102-104.
Müller, 1832. Beiträge zur Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Amphibien. I. Ueber die natürliche Eintheilung der Amphibien. Zeitschrift für Physiologie. 4, 190-275.
Wake, 2020. Gymnophiona J. Müller 1832 [M. H. Wake], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group.778-783.

Batrachia Latreille, 1800

Caudata Scopoli, 1777
Official Definition- crown(Salamandra salamandra + Siren lacertina + Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) (Wake, 2020; Registration Number 234)
References- Scopoli, 1777. Introductio ad Historiam Naturelam, Sistens Genera Lapidum, Planarum, et Animalium Hactenus Detecta, Caracteribus Essentialibus Donate, in Tribus Divisa, Subinde ad Leges Naturae. Gerle. 506 pp.
Wake, 2020. Caudata J. A. Scopoli 1777 [D. Wake], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 784-787.

Salientia Laurenti, 1768

Pan-Amniota Rowe, 2004
Official Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Pipa pipa, Caecilia tentaculata, Siren lacertina) (Laurin and Smithson, 2020; Registration Number 74)
= Reptiliomorpha Säve-Söderbergh, 1934
Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Ascaphus truei) (Laurin, 2004)
= Eureptilia Olson, 1947
Definition- (Captorhinus aguti, Petrolacosaurus kansensis <-Procolophon trigoniceps) (Tsuji and Muller, 2009)
Other definitions- (Diapsida <- Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
References- Säve-Söderbergh, 1934. Some points of view concerning the evolution of the vertebrates and the classification of this group. Arkiv för Zoologi. 26A, 1-20.
Rowe, 2004. Chordate phylogeny and development. In Cracraft and Donoghue (eds.). Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press. 384-409.
Laurin and Smithson, 2020. Pan-Amniota T. Rowe 2004 [M. Laurin and T. R. Smithson], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 788-791.

Romeriida Gauthier, Kluge and Rowe, 1988
Definition- (Paleothyris acadiana + Diapsida) (Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
Other definition- (Sauria <- Anapsida) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
Comments- Marjanovic (2024 online) states the "material referred to Paleothyris by Carroll (1969) ... is itself so widely variable that its monophyly was already doubted by Modesto (2006). Arjan Mann (pers. comm. August 2021; Mann et al., 2023b) has begun to redescribe it and strongly recommends against using Carroll’s (1969) description or even his line drawings of the difficult specimens," so that a clade using it as an internal specifier is currently poorly supported. However, he did recover taxa generally considered of Paleothyris-grade (Coelostegus, Cephalerpeton, Anthracodromeus, Brouffia) to be just outside Amniota, so it is possible Romeriida sensu Laurin and Reisz is more inclusive than that clade.
References- Marjanović, 2024 online. The origin of Amniota in phylogenetic context. preprint. DOI: 10.31233/osf.io/tja8b

Amniota Haeckel, 1866
Official Definition- crown(Homo sapiens + Testudo graeca + Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 7)
Other definitions- (Mammalia + Reptilia) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Homo sapiens + Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Homo sapiens + Iguana iguana) (Reisz, 2004)
References- Haeckel, 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Reimer. 574 pp.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Amniota E. Haeckel 1866 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 792-799.

Pan-Mammalia Rowe, 2004
Official Definition- (total, Homo sapiens, Didelphis marsupialis, Tachyglossus aculeatus) (Rowe, 2020; Registration Number 224)
= Synapsida Osborn, 1903
Official Definition- (Cynognathus crateronotus <- Testudo graeca, Iguana iguana, Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 290)
Other definitions- (Eothyris parkeyi + Varanops brevirostris + Homo sapiens) (modified from Laurin and Reiz, 1995)
(Homo sapiens <- Hylonomus lyelli, Procolophon trigoniceps, Petrolacosaurus kansensis) (modified from Reisz, 2004; modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(lower temporal arch as in Homo sapiens) (Rowe et al., 2004)
(Dicynodon lacerticeps <- Crocodilus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
Comments- Both Pan-Mammalia and Synapsida were officially defined in the same publication, and are heterodefinitional synonyms. PhyloCode Article 14.4 states "If a panclade name (Art. 10.3) and a name that was not explicitly established as applying to a total clade are judged to be heterodefinitional synonyms (Art. 14.1), the panclade name has precedence even if it was established later (except in cases covered by Art. 10.7)." Thus Pan-Mammalia has precedence.
References- Osborn, 1903. The reptilian subclasses Diapsida and Synapsida and the early history of the Diaptosauria. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. 1, 265-270.
Rowe, 2004. Chordate phylogeny and development. In Cracraft and Donoghue (eds.). Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press. 384-409.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Synapsida H. F. Osborn 1903 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 810-813.
Rowe, 2020. Pan-Mammalia T. B. Rowe 2004 [T. B. Rowe], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 800-809.

Eupelycosauria Kemp, 1982

Sphenacomorpha Ivankhnenko, 2003

Sphenacodontia Romer and Price, 1940

Sphenacodontoidea Marsh, 1878

Sphenacodontidae Marsh, 1878

Sphenacodontinae Marsh, 1878 vide Romer, 1936

Dimetrodon Cope, 1878
= Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853
D. spp. [entries coming]
D. borealis (Leidy, 1853) Brink, Maddin, Evans and Reisz, 2015
= Bathygnathus borealis Leidy, 1853
Artinskian, Early Permian
Orby Head Formation, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Holotype- (ANSP 9524) partial premaxilla, septomaxilla, incomplete maxilla, anterior nasal
Diagnosis- (after Brink et al., 2014) large facial exposure of septomaxilla.
Comments- The holotype of Bathygnathus borealis was discovered in 1845 and originally briefly described by Leidy (1853) as the mandible of a reptile, and later (1854, 1855) in more depth as a lizard ("lacertian"). Cope (1868) suggested it was related to Dryptosaurus and provisionally placed it in his Goniopoda (=Theropoda) in 1870. Huene (1902) referred it to his theropod family Zanclodontidae, believing it might be synonymous with Teratosaurus. It was also commonly referred to the Amphisauridae (e.g. Marsh, 1882), and the Anchisauridae which replaced it (e.g. Marsh, 1885) when these were thought to be theropod groups. Owen (1876) correctly identified the specimen as an upper jaw and suggested a relationship to theriodonts (and Lycosaurus in particular) based on the presence of a canine tooth, reduced incisor and other characters. This was not confirmed until Case (1905) and Huene (1905) independently reidentified Bathygnathus as a "pelycosaurian" pan-mammal, Case believing it to be either Dimetrodon or Naosaurus (a junior synonym of Edaphosaurus that was mistakenly given a Dimetrodon skull). It was referred to Sphenacodontidae by Romer and Price (1940), and Sphenacodontinae in particular by Reisz (1986). Most recently, Brink et al. (2014; published as Brink et al., 2015) reexamined and redescribed Bathygnathus and found it to be sister to Dimetrodon grandis within Dimetrodon based on tooth roots which lack plicidentine, tooth roots equal in length to crowns, postcaniniform teeth with longitudinal distal sulci, and mesial and distal serrations. They note Bathygnathus has precedence over Dimetrodon, so petitioned the ICZN to retain the latter genus (Brink, 2015). This was upheld by the ICZN in 2019, who "conserved the generic name Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by giving it precedence over its senior subjective synonym Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853."
References- Leidy, 1853. [Remarks on Bathygnathus borealis]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 6, 404.
Leidy, 1854. On Bathygnathus borealis, an extinct saurian of the New Red Sandstone of Prince Edward Island. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series. 2(4), 327-330.
Leidy, 1855. On Bathygnathus borealis, an extinct saurian of the New Red Sandstone of Prince Edward's Island. American Journal of Science, series 2. 19, 444-446.
Cope, 1868. Remarks on extinct reptiles which approach birds. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 19, 234-235
Cope, 1870. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 14, 1-252.
Owen, 1876. Evidences of theriodonts in Permian deposits elsewhere than in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 32, 352-366.
Cope, 1878. Descriptions of extinct Batrachia and Reptilia from the Permian formations of Texas. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 17, 505-530.
Leidy, 1881. Remarks on Bathygnathus borealis. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series. 8(4), 449.
Marsh, 1882. Classification of the Dinosauria. American Journal of Science. 23, 81-86.
Marsh, 1885. On the classification and affinities of dinosaurian reptiles. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 1884, 763.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Case, 1905. Bathygnathus borealis Leidy and the Permian of Prince Edward Island. Science. 22(550), 52-53.
Huene, 1905. Pelycosaurier im deutschen Muschelkalk. Neues Jahrbuch fur Minerologie, Geologie und Paleontologie. 20, 321-353.
Case, 1907. Revision of the Pelycosauria of North America. 176 pp.
Romer and Price, 1940. Review of the Pelycosauria. Geological Society of America Special Paper. 28, 538 pp.
Langston, 1963. Fossil vertebrates and the Late Palaeozoic Red Beds of Prince Edward Island. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin. 187, 36 pp.
Reisz, 1986. Pelycosauria. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. 17A, 102 pp.
Spalding, 1995. Bathygnathus, Canada's first "dinosaur". In Sarjeant (ed.). Vertebrate Fossils and the Evolution of Scientific Concepts. 245-254.
Brink, Evans, Maddin and Reisz, 2014. Phylogenetic assessment of Bathygnathus borealis, a derived species of Dimetrodon from Canada. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2014, 97.
Brink, Maddin, Evans and Reisz, 2015. Re-evaluation of the historic Canadian fossil Bathygnathus borealis from the Early Permian of Prince Edward Island. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 52(12), 1109-1120.
Brink, 2015. Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 (Synapsida, Sphenacodontidae): Proposed conservation by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 72(4), 297-299.
Lucas, 2017. Comment (Case 3695) – Support for the proposed conservation of Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853 (Synapsida: Sphenacodontidae) (see BZN 72(4): 297–299 [Case]). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 74(1), 46.
Kammerer, 2017. Comment (Case 3695) – Additional remarks in support of the proposed conservation of Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853 (Synapsida, Sphenacodontidae) (see BZN 72(4): 297–299 [Case]; BZN 74: 46 [Comment]). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 74(2), 132.
ICZN, 2019. Opinion 2446 (Case 3695) – Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 (Synapsida, SPHENACODONTIDAE): name conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 76(1), 200-201.

Sauropsida Goodrich, 1916
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Homo sapiens) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006; modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
Other definition- (Mesosaurus tenuidens + Testudo graeca + Diapsida) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)

Diapsida Osborn, 1903
Official Definition- (upper and lower temporal fenestrae synapomorphic with Sphenodon punctatus) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 120)
Other definitions- (Araeoscelis gracilis + Sauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Lepidosauria + Archosauria) (Laurin, 1991)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Youngina capensis) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Claudiosaurus germaini + Youngina capensis + Sauria) (modified from Braga and Rieppel, 1997)
(two temporal arches/fenestrae of Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Petrolacosaurus kansensis, Iguana iguana <- Captorhinus aguti, Procolophon trigoniceps, Paleothyris acadiana) (Reisz, 2004)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
Comments- If Petrolacosaurus is outside Amniota as in Marjanovic (2024 online), an upper temporal fenestra synapomorphic with Sphenodon may not have occured until within Neoreptilia.
References- Osborn, 1903. On the primary division of the Reptilia into two sub-classes, Synapsida and Diapsida. Science. 17(424), 275-276.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Diapsida H. F. Osborn 1903 [J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1032-1039.
Marjanović, 2024 online. The origin of Amniota in phylogenetic context. preprint. DOI: 10.31233/osf.io/tja8b

Neoreptilia Ford and Benson, 2020
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Youngina capensis) (Ford and Benson, 2020)
= Procolophonia Seeley, 1888
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Pareiasaurus serridens + Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
Other definitions- (Owenetta rubidgei + Barasaurus besairei + Procolophon trigoniceps + Lanthanosuchus watsoni + Sclerosaurus armatus + Pareiasaurus serridens + Testudo graeca) (modified from Lee, 1997)
= Testudinomorpha Laurin and Reisz, 1995
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
References- Ford and Benson, 2020 (online 2019). The phylogeny of early amniotes and the affinities of Parareptilia and Varanopidae. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 4, 57-65.

Parareptilia Olson, 1947
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps, Pareiasaurus serridens <- Homo sapiens, Iguana iguana) (Reisz, 2004)
Other definitions- (Testudo graeca <- Diapsida) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
(Milleretta rubidgei, Procolophon trigoniceps <- Captorhinus aguti) (Tsuji and Muller, 2009)
Comments- This group could easily be polyphyletic within sauropsids.

unnamed clade (Megalancosaurus preonensis + Reptilia)
= Basitheropoda Olshevsky, 1991
= Theropodomorpha Olshevsky, 1991
Definition- (Megalancosaurus preonensis + Longisquama insignis + Megalosaurus bucklandii, - Passer domesticus) (modified from Olshevsky, 1991)
= Avicephala Senter, 2004
Definition- (Coelurosauravus elivensis, Megalancosaurus preonensis <- Neodiapsida) (modified from Senter, 2004)
Other definition- (Weigeltisaurus jaekeli, Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus <-Petrolacosaurus kansensis, Orovenator mayorum, Claudiosaurus germaini, Youngina capensis, Sauria) (Pritchard, Sues, Scott and Reisz, 2021)
References- Pritchard, Sues, Scott and Reisz, 2021. Osteology, relationships and functional morphology of Weigeltisaurus jaekeli (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) based on a complete skeleton from the Upper Permian Kupferschiefer of Germany. PeerJ. 9:e11413.

Simiosauria Senter, 2004
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus <- Coelurosauravus elivensis, Sauria) (modified from Senter, 2004)
= Drepanosauromorpha Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010

Drepanosauridae Olsen and Sues, 1986
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus + Megalancosaurus preonensis + Dolabrosaurus aquatilis) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
= Megalancosauridae Olshevsky, 1991
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus + Megalancosaurus preonensis) (modified from Merck, 1997

unnamed Drepanosauridae (Parrish, 1999)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Four Aces Mine, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Utah, US
Material- (UCM 76197) two incomplete manual unguals
Comments- Discovered between 1983 and 1988, Parrish (1999) figured and commented on "several incomplete ungual phalanges" including "a thick, rounded morph with a sharply curved claw" which he referred to ?Theropoda. His figure 5C strongly resembles manual ungual II of some drepanosaurids (Drepanosaurus, Hayden Quarry ?Drepanosaurus, Ancistronychus) in its depth and shortness, high curvature and lack of vascular grooves, although it differs in shape from any of those. Figure 5B is less deep but otherwise similar, suggesting an ungual from a different manual digit. Jenkins et al. (2017) merely stated "these specimens are best considered Archosauriformes incertae sedis until further work is conducted", which seems too conservative.
References- Parrish, 1999. Small fossil vertebrates from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of southern Utah. In Gillette (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication. 99-1, 45-50.
Jenkins, Foster and Gay, 2017. First unambiguous dinosaur specimen from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West. 4, 231-242.

Protoavis in part

Megalancosaurus Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980
M. preonensis Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980
= Megalancosaurus endennae Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Dolomia di Forni Formation, Italy
Holotype- (MFSN 1769) skull (30 mm), mandibles (18 mm), hyoid, several cervical vertebrae (c3 7 mm, c6 9 mm), second dorsal neural spine, fused third and fourth dorsal neural spines, two dorsal ribs, dorsal rib fragments, scapula (23 mm), coracoid fragment, humerus (22 mm), radius (15 mm), ulna (15 mm), intermedium, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, metacarpal I (1.5 mm), phalanx I-1 (6 mm), partial manual ungual I, metacarpal II (3 mm), incomplete phalanx II-1 (6 mm), metacarpal III (3.5 mm), partial phalanx III-1 (6 mm), manual ungual III (4 mm), metacarpal IV (3 mm), partial phalanx IV-1 (3 mm), phalanx IV-2 (5 mm), manual ungual IV (4.5 mm), metacarpal V (2 mm), partial phalanx V-1 (3 mm), phalanx V-2 (4 mm), manual ungual V (4.5 mm)
Referred- (MFSN 1801) caudal vertebrae 8-38 fused to chevrons (Pinna, 1987)
(MFSN 18443a) caudal vertebrae 13-38 (Renesto, 2000)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Zorzino Limestone Formation, Italy
(MBSN 25; paratype of Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus; holotype of Megalancosaurus endennae) seven posteriormost dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, first-third sacral vertebrae, first-twenty-ninth caudal vertebrae fused to chevrons (c10 6 mm), pelvis, femur (23.5 mm), tibia (14.5 mm), fibula (13 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (3 mm), phalanx I-1 (7 mm), phalanx I-2 (2.5 mm), metatarsal II (4 mm), phalanx II-1 (3.5 mm), phalanx II-2 (6 mm), pedal ungual II (4.5 mm), metatarsal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (3.5 mm), phalanx III-2 (6.5 mm), pedal ungual III (5 mm), metatarsal IV (4 mm), phalanx IV-1 (4 mm), phalanx IV-2 (6 mm), pedal ungual IV (5.5 mm), metatarsal V (3 mm), phalanx V-1 (3 mm), phalanx V-2 (5.5 mm), pedal ungual V (4 mm), skin (Pinna, 1980)
(MBSN 26; paratype of Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus) cervical vertebrae (c3 4.5 mm, c6 6 mm), anterior dorsal vertebrae (d2 4 mm), anterior dorsal ribs, posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs (d18 3 mm), supraneural element, caudal vertebrae fused with chevrons (c10 5.5 mm), scapulae (21 mm), humerus (18.5 mm), radius, ulna, pelvis, femur (20 mm), tibia (11.5 mm), fibula, pes (Pinna, 1980)
(MPUM 6008; = P 11 24) cervical vertebrae (c3 7.5 mm, c5 9.5 mm, c6 10 mm), anterior dorsal vertebrae (d2 6 mm), anterior dorsal ribs, posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, supraneural element, sacral vertebrae, caudal neural spines, scapula (23 mm), coracoids fused to sternal plates, furcula, humerus (22.5 mm), radius (14 mm), ulna (14 mm), proximal carpal, four distal carpals, phalanx I-1 (6 mm), manual ungual I (4 mm), metacarpal II (3 mm), phalanx II-1 (6 mm), manual ungual II (4 mm), metacarpal III (3 mm), phalanx III-1 (6 mm), manual ungual III (4 mm), metacarpal IV (2.5 mm), phalanx IV-1 (3 mm), phalanx IV-2 (5 mm), phalanx V-1 (2.5 mm), phalanx V-2 (4 mm), manual ungual V (3.5 mm), three manual phalanges, two manual unguals, partial pelvis (Renesto, 1994)
(MPUM 8437; = CCSR 63115) posterior skull, incomplete mandible, eight cervical vertebrae (c5 7 mm, c6 7.5 mm), five anterior dorsal vertebrae, anterior dorsal ribs, eighteen posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, supraneural element, three sacral vertebrae, thirty-nine caudal vertebrae fused to chevrons, partial scapula, partial coracoid, furcula, distal humerus (~21 mm), radius (11 mm), ulna (12 mm), intermedium, ulnare, two centrales, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, partial manual ungual I, metacarpal II, incomplete phalanx II-1, incomplete manual ungual II, metacarpal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (5 mm), manual ungual III, metacarpal IV, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, manual ungual IV, metacarpal V, phalanx V-1, incomplete phalanx V-2, manual ungual V, partial pelvis, femora (27 mm), tibiae (17.5 mm), fibulae (16 mm), astragali, calcanea, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (3 mm), phalanx III-2, pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2, pedal ungual (Renesto, 2000)
Late Triassic?
Italy?
(MCSNB 7833) (Senter, 2004)
Comments- Megalancosaurus preonensis was discovered in 1980 and originally assigned to Pseudosuchia sensu Huene (Calzavara et al., 1980). Although Carroll (1988) also placed it in Thecodontia (in the traditional paraphyletic sense), generally only those workers who reject cladistics and a dinosaurian origin for birds have continued to call Megalancosaurus an archosaur (e.g. Feduccia and Wild, 1993; Feduccia, 1996). This is almost exclusively based on its supposed antorbital fenestra (considered near certainly absent by Renesto and Dalla Vecchia, 2005), and presumably the need to have birds derive from archosaurs. Megalancosaurus is currently placed in the larger clade Simiosauria, which has a highly uncertain placement among eosuchians. Various analyses place them outside Neodiapsida, sister to Euryapsida, in Pan-Lepidosauria, as non-archosauromorph pan-archosaurs or as 'protorosaurs', with the latter three possibilities sometimes including a close relationship with pterosaurs. Determining their relationships will require a larger diapsid phylogenetic analysis than those currently published.
MBSN 25 was first described as a juvenile specimen of Drepanosaurus (Pinna, 1980), then referred to Megalancosaurus (Renesto, 1994). Renesto et al. (2010) have recently redescribed it as a new species based on differences in pedal digit I, but considering Vallesaurus also has specimens differing only in this regard (which Renesto et al. also named as a new species), the modified club-like digits in M. endennae and V. cenensis are here considered likely to be due to sexual dimorphism.
Megalancosaurus a theropod? Olshevsky (1991) believed Megalancosaurus to be a basal theropod (or in his taxonomy, a basitheropod theropodomorph), but this was based only on the holotype. Of the theropodomorph characters he lists, carnivorous dentition is primitive for gnathostomes, while new specimens show Megalancosaurus lacks erect limbs and a reduced calcaneum. Of Olshevsky's basitheropod characters, an antorbital fenestra is primitive for archosauriforms and probably lacking in Megalancosaurus, "generally avian appearence of the skull" is vague and unlike basal theropods, relatively large forelimbs are primitive for tetrapods and unlike basal theropods, "clavicles, fused clavicles, or primitive furcula" covers every possibility though Megalancosaurus' are fused as in theropods, and pentadactyl manus and pes are plesiomorphic for tetrapods and not found in basal theropods. The tarsus is not even incipiently mesotarsal and as noted above the calcaneum is not reduced. Megalancosaurus does share the presence of at least three sacral vertebrae with dinosaurs, but this is present in pterosaurs and some other taxa as well. Furthermore, the more basal Vallesaurus and Drepanosaurus only have two sacrals. While Megalancosaurus and theropods both have manus capable of grasping, in theropods digit I is angled towards II and III due to an asymmetrical metacarpal I articulation and twisted phalanx I-1, whereas in Megalancosaurus half the digits oppose the other half due merely to a lack of articulation between the metacarpals. This suggests the grasping abilities are convergent. Megalancosaurus lacks numerous characters expected in a basal theropod, such as subnarial fenestra, external mandibular fenestra, thecodont dentition, more than eight cervicals, cervical epipophyses, vertebral laminae, dicephalous dorsal ribs, reduced manual digits IV and V, perforated acetabulum, dorsally angled preacetabular process, elongate postacetabular process, elongate pubis and ischium, inturned femoral head, anterior and fourth trochanter, mesotarsal ankle, reduced calcaneum, centrale absent, less than three distal tarsals, and reduced pedal digit V. These make it virtually impossible to assign Megalancosaurus to Dinosauria, let alone Theropoda, despite its furcula.
Megalancosaurus a bird ancestor? Feduccia and Wild (1993) first suggested Megalancosaurus was more closely related to birds than theropods were, though the absence of other taxa in their cladogram leaves one uncertain exactly where in Archosauria they place the the Megalancosaurus+bird clade. The expanded braincase is also present in pterosaurs and coelurosaurs. Large orbits are found in those two groups as well, and many other small tetrapods. A pointed snout is also present in many maniraptoriforms, pterosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', choristoderes, thalattosaurs, and some basal pan-lepidosaurs. The "large, oval preorbital fenestra" is actually the external naris. The reduced premaxillary dentition is not present in basal birds, though the authors state it "may be important, because when modern birds loose their teeth they loose the maxilla that houses them, and in the Cretaceous toothed birds, the teeth are borne only on the maxilla." Even ignoring the fact Aves does retain a maxilla, and subsequently discovered birds like omnivoropterygids and longipterygids have toothed premaxillae and toothless maxillae, mere propensity for a group to exhibit a character is not a synapomorphy. The dentary is said to be birdlike, but this is too vague to evaluate. The foramen magnum is claimed to be posteroventrally oriented, but this is based solely on the angle of the quadrate and ventral squamosal process. The latter is also true in Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Tamaulipasaurus, the basal choristodere Lazarussuchus, Cosesaurus and pterosaurs. Feduccia and Wild state "the six to seven elongate cervical vertebrae create a highly movable birdlike neck." The high mobility is caused by heterocoelous centra, which are similar to euornithines but not basal birds. Elongate cervical centra are present in coelurosaurs, 'protorosaurs' and other taxa, while birds have at least nine cervicals. Though the authors claim the "anterior limbs, without manus, are proportionately similar to those of modern birds and Archaeopteryx; and dissimilar to theropods," the radiohumeral ratio of 68% is shorter than most maniraptorans (even taxa known in 1993, e.g. Oviraptor 87%, Deinonychus 76%) and Archaeopteryx (84-96%), while modern birds usually have ratios of more than 100%. The large manual ungual flexor tubercles are said to be birdlike, but these are absent in the more basal Hypuronector, and also found in most theropods and pterosaurs. Contra Feduccia and Wild, the forelimbs minus manus are not longer than the hindlimbs minus pes, being 72% as long instead. Finally, the straplike scapula is indeed superficially like Aves in being extremely slender, bowed and having a tapered distal end. Yet basal birds lack these features, and only have scapulae as slender as pterosaurs and most theropods.
Feduccia later (1996) refers to Megalancosaurus' "tiny isodont teeth set in sockets", but they are actually subthecodont as in most basal diapsids, while isodonty is also plesiomorphic.
After the mid-1990s, Feduccia and other Birds Are Not Dinosaurs supporters seem to have reduced their emphasis on Megalancosaurus' relationship with birds. Geist and Feduccia (2000) repeat the 1993 observations, but then state "though probably not the avian ancestor, Megalancosaurus represents a chronologically and biophysically plausible model for a gliding stage through which birds must have passed." Martin (2004) incorrectly stated Megalancosaurus has a furcula, but did not explicitly link it to bird origins.
Besides those characters noted above that exclude Megalancosaurus from Theropoda, it is less similar to basal birds than even basal coelurosaurs are in many other ways. These include the absence of pleurocoels, less than five sacral vertebrae, absence of a transition point in the tail, small distal carpal I, metacarpal III longer than II, presence of manual digits IV and V, absent pubic boot, absent obturator process, obturator foramen in pubis, astragalus without tall ascending process, robust metatarsus, metatarsal I reaching tarsus, and phalanx V-1 present.
References- Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980. Megalancosaurus preonensis, n. g., n. sp., a new reptile from the Norian of Friuli. Gortania. 2, 49-63.
Pinna, 1980. Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus, nuovo genere e nuova specie di lepidosauro del Trias alpino. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali - Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. 121, 181-192.
Pinna, 1987. Un nuovo esemplare giovanile di Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus del Norico di Val Preone (Udine). Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali - Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. 128, 80-84.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Feduccia and Wild, 1993. Birdlike characters in the Triassic archosaur Megalancosaurus. Naturwissenschaften. 80, 564-566.
Renesto, 1994. Megalancosaurus, a possibly arboreal archosauromorph (Reptilia) from the Upper Triassic of northern Italy. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14(1), 38-52.
Feduccia, 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. 420 pp.
Padian and Chiappe, 1998. The origin and early evolution of birds. Biological Reviews. 73, 1-42.
Ruben, 1998. Gliding adaptations in the Triassic archosaur Megalancosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 18(3), 73A.
Geist and Feduccia, 2000. Gravity-defying behaviors: Identifying models for protoaves. American Zoologist. 40, 664-675.
Renesto, 2000. Bird-like head on a chameleon body: New specimens of the enigmatic diapsid reptile Megalancosaurus from the Late Triassic of northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(2), 157-180.
Martin, 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta Zoologica Sinica. 50(6), 978-990.
Senter, 2004. Phylogeny of the Drepanosauridae (Reptilia: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 2, 257-268.
Renesto and Dalla Vecchia, 2005. The skull and lower jaw of the holotype of Megalancosaurus preonensis (Diapsida, Drepanosauridae) from the Upper Triassic of Northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 111(2), 247-257.
Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010. The taxonomy and paleobiology of the Late Triassic (Carnian-Norian: Adamanian-Apachean) drepanosaurs (Diapsida: Archosauromorpha: Drepanosauromorpha). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 46, 1-81.
Castiello, Renesto and Bennett, 2016 (online 2015). The role of the forelimb in prey capture in the Late Triassic reptile Megalancosaurus (Diapsida, Drepanosauromorpha). Historical Biology. 28(8), 1090-1100.

Longisquamidae Sharov, 1970
Longisquama Sharov, 1970
L. insignis Sharov, 1970
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Madygen Formation, Kyrgyzstan
Holotype- (PIN 2584/4) incomplete skull (~23 mm), incomplete mandibles, eight cervical vertebrae, several anterior dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, scapula (12 mm), coracoid (5 mm), interclavicle? (9 mm), furcula, sternum?, humerus (13 mm), radii, ulnae (11 mm), radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, four distal carpals, metacarpals I, phalanx I-1, manual ungual I, metacarpals II (one proximal), metacarpals III (one proximal), proximal phalanx III-1, metacarpals IV (one proximal), phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, manual ungual IV, metacarpals V, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2, phalanx V-3, manual ungual V, scales, parafeathers
Paratypes- (PIN 2584/5) partial parafeather
(PIN 2584/6) two partial parafeathers
(PIN 2584/7) partial parafeather
(PIN 2584/9) six distal parafeathers
Referred- (FG 596/V/1) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
(FG 596/V/2) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
(FG 596/V/3) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
Comments- Longisquama was originally described as a pseudosuchian, which at the time was used for all basal archosauriforms that were not phytosaurs. Surprisingly few authors have addressed its relationships since, traditionally assuming it to be an archosaur(-iform) because of the supposed antorbital and mandibular fenestrae. More recently, most reviewers (e.g. Reisz and Sues, 2000) have been even more cautious and refer to it merely as a diapsid. The matter is especially difficult to resolve as the holotype only received a short original description with poor illustrations and has not been osteologically described since, with the exception of Peters' (2000) seemingly overimaginative attempt. Several characters have proven controversial and will be discussed first.
Though originally described as having an antorbital fenestra, Senter (2003) found this was caused by breaks which were not present in the main slab, a conclusion also reached by Prum (2001). Peters (2000), Martin (2004) and James and Pourtless (2009) all disagree however, believing it to have maxillary and (for the former two authors) promaxillary fenestrae as well. The latter authors provide a photograph and interpretive drawing which allow evaluation. Their supposed antorbital fossa could easily be a naris if it is indeed a hole, and if properly identified by them would be unlike other taxa in its location along the dorsal edge of the anterior half of the antorbital/maxillary fenestra. Similarly, the entire ventral edge of the supposed antorbital fenestra looks like a crack to me, including the supposed dorsal process of the maxilla, said to support an interfenestral bar. I don't see any posterior edge of the antorbital fenestra either, so the whole area could be a solid maxilla. The ventral process for the interfenestral bar identified by them is apparent, but if anything seems separated from the nasal by a suture. This would place it on the lacrimal or prefrontal, both unlike any known taxon with a maxillary fenestra. Given the above information, I agree with Prum and Senter that no antorbital fenestra is present.
An external mandibular fenestra was also originally described, though all authors including Peters, Martin and Senter now agree this was due to damage.
The mode of tooth implantation was described as acrodont by Sharov, though Martin believes it is thecodont. He provided no evidence for this in 2004, and even qualified the character with a question mark. In a later 2008 paper, Martin states the mandible had become split between slabs, and what Sharov interpreted as tooth crowns were actually entire teeth with expanded bases. Yet supposing the mandible with preserved teeth is being viewed laterally, the teeth would more probably be pleurodont since no lingual wall is apparent. Certainly the roots would be too short for thecodont teeth in any case, though they might be subthecodont if socketed.
The posterodorsal skull is preserved expanding significantly past the orbit, described as two tubercles by Sharov, and interpreted as a crest by Peters and Senter. Martin (2008) believes it is merely part of the skull roof that has become disarticulated. Either interpretation seems possible.
The clavicles were described by Sharov as fused ("concrescent") though a suture was illustrated. Senter and Martin agree they are fused to form a furcula, Peters thinks they merely overlap each other, and Unwin and Benton (2001) believe they are unfused (incorrectly saying this was Sharov's opinion).
Senter (2003, 2004), Peters (2000) and James and Pourtless have been the only authors to include the taxon in a phylogenetic analysis.
Longisquama an avicephalan? Longisquama has often been placed close to Megalancosaurus, though opinions on where this clade or grade belongs have varied wildly. Olshevsky (1991) had both as basal theropods ("basitheropod theropodomorphs"), Feduccia and Wild (1993) and others against the dinosaurian origin of birds consider both to be "avimorph archosaurs" or "avimorph thecodonts" close to the base of birds, and Peters (2006) has both close to pterosaur origins in Pan-Lepidosauria. There is usually little opinion on whether the two taxa are more closely related to each other than to the clade they're viewed as ancestral to, so the discussions under each comment section below also function to examine these authors' evidence for placing Longisquama and Megalancosaurus in similar phylogenetic positions in their classification schemes.
Senter's analyses found Longisquama to emerge either in a polytomy with Coelurosauravus and Megalancosaurus (2003), or as the sister taxon of Coelurosauravus with both forming the sister taxon to simiosaurs (2004). He named this clade Avicephala, and supported it with several characters- premaxilla and dentary sharply pointed in lateral view; craniomandibular joint anteriorly placed below orbit; posterior border of skull strongly inclined posteriorly (correlated with previous character); scapula elongate; width of distal expansion of humerus <1/3 humeral length; length of manus subequal to or less than humeral length (untrue in Longisquama); metacarpal IV shorter than metacarpal III (only present in Hypuronecter among simiosaurs). Two characters (parietals posteriorly upswept, forming posterodorsal crest; parietal rim ornamented) placed Longisquama closer to Coelurosauravus in the published version. The homology of their posterior skull crests is doubtful however, since the elongate, ornamented bone in Coelurosauravus has been more recently identified as the squamosal, which is very short in Longisquama. Also, the parietal of Coelurosauravus is a midline strut, unlike the laterally placed rounded bone in Longisquama. While this is the most extensive analysis (the thesis version moreso than the published version), it still suffers from a lack of taxonomic sampling of non-pan-archosaurs and a paucity of characters for such a broad taxonomic scope. Only Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Youngina and Gephyrosaurus were used in the 2004 paper, while the thesis also used Icarosaurus, Askeptosaurus, Palaeopleurosaurus and two choristoderes. Yet many taxa including pterosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', choristoderes, thalattosaurs, and some basal pan-lepidosaurs have pointed snouts. Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Tamaulipasaurus, the basal choristodere Lazarussuchus, Cosesaurus and pterosaurs have inclined posterior skulls. Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Huehuecuetzpalli, choristoderes, trilophosaurs, pterosaurs and most archosauriforms have slender scapulae. Araeoscelidians, kuehneosaurids, Lazarussuchus, trilophosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', pterosaurs and many archosauriforms have slender humeri. Huehuecuetzpalli, archosaurs and some 'protorosaurs' have metacarpal IV shorter than III. Renesto and Binelli (2006) added Eudimorphodon to Senter's matrix and updated his simiosaur codings, which resulted in simiosaurs moving to a position sister to archosauriforms, providing further proof the matrix size and taxon sample are both too small to provide robust results. Notably, while Longisquama stayed outside Neodiapsida sister to Coelurosauravus in their tree, they stated that further analyses may indicate the taxon is related to simiosaurians after all. Besides the characters used by Senter, Renesto and Binelli also noted the lack of cervical ribs and the tight interclavicular articulation as potential synapomorphies. Adding a wide variety of over forty diapsids to Senter's published matrix results in Longisquama clading with pterosaurs, Lazarussuchus, a clade of simiosaurs plus Tamaulipasaurus and Trilophosaurus, and Coelurosauravus (with decreasing closeness), suggesting it has too few characters to properly place taxa.
Longisquama not a saurian? Senter (2003, 2004) found Avicephala to emerge outside of Neodiapsida (and thus also Sauria and Archosauromorpha), but closer to those clades than Petrolacosaurus and Araeoscelis. The absent retroarticular process excludes it from Icarosaurus+Neodiapsida in his thesis, but this is also true in basal squamates, Askeptosaurus, Claudiosaurus, Monjurosuchus and Dinocephalosaurus. The deltopectoral crest extending less than halfway down the humerus excludes it from Neodiapsida in his thesis, but a quick survey of potentially related taxa shows this is also true of 'protorosaurs', trilophosaurs, archosaurs and pterosaurs at least. Characters in Senter's analyses which exclude Longisquama from Icarosaurus+Neodiapsida, Sauria and Pan-Archosauria are- preorbital skull shorter than postorbital skull + orbit, short posterior jugal process, no ventral squamosal process, and ulnare over twice as large as radiale. However, it has nasals longer than frontals, a poorly developed olecranon, and a short metacarpal I, which are all diagnostic of neodiapsid groups in his trees. Again, note that Cosesaurus also has a short snout, short posterior jugal process, and no ventral squamosal process. Cosesaurus was included in the thesis analysis, but not the published version. While the published version has rather high bootstrap values for Avicephala, Neodiapsida and Sauria (87, 97 and 73 respectively), in the thesis these are not supported by the bootstrap analysis at all. In conclusion, the placement of Longisquama sister to Coelurosauravus seems doubtful, while its placement in Avicephala and outside Sauria or Archosauromorpha is only weakly supported. It is tentatively placed Neodiapsida and Sauria here based on recent analyses recovering simiosaurs and weigeltisaurids in this position.
Longisquama a pan-lepidosaur? Unwin et al. (2000) and Unwin and Benton (2001) both stated that the supposedly acrodont teeth and interclavicle were "more typical of lepidosaurs" than archosaurs. Yet interclavicles are present in most non-ornithodiran pan-archosaurs (as noted by Jones et al., 2001), while Longisquama's tooth implantation is controversial (see above).
Peters has recently proposed a massive revision of amniote relationships where Longisquama and taxa he places close to it (pterosaurs, tanystropheids and drepanosaurs) are squamates, but his unpublished analysis is so filled with correlated characters, non-homologous states and miscodings based on his discredited photo-analyzing method that it can be ignored. Similarly ignorable is his recent (2006) magazine article on Longisquama where he claims to have found the entire posterior half of the animal (including wings, propatagia and uropatagia), a juvenile preserved next to it (also complete with patagia) and an embryo(!) inside the holotype. Nobody who has examined the actual specimen (e.g. Sharov, Jones, Martin, Prum, Senter, Voigt) has ever seen these things, leading one to conclude they are merely Peters' imagination inspired by noise in his photos and what he thinks should be there.
Longisquama a tanystropheid? Peters (2000) added Longisquama, additional taxa and sometimes additional characters to three previously published matrices (Evans, 1988; Jalil, 1997; Bennett, 1996). Longisquama emerged related to pterosaurs, Sharovipteryx and Cosesaurus in each analysis (a clade he named Fenestrasauria), which was always inside a clade containing Tanystropheus and Langobardisaurus (which he named Characiopoda, though it was previously defined as Tanystropheidae by Dilkes, 1998). However, only a few non-pan-archosaurs were included in each analysis, and the accuracy of his codings have been questioned by several experts. In relation to Longisquama, Senter (2003) questioned the antorbital fenestra's presence as noted above, stated the coracoid's outline is uncertain, and that the sternum and interclavicle "are bony wisps that defy interpretation." Of Peters' fenestrasaurian characters, Longisquama lacks antorbital fenestrae, a retroarticular process, and a manual digit IV which is at least three times as long as metacarpal IV. The anterior expansion of the lacrimal could be the prefrontal instead if Coelurosauravus is used as a guide. Pterosaurs, Sharovipteryx and Cosesaurus all lack short cervicals, making this character invalid (but supporting the exclusion of Longisquama from a traditional Prolacertiformes/Protorosauria). Clavicular overlap is uncertain in Longisquama, as noted above. The coracoid, sternum and interclavicle characters (reduced posterior interclavicle process; elongate anterior interclavicle process; sternum fuses with clavicles; elongate coracoid with articulation for sternum) must be considered uncertain given Senter's statements. Of his characiopodan characters, the posterior skull is also ventrally deflected in Coelurosauravus, and posterior teeth "reduced, elongated or multi-cusped" is not a valid character since it describes an array of sometimes exclusive states. Finally, of Peters' characters joining Characiopoda with Macrocnemus, whether Longisquama is "without a primitive quadratojugal" is uncertain as the area is fragmented (though Coelurosauravus lacks the bone regardless), while Coelurosauravus shares the elongate scapula and straight, closely appressed radius and ulna. Thus Peters' characters are highly problematic, and none of those which can be verified are lacking in Coelurosauravus.
Longisquama a non-dinosaurian pan-archosaur? Benton (1993) listed Longisquama as an ornithodiran without reason.
While opponents to the dinosaurian ancestry of birds have generally labeled Longisquama an archosaur, they are also generally silent as to where in that clade it belongs. However, Martin (2005) provides a cladogram which places Longisquama (and birds) outside the Crocodilia+Dinosauria clade but closer to it than prolacertids are, which would technically make Longisquama a non-archosaurian pan-archosaur. This hypothesis is based only on the absent external mandibular fenestra that would exclude it from Archosauriformes, and the supposed antorbital fenestra (probably absent) that would place it closer to that taxon than Prolacerta. Needless to say, such minimal character evidence is worthless except to suggest exclusion from Archosauriformes, and Martin's other included characters (such as dinosaurs and 'thecodonts' being united by having "superpleurodont" teeth) are equally flawed.
Longisquama a theropod? Olshevsky (1991) believed Longisquama to be a basal theropod (or in his taxonomy, a basitheropod theropodomorph), but of his noted characters for that group, it only has "generally avian appearence of the skull" (vague and unlike basal theropods), carnivorous dentition (plesiomorphic for gnathostomes), furcula (controversial), relatively large forelimbs with pentadactyl manus (plesiomorphic for tetrapods and not found in basal theropods), and "featherlike scales" (which is problematic, as parafeathers do not seem to be scales or necessarily homologous with feathers, and scales are not homologous with feathers in any case).
James and Pourtless (2009) included Longisquama in a cladistic analysis mostly composed of TWG coelurosaur characters, Chiappe's bird characters and characters proposed by people disputing theropod ancestry for birds. In this analysis, Longisquama emerged as the sister group of Ornithes deep within Eumaniraptora, Maniraptora, Coelurosauria, Theropoda and Saurischia. In their trees, it is a theropod due to- straplike scapula (also present in simiosaurs, pterosaurs and to a lesser extent in Coelurosauravus; none of which were included in the matrix); a neotheropod based on- maxillary fenestra (absent in Longisquama); a coelurosaur based on- anterior postorbital process dorsally curved (untrue even in their own drawing); intramandibular joint poorly developed (true for most tetrapods); a maniraptoriform based on- boomerang-shaped furcula (if Peters' interpretation is correct, the concave edge would face posteroventrally, making the shape topographically unlike theropods'); a maniraptoran based on- T-shaped lacrimal (at least equally likely to be a prefrontal); maxillary and dentary teeth with constricted roots (misleadingly coded as two separate characters; if Martin 2008 is correct that the entire teeth are visible, there is no constriction); weakly developed olecranon (common in tetrapods, e.g. Cosesaurus, Langobardisaurus, Prolacerta; none of which were included in the matrix); a eumaniraptoran based on- serrationless maxillary teeth (true of almost all non-archosauriforms); less than 25 dentary teeth (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. simiosaurs, Langobardisaurus, Azendohsaurus; none of which were included in the matrix); interdental plates absent (true of ?all non-archosauriforms); weakly developed acromion (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. some simiosaurs, Protorosaurus, pterosaurs; none of which were included in the matrix); furcula (actually an neotheropod character, and controversial in Longisquama); an avialan based on- inflated frontals (controversial as noted above; also in Megalancosaurus and pterosaurs, which were not included in the matrix); serrationless dentary teeth (true of almost all non-archosauriforms); a metornithine based on- reduced dorsal jugal process (not obvious in Longisquama, where it could merely be broken); parietals unfused (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs; none of which were included in the matrix); all teeth with expanded roots (not actually different in birds compared to other theropods, the roots of Ichthyornis and Hesperornis illustrated by Martin and Stewart being due to cementum concretion); short coracoid (only optimized here due to Caudipteryx, this is the primitive state shared with most tetrapods and unlike birds or most paravians); poorly developed deltopectoral crest (same situation as previous character).
Thus no established characters of Longisquama are shared with theropods or subgroups yet not found in various potentially related non-archosauriforms. At best, it's possible James and Pourtless are correct in identifying the T-shaped lacrimal, low dorsal jugal process, and fused boomerang-shaped furcula if Peters got the orientation wrong. However, the lack of non-archosauriforms is a fatal flaw, as shown by Mortimer's (online, 2015) experiment adding the front half of the basal diapsid Coelurosauravus to their matrix. If this is done, Coelurosauravus and Longisquama both emerge as ornithomimosaurs (as does the pseudosuchian Effigia), proving not only is Longisquama's maniraptoran identification poorly supported, but that the characters and taxa necessary to keep non-archosaurs out of Theropoda are absent. Indeed, no manual characters were coded for any dinosaur. Characters more plesiomorphic than dinosaurs include the absent external mandibular fenestra (though reversed in some coelurosaurs and other obviously unrelated taxa), tooth implantation (whether acrodont, pleurodont or subthecodont), less than nine cervical vertebrae, interclavicle (if correctly identified), short deltopectoral crest, five phalanges on manual digit IV and four phalanges on digit V. It is thus near certainly not a dinosaur, theropod or otherwise.
Longisquama a bird ancestor? Another connection to dinosaurs has been the claim that Longisquama is related to the ancestor of birds. This originated with Sharov (1970), who believed the furcula and elongate forelimb scales were birdlike, but has more recently been popular among those arguing birds are not dinosaurs (beginning with Jones et al., 2000). Besides the furcula and forearm scales (which cannot be homologous with secondary feathers based on developmental data), Martin (2004) listed several other characters as being similar to birds- subdivided antorbital fenestra (absent as noted above), pointed snout (also in Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs, most coelurosaurs, and numerous other taxa), "expanded cranium" (uncertain even if the supposed crest is really a displaced skull roof, as its three dimensional placement is unknown, as is endocranial size; also in Megalancosaurus, pterosaurs and coelurosaurs), elongate postorbital (vague and actually reduced in most birds, with even basal forms like Archaeopteryx having a shorter ventral ramus that ironically resembles Coelurosauravus more), absent mandibular fenestra (variable in basal birds and true of almost all non-archosauriforms), teeth with expanded roots (unverified as noted above), neck attaches low to skull (only true if the parietal crest is taken as part of the skull, and not actually true in basal birds like Archaeopteryx), strap-like scapula (also present in averostrans, simiosaurs, pterosaurs and to a lesser extent in Coelurosauravus), elongate manus (also in pterosaurs, coelurosaurs and many other taxa), elongate penultimate manual phalanges (untrue in digit I, and only homologous in Martin's view in digit IV; also present in Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs and theropods), and feathers.
The supposed feather homologs of Longisquama have generated the most research since Jones et al. first redescribed them, and have since been more accurately described by Voigt et al. (2009). Jones et al. described a number of similarities to feathers, and it seems fitting to use Feduccia's (2002) term 'parafeather' for the structures. Though Haubold and Buffetaut (1987) proposed the parafeathers were paired and could be horizontally extended as gliding surfaces (a claim followed by Martin), there is no evidence of this and Voigt et al. noted any such 'thoracic wing' would be compromised by having the aerodynamic surfaces so distally placed. The cylindrical, tapered base is similar to follicular structures like feathers, though Voigt et al. noted some scales such as those on iguanid dorsal frills have this characteristic as well. However, the supposed transverse partitions homologized to avian pulp caps by Jones et al. (and claimed to be pedal phalanges by Peters, 2006) are actually transverse ridges on both sides of the parafeather's middle lobe. The supposed calamus walls surrounding them are the anterior and posterior lobes, which lack ridges basally (Voigt et al., 2009). While parafeathers look roughly feather-like distally in having a central shaft and surrounding vane, the actual structure is quite different. Instead of a hollow rachis and separate barbs to form the vane, Longisquama has a pair of membranes which join at their edges (Reisz and Sues, 2000) and enclose two longitudinal lobes distally, as the posterior lobe tapers out before the vane-like expansion. The shaft analog is a continuation of the boundary between the anterior and middle lobes (so is not even continuous with the basal 'calamus' as identified by Jones et al.), while the supposed barbs never separate even at the parafeather's tip and often merge (blamed on taphonomy by Jones et al.). Instead, the 'barbs' are transverse ridges in the continuous membrane. There seems to be an outer sheath on the base of each parafeather, which was homologized by Jones et al. with the sheaths on avian feathers. Resemblences to feathers thus seem limited to the cylindrical and tapered base and basal sheath. While parafeathers may be homologous to feathers at the level of the follicle, they are no more similar than the stage 1 feathers of Tianyulong, Kulindadromeus and basal coelurosaurs, the quills of Psittacosaurus or the pycnofibres of pterosaurs.
More recently, James and Pourtless (2009) have recovered Longisquama as the sister to Ornithes in their flawed cladistic analysis described above. This is actually more closely related to birds than hypothesized by Martin and Feduccia in their latest papers, as the latter have oviraptorosaurs and deinonychosaurs closer to Aves albeit outside Dinosauria. The characters listed under "Longisquama a theropod?" above for Maniraptora through Metornithes could thus also be used to defend relationships with birds in Feduccia's or Martin's view. In addition to those, the characters James and Pourtless recovered as shared with Ornithes are- scapula parallel to dorsal column (very untrue in Longisquama); ossified sternum absent (optimized in their topology this way due to alvarezsaurids and Caudipteryx being next most basal, but also true of most theropods, as well as many non-archosaurs such as Coelurosauravus and Protorosaurus).
Longisquama does not share any characters with birds not found in basal coelurosaurs, and can be excluded from Tetanurae based on numerous characters such as maxillary teeth extending posteriorly under the orbit, lacking an enlarged distal carpal I+II, and having phalanges on manual digit IV and having digit V, in addition to the non-dinosaurian characters noted in the previous section.
References- Sharov, 1970. Svoyeobrazaya reptiliya iz nizhnego triasa Fergany. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1, 127-130.
Sharov, 1970. An unusual reptile from the Lower Triassic of Fergana. Paleontological Journal. 1, 127-130.
Haubold and Buffetaut, 1987. Une novelle interprétation de Longisquama insignis, reptile énigmatique du Trias supérieur d'Asie centrale. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences du Paris. 305, 65-70.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Benton, 1993. Reptilia. in Benton (ed). The Fossil Record 2. London. 681-715.
Jones, 2000. New insight into the morphology and physiology of Mesozoic archosaurs. PhD thesis, Oregon State University. 87 pp.
Jones, Ruben, Martin, Kurochkin, Feduccia, Maderson, Hillenius, Geist and Alifanov, 2000. Nonavian feathers in a Late Triassic archosaur. Science. 288(5474), 2202-2205.
Peters, 2000. A reexamination of four prolacertiforms with implications for pterosaur phylogenesis. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(3), 293-336.
Reisz and Sues, 2000. The "feathers" of Longisquama. Nature. 408(6811), 428.
Unwin, Alifanov and Benton, 2000. Enigmatic small reptiles from the Middle-Late Triassic of Kirgizstan. In Benton, Shishkin, Unwin and Kurochkin (eds). The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 177-186.
Jones, Ruben, Maderson and Martin, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1901-1902.
Prum, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1899-1900.
Reisz and Sues, 2001. Longisquama does not have feathers. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 92A.
Unwin and Benton, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1900-1901.
Feduccia, 2002. Birds are dinosaurs: Simple answer to a complex problem. The Auk. 119(4), 1187-1201.
Senter, 2003. Taxonomic sampling artifacts and the phylogenetic position of Aves. Unpublished PhD thesis. Northern Illinois University. 147 pp.
Senter, 2004. Phylogeny of the Drepanosauridae (Reptilia: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 2, 257-268.
Martin, 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta Zoologica Sinica. 50(6), 978-990.
Peters, 2006. The other half of Longisquama. Prehistoric Times. 75, 10-11.
Renesto and Binelli, 2006. Vallesaurus cenensis Wild 1991, a drepanosaurid (Reptilia, Diapsida) from the Late Triassic of northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 112, 77-94.
Martin, 2008. Origins of avian flight- a new perspective. Oryctos. 7, 45-54.
Buchwitz, Voigt and Fischer, 2009. Dorsal appendages of Longisquama reconsidered: Aspects of development and the link to the evolution of filamentous integumentary structures. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 72A.
James and Pourtless, 2009. Cladistics and the origin of birds: A review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs. 66, 78 pp.
Voigt, Buchwitz, Fischer, Krause and Georgi, 2009. Feather-like development of Triassic diapsid skin appendages. Naturwissenschaften. 96, 81-86.
Mortimer, online 2015. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2015/01/bandit-cladogram-evaluated-james-and.html

Eosuchia Broom, 1914
Definition- (Coelurosauravus elivensis + Apsisaurus witteri + Youngina capensis + Lepidosauria + Archosauria) (moidified from Laurin, 1991)
= Neodiapsida Benton, 1985
Definition- (Youngina capensis + Sauria) (Laurin, 1991)
References- Benton, 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 84(2), 97-164.

Weigeltisauridae Kuhn, 1939
= Paleochameleontidae Romer, 1933? (at least Kuhn, 1939)
= Coelurosauravidae Currie, 1981
Other definitions- (Coelurosauravus elivensis + Wapitisaurus problematicus) (modified after Merck, 1997)

Coelurosauravus Piveteau, 1926
= Daedalosaurus Carroll, 1978
References- Piveteau, 1926. Paleontologie de Madagascar, XIII: Amphibiens et reptiles permiens. Annales de Paleontologie. 15, 53-128.
Carroll, 1978. Permo-Triassic "lizards" from the Karoo System. Part II. A gliding reptile from the Upper Permian of Madagascar. Palaeontologia Africana. 21, 143-159.
C. elivensis Piveteau, 1926
= Daedalosaurus madagascariensis Carroll, 1978
Late Guadalupian-Late Lopingian, Middle-Late Permian
Lower Sakamena Formation, Madagascar
Lectotype- (MNHN.F.M AP325a; = IP 1908-11-21a) (adult) partial skull (~39 mm), three cervical vertebrae, first-eighteenth dorsal vertebrae, few dorsal ribs, few gastralia, fragmentary patagial spurs, sacral centra?, first-ninth caudal vertebrae, chevrons, scalulocoracoids, cleithrum, humeri (29.04 mm), incomplete radii, incomplete ulnae, carpals, several manual elements, three manual unguals, ilium, pubis, ischium, femora (one distal; 31 mm), tibiae (one incomplete; 20 mm), fibula (~20 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, distal tarsal V, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, incomplete phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metatarsal III, phalanx III-1, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, proximal phalanx IV-2, metatarsal V, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2
Paralectotype- (MNHN.F.M. AP317a, b; = IP 1908-11-22a) (adult) partial skull (~39 mm), posterior mandible, proatlas?, atlantal centrum (~.80 mm), atlantal neural arches, atlantal intercentrum, axial intercentrum, axis (5.31 mm), third cervical vertebra (5.52 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (5.62 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (5.98 mm), cervical ribs, first dorsal vertebra (5.50 mm), second dorsal vertebra (5.17 mm), third dorsal vertebra (5.23 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra (5.63 mm), fifth dorsal vertebra (~5.43 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (5.01 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (5.41 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (5.60 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (6.84 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (7.15 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (7.47 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (7.50 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (7.30 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (7.19 mm), fifteenth dorsal vertebra (7.07 mm), sixteenth dorsal vertebra (7.04 mm), seventeenth dorsal vertebra (6.69 mm), eighteenth dorsal vertebra (5.99 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, patagial spur, scapulocoracoid, clavicles, cleithrum, humeri (30.62 mm), radii, ulnae (23 mm), carpals, proximal metacarpal I, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metacarpal III, proximal phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV, metacarpal V, phalanx V-2, phalanx V-3
Referred- (MNHN.F.M AP327a, b; = IP 1908-5-2; holotype of Daedalosaurus madagascariensis) (adult) partial skull (~35 mm), fifth cervical vertebra, first-third dorsal vertebrae, few mid-posterior dorsal transverse processes, dorsal ribs, gastralia, patagial spurs (15.47-~133.74 mm), first-third sacral vertebrae, first caudal vertebra (~3.39 mm), second caudal vertebra (3.51 mm), third caudal vertebra (~3.35 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (~3.85 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (4.20 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (4.61 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (4.90 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (5.10 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (5.24 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (5.03 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (5.03 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (5.15 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (5.11 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (5.14 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), twentieth caudal vertebra (5.02 mm), twentyt-first caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra (5.02 mm), twenty-third caudal vertebra (5.04 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (5.13 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (4.93 mm), twenty-sixth caudal vertebra (4.80 mm), twenty-seventh caudal vertebra (4.74 mm), twenty-eighth caudal vertebra (4.87 mm), partial twenty-ninth caudal vertebra, caudal intercentra, chevrons, scapulocoracoids, clavicles, cleithra, humerus (30.05 mm), radius, ulna, radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, medial centrale, lateral centrale, distal carpals I-IV, proximal metacarpal I, proximal metacarpal II, proximal metacarpal III, proximal metacarpal IV, proximal metacarpal V, manual unguals, ilium, pubis, partial femora, tibia, distal fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, phalanges (Carroll, 1978)
Comments- The lectotype and paralectotype were discovered in 1907-1908 and described by Piveteau in 1926 as a new genus of basal coelurosaur, which he viewed as a separate group than saurischians or ornithischians. In particular, while he felt Coelurosauravus was very similar to ornithosuchid thecodonts (Ornithosuchus, Scleromochlus and Mesosuchus), (translated) "To place it in the "Dinosaurians", it is to allow to see, in the smallest details, the evolution of anatomical characters whose importance or can only understand the importance by following the history throughout a phylum." Piveateau's Coelurosauria also includes Coelurus and Ornitholestes, but he compares Coelurosauravus exclusively with Compsognathus, of which he claims "The similarities between these two genera are numerous and important: the skull has the same outline, the cervical, dorsal and caudal vertebrae are identical in both forms. The ribs are also comparable; the vertebrae and bones of the limbs are hollow and thin-walled. The teeth are thecodont in Compsognathus; the same is probably true of Coelurosauravus. The limbs are quite comparable." These are obviously vague and the skull shape is unpreserved in the syntypes, and the supposed teeth are squamosal horns and are not socketed (as he states in the description). It was soon recognized (e.g. Huene, 1930) to be non-dinosaurian, and is currently thought to be a non-reptilian diapsid. Obvious non-dinosaurian characters include the highly reduced lacrimal, large pineal foramen, single temporal fenestra, palatine teeth, pleurodonty, five cervical vertebrae, caudal intercentra, cleithrum, short deltopectoral crest, endo- and ectocondylar foramina in the distal humerus, two manual centralia, short pubis and ischium, no inturned femoral head, astragalocalcanear foramen, unreduced calcaneum, pedal centrale, five distal tarsals, at least three phalanges on pedal digit V, etc..
Buffa et al. (2021) noted "Piveteau (1926) first described this taxon based on both MNHN.F.MAP325a and MNHN.F.MAP317a without designating a holotype. Carroll (1978) later designated MNHN.F.MAP325a as the 'type' (Carroll, 1978:144), which was later considered as the holotype by Evans (1982) and Evans and Haubold (1987). Following the designation of Carroll (1978) among the two syntypes of Piveteau (1926), and in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999, article 74.5), MNHN.F.MAP325a is here considered as the lectotype of Coelurosauravus elivensis." Carroll (1978) described a new specimen as a new genus of coelurosauravid eosuchian- Daedalosaurus madagascariensis. It was later synonymized with Coelurosauravus by Evans (1982), as the supposed acrodont maxillary teeth of Coelurosauravus were actually squamosal horns, and the supposedly absent patagial spurs of Coelurosauravus were present but fragmentary (previously referred to Daedalosaurus by Carroll).
References- Piveteau, 1926. Paleontologie de Madagascar, XIII: Amphibiens et reptiles permiens. Annales de Paleontologie. 15, 53-128.
Huene, 1930. Palaeochamaeleo und Coelurosauravus. Centralblatt fur Geologie und Palaontologie. 1930, 440-441.
Carroll, 1978. Permo-Triassic "lizards" from the Karoo System. Part II. A gliding reptile from the Upper Permian of Madagascar. Palaeontologia Africana. 21, 143-159.
Evans, 1982. The gliding reptiles of the Upper Permian. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 76(2), 97-123.
Evans and Haubold, 1987. A review of the Upper Permian genera Coelurosauravus, Weigeltisaurus and Gracilisaurus (Reptilia: Diapsida). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 90(3), 275-303.
Bulanov and Sennikov, 2015. New data on the morphology of the Late Permian gliding reptile Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau. Paleontological Journal. 49(4), 413-423.
Buffa, Frey, Steyer and Laurin, 2021. A new cranial reconstruction of Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau, 1926 (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) and its implications on the paleoecology of the first gliding vertebrates. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. e1930020.
Buffa, Frey, Steyer and Laurin, 2022. The postcranial skeleton of the gliding reptile Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau, 1926 (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) from the Late Permian Of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 42(1), e2108713.

Reptilia Linnaeus, 1758
Official Definition- crown(Testudo graeca + Iguana iguana + Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 88)
Other definitions- (Testudines + Sauria) (Gauthier er al., 1988)
crown(Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Testudo hermani + Sphenodon punctatus + Iguana iguana + Crocodylis niloticus) (Reisz, 2004)
(Testudo hermani + Lacerta lacerta) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Sauria Macartney, 1802
Official Definition- crown(Alligator mississippiensis + Sphenodon punctatus + Lacerta agilis <- Testudo graeca, Homo sapiens) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 114)
= Sauria sensu Gauthier et al., 1988
Definition- crown(Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988; Gauthier et al., 2004)
References- Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I, Editio decima, reformata. Laurentius Salvius. 824 pp.
Macartney, 1802. Tables of classification. In Cuvier (ed.). Lectures on Comparative Anatomy. Translated by William Ross under the inspection of James Macartney. T. N. Longman and O. Rees. 542 pp.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Sauria J. Macartney 1802 [J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1064-1073.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Reptilia C. Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1026-1031.

Albisaurus

Stremmeia Nopcsa, 1930
S. scabra Nopcsa, 1930
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Middle Dinosaur Member of the Tendaguru Formation, Tanzania
Holotype- (MB coll.) metatarsal ?II (24.5 mm) fused to metatarsal ?III (27.3)
Comments- This specimen was discovered on November 8 1910 associated with Giraffatitan's lectotype, initially noted by Janensch (1914) as a bird carpometacarpus probably related to Archaeopteryx, then illustrated and described by Stremme (1919). The latter author could not determine what kind of reptile was represented, or if it was a metacarpus or metatarsus. Lambrecht (1933) noted that Stremme only mentioned Archaeopteryx in the context of differences between its metacarpus and the Tendaguru specimen, so dismissed Parkinson (1930) who stated Stremme considered them relatives. His own opinion was that the carpometacarpus resembled Rhea, so might indicate ratite relationships. Nopcsa (1930) meanwhile had identified the specimen as "carpals" of a pelobatid anuran, citing similarity to the tibiofibulare of Macropelobates (as noted by Stipanicic and Reig, 1957), and named it Stremmeia scabra. Among more recent authors, Hecht (1963) merely said that his reexamination of Stremmeia "showed that these bones are not frog remains" and Estes and Reig (1973) and Gardner and Rage (2016) followed his interpretation with the latter "regarding the holotype and only material of S. scabra to be reptilian." Yates (comment in Mortimer, online 2015) stated "I'd speculate pathologically fused metatarsals of a small crocodyliform (maybe MT III and IV?)."
Regardless of Hecht's comment, Stremmeia is more similar to e.g. Macropelobates' tibiofibulare than a maniraptoran carpometacarpus in the distinct proximal articular surfaces which form a flat outline instead of a single convex surface, and wide separation of the distal articular surfaces. This latter character is also unlike theropod metatarsals. However, the distal ends are more expanded transversely in anurans, and the distal articular surfaces seem to be simple instead of ginglymoid as in Stremmeia. Further differences from a coelurosaur manus include the large and quadrangular proximal surface of the shorter element (mcIII in most theropods) and sigmoid shape in side view.
Yates' suggestion this is a pathologically fused reptilian metatarsus seems to be the most plausible. Of terrestrial Late Jurassic taxa, dinosaurs and pterosaurs differ in having compressed metatarsals. Those of rhynchocephalians (e.g. II and II or III and IV of Clevosaurus and Homoeosaurus) are more gracile, while those of crocodylomorphs differ in being straight (e.g. Goniopholis and Alligator). However, metatarsals of choristoderes (e.g. Coeruleodraco II and III), squamates (e.g. Saniwa II and III) and testudines (e.g. Podocnemis) are roughly similar in dorsal/ventral shape, with variation within each clade greater than that between clades. Given the lack of detailed metatarsal descriptions and general lack of associated metatarsal material in Late Jurassic taxa, Stremmeia is referred to Reptilia incertae sedis.
References- Janensch, 1914. Ubersicht uber die Wirbeltierfauna der Tendaguru-Schichten. Archiv fur Biontologie. 3, 81-110.
Stremme, 1919. Uber die durch Bandverknocherung hervorgerufene proximale Verschmelzung zweier Mittelhand - oder Mittelfussknochen eines Reptils. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Tendaguru-Expedition. Archiv fur Biontologie. 4, 143-144.
Nopcsa, 1930. Notes on Stegocephalia and Amphibia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1930, 979-995.
Parkinson, 1930. The dinosaur in East Africa: An account of the giant reptile beds of Tendaguru, Tanganyika territory. H.F. & G. Witherby. 192 pp.
Lambrecht, 1933. Handbuch der Palaeornithologie. Gebruder Borntraeger. 1024 pp.
Stipanicic and Reig, 1957. El "Complejo Porfírico de la Patagonia extraandina" y su fauna de anuros. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 1, 185-297.
Hecht, 1963. A reevaluation of the early history of the frogs. Part II. Systematic Zoology. 12(1), 20-35.
Estes and Reig, 1973. The early fossil record of frogs: A review of the evidence. In Vial (ed.). Evolutionary biology of the anurans: Contemporary research on major problems. University of Missouri Press. 11-63.
Mortimer, online 2015. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2015/12/have-stremmeia-new-year.html
Gardner and Rage, 2016. The fossil record of lissamphibians from Africa, Madagascar, and the Arabian plate. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments. 96, 169-220.

undescribed possible reptile (Hutchinson, 2001)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (UCMP 25791) ulna or pubis (Hutchinson, 2001)
Comments- Tykoski (2005) referred to "a piece of the right pelvic girdle that includes the acetabular border formed by fusion of the pubic peduncle of the ilium and the proximal pubis (UCMP 25791)" as possibly from the Camposaurus type individual. This had only been previously published as a Rutiodon specimen preserving a "Pubic tubercle reduced to a rugosity" by Hutchinson (2001), and is in the UCMP online catalogue as a reptilian ulna discovered in 1934. It's possible Tykoski confused this with UCMP 177318, a paratype of Camposaurus figured by Long and Murry (1995), but this is a left proximal pubis that shows no evidence of fusion with the ilium.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hutchinson, 2001. The evolution of pelvic osteology and soft tissues on the line to extant birds (Neornithes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 131, 123-168.
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD thesis. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.

unnamed possible reptile (Dames, 1884)
Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Ober Solnhofen Plattenkalk, Germany
Material- (HMN coll.) metapodial (54 mm), metapodial (60 mm), metapodial (68 mm), proximal phalanx (20 mm)
Comments- Dames (1884) described three metapodials and a proximal phalanx (HMN coll.), which was questionably referred to Compsognathus by Huene (1925). However, Ostrom (1978) showed that the shortest metapodial is too short to be a Compsognathus metatarsal II (which is the shortest of its main three metatarsals) and that the phalanx associated with it is too long to be II-1. These may not be theropod, and may not even be metatarsals.
References- Dames, 1884. Uber Metatarsen eines Compsognathus - ahnlichen Reptils von Solnhofen. Sitz-Ber. Ges. Naturforsch.. 1884, 179-180.
Huene, 1925. Eine neue Rekonstrucktion von Compsognathus longipes. Clb. Mineral. Geol. u. Palaont. Jg. 1925, Abt. B(5), 157-160.
Ostrom, 1978. The osteology of Compsognathus longipes. Zitteliana Abbandlungen Bayerischen Staatssammlung Paldontol. historische Geol. (Munchen). 4, 73-118.

Pan-Lepidosauria Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020
Official Definition- total(Lacerta agilis + Sphenodon punctatus) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 118)
= Lepidosauromorpha Benton, 1983
Definition- (Sphenodon punctatus + Squamata <- Crocodylia, Aves) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
References- Benton, 1983. The Triassic reptile Hyperodapedon from Elgin: Functional morphology and relationships. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences. 302, 605-717.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Pan-Lepidosauria J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz, new clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1074-1077.

Lepidosauria Haekel, 1866
Official Definition- crown(Lacerta agilis + Sphenodon punctatus) (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 61)
Other definitions- crown(Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988; Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Sphenodon punctatus + Scincus scincus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
References- Haeckel, 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Band 2: Allgemeine Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen. George Reimer. 462 pp.
de Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020. Lepidosauria E. Haeckel 1866 [K. de Queiroz and J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1078-1085.

Oculudentavis Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020
Diagnosis- (after Bolet et al., 2021) large unpaired median premaxilla with a long dorsal crest along nasal process that is continued onto the dorsal surface of the nasals along most of its length; premaxilla replaces maxilla in anterolateral part of rostrum; ring-shaped lacrimal fully enclosing large lacrimal foramen; jugal expanded horizontally creating a wide ventral orbital flange; short vaulted parietals partially fused; vomers contact both the premaxillary and maxillary shelves; flat surface (forming a platform) on the dorsolateral side of the posterior third of the dentary.
Other diagnoses- Xing et al. (2020) listed additional supposedly diagnostic characters common in lepidosaurs- jugal process of maxilla reaches posteriorly to the level of mid-orbit (also in Sophineta, Marmoretta, Megachirella and Eichstattisaurus); jugal bar cross-section strongly angled dorsolaterally-ventromedially (difficult to evaluate in close fossil relatives due to crushing or disarticulation, but present in e.g. Agama, Aspidoscelis, Basiliscus, Brachylophus, etc. among coronally sectioned taxa with unreduced jugals in Digimorph); triangular, dorsolaterally oriented coronoid process on mandible (typical of lepidosaurs, e.g. present in Marmoretta, Megachirella, Huehuecuetzpalli and Eichstattisaurus); the high number of upper teeth (23) and number which are suborbital (4) would be odd for a taxon closer to Aves than Archaeopteryx, but is similar to Huehuecuetzpalli (19, ~3 suborbital), and higher values are known for other basal lepidosaurs- 26-30 in Sophineta, 12+ of which are suborbital; ~32-38 in Marmoretta, ~12 suborbital; ~30 in Eichstattisaurus, ~14 suborbital; antorbital fenestra reduced or absent is typical of lepidosaurs as opposed to archosauriforms; scleral ossicles spoon-shaped is typical of squamates, only absent in most gekkotans; scleral ossicles longer (from external to internal margin) than they are wide (distance between adjacent ossicles) is also typical of squamates, being seen in e.g. Aeluroscalabotes, Aspidoscelis, Basiliscus, Brachylophus, etc. among taxa with well preserved scleral rings in Digimorph. The slender rostrum is exaggerated in O. khaungraae due to taphonomy and is otherwies similar to Huehuecuetzpalli. While Xing et al. list "premaxilla, maxilla and nasal fused into a single unit", Bolet et al. (2021) note this is untrue.
Li et al. (2021) also list "plicidentine absent at the base of marginal teeth", but this is plesiomorphic for lepidosaurs.
References- Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. 579, 245-249.
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, 2021 (online 2020b). Reanalysis of Oculudentavis shows it is a lizard. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 59(2), 95-105.
O. khaungraae Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020
Early Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous
Angbamo, Myanmar
Holotype- (HPG-15-3) (adult) skull (17.3 mm), scerlotic plates, mandibles, hyoids, skin
Diagnosis- (after Bolet et al., 2021) premaxilla much longer than wide; short posterior process of postorbital; large braincase with long, unexpanded basipterygoid processes; medial flange of pterygoid diverges posterolaterally along entire length; interpterygoid vacuity heart-shaped; well-developed flattened surface on the dorsolateral margin of the posterior portion of the dentary; recurved anterior premaxillary teeth (unknown in O. naga).
Comments- The holotype was discovered prior to September 2019 and initially described as an avialan theropod by Xing et al. (2020). Immediately, Mortimer (online 2020a), Cau (online 2020) and Wei et al. (online 2020) posted articles arguing for a lepidosaurian identity based on characters such as- maxillary teeth extend far posterior to anterior edge of orbit; antorbital fenestra absent; incomplete ventral bar of laterotemporal fenestra; quadrate conch; coronoid forming spike-like dorsal process; pleurodont tooth implantation; spoon-shaped scleral ossicles; small size; no indication of feathers. Li et al. (online 2020a) posted a more detailed preprint arguing for a squamate identity, including a supposed pineal foramen (actually absent- Bolet et al., 2021) and pterygoid teeth. O'Connor et al. (online 2020) attempted a rebuttal but this was rendered moot by the description of a second specimen by Bolet et al. (online 2020), which includes postcrania characterized by "a short neck with seven amphicoelous cervical vertebrae and atlantal arches bearing posterior zygapophyses, and a pectoral region comprising a T-shaped interclavicle, medially expanded clavicles, and a scapulocoracoid with scapular, scapulocoracoid, and primary coracoid fenestrae." Bolet et al. state "whether the proportional differences between the skulls are fully explained by differences in size, taphonomy and sexual dimorphism, or reflect interspecific differences, is unclear", and later (2021) described the second specimen as the new species Oculudentavis naga. Further lizard cranial characters noted by Bolet et al. include- "a streptostylic quadrate suspension, a "hockey stick"-shaped squamosal, a reduced quadrate-pterygoid contact, an enclosed vidian canal (posterior opening within the basisphenoid), a prootic with an alar process and a prominent crista prootica, and a braincase in which the metotic fissure is subdivided into a small ovoid lateral opening of the recessus scalae tympani and a posterior vagus foramen (differentiating it from archosaurs, where the metotic fissure becomes enclosed, following a totally different development)." Xing et al. (online 2020) published a retraction of their description "to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature. Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3." Such an action is unheard of, as phylogenetic misidentifications are common in biology and no ethical accusations have been made. The ICZN is unconcerned with phylogenetic or anatomical accuracy as long as there is "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon" (Article 13.1.1), and the concept of article retraction is never brought up so does not apply to the ICZN. Thus Oculudentavis khaungraae Xing et al., 2020 retains its validity regardless of what its authors or publishers subsequently state, which Bolet et al. concur with. Li et al.'s preprint was rewritten and published in Vertebrata PalAsiatica in 2021.
Xing et al. added Oculudentavis to O'Connor's avialan analysis, recovering it closer to Aves than Archaeopteryx but outside of Pengornithidae, Confuciusornithiformes, Longipterygidae and Archaeorhynchus plus Ornithuromorpha. Cau added it to Gauthier et al.'s squamate analysis and recovered it as a non-gekkotan gekkonomorph, while Mortimer (online 2020b) added it to Simoes et al.'s diapsid analysis and recovered it as a stem-squamate close to Huehuecuetzpalli while Archaeopteryx emerged sister to Erythrosuchus as the only archosaur in the matrix. Bolet et al. (2021) added both Oculudentavis species as separate OTUs to Pritchard and Sues' diapsid analysis where it emerged one node closer to crown squamates than Huehuecuetzpalli, and to Gauthier et al.'s squamate analysis where it emerged sister to dibamids (the most stemward squamates) when using some ordered characters and molecular data. O'Connor et al. (online 2020) had previously added the holotype and eight birds to Pritchard and Sues' analysis and recovered it as an enantiornithine sister to Rapaxavis, while Li et al. (2021) also used this matrix and recovered it in a trichotomy with Huehuecuetzpalli and Squamata with the difference seemingly due to using implied weighting instead of equal weighting.
References- Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020. The tiny Cretaceous stem-bird Oculudentavis revealed as a bizarre lizard. bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.09.243048
Cau, online 2020. https://theropoda.blogspot.com/2020/03/dubbi-sullo-stato-dinosauriano-e-aviano.html
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, online 2020a. Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur? bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.16.993949
Mortimer, online 2020a. https://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/03/oculudentavis-is-not-theropod.html
Mortimer, online 2020b. https://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-is-oculudentavis-if-its-not.html
O'Connor, Xing, Chiappe, Schmitz, Li and Yi, online 2020. Reply to Li et al. "Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur?" bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.12.147041
Wei, Li, Yan, Min, Yi and Jing, online 2020. The "smallest dinosaur in history" in amber may be the biggest mistake in history. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: Popular Science News.
Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. 579, 245-249.
Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, online 2020. Retraction note: Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2553-9
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, 2021 (online 2020b). Reanalysis of Oculudentavis shows it is a lizard. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 59(2), 95-105.
O. naga Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021
Early Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous
Angbamo, Myanmar
Holotype- (GRS-Ref-28627) (adult) skull (14.2 mm), sclerotic plates, mandibles, hyoids, atlas, axis, third-eighth cervical vertebrae, cervical intercentra, cervical ribs, few dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, scapulocoracoids, interclavicle, clavicles, anterior sternum, proximal humerus, skin (Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020)
Comments- Discovered in late 2017, this was first announced by Bolet et al. (2020 online), later modified and published as Bolet et al. (2021).
References- Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020. The tiny Cretaceous stem-bird Oculudentavis revealed as a bizarre lizard. bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.09.243048
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.

Squamata Oppel, 1811
Official Definition- crown(Lacerta agilis <- Sphenodon punctatus) (Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 101)
Other definitions- (Iguana iguana + Autarchoglossa) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Iguana iguana + Scleroglossa) (modified from Estes et al., 1988)
(Iguana iguana + Dibamus novaeguineae + Gekko gecko + Coluber constrictor) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Scincophidia Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Feylinia currori + Acontias meleagris + Dibamus novaeguineae) (Conrad, 2008)
Comments- The phylogeny shown here is based on Conrad (2008) when the molecular consensus topology is enforced.
References- Oppel, 1811. Die Ordnungen, Familien, und Gattungen der Reptilien, als Prodrom Einer Natur­geschichte Derselben. Joseph Lindauer. 86 pp.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.
Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020. Squamata M. Oppel 1811 [K. de Queiroz and J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1092-1101.

Alamitornis Agnolín and Martinelli, 2009
= "Alamitornis" Agnolín and Martinelli, 2008 online
A. minutus Agnolín and Martinelli, 2009
= "Alamitornis minutus" Agnolín and Martinelli, 2008 online
Campanian-Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Los Alamitos Formation, Rio Negro, Argentina
Holotype- (MACN PV RN 1108) proximal humerus (~7.5 mm)
Paratypes- ?(MACN PV RN 1109) five proximal humeri
?(MACN PV RN 1110) distal ?femur
Other diagnoses- Agnolín and Martinelli (2009) originally listed three characters in Alamitornis' diagnosis- "humeral shaft very thin mediolateraly distal to proximal end; "deltopectoral crest proximodistally abbreviated and subtriangular in contour", "inflated humeral head placed well proximally with respect to the internal tuberosity." Of these, Asprosaurus shows all except its deltopectoral crest is rounded instead of subtriangular, but some other squamates (e.g. Dalinghosaurus) have triangular crests. Given the lack of published humeral information for squamates, the validity of Alamitornis requires further study.
Comments- The paper describing Alamitornis was originally available online in September 2008, but the physical version wasn't published until February 2009. Agnolín and Martinelli (2009) questionably referred the taxon to Patagopterygiformes based on several characters- no pneumatic foramina; humeral head globular in posterior view; shallow capital groove; posteriorly angled proximal humerus; deltopectoral crest at more than a 45 degree angle to humeral head. Of the other supposed humeral similarities, the capital groove of Alamitornis is actually broad, not narrow; the development of the ventral tuber cannot be evaluated in Patagopteryx so is not necessarily "well developed and protruding"; and the anterior face of the proximal humerus is not especially "well excavated" in Alamitornis. When added to Hartman et al.'s maniraptoromorph matrix, Alamitornis instead groups with patagonykine alvarezsaurs, which it shares the Patagopteryx-like characters with and also have broad capital grooves and well developed ventral tubers, in addition to the transverse groove below the humeral head (the final bird-like character of Alamitornis suggested by Agnlin and Martinelli). Two steps move it to Patagopterygiformes. More recently, Mayr (2017) suggested the humerus "appears to be non-avian and is more likely from a squamate (lizards and allies)." Although stated without evidence, the holotype is very similar to the Late Cretaceous anguimorph Asprosaurus, which shares the above characters of Alamitornis except the posteriorly globular humeral head, angled deltopectoral crest and transverse groove. Perhaps the best argument to favor a squamate identity is the tiny size of Alamitornis, whose humerus would be about 8 mm long if extrapolated to the usual Mesozoic bird proportions. This is almost an order of magnitude smaller than Patagopteryx, and several times smaller than the smallest alvarezsaurs, even being half the size of the smallest juvenile Mesozoic birds like Liaoxiornis. Unfortunately, humeral characters are almost absent from squamate phylogenetic analyses (e.g. Conrad, 2008; Gauthier et al., 2012), so any assignment to a more exclusive clade requires more research. Teid remains are apparently known from the same formation (Albino, 2007) but remain undescribed.
Paratypes consist of "five proximal extremes of right humeri of different individuals" which were neither described nor illustrated, and a supposed "distal half of a left femur of a juvenile specimen." The latter was "tentatively referred to Alamitornis on the basis of its small size and gracile proportions", but is clearly non-dinosaurian based on the unfused epiphysis, found in lepidosaurs and mammals but not archosaurs or turtles. The element further differs from theropods in lacking well defined lateral and medial condyles, a distinct ectocondylar tuber, and having a proximally restricted popliteal fossa. The only characters suggested to be similar to Patagopteryx or any theropod are the "expanded lateral supracondylar ridge of the femur, which ends in a well developed proximal tubercle." However, Patagopteryx seems to lack much of a lateral supracondylar ridge on its femur, though this is seen in some enantiornithines (e.g. Vorona, Concornis, Neuquenornis), while a strong m. iliofibularis tubercle on the distal femur is found in Patagopteryx but also some enantiornithines (e.g. Vorona, PVL-4037). Much like the holotype, MACN PV RN 1110 is tiny (distal transverse width 2.5 mm) and difficult to assign to a more restricted clade due to a lack of femoral characters in squamate analyses.
References- Albino, 2007. Lepidosauromorpha. In Gasparini, Coria and Salgado (eds.). Patagonian Mesozoic Reptiles. Indiana University Press. 87-115.
Agnolín and Martinelli, 2009 (online 2008). Fossil birds from the Late Cretaceous Los Alamitos Formation, Río Negro province, Argentina. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 27, 42-49.
Mayr, 2017. Avian Evolution: The Fossil Record of Birds and its Paleobiological Significance. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 306 pp.

Scleroglossa Estes, de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1988
Definition- (Gekko gecko + Scincus scincus + Anguis fragilis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Scincogekkonomorpha Sukhanov, 1961
Definition- (Gekko gecko, Scincus scincus <- Iguana iguana) (Conrad, 2008)
= Bifurcata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
References- Sukhanov, 1961. Some problems of the phylogeny, and systematics of Lacertilia (seu Sauria). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 40, 73-83.
Estes, de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In Estes and Pregill (ed.). Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Stanford University Press. 119-281.
Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Autarchoglossa Wagler, 1830
Definition- (Lacerta viridis + Scincus scincus + Anguis fragilis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Unidentata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
References- Wagler, 1830. Natürliches System der Amphibien: mit vorangehender Classification der Säugethiere und Vögel: ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. In der J.G. Cotta'scchen Buchhandlung. 354 pp.
Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Episquamata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
= Evansauria Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Lacerta viridis, Varanus varius <- Gekko gecko, Iguana iguana) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Toxicofera Vidal and Hedges, 2005
Reference- Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.

Anguimorpha Furbringer, 1900
Definition- (Anguis fragilis, Varanus varius <- Cordylus cordylus, Iguana iguana, Scincus scincus) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Furbringer, 1900. Zur vergleichenden Anatomie Brustschulterapparates und der Schultermuskeln. Janaische Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaft. 34, 215-718.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Anguiformes Conrad, 2006
Definition- (Anguis fragilis + Varanus varius) (Conrad, 2008)
= Platynota Dumeril and Bibron, 1839
Definition- (Varanus varius, Heloderma horridum <- Anguis fragilis, Xenosaurus grandis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Varanoidea Camp, 1923
Definition- (Heloderma horridum + Lanthanotus borneensis + Varanus varius) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Dumeri and Bibron, 1839. Erpetologie generale ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles. Roret. 854 pp.
Camp, 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 48(11), 289-480.
Conrad, 2006. An Eocene shinisaurid (Reptilia, Squamata) from Wyoming, U.S.A.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(1), 113-126.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

unnamed anguiform (Grellet-Tinner, 2005)
Late Barremian, Early Cretaceous
Sao Khua Formation, Thailand
Material- (SK1-1) (embryo) incomplete skull, incomplete mandibles, 57 centra, 81 neural arches, 63 ribs, 8 pectoral elements, 66 limb elements lacking hindlimbs, unidentified elements, incomplete egg (18x11 mm) (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-2) (embryo) incomplete skull, mandibles, 7 teeth, 61 centra, 53 neural arches, 65 ribs, 9 pectoral elements, 6 pelvic elements, 72 limb elements, unidentified elements, incomplete egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-3) (embryo) elements, partial egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-4) (embryo) elements, partial egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-5) fragmentary egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
(SK1-6) (embryo) elements, egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
(SK1-7) egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
Diagnosis- (after Fernandez et al., 2015) anterior inferior alveolar foramen solely formed by splenial; broad palatine-groove articulation of prefrontal; autotomy planes present posterior to transverse process.
Comments- Grellet-Tinner (2005) and Buffetaut et al. (2005) described these as being from a non-ornithothoracine avialan, but Fernandez et al. (2012) determined they were actually from a squamate. Fernandez et al. (2015) fully redescribed the material based on CT scans to show the embryos are a new taxon of anguimorph, left unnamed due to the embryonic nature of the material. They noted characters congruent with a non-varanoid platynotan, but used a morphological phylogeny which differs from the molecular phylogeny on this site. Determining where the Thai taxon falls within a molecular phylogeny will require mapping morphological characters on to the squamate genetic topology.
References- Buffetaut, Grellet-Tinner, Suteethorn, Cuny, Tong, Košir, Cavin, Chitsing, Griffiths, Tabouelle and Le Loeuff, 2005. Minute theropod eggs and embryo from the Lower Cretaceous of Thailand and the dinosaur-bird transition. Naturwissenschaften. 92, 477-482.
Grellet-Tinner, 2005. A phylogenetic analysis of oological characters: A case study of saurischian dinosaur relationships and avian evolution. PhD thesis, University of Southern California. 221 pp.
Grellet-Tinner, Chiappe, Norell and Bottjer, 2006. Dinosaur eggs and nesting behaviors: A paleobiological investigation. Palaegeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 232, 294-321.
Fernandez, Buffetaut, Maire, Adrien, Suteethorn and Tafforeau, 2012. Phase contrast synchrotron microtomography: Improving noninvasive investigations of fossil embryos in ovo. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 18(1), 179-185.
Fernandez, Buffetaut, Suteethorn, Rage, Tafforeau and Kundrát, 2015. Evidence of egg diversity in squamate evolution from Cretaceous anguimorph embryos. PLoS ONE. 10(7), e0128610.

Goannasauria Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Varanus varius <- Heloderma suspectum) (Conrad, 2008)
Reference- Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauriformes Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Varanus varius, Heloderma suspectum) (Conrad, 2008)
Reference- Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauria Marsh, 1880
Definition- (Dolichosaurus longicollis + Coniasaurus crassidens + Coniasaurus gracilodens + Adriosaurus suessi + Mosasaurus hoffmanni) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Marsh, 1880. New characters of mosasauroid reptiles. American Journal of Science. 19, 83-87.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauroidea Gervais, 1853 vide Camp, 1923
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Dolichosaurus longicollis) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Camp, 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 48(11), 289-480.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauridae Gervais, 1853
Official Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni + Tylosaurus proriger + Halisaurus platyspondylus) (Madzia and Conrad, 2020; Registration Number 200; originally Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.
Madzia and Conrad, 2020. Mosasauridae P. Gervais 1853 [D. Madzia and J. L. Conrad], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1102-1107.

Natantia Owen, 1884
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni, Tylosaurus proriger, Plioplatecarpus marshi <- Halisaurus platyspondylus) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Owen, 1849-1884. A history of British fossil reptiles. Cassell. [pp]
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasaurinae Gervais, 1853 vide Williston, 1897
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Tylosaurus proriger, Plioplatecarpus marshi) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Williston, 1897. Brachysaurus, a new genus of mosasaurs. Kansas University Quarterly. 6, 95-98.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Kourisodon Nicholls and Meckert, 2002
K. puntledgensis Nicholls and Meckert, 2002
Late Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Pender Formation, British Columbia, Canada
Holotype- (CDM 022) (~3.75 m, adult) incomplete skull, incomplete mandible, seven cervical vertebrae, thirty-six dorsal vertebrae, ribs, twenty-two caudal vertebrae, scapula, coracoid, humeri, radius, ulna, radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, two distal carpals, metacarpal I, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metacarpal III, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, phalanx III-4, metacarpal IV, proximal metacarpal V
Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Trent River Formation, British Columbia, Canada
Referred- (CDM coll.) tooth (~10 mm) (Ludvigsen, 1996)
Comments- Ludvigson (1996) first reported on a tooth found in the summer of 1992, stating that upon a visit to the RTMP Currie "identified it as belonging to a theropod dinosaur." However, Reid (2016) stated "in pers. com. with Pat Trask, curator of the CM, he informed me that the tooth of a "theropod" was instead most certainly from the mosasaur Kourisodon puntledgensis", that "both taxa share vertical ridges along the teeth, lack obvious denticles, and have a similar labio-lingual compression" and thus "it seems most likely that the tooth belongs to Kourisodon, and thus is not a dinosaur."
References- Ludvigsen, 1996. Ancient saurians: Cretaceous reptiles of Vancouver Island. In Ludvigsen. Life in Stone: A Natural History of British Columbia's Fossils. UBC Press. 156-166.
Girouard, 1997. First dinosaur remains from the Pacific coast of British Columbia, of the Trent River Formation (Campanian, Late Cretaceous) of Vancouver Island. Second British Columbia Paleontological Symposium, Program and Abstracts. 15.
Nicholls and Meckert, 2002. Marine reptiles from the Nanaimo Group (Upper Cretaceous) of Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 39(1), 1591-1603.
Reid, 2016. A review of dinosaurian body fossils from British Columbia, Canada. PeerJ Preprints. 4:e1369v3.

Tylosaurinae Williston, 1897
Definition- (Tylosaurus proriger <- Mosasaurus hoffmanni, Plioplatecarpus marshi) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Williston, 1897. Range and distribution of the mosasaurs. Kansas University Quarterly. 4, 177-185.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Euryapsida Colbert, 1945
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Merck, 1997)

Ichthyosauromorpha Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Hupehsuchus nanchangensis) (Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015)

Ichthyosauriformes Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis <- Hupehsuchus nanchangensis) (Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015)
Other definitions- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Mixosaurus cornalianus) (modified after Motani, 1997)

Grippiidae sensu Maisch and Matzke, 2000
Definition- (Grippia longirostris + Chaohusaurus geishanensis)

Ichthyopterygia Owen, 1840
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Utatsusaurus hataii + Parvivenator wapitiensis) (Motani, 1999)
= Eoichthyosauria Motani, 1999
Definition- (Grippia longirostris + Ichthyosaurus communis)

Ichthyosauria Blainville, 1835
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis <- Grippia longirostris) (Motani, 1999)
Other definitions- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Utatsusaurus hataii + Grippia longirostris) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Thaisaurus chonglakmanii + Utatsusaurus hataii + Ophthalmosaurus icenicus) (Maisch and Matzke, 2000)

Longipinnati Huene, 1948
Definition- (Cymbospondylus petrinus + Ophthalmosaurus icenicus) (Maisch and Matzke, 2000)

Rachitrema Sauvage, 1883
R. pellati Sauvage, 1883
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
limestone at Conches-les-Mines, Autun, Saône-et-Loire, France
Lectotype (proposed)- (Pellat coll.) (~6.5 m) posterior dorsal neural arch (140 mm tall)
Paralectotypes- ?(Pellat coll.) scapula (220 mm)
(Pellat coll.) (Amniota incertae sedis) skull fragment, three dorsal rib fragments, proximal ?humerus, distal ?ilium or ?fibula, partial ?pelvic element
Comments- Sauvage (1883) described this material as a new taxon of dinosaur, though an oddly primitive one which he does not favorably compare to any other species. The specimen Sauvage based the name on is a neural arch he assigned to the caudal series, while he referred additional bones ("undoubtedly to the same animal") identified as a braincase fragment, at least three dorsal rib fragments, a scapula, proximal humerus, proximal radius and distal pubis. He notes the neural arch was unfused to the centrum, citing this as a primitive character. The structure of the prezygapophyses and ligament pits are compared to Actinodon (now recognized as a junior synonym of the temnospondyl Onchiodon), while the cranial fragment, scapula and humerus are compared to crocodilians and the latter two at least are said to differ from Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus. Boulenger (1883) attempted to respell the name Racheotrema without comment. It has also sometimes been misspelled Rhachitrema, starting with Boettger (1884). Zittel (1890) stated it was a possible zanclodontid theropod (though insufficiently characterized), though he later (1895, 1902) stated it was a megalosaurid close to Zanclodon instead. Pocta (1905) also placed it in Megalosauridae, while Simroth (1907) placed it in Zanclodontidae. Nopsca (1901) assigned it to Anchisauridae, which was thought to be a theropod family at the time. Huene (1902) identified Rachitrema's type neural arch as that of an ichthyosaur and synonymized the genus with Shastasaurus without comment. Sauvage (1903) agreed Rachitrema was an ichthyosaur and synonymized it with the contemporaneous Ichthyosaurus? rheticus, since he believed that species to be more similar to Shastasaurus than the also contemporaneous I? carinatus. He regarded the scapula to be more similar to Toretocnemus (as Leptocheirus) than Ichthyosaurus, and the reidentified distal ilium (previously thought to be a distal radius) to be like Toretocnemus and Shastasaurus. The supposed proximal humerus and distal pubis could not be compared well. Merriam (1908) kept Rachitrema as a synonym of Ichthyosaurus? rheticus and believed the type neural arch was more primitive than Jurassic plesiosaurs. Huene (1908) synonymized it with Ichthyosaurus, crediting his 1902 paper despite the fact that work had it synonymized with Shastasaurus. Huene (1922) now listed Rachitrema as a junior synonym of Leptopterygius? rheticus (Leptopterygius has since been replaced by Leptonectes), though referring to not only the type neural arch but also a "supposed ischium". He later (1951) listed Rachitrema as a possible synonym of Merriamia (now a synonym of Toretocnemus), as did Romer (1976). Bardet and Cuny (1993) accepted some of the material as possibly ichthyosaurian, but assigned the rest to Reptilia indet.. McGowan and Motani (2003) consider Rachitrema to be probably dinosaurian without justification.
When evaluating Rachitrema, it should first be noted that no neural arches have been described for rheticus, so the two taxa cannot be shown to be synonymous. Thus rheticus can be ignored in the following discussion. In addition, there is no evidence the material described as Rachitrema belongs to one individual or taxon. It was all found isolated and by two different collectors. The neural arch is here proposed to be the lectotype, as the genus name refers to it and Sauvage states "The remarkable characters present in this neural arch make us think they indicate a dinosaurian of unknown type which we will indicate under the name Rachitrema." The neural arch is not dinosaurian, as it differs from dinosaur presacrals and proximal caudals in lacking transverse processes and having reduced zygapophyses which are placed near the midline. Nor is it from a distal caudal, which have reduced neural spines. The neural arch does strongly resemble ichthyosaurs in these characters however, so Huene's identification was correct. Within Ichthyopterygia, Rachitrema is outside Neoichthyosauria based on its divided postzygapophyses (Maisch and Matzke, 2000), as expected for a Triassic taxon. This indicates it is not synonymous with Ichthyosaurus or Leptonectes, though it still may be Shastosaurus or Toretocnemus. It is probably a member of Ichthyosauria, as no more basal ichthyosaurs are known from the Late Triassic. Pending further study, Rachitrema is considered Ichthyosauria incertae sedis.
The scapula has a short contact surface for the coracoid (~23% of scapular length), as in Cymbospondylus and non-longipinnatin taxa. The moderately sized anterior blade expansion is similar to Cymbospondylus, Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus, unlike the large flange of non-longipinnatins or the parvipelvians, Besanosaurus, Californosaurus, Mikadocephalus and Callawayia. Similarly, the low posterior blade expansion is unlike non-longipinnatins and neoichthyosaurs. The referred scapula is thus from a longipinnatin ichthyosaur that seems most similar to Cymbospondylus.
The supposed distal ilium could indeed belong to an ichthyosaur like Cymbospondylus, Toretocnemus or Californosaurus, or it could be a partial long bone shaft of a non-ichthyosaur (e.g. choristodere or dinosaur distal fibula) as originally described.
The other paratype fragments deserve detailed comparison to a wide variety of Triassic taxa, though the supposed humerus is certainly not an ichthyosaur humerus based on its elongation and the supposed distal pubis (which could also be a choristodere ventral ilium for instance) resembles parvipelvian pubes in rough shape but not Triassic ichthyosaurs.
References- Boulenger, 1883. Reptilia and Batrachia. in Rye (ed.). The Zoological Record for 1883. Record of Zoological Literature. 20, 24 pp.
Sauvage, 1883. Recherches sur les reptiles trouves dans l'etage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Annales des Sciences Geologiques. 14(6, Article 3), 1-44.
Boettger, 1884. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Herpetologie während des Jahres 1883. Archiv Fur Naturgeschichte. 50(2), 379-434.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Zittel, 1895. Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie). 971 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. Synopsis und Abstammung der Dinosaurier. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 247-288.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Zittel, 1902. Text-book of palaeontology, Volume 2. 283 pp.
Sauvage, 1903. Note sur les reptiles de letage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Bulletin Societe d'Histoire Naturelle d'Autun (France). 16, 309-318.
Pocta, 1905. Rukovet Palaeozoologie. II. Cast: Vertebrata. 310 pp.
Simroth, 1907. Die Pendulationstheorie. Leipzig Konrad Grethlein's Verlag. 564 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der europäischen Triasformation mit Berücksichtiging der aussereuropäischen Vorkommnisse. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen Supplement-Band. 1, 419 pp.
Merriam, 1908. Triassic Ichthyosauria: With special reference to the American forms. 196 pp.
Huene, 1922. Die Ichthyosaurier des Lias und ihre Zusammenhänge. Jahresversammlung der palaeontologischen Gesellschaft. Verlag Bornträger, Berlin. 114 pp.
Huene, 1951. Eine neue Ichthyosaurier-Gattung der mitteleren Trias. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Abhandlungen. 94, 80-92.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Bardet and Cuny, 1993. Triassic reptile faunas from France. Paleontologia Lombarda. 2, 9-17.
McGowan and Motani, 2003. Handbook of Paleoherpetology: Ichthyopterygia, Part 8. 175 pp.

Thalattosauria Merriam, 1904
= Thalattosauriformes Nicholls, 1999
References- Merriam, 1904. A new marine reptile from the Triassic of California. University of California Department of Geology Bulletin. 3, 419-421.
Nicholls, 1999. A reexamination of Thalattosaurus and Nectosaurus and the relationships of the Thalattosauria (Reptilia: Diapsida). PaleoBios. 19(1), 1-29.

Askeptosauroidea Kuhn, 1952 vide Kuhn-Schnyder, 1971
References- Kuhn, 1952. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XVII. Askeptosaurus italicus Nopcsa. Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 69, 1-73.
Kuhn-Schnyder, 1971. Über einen Schädel von Askeptosaurus italicus Nopsca aus der mittleren Trias des Monte San Giorgio (Kt. Tessin, Schweiz). Abhandlungen des Hessischen Landesamts für Bodenforschung. 60, 89-98.

Actiosaurus Sauvage, 1883
A. gaudryi Sauvage, 1883
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
limestone at Conches-les-Mines, Autun, Saône-et-Loire, France
Lectotype (proposed)- (University of Leuven coll.) proximal humerus (~105 mm)
Paralectotypes- (University of Leuven coll.) (Amniota incertae sedis) centrum (65 mm), humerus (90 mm), proximal ?humerus
Comments- Sauvage described this as a probable dinosaur most similar to Palaeosaurus (based on Thecodontosaurus material) within the Megalosauridae (in which he placed all theropods), though differing in the more projecting femoral head, more poorly developed greater trochanter, and marked tuberosity on the proximal humerus. Sauvage based the taxon on two supposed proximal femora of different sizes, a humerus "found with them" and a more questionably referred centrum supposedly from the dorsal series. While the femoral morphology suggested something intermediate between crocodiles and lizards, Sauvage believed the vertebral centrum would indicate Actiosaurus was dinosaurian if properly referred (due to the oblique articular surfaces). The species name was misspelled A. gaudrii by Boulenger (1883). Later authors often placed it in whichever theropod family they included Paleosaurus in- Mayer (1886) in Amphisauridae, Nopcsa (1901) in Anchisaurinae within Megalosauridae, and Simroth (1907) and Zittel (1890) in Zanclodontidae. Zittel was provisional in his assignment though and stated Actiosaurus was insufficiently characterized. Huene (1902) listed it provisionally under Lycosauria (containing gorgonopsids and theriocephalans), and Werner (1906) listed it under Thecodontia. Sauvage (1903) disagreed with Huene's identification, noting that while resemblences between Actiosaurus and some "anomodonts" such as Deuterosaurus (now recognized as a dinocephalan) existed, the form was more similar to crocodiles. Note Stache's (1889) reference to Actiosaurus tommasinii is a misspelling of the ophidiomorph squamate Acteosaurus. Huene (1908) referred it to Ichthyosaurus, crediting his 1902 paper despite the fact that was not his conclusion then.
The various described elements were found by two different collectors, belonged to at least two individuals based on the two sizes of "femur" and have no record of association, so could easily belong to different taxa. The bone described as the smaller proximal femur is here taken to be the type as it is illustrated, described in most detail and first, and it is the supposed femora that are said to indicate "the presence of a reptile close to Palaeosaurus." Why Actiosaurus has been referred to Ichthyosauria is not at all apparent. The limb elements are more elongate than any ichthyosaur bone, while ichthyosaur vertebrae are famously amphicoelous unlike the weakly biconvex centrum referred to Actiosaurus. The limb elements are also more elongate with better developed articular surfaces than sauropterygians. Compared to contemporaneous dinosaurs, the humerus has a much smaller and proximally located deltopectoral crest and more greatly expanded distal end, while the supposed femur would differ in having a basically proximally projecting elongated and flattened head. However, the "femur" is extremely similar to the humerus of the askeptosauroid thalattosaur Pachystropheus (particularly RSM 1911.5.5918), which is common in Rhaetian beds of England and also reported from France. Points of similarity include the head structure just noted, as well as the deltopectoral crest (greater trochanter of Sauvage) which is an oval knob placed in the center of the anterior face, at the same distance from the head. It is also within the size range of Pachystropheus specimens (greatest transverse width 25 mm compared to 13-35 mm). Interestingly, Actiosaurus has priority over Pachystropheus (named by Huene in 1935). Pachystropheus' proximal humeri exhibit significant individual variation but are much more slender than other askeptosauroids except Endennasaurus. The latter differs in having its deltopectoral crest adjacent to the humeral head, lacking the coracobrachialis fossa of Pachystropheus and Actiosaurus. Thus Actiosaurus may diagnosably be synonymous with Pachystropheus, but given its lack of use in modern literature and fragmentary nature, the genus is unlikely to be officially recognized as a senior synonym and if a published study determines synonymy is correct the ICZN should be petitioned to maintain the genus Pachystropheus. Interestingly, Godefriot (pers. comm. 2012) has rediscovered Actiosaurus' remains in the University of Leuven and confirms my 2010 identification. Whether the additional proximal "femur" is also a thalattosaur humerus is unknown, as it is not illustrated and only stated to be larger (though with oddly different breadth vs. depth proportions given). The element described as a humerus seems to be correctly identified, but it differs from Pachystropheus in being more abruptly expanded proximally and straighter, with a more proximally placed deltopectoral crest. Its affinities require a broader look at amniote humeri. The centrum is not from a thalattosaur, as it is weakly biconvex to amphiplatyan, has oblique articular faces and a longitudinal ventral groove (as in Pachystropheus caudals, but those further differ in being fused to their neural arches at a much smaller size than the Actiosaurus centrum). Among dinosaurs, only caudal vertebrae usually have ventral grooves (common in theropods at least), though only cervicals usually have oblique faces. Plateosaurus ingens does have oblique faces on its caudal centra though, making it a potential candidate for the Actiosaurus centrum. Yet with such a brief description and no illustration, further comparison to other amniotes is warranted before any judgement is made.
References- Boulenger, 1883. Reptilia and Batrachia. in Rye (ed.). The Zoological Record for 1883. Record of Zoological Literature. 20, 24 pp.
Sauvage, 1883. Recherches sur les reptiles trouves dans l'etage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Annales des Sciences Geologiques. 14(6, Article 3), 1-44.
Mayer, 1886. Herausgegeben von der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel. IV. Abtheilung: Tunicata, Vertebrata. 413 pp.
Stache, 1889. Die Liburnische Stufe und deren Grenzhorizonte, eine Studie uber die Schichtenfolgen der cretacisch-eocanen oder protocanen Landbildungs-Periode im Bereich der Küstenländer von Oesterreich-Ungarn mit einer einleitenden Uebersicht der geologischen Verhältnisse dieses Gebietes. Abhandlungen der geologischen Bundesanstalt. 13, 170 pp.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves).
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Sauvage, 1903. Note sur les reptiles de letage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Bulletin Societe d'Histoire Naturelle d'Autun (France). 16, 309-318.
Werner, 1906. Reptilia und Amphibia fur 1903. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte. 1-70.
Simroth, 1907. Die Pendulationstheorie. Leipzig Konrad Grethlein's Verlag. 564 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der europäischen Triasformation mit Berücksichtiging der aussereuropäischen Vorkommnisse. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen Supplement-Band. 1, 419 pp.
Mortimer, online 2010. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2010/06/actiosaurus-is-choristodere-not.html

Sauropterygia Owen, 1860
Definition- (Placodus gigas + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)

Placodus Agassiz, 1833
P. gigas Agassiz, 1839
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Germany
Holotype- (BSP AS VII 1208) incomplete skull
Referred- (SMF coll.; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial interclavicle
Comments- Huene (1908) described a supposed osteoderm found (translated) "on the underside of the approx. 8 cm thick rock plate" which preserved Tanystropheus conspicuus cervical and 'Thecodontosaurus latespinatus' (= Tanystropheus conspicuus) caudal SMF R282a and R282b respectively. He considered it possible the element belonged to latespinatus given osteoderms found with Zanclodon laevis and supposedly comparable vertebral processes, but the latter osteoderms are placodont while the vertebra is Nothosaurus (Wild, 1973). Ironically, the specimen "turned out to be part of an interclavicle of Placodus gigas" (translated from Huene, 1931).
References- Agassiz, 1833-1845. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles, vol. II. Imprimerie de Petitpierre. 336 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.

Eosauropterygia Rieppel, 1994
Definition- (Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Corosaurus alcovensis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)
Other definitions- (Nothosaurus mirabilis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
(Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Corosaurus alcovensis + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1998)
(Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified from Rieppel, 2000)

Eusauropterygia Tschanz, 1989
Definition- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Simosaurus gaillardoti + Lariosaurus balsami + Ceresiosaurus calcagnii + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)
Other definitions- (Simosaurus gaillardoti + Nothosaurus mirabilis) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified from Rieppel, 2000)
= Pistosauroidea sensu Rieppel, 1998
Definition- (Corosaurus alcovensis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified)
= Pistosauria sensu Rieppel, 1998
Definition- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified)

Pistosauria Baur, 1890
Definition- (Augustasaurus hagdorni + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified after Rieppel et al., 2002)
Other definitions- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified after Rieppel, 1998)

Plesiosauria Gray, 1825
Definition- (Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified from O'Keefe, 2001)
Other definitions- (Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Peloneustes philarchus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Pliosauroidea Seeley, 1874 vide Welles, 1943
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (Ketchum and Benson, 2010)
Other definitions- (Thalassiodracon hawkinsi + Eurycleidus arcuatus + Attenborosaurus conybeari + Rhomaleosaurus cramptoni + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified after O'Keefe, 2001)
(Rhomaleosaurus victor + Pliosaurus brachyspondylus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Pliosauridae Seeley, 1874
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Rhomaleosaurus victor, Polycotylus latipinnis, Leptocleidus superstes) (Ketchum and Benson, 2010)
Other definitions- (Macroplata tenuiceps + Brachauchenius lucasi) (modified from O'Keefe, 2001)
(Simolestes vorax + Pliosaurus brachyspondylus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Thalassophonea Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Marmornectes candrewi) (Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online)
Reference- Benson and Druckenmiller, 2014 (online 2013). Faunal turnover of marine tetrapods during the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition. Biological Reviews. 89(1), 1-23.

unnamed thalassophonean (Hahnel, 1988)
Middle Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
La Caja Formation, Mexico
Material- (UANL-FCT-R2; The Monster of Aramberri) (~15 m) jaw fragment (lost), cranial fragments, nine cervical vertebrae, seven partial pectoral vertebrae (90-105 mm), rib fragments, gastralium?, axial material, incomplete scapula, incomplete coracoids, humerus, pelvis, femora (~1.2 m), epipodials
Comments- Hahnel (1988) initially referred this specimen to Theropoda based on the large size and carnivorous teeth. Buchy et al. (2003) reidentified it as Pliosauridae indet. based on the pectoral section and lost snout. Frey et al. (2006) announced the recovery of much of the rest of the specimen, preliminary results which are given in Buchy's (2007) thesis. Buchy retained it as Pliosauridae indet., which can be narrowed to Thalassophonea indet. given its late age. Once more of the specimen is prepared, it may be possible to assign further.
References- Hahnel, 1988. Hallazgo de restos de dinosaurio en Aramberri, N.L., Mexico. Actas de la. Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra, U.A.N.L. 3, 245-250.
Buchy, Frey, Stinnesbeck and Lopez-Oliva, 2003. First occurrence of a gigantic pliosaurid plesiosaur in the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) of Mexico. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 174(3), 271-278.
Frey, Stinnesbeck and Buchy, 2006. The Monster of Aramberri. German Research. 27(3), 4-7.
Buchy, 2007. Mesozoic marine reptiles from north-east Mexico: Description, systematics, assemblages and palaeobiogeography. PhD thesis, Universitat Karlsruhe. 89 pp.

Brachaucheninae Williston, 1925 vide Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online
Definition- (Brachauchenius lucasi <- Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online)
Reference- Benson and Druckenmiller, 2014 (online 2013). Faunal turnover of marine tetrapods during the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition. Biological Reviews. 89(1), 1-23.

Pliosaurus Owen, 1841 vide Owen, 1842
?= Spondylosaurus Fischer de Waldheim, 1845
?= "Tapinosaurus" Lennier, 1887
= Stretosaurus Tarlo, 1959
= Strongylokrotaphus Novozhilov, 1964
Comments- This was originally erected as a subgenus of Plesiosaurus, spelled Pleiosaurus (Owen, 1841). As Benson et al. (2013) state, ICZN Article 33.3.1 indicates Pliosaurus is an incorrect subsequent spelling but should be retained as it has been "in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling." Owen (1841) raised it to genus level. See Knutsen (2012) and Benson et al. (2013) for differing views on species validity.
References- Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Fischer de Waldheim, 1845. Notice sur le Spondylosaurus genre de saurien fossile de l'oolithe de Moscou. Aus dem Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 343-351.
Lennier, 1887. Études paléontologiques. Description des fossiles du Cap de la Hève. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1886(12), 17-98.  
Tarlo, 1959. Stretosaurus gen. nov., a giant pliosaur from the Kimmeridge Clay. Palaeontology. 2, 39-55.
Knutsen, 2012. A taxonomic revision of the genus Pliosaurus (Owen, 1841a) Owen, 1841b. Norwegian Journal of Geology. 92, 259-276.
Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. brachydeirus (Owen, 1841) Owen, 1842
= Plesiosaurus brachydeirus Owen, 1841
?= Pliosaurus evansi Seeley, 1869
?= Plesiosaurus sterrodeirus Seeley, 1869
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
? Late Callovian-Early Oxfordian, Middle-Late Jurassic
? Oxford Clay Formation, England
References- Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Seeley, 1869. Index to the fossil remains of Aves, Ornithosaurier and Reptilia in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. 143 pp.
P. archiaci (Deslongchamps vide Lennier, 1870) Sauvage, 1894
= Polyptychodon archiaci Deslongchamps vide Lennier, 1870
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, France
References- Lennier, 1870. Etudes géologiques et paléontologiques sur l'embouchure de la Seine et les Falaises de la Haute-Normandie. Imprimerie Eugène Costey, Havre. 245 pp.
Sauvage, 1894. Les Reptiles du terrain jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Academie des sciences. 119, 926-927.
P. brachyspondylus (Owen, 1839) Eichwald, 1868
= Plesiosaurus brachyspondylus Owen, 1839
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
References- Owen, 1839. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 1. Report of the Ninth Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Birmingham. 43-126.
Eichwald, 1868. Lethaea Rossica ou Paléontologie de la Russie. Stuttgart, Germany. 1304 pp.  
P. carpenteri Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P? frearsi (Fischer de Waldheim, 1845) Bogoljubow, 1912
= Spondylosaurus frearsi Fischer de Waldheim, 1845
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay, Russia
References- Fischer de Waldheim, 1845. Notice sur le Spondylosaurus genre de saurien fossile de l'oolithe de Moscou. Aus dem Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 343-351.
Bogoljubow, 1912. Die russischc oberjurassische Plesiosaurierfauna. Annuaire géologique et minéralogique de la Russie. 14, 1-7.
P. funkei Knutsen, Druckenmiller and Hurum, 2012
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Slottsmøya Member of the Agardhfjellet Formation, Norway
Reference- Knutsen, Druckenmiller and Hurum, 2012. A new species of Pliosaurus (Sauropterygia: Plesiosauria) from the Middle Volgian of central Spitsbergen, Norway. Norwegian Journal of Geology. 92, 235-258.
P? gamma Phillips, 1871
Late Callovian-Early Oxfordian, Middle-Late Jurassic
Oxford Clay Formation, England
Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P? grandis (Owen, 1839) Owen, 1841
= Plesiosaurus grandis Owen, 1839
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
References- Owen, 1839. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 1. Report of the Ninth Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Birmingham. 43-126.
Owen, 1841. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 2. Report of the Eleventh Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Plymouth. 60-204.
P. irgisensis (Novozhilov, 1948) Tarlo, 1960
= Peloneustes irgisensis Novozhilov, 1948
= Strongylokrotaphus irgisensis (Novozhilov, 1948) Novozhilov, 1964
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Savel-evsk Mine No. 1, Russia
References- Novozhilov, 1948. Two new pliosaurs from the Lower Volga beds Povolzhe (right bank of Volga). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. 60, 115-118.
Tarlo, 1960. A review of Upper Jurassic pliosaurs. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology. 4, 145-189.
Novozhilov, 1964. Order of Sauropterygia. Osnovy Paleontologii. 12, 309-332.
P. kevani Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. macromerus Phillips, 1871 (as Pleiosaurus macromerus)
= Stretosaurus macromerus (Phillips, 1871) Tarlo, 1959
= Liopleurodon macromerus (Phillips, 1871) Halstead, 1989
Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
References- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
Tarlo, 1959. Stretosaurus gen. nov., a giant pliosaur from the Kimmeridge Clay. Palaeontology. 2, 39-55.
Halstead, 1989. Plesiosaur locomotion. Journal of the Geological Society. 146, 37-40.
P? nitidus Phillips, 1871
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P. patagonicus Gasparini and O'Gorman, 2014
Middle Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Vaca Muerta Formation of the Mendoza Group, Neuquen, Argentina
Reference- Gasparini and O'Gorman, 2014. A new species of Pliosaurus (Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the Upper Jurassic of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 51(4), 269-283.
P? planus Hulke, 1883
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Hulke, 1883. The anniversary address of the president. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 39, 38-65.
P. portentificus Noe, Smith and Walton, 2004
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Noe, Smith and Walton, 2004. A new species of Kimmeridgian pliosaur (Reptilia; Sauropterygia) and its bearing on the nomenclature of Liopleurodon macromerus. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 115, 13-24.
P. rigauxi (Sauvage, 1874) new combination
= Cetiosaurus rigauxi Sauvage, 1874
Middle Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Portel, France
Holotype- (MHNL coll.; = MHNB 233) posterior cervical centrum (85 mm)
Comments- Sauvage (1874) initially described this as a posterior cervical centrum of a new Cetiosaurus species, notable for its short proportions. In 1895 he referred it to Pliosaurus sp. in a brief note, which would technically make it Pliosaurus rigauxi. That combination has never been used to my knowledge, however. Sauvage (1902) later referred the specimen to Pliosaurus grandis without stated justification. P? grandis is based on a scapula and three unassociated propodials from the Kimmeridgian of England which were poorly described and lost, so there's no reason to connect them to rigauxi. No more recent studies have been published, and the specimen has never been illustrated. The specimen number is taken from Fossilworks' website, though the Museum d'Histoire naturelle de Boulogne-sur-Mer (MHNB) closed in 2003 and transferred its collections to the Musée d'Histoire naturelle de Lille. Thus rigauxi presumedly has a MHNL number now instead.
Based on the original description, rigauxi differs from sauropods such as Cetiosaurus in the short centrum (52% of height, compared to no less than 154% in Cetiosaurus), with even the short-necked Brachytrachelopan having subequal proportions at best. Furthermore, all gravisaurs have strongly opisthocoelous cervicals, whereas rigauxi's is weakly amphicoelous. The parapophyses are 55% of centrum height, while they are much smaller in sauropods (e.g. 34% in cervical 12 of Cetiosaurus). All of these features are seen in pliosaur posterior cervicals however (e.g. length/width ratio of 51-58% and parapophysis/centrum height ratio 70% in P. brachydeirus' holotype). The undivided parapophysis located on the centrum indicates Sauvage had its position in the vertebral column correct despite assigning it to the wrong group. Notably, Sauvage states the ventral surface is "cut into a peak", which suggests a median keel like that which characterizes P. brachydeirus. The latter species' holotype is from the Early Kimmeridgian, but it's possible rigauxi is part of a long-lived P. brachydeirus, or that the French species will be shown to be distinct from P. brachydeirus once it is studied in more detail. rigauxi is not officially synonymized here though, pending verification of the keeled morphology and modern description of the specimen.
References- Sauvage, 1874. Mémoire sur les dinosauriens et les crocodiliens des terrains jurassiques de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, série 2. 10(2), 1-57.
Sauvage, 1895. Les dinosauriens du terrain jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 3e série. 22, 465-470.
Sauvage, 1902. Note sur quelques Reptiles du Jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Bulletin de la Societe Academique de l‘Arrondissement de Boulogne-sur-Mer. 6, 380-398.
Fossilworks http://fossilworks.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=65160
P. rossicus Novozhilov, 1948
= Liopleurodon rossicus (Novozhilov, 1948) Halstead, 1971
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Buinsk Mine oil shales, Russia
References- Novozhilov, 1948. Two new pliosaurs from the Lower Volga beds Povolzhe (right bank of Volga). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. 60, 115-118.
Halstead, 1971. Liopleurodon rossicus (Novozhilov) - a pliosaur from the Lower Volgian of the Moscow basin. Palaeontology. 14, 566-570.
P? simplex Phillips, 1871
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P? suprajurensis Sauvage, 1879
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Boulogne-sur-Mer, France
Reference- Sauvage, 1879. Prodrome des Plesiosauriens et des Elasmosauriens des formations Jurassiques superieures de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 6 Serie. 8(13), 1-38.
P. westburyensis Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. wosinskii Fischer de Waldheim, 1846
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay, Russia
Reference- Fischer de Waldheim, 1846. Notice sur quelques sauriens fossiles du Gouvernement de Moscou. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 19, 90-107.
P? sp. (Lennier, 1887)
= "Tapinosaurus" Lennier, 1887
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
lower Argiles d'Ecqueville Member of the Argiles d'Octeville Formation, France
Material- (Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) anterior cervical centrum (70 mm) (Lennier, 1887)
(Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) three cervical centra (80, 78, 65 mm), two cervical ribs, two partial cervical or anterior dorsal neural arches, four incomplete dorsal neural arches, six dorsal ribs (four partial, one fragmentary; 1 m) (Rabeck, 1925)
?...(Lepage coll. 15.8.31.E1) posterior cervical centrum (91 mm) (Lepage et al., 2009)
?...(Muséum du Havre IIFD358) incomplete dorsal rib (Lepage et al., 2009)
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Marnes de Bleville, France
(Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) proximal dorsal rib (Lennier, 1887)
Comments- Lennier (1887) referred an unassociated cervical centrum and dorsal rib (both originally in the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre, but destroyed in 1944) to Tapinocephalus, then thought to be dinosaurian but now known to be a dinocephalian pan-mammal. This was seemingly due to their large size. The figure caption of Lennier's plate illustrating the centrum mistakenly said "Tapinosaurus sp?", clearly a misspelling of Tapinocephalus and not previously suggested to be a valid genus.
Rabeck (1925) described a specimen found in 1923 as the dinosaur "Tapinosaurus sp?", based on resemblence to Lennier's specimens, unaware that "Tapinosaurus" was not an accepted genus. This specimen (consisting of partial vertebrae and ribs) was also held at the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre and similarly destroyed in WWII. Stiegelmann (1925) provided measurements of the specimen.
After this, "Tapinosaurus" was seldomly mentioned. Kuhn (1939) includes Rabeck's material questionably under Omosaurus, which is treated as Saurischia indet. by Kuhn despite being stegosaurid (a replacement name for Dacentrurus). Steel (1970) realized Lennier's article was supposed to reference Tapinocephalus, but stated Rabeck's material "seemingly pertains to a large dinosaur, but is indeterminable", placing "Tapinosaurus" in Sauropoda incertae sedis. Rabeck's specimen is not a sauropod, as it has short amphicoelous cervical centra without pleurocoels, short laterally oriented cervical ribs, dorsal neural arches lacking laminae, and single-headed dorsal ribs. Buffetaut et al. (1991) first noticed the discrepency between the article and plate caption in Lennier's work, and identified both this centrum and Rebeck's "Tapinosaurus" as sauropterygians. Similarly, Molnar (pers comm. in Olshevsky, 1991) stated these specimens were probably plesiosaurian. Finally, Lepage et al. (2009) published detailed overview of "Tapinosaurus"' history (forming the basis of most of this entry), and redescribed the specimens as Pliosaurus sp. for Lennier's and Pliosaurus cf. macromerus for Rabeck's. They also described three new specimens from the lower Argiles d'Ecqueville, two of which might be referrable to the same individual as Rabeck's specimen as they are from the same layer and of similar size.
"Tapinosaurus" is Pliosaurus?- Unfortunately, the alpha level taxonomy of Pliosaurus is currently controversial, and most proposed distinguishing characters are cranial. The only axial character currently used to distinguish Pliosaurus species is the median ventral keel on cervical centra of P. brachydeirus. Rabeck's specimen lacks this, as do P. brachyspondylus (both current and proposed neotypes), P. funkei (paratype), P. macromerus (lectotype), P. rossicus (holotype) and P. westburyensis. Yet this morphology is plesiomorphic, also being found in e.g. Brachauchenius, Simolestes and "P." andrewsi. Pliosaurus archiaci is based on a mandible (MNHN 24.1) also discovered in the Kimmeridgian deposits of Le Havre, but cannot be compared to "Tapinosaurus". Another method would be to correlate the "Tapinosaurus" specimens stratigraphically with known Pliosaurus species. According to Lepage et al., at least Rabeck's specimen derives from the Aulacostephanus mutabilis zone of the Late Kimmeridgian. This corresponds to CAMSM J35990, a partial skeleton initially referred to a broad concept of P. macromerus (Pliosaurus without ventral cervical keels) but more recently found to be closest to P. kevani (in an analysis that did not include the P. macromerus lectotype or proposed neotype). CAMSM J35990 is similar Rabeck's specimen in being larger than most and lacking ventral cervical keels, so there may be a real large A. mutabilis zone species of Pliosaurus that is currently undiagnosed. This may correspond to the large P. portentificus, although that has been considered a nomen dubium and may belong to the more recent A. euxodus zone. Perhaps notable is that P. portentificus has the same number of symphyseal alveoli (8) as P. archiaci, whereas other species have more (>11 in P. brachydeirus, 9 in P. carpenteri, ~14-15 in P. kevani) or less (6 in P. rossicus and P. patagonicus). In any case, both P. macromerus' lectotype and proposed neotype are from more recently deposited sediments, so Lepage et al.'s assignment seems unlikely. Pending further studies, the "Tapinosaurus" material is best retained as Pliosaurus sp.. Lennier's dorsal rib is from a different locality, whose age corresponds to P. brachydeirus and P. kevani, though it is near certainly indeterminate.
References- Lennier, 1887. Études paléontologiques. Description des fossiles du Cap de la Hève. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1886(12), 17-98.
Rabeck, 1925. Notes sur la découverte d'ossements de dinosaurien dans les Argiles supérieures Kimméridgiennes du Cap de la Hève (Octeville-sur-Mer). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1916/1923(34), 72-74
Stiegelmann, 1925. Note additionnelle [à Notes sur la découverte d'ossements de dinosaurien dans les Argiles supérieures Kimméridgiennes du Cap de la Hève (Octeville-sur-Mer) de G. Rabeck]. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie.1916/1923(34), 75.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
Buffetaut, Cuny and Le Loeuff, 1991. French dinosaurs: The best record in Europe? Modern Geology. 16, 17-42.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Lepage, Buffetaut and Lepage, 2009. Qu'est-ce que Tapinosaurus? Lennier, Rabeck et les grands Sauroptérygiens du Kimméridgien supérieur de la région havraise (Normandie, France). Bulletin de la Société géologique de Normandie et des amis du Muséum du Havre. 96(1), 27-59.

Choristodera Cope, 1876
Definition- (Cteniogenys antiquus + Lazarussuchus inexpectatus + Champsosaurus annectens) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
Other definitions- (Pachystropheus rhaeticus + Cteniogenys antiquus + Lazarussuchus inexpectatus + Champsosaurus annectens) (modified from Merck, 1997)

Patricosaurus Seeley, 1887
P. merocratus Seeley, 1887
Late Albian, Early Cretaceous
Gault Clay (reworked into Cambridge Greensand), England
Lectotype- (SMC B58401) (~3 m) proximal femur (~107 mm)
Comments- Patricosaurus was based on two unassociated specimens, a sacral vertebra (SMC B58402) found before 1859 and a proximal femur discovered in the 1880's. Seeley (1887) believed both belonged to the same taxon since he thought "there was little chance of any remains of two lizards occurring" in the Cambridge Greensand, but stated the femur could remain as the type if the vertebra was found to not belong to the same taxon. Barrett and Evans (2002) redescribed the specimens and referred the vertebra to Archosauria, which makes the femur the lectotype. Although they called Patricosaurus indeterminate, they also listed several features which differed from all lepidosaurs they examined.
Seeley named the taxon as a new genus of lizard, more closely related to modern taxa than any other Cretaceous lizard known at the time, but outside the crown group. Patricosaurus was referred to Lacertilia incertae sedis without comment by most later authors as well. Barrett and Evans compared it to several modern lizard taxa, but found no characters that were phylogenetically useful in the proximal femur. Additionally, they could not distinguish it from rhynchocephalians, leaving them to classify Patricosaurus as Lepidosauria incertae sedis. Evans later (2003) listed Patricosaurus as a possible anguimorph without comment, perhaps because she and Barrett felt it was phenetically closest to terrestrial varanids. Barrett and Evans noted that the lepidosaur-like characters of Patricosaurus were symplesiomorphic for diapsids, correctly excluding it from turtles, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and archosaurs. Choristoderes share the same femoral plesiomorphies as lepidosaurs, but were said to differ from Patricosaurus in having "narrower, more elongate, internal trochanter and an absence of obvious proximal muscle scars or strong muscle ridges." Yet the near contemporaneous Khurendukhosaurus does not have a narrower internal trochanter, has a rough insertional surface for the m. pubischiofemoralis externus (the dorsal surface is worn, so cannot be judged), and the length of Patricosaurus' internal trochanter is unknown as it is broken distally (unless they mean length in proximal view away from the head, in which case Khurendukhosaurus is in the range of modern lepidosaurs). Thus a relationship with choristoderes needs to be considered further. Of the characters listed by Barrett and Evans as variable in lepidosaurs, Khurendukhosaurus is less similar to Patricosaurus than some lizards in having almost no anterior curvature of its femoral head (instead the entire head is projected anteriorly as in Xantusia and Elgaria), is similar to the examined lepidosaurs in having weaker trochanteric crests (and thus a shallower intertrochanteric fossa), is more similar than most examined lepidosaurs (except Tupinambis and Cyclura) in having a small amount of separation between the internal trochanter and head, but is more similar to Patricosaurus than any examined lepidosaur in having a teardrop-shaped head in proximal view and in having the anteroposterior width be >95% of the dorsoventral width in proximal view. Cteniogenys (perhaps the choristodere Evans compared, as she previously redescribed it) is dissimilar in the latter three ways, while Pachystropheus is quite different in the proximally flattened head, distally placed interior trochanter and other features. Pending comparison to a greater variety of lepidosaurs (including fossil taxa), Patricosaurus is provisionally considered more likely to be a choristodere, perhaps closer to neochoristoderes than Cteniogenys. Evans (pers. comm. from Barrett, 2010) believes the taxon to be a lizard regardless of the details described here.
Olshevsky (1991) stated Patricosaurus was probably an indeterminate small theropod, citing personal communication from Molnar. However, Molnar stated (pers. comm., 2001) that while he was not convinced it is a lizard, he did not think it was a theropod or even an archosaur. Thus there was a misunderstanding, and no one actually ever considered Patricosaurus to be dinosaurian based on evidence. As Barrett and Evans stated, Patricosaurus cannot be an archosaur because members of that clade have lost the intertrochanteric fossa and internal trochanter. Similarly, there is no anterior or greater trochanter, unlike theropods.
References- Seeley, 1887. On Patricosaurus merocratus, Seeley, a lizard from the Cambridge Greensand, preserved in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 43, 216-220.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Barrett and Evans, 2002. A reassessment of the Early Cretaceous reptile ‘Patricosaurus merocratus’ Seeley from the Cambridge Greensand, Cambridgeshire, UK. Cretaceous Research. 23, 231-240.
Evans, 2003. At the feet of the dinosaurs: The early history and radiation of lizards. Biological Reviews. 78(4), 513-551.

Pan-Archosauria Gauthier, 2020
Official Definition- total(Alligator mississippiensis + Compsognathus longipes) (Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 176)
= Archelosauria Crawford, Parham, Sellas, Faircloth, Glenn, Papenfuss, Henderson, Hansen and Simison, 2014
Definition- (Testudo graeca + Crocodylus niloticus) (Crawford et al., 2014)
References- Gauthier, 2020. Pan-Archosauria J. A. Gauthier, new clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1174-1177.

Pan-Testudines Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004
Official Definition- total(Chelus fimbriatus + Trionyx triunguis + Chelonia mydas + Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 272)
Other definitions- (Chelonia mydas <- Homo sapiens, Draco volans, Caiman crocodilus, Vultur gryphus) (modified from Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004)
= Anapsida Osborn, 1903
Definition- (Testudines <- Sauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
References- Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. Journal of Paleontology. 78, 989-1013.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Pan-Testudines W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, and J. A. Gauthier 2004 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1040-1043.

Testudinata Klein, 1760
Official Definition- (carapace with interlocking costals, neurals, peripherals, and a nuchal, together with the plastron comprising interlocking epi-, hyo-, meso-, hypo-, xiphiplastra and an entoplastron that are articulated with one another along a bridge as in Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 273)
Other definitions- (carapace formed from costal bones with fused ribs, neural bones with fused thoracic vertebrae, and marginal bones; plastron formed from interclavicle, clavicle, and three to five paired bones sutured together; carapace and plastron articulated at lateral margin and enclosing shoulder girdle and pelvic girdle as in Chelonia mydas) (Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004)
References- Klein, 1760. Klassification und kurze Geschichte der Vierfüßigen Thiere. Jonas Schmidt. 381 pp.
Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. Journal of Paleontology. 78, 989-1013.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Testudinata I. T. Klein 1760 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group.1044-1047.

Testudines Batsch, 1788
Official Definition- crown(Chelus fimbriatus + Trionyx triunguis + Chelonia mydas + Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 274)
Other definitions- (Chelonia mydas <- Captorhinus aguti) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Proganochelys quenstedti + crown turtles) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
crown(Chelus fimbriatus + Chelonia mydas) (Joyce et al., 2004)
= Chelonii Latreille, 1800
Definition- (Chelus fimbriatus + Testudo hermani) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Chelonia Ross and Macartney, 1802 (preoccupied Sonnini and Latreille, 1801)
References- Batsch, 1788. Versuch Einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniß und Geschichte der Thiere und Mineralien. Akademische Buchhandlung. 528 pp.
Latreille, 1800. Histoire Naturelle des Salamandres de France. Villier. 61 pp.
Ross and Macartney, 1802. Tables of classification. In Cuvier (ed.). Lectures on Comparative Anatomy. Translated by William Ross under the inspection of James Macartney. T. N. Longman and O. Rees. 542 pp.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Testudines A. J. G. C. Batsch 1788 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1048-1051.

Cryptodira Cope, 1868
Official Definition- crown(Testudo graeca + Chelonia mydas + Trionyx triunguis + Kinosternon scorpioides + Chelydra serpentina) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi, and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 278)
References- Cope, 1868. On the origin of genera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1868, 242-300.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi, and Sterli, 2020. Cryptodira E. D. Cope 1868 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1060-1063.

Trionychia Hummel, 1929
Definition- crown(Trionyx triunguis + Carettochelys insculpta) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Trionychidae Gray, 1825
Definition- crown(Trionyx triunguis + Cyclanorbis senegalensis) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Trionychinae Gray, 1825 vide Lydekker, 1889

Axestemys Hay, 1899
= Axestus Cope, 1872 (preoccupied Dejean, 1835)
= Temnotrionyx Hay, 1908
= Paleotrionyx Schmidt, 1945
Definition- (Axestemys byssina <- Aspideretoides foveatus, Apalone spinifera, Aspideretes gangeticus, Rafetus euphraticus, Trionyx triunguis, Cyclanorbis senegalensis, Plastomenus thomasii, Chitra indica, Pelodiscus sinensis) (Vitek, 2012)
Comments- Axestus was originally used for a curculionid beetle (Dejean, 1835).
References- Dejean, 1835. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. [Livraison 4]. Méquignon-Marvis. 257-360.
Cope, 1872. Descriptions of some new Vertebrata from the Bridger Group of the Eocene. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 460-465.
Hay, 1899. On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates. The American Geologist. 24, 345-349.
Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Schmidt, 1945. A new turtle from the Paleocene of Colorado. Fieldiana: Geology. 10, 1-4.
Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. splendida (Hay, 1908) Vitek, 2012
= Aspideretes splendidus Hay, 1908
= Trionyx splendidus (Hay, 1908) Hummel, 1932
= Aspideretes granifer Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Aspideretes planus Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Aspideretoides splendidus (Hay, 1908) Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Eugenichelys splendida (Hay, 1908) Chkhikvadze, 2000
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Judith River Formation, Montana
Holotype- (AMNH 3952) incomplete carapace
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota, US
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, US
Referred- (KUVP 152429; paratype of Dakotaraptor steini) entoplastron
(NCSM 13170; paratype of Dakotaraptor steini) entoplastron
(PBMNH.P.10.113.T; holotype of Dakotaraptor steini in part) partial entoplastron
Diagnosis- (after Vitek, 2015) dorsomedian carapacial sculpture of larger individuals consists of high, narrow ridges bordering wavy, flat-bottomed, reticulate lacunae or troughs; unsutured median contact between xiphiplastra; epiplastral projections approximately one-fourth maximum hypoplastral width; anterior projections of epiplastra wider and not tapered; gracile entoplastron; sculptured, unfused hyo-hypoplastral callosities.
References- Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Hummel, 1932. Pars 52: Trionychia fossilia. In Quenstedt (ed.). Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. W. Junk. 106 pp.
Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995. Systematics and taxonomy of soft-shelled turtles (family Trionychidae) from the Judith River Group (Mid-Campanian) of North America. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 32(5), 631-643.
Ckhikvadze, 2000. O sistematicheskom polozheniye nekotorikh vimershikh trekhkogotnikh cherepakh Severnoi Ameriki i Azii. Trudy Tbilisskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 7, 199-213.
Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
Arbour, Zanno, Larson, Evans and Sues, 2015. The furculae of the dromaeosaurid dinosaur Dakotaraptor steini are trionychid turtle entoplastra. PeerJ PrePrints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1570v1
DePalma, Burnham, Martin, Larson and Bakker, 2015. The first giant raptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Hell Creek Formation. Paleontological Contributions. 14, 16 pp.
A. montinsana Vitek, 2012
Selandian-Thanetian, Middle-Late Paleocene
Melville Formation, Montana, US
Danian, Early Paleocene
Fort Union Formation, North Dakota, US
Danian, Early Paleocene
Denver Formation, Colorado, US
Reference- Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. cerevisia Vitek, 2012
Ypresian-Lutetian, Early Eocene
Bridger Formation, Wyoming, US
Reference- Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. quinni (Schmidt, 1945) Hutchison and Holroyd, 2003
= Paleotrionyx quinni Schmidt, 1945
Thanetian-Ypresian, Late Plaeocene-Early Eocene
Plateau Valley beds, Colorado, US
References- Schmidt, 1945. A new turtle from the Paleocene of Colorado. Fieldiana: Geology. 10, 1-4.
Hutchison and Holroyd, 2003. Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene turtles of the Denver Basin. Rocky Mountain Geology. 38, 121-142.
A. byssinus (Cope, 1872) Hay, 1899
= Axestus byssinus Cope, 1872
= Temnotrionyx manducans Hay, 1908
= Eugenichelys robertemryi Chkhikvadze, 2008
Ypresian-Lutetian, Early Eocene
Bridger Formation, Wyoming, US
Ypresian, Early Eocene
Wasatch Formation, Wyoming, US
References- Cope, 1872. Descriptions of some new Vertebrata from the Bridger Group of the Eocene. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 460-465.
Hay, 1899. On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates. The American Geologist. 24, 345-349.
Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Chkhikvadze, 2008. Trekhkogotniye cherepakhi (Trionychidae) Azii i Severnoi Ameriki: Morfologiya, filogeniya, sistematika, terminologiya elementov karapaksa. Problemy paleobiologii, Tbilisi. 3, 85-95.

Chelonioidea Gray, 1825 vide Agassiz, 1857
Definition- (Chelonia mydas + Dermochelys coriacea) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Protostegidae Cope, 1889

Pneumatoarthrus Cope, 1870
P. peloreus Cope, 1870
Early Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Mount Laurel Formation, New Jersey, US
Holotype- (ANSP 9225) (~2.8 m) fifth dorsal centrum (~128 mm), sixth dorsal centrum (~129 mm), seventh dorsal centrum (~127 mm), eighth dorsal centrum (~112 mm) (Leidy, 1865)
Comments- This specimen was originally described as a juvenile Hadrosaurus sacrum by Leidy (1865) before Cope (1870) named it as a new taxon. Cope believed it to be "more Megalosaurian than Iguanodontine", comparing it favorably to Anchisaurus (his Megadactylus), Efraasia (his Palaeosaurus) and Clepsysaurus (a phytosaur), and less closely to Ornithopsis and Dryptosaurus (his Laelaps). He also stated it may belong to Ornithotarsus or a turtle, and in his 1872 description of the sea turtle Protostega considered Pneumatoarthrus quite likely to be a turtle as well. Cope (1875) later listed it under Testudinata with sea turtles. However, most authors were unaware of Cope's reassignment and continued to refer it to a dinosaur, either a hadrosaurid (Hay, 1903 [his Trachodontidae], 1930; Russell, 1930; Kuhn, 1964; Chapman and Brett-Surman, 1990) or theropod (Huene, 1932; Lull and Wright, 1942; Miller, 1955; Romer, 1956, 1976; Steel, 1970; White, 1973). Of the latter, Huene illustrated it as a Dryptosaurus aquilunguis sacral, Lull and Wright stated it resembled Anchisaurus, while White placed it as Megalosauridae indet.. The sacrals of Anchisaurus are roughly similar, but it and other dinosaurs have much smaller intervertebral foramina (so-called pneumatic foramina of Cope). The seemingly large foramina on Anchisaurus' caudals are spaces where transverse processes have broken. The similarity to Efraasia and Clepsysaurus noted by Cope involves the alternating expansion and contraction of the neural canal, which is common in reptiles including Archelon. Baird independantly recognized Pneumatoarthrus as a protostegid turtle a century after Cope's identification, which was first noted in personal communication in Gillette (1978), and later described in detail by Baird (1979, 1984) as a protostegine. He considered it extremely similar to Protostega and indistinguishable from Archelon, though he thought it to be generically undiagnostic and thus not a senior synonym of the latter genus. No rationale for referring it to Protosteginae instead of (the paraphyletic) Chelospharginae was given, and today we know of several more basal protostegids as well. It was listed as a protostegid by Spamer et al. (1995) and as a possible synonym of Archelon by Glut (1997). Another possibility is that Pneumatoarthrus is a junior synonym of the protostegid Atlantochelys mortoni, which is also known from Late Cretaceous New Jersey. Unfortunately, protostegid dorsals have not been closely studied for systematic variation so Pneumatoarthrus is retained here as Protostegidae indet..
References- Leidy, 1865. Memoir on the extinct reptiles of the Cretaceous formations of the United States. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. 14(6), 135 pp.
Cope, 1870. Observations on the Reptilia of the Triassic formations of the Atlantic region of the United States. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 11, 444-446.
Cope, 1872. A description of the genus Protostega, a form of extinct Testudinata. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 422-433.
Cope, 1875. The Vertebrata of the Cretaceous formations of the West. Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories. 2, 303 pp.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United States Geological Survey Bulletin. 179, 868 pp.
Gilmore, 1924. A new species of hadrosaurian dinosaur from the Edmonton Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey Bulletin. 38, 13-26.
Hay, 1930. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 390(2), 1074 pp.
Russell, 1930. Upper Cretaceous dinosaur faunas of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 69(4), 133-159.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Lull and Wright, 1942. Hadrosaurian dinosaurs of North America. Geological Society of America Special Papers. 40, 242 pp.
Miller, 1955. A check-list of the Cretaceous and Tertiary vertebrates of New Jersey. Journal of Paleontology. 29(5), 903-914.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Kuhn, 1964. Pars 105. Ornithischia (Supplementum I). in Westphal (ed.). Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. 80 pp.
White, 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Annals of Carnegie Museum. 44(9), 117-155.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Gillette, 1978. Catalogue of type specimens of fossil vertebrates Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Part IV: Reptilia, Amphibia, and tracks. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 129, 101-111.
Baird, 1979. Pneumatoarthrus Cope, 1870, not a dinosaur but a sea-turtle. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 129, 71-81.
Baird, 1984. Evidence of giant protostegid sea-turtles in the Cretaceous of New Jersey. The Mosasaur. 2, 135-140.
Chapman and Brett-Surman, 1990. Morphometric observations on hadrosaurid ornithopods. in Carpenter and Currie (eds.). Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 163-177.
Spamer, Daeschler and Vostreys-Shapiro, 1995. A study of fossil vertebrate types in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Taxonomic, systematic and historical perspectives. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publication 16, 435 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.

Archosauromorpha Huene, 1946
Official Definition- (Gallus gallus + Alligator mississippiensis + Mesosuchus browni + Trilophosaurus buettneri + Prolacerta broomi + Protorosaurus speneri) (Gauthier, 2020)
Other definitions- (Archosauria <- Lepidosauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Protorosaurus speneri <- Lepidosauria) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
(Rhynchosaurus articeps + Protorosaurus speneri + Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
= Thecodontia Owen, 1859
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri + Thecodontosaurus diagnosticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Protorosauria sensu Merck, 1997
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified)
References- Huene, 1946. Die Grossen Stämme der Tetrapoden in den geologischen. Biologisches Zentralblatt. 65, 268-275.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Gauthier, 2020. Archosauromorpha F. von Huene 1946 [J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1178-1181.

"Thecodontosaurus" primus Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus "primus" Huene, 1905
= Tanystropheus primus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932 in Galton and Cluver, 1976
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Syntypes- (MGUWr 3899s; was University of Breslau coll.) (adult) incomplete anterior dorsal vertebra (48 mm)
?...(University of Breslau coll.; lost) anterior dorsal centrum (~38 mm)
Comments- Huene (1905) first merely announced "Thecodontosaurus primus n. sp. Rückenwirbel, Oberschlesien" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908. Placed in Thecodontosauridae along with Anchisaurus and Massospondylus, Huene assigned this and other 'prosauropod' families in Theropoda. Upon Peyer's 1931 discovery that Tanystropheus was based on non-dinosaurian cervical vertebrae, Huene (1931) reidentified the dorsals as belonging to Tanystropheus, stating (translated) "T. antiquus skeletal parts other than cervical vertebrae are present in the collections. I now consider it probable that the vertebrae I described earlier as "Thecodontosaurus primus" (7, Pl. 92, 8-9) belong here." He noted they were unlike saurischians in lacking hyposphenes, but similar to Tanystropheus longobardicus and unlike other taxa in the Gogolin Formation, and that it was suspicious that only cervicals of Tanystropheus antiquus were known but only dorsals and caudals of Thecodontosaurus primus and T. latespinatus. In 1932 Huene stated (translated) "I also count "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus" and "primus" (only dorsal and tail vertebrae) with a high degree of probability as Tanystropheus." While Galton and Cluver (1976) thought this implied the new combination Tanystropheus primus, which they listed, Huene's 1931 wording and logic makes more sense as attributing primus and latespinatus to different vertebral sections of Tanystropheus antiquus. Colbert (1970) reexamined the vertebrae and found "they may be dinosaurian, but they can perfectly well be pseudosuchian vertebrae, and most probably are." Kuhn (1971) assigned the species to Protorosauridae indet.. Wild (1973) wrote (translated) "Another very probable fifth thoracic vertebra of Tanystropheus conspicuus is that of F. v. Huene (1907/08: 217f .; Pl. 92, Fig. 9) described and illustrated as dorsal vertebrae of Thecodontosaurus primus F. v. Huene (= Tanystropheus antiquus F. v. Huene) (p. 151 f.). It is said to come from the Lower Muschelkalk of Gogolin, but doubts arise about Huene's stratigraphic data. The vertebra corresponds in its dimensions and proportions to the fifth vertebra described above. The vertebra would be much too large for the smaller, related species of Tanystropheus occurring in the Lower Muschelkalk. The original was probably lost during the war with the collection of the Geological Institute in Wroclaw." This cemented a view of primus in the literature for decades despite the absence of evidence Huene was wrong about it being from the same beds as T. antiquus (Protanystropheus here). Its supposedly lost status no doubt discouraged further work on the taxon until Skawinski et al. (2017) relocated one type vertebra and redescribed it as Archosauromorpha indet.. They refer to this more complete vertebra as the holotype and the smaller still lost centrum as referred, but Huene never designated one vertebra as the type, so any subsequent designation would be proposing a lectotype. As after 1999, "To be valid, a lectotype designation made after 1999 must ... employ the term "lectotype" or an exact translation" (ICZN Article 74.7.1), Skawinski et al.'s paper does not validly designate a lectotype and both vertebrae remain syntypes of Thecodontosaurus primus. According to Skawinski et al., "both specimens were found at the same site and the same stratigraphic position which suggests that they represent the same species, maybe even the same individual." While primus does strongly resemble Tanystropheus and thus may be Protanystropheus antiquus, Skawinski et al. are correct in that it is also highly similar to Arizonasaurus. It's likely that incomplete dorsal vertebrae are largely indeterminate among basal archosauromorphs.
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Kuhn. 1971. Die Saurier der deutschen Trias. [pub?]. 105 pp.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae (Reptilia, Saurischia). Annals of the South African Museum. 69, 121-159.
Galton, 1984. An early prosauropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of Nordwürttemberg, West Germany. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 106, 1-25.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Zanclodon? "antiquus" Huene, 1927 vide Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Material- (MGUWr 3894s) incomplete femur
Comments- Skawinski et al. (2017) noted "this specimen was never formally described or illustrated" but that it was "identified by von Huene (1927) as Zanclodon antiquus (information from label)." It was originally labeled Tanystropheus antiquus "and probably later the name Zanclodon misleadingly was entered on the specimen by collection curator." The authors conclude that "Probably it is a tanystropheid femur and, given place of its discovery, may represent Tanystropheus antiquus" (Protanystropheus antiquus here), but "elongation and size of the bone suggest that it may belong to large predatory archosaur or basal archosauriform." While elongation doesn't seem very different from Tanystropheus, the size (~190 mm) is larger than expected for Protanystropheus and the specimen is assigned to Archosauromorpha indet. here as in Skawiński et al..
Reference- Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

undescribed Archosauromorpha (Colbert, 1989)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Agate Bridge N PFV 161, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (PEFO uncatalogued; = NMMNH coll.; = MNA coll.) dorsal centrum, distal caudal centrum, ungual, fragments
Comments- Colbert (1989) said of Coelophysis "In 1986, some fragmentary bones were found at a locality known as "Lot's Wife," also in the Petrified Forest National Park." Hunt et al. (1996) wrote "these elongate centra represent the aberrant reptile Trilophosaurus", and Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "these specimens (elongate centra) represent the aberrant reptile Trilophosaurus (Long, pers. comm. 1989)." Indeed, Long and Murry (1995) listed them as Trilophosaurus sp. "Agate Bridge North (UCMP V82239) ... NMMNH, two caudal vertebrae." Parker and Irmis (2005) state "Colbert (1989) referred caudal centra from the Agate Bridge N locality (PFV 161) to Coelophysis, however these elements are also not dinosaurian" and "these vertebrae represent caudals from an indeterminate archosaur and cannot be assigned with certainty to Trilophosaurus (RBI pers. obs.)." Marsh (pers. comm., 2021) confirmed Colbert collected the material at the MNA, and it was later transferred to the NMMNH before being sent to the PEFO a few years ago, where it remains uncatalogued. He also stated it wasn't obviously dinosaurian or Trilophosaurus, echoing Irmis' opinion. Parker and Martz (2010) write "An archosauromorph similar to Trilophosaurus or Malerisaurus (PEFO 31174) also occurs at PFV 161 (B. Mueller pers. comm. 2004)", which should be compared once these are described. Note while Hunt et al. (1996, 1998) refer to this as in the Blue Mesa Member, more recent papers such as Parker and Nesbitt (2013) place these beds in the Sonsela Member.
References- Colbert, 1989. The Triassic dinosaur Coelophysis. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 57, 1-174.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Parker and Martz, 2010. The Late Triassic (Norian) Adamanian-Revueltian tetrapod faunal transition in the Chinle Formation of Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101(3-4), 231-260.
Parker and Nesbitt, 2013. Cranial remains of Poposaurus gracilis (Pseudosuchia: Poposauroidea) from the Upper Triassic, the distribution of the taxon, and its implications for poposauroid evolution. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379, 503-523.

undescribed Archosauromorpha (Gregory, 1972)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus site 1 TMM 31213, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Materiial- (TMM 31213-coll.) material
Comments- Gregory (1972) lists Coelophysis as present in Borden County, Texas and stated "The University of Texas (Works Progress Administration) parties also collected from a site in southern Borden County, Texas, about 1940." The only Dockum TMM locality in Borden County seems to be TMM 31213, and as with other Colorado City Formation reports of Coelophysis, it is likely this is actually referrable to Trilophosaurus, which has been recorded from the locality.
Reference- Gregory, 1972. Vertebrate faunas of the Dockum Group, Triassic, eastern New Mexico and Texas. In Kelley and Trauger (eds.). Guidebook of East-Central New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society. 120-124.

unnamed Archosauromorpha (Case, 1927)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (UMMP 7277) three incomplete distal caudal vertebrae
(UMMP 9805) incomplete distal caudal vertebra (23.5 mm)
Comments- Case (1922) mentioned UMMP 7277, "three incomplete vertebrae of very elongate form and much reduced neural arches and zygopophyses" he stated may well belong to Coelophysis. He also figured UMMP 9805, "a single very slender, elongate caudal from near the posterior end of the series (Fig. 8). The zygapophyses are lost, but the neural canal is still open and of relatively good diameter." Huene (1932) incorrectly used 7277 for femur UMMP 3396, but stated the attribution of the caudals to his new supposed podokesaurid Spinosuchus (more recently assigned to Trilophosauridae) was likely. Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "The theropod-like caudal vertebrae exhibit no synapomorphies of dinosaurian taxa", while Murry and Long (1997) said "Caudal vertebrae (UMMP 7277 and UMMP 9805) ... identified as theropod by Case (1927), cannot be referred with confidence to the Theropoda." The elongation (Elongation Index 6.03 in UMMP 9805) is greater than most archosaurs, but in addition to neotheropods is also comparable to e.g. Lagosuchus and Trilophosaurus. Thus it is possible Case and/or Huene were correct.
In probable reference to these and other Dockum UMMP specimens, Case (1932) later stated "There are in the collection of the Museum of Paleontology many small, elongate, posterior caudal centra which have all been regarded as probably belonging to the same form of small dinosaur, but they are clearly separable into two groups by the presence of a definitely marked antero-posterior groove on the lower face of the centra in some and its total absence in others." He retained the ungrooved centra in Dinosauria based on UMMP 13670 which has since been referred to Postosuchus, while claiming UMMP 13950 "shows that the caudal centra with a groove on the lower surface and well-developed chevron facets belong to the phytosaurs and not to some dinosaur", although this has since been made the type of the aetosaur Calyptosuchus wellesi. In any case, it is now known that many caudals of most basal neotheropods and shuvosaurids have median grooves while herrerasaurids and Trilophosaurus do not, so this state alone cannot distinguish dinosaurs or saurischians.
References- Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Murry and Long, 1997. Dockum Group. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 191-193.

unnamed Archosauromorpha (Huene, 1940)
Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Maleri Village, Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material- (ISI K 33/606b) partial anterior-mid dorsal vertebra (30 mm) (Huene, 1940)
Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Nennel Village, Lower Maleri Formation, India
(ISI R 306 in part; holotype of Walkeria maleriensis in part) partial cervical vertebra, posterior cervical centrum (19 mm), six incomplete dorsal vertebrae (21, 19, 18, 22, 20, 19 mm), incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (21 mm), mid caudal vertebra (19 mm) (Chatterjee, 1987)
Comments- Huene (1940) described ISI K 33/606b as having "the relatively greatest similarity with Coelophysis longicollis", concluding it is "a Coelurosaurian, and would probably best fit into the family Podokesauridae." Colbert (1958) concurred, stating it "is in size and form much like a vertebra from about the middle portion of the presacral series in Coelophysis" and obviously a podokesaurid. Ezcurra (2012) more recently found that it "does not exhibit any synapomorphy of Dinosauria, but the presence of well-developed neural arch laminae is a feature only recognized in basal archosauromorphs among Triassic tetrapods." Huene believed the this "could well go together" with saurischian distal femur ISI K 33/608a from the same locality and supposedly similar in size, but Ezcurra (2012) calculated the femur was too large to belong to the same individual as the vertebra.
Alwalkeria's vertebrae- Discovered in 1974 and originally referred to Podokesauridae (Chatterjee, 1987), Alwalkeria was later found to be chimaerical by Remes and Rauhut (2005). They stated "The incomplete cervical vertebra closely resembles the cervicals of the Indian prolacertiforms Malerisaurus (Upper Triassic) and Pamelaria (Middle Triassic)", which are both now recognized as azendohsaurids, so perhaps the cervical belongs to that clade or even the contemporaneous Malerisaurus robinsonae itself. Remes and Rauhut further said "The dorsal vertebral column shows considerable variation in both morphology and size, with the articular facets of the centra varying in diameter up to 170%. One of the incompletely preserved dorsal vertebrae shows well-developed lateral laminae and fossae, as they are found in advanced dinosauriforms, saurischians, and some crurotarsans, but others lack these structures." Based on Chatterjee's illustration, the potentially archosaurian dorsal would be his Figure 3d-e, measuring 21 mm if his dorsals 1-7 are listed in the same order in Table 1 as they are figured in Figure 3. Lecuona et al. (2016) found "The vertebrae of ISI R306 possess archosauromorph features, including a non-notochordal centrum and anterior and posterior centrodiapophyseal and prezygodiapophyseal laminae, but we could not find unambiguous apomorphies that may allow a referral to a more exclusive group within this clade." However, Agnolín (2017) suggested the presence of numerous laminae and anterior and posterior pedicular fossae indicated at least some vertebrae were dinosauriform, which again would seem to refer to the laminae in Chatterjee's Figure 3e, although the anterior view in Figure 3d shows no pedicular fossae. Note the centrum in Chatterjee's Figure 3c is called a dorsal, but with parapophyses entirely high on the centrum it would be a posterior cervical.
References- Huene, 1940. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic Maleri beds. Palaeontologica Indica, new series. 1, 1-42.
Colbert, 1958. Relationships of the Triassic Maleri fauna. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 3, 68-81.
Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: A chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos. 218.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.
Agnolín, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.

Protorosauria Huxley, 1871
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Protorosaurus speneri + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Parathecodontia Gow, 1975
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
?= Tapinoplatia Peters, 2000
Definition- (Macrocnemus bassanii + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)
?= Characiopoda Peters, 2000
Definition- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)
?= Fenestrasauria Peters, 2000
Definition- (Cosesaurus aviceps + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)

Prolacertidae Parrington, 1935
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi <- Protorosaurus speneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Euparkeria capensis) (Ezcurra, 2016)
= Prolacertiformes Camp, 1945
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi <- Crocodylus miloticus) (modified from Senter, 2004)

Dinocephalosauridae Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021
Definition- (Dinocephalosaurus orientalis + Pectodens zhenyuensis) (Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021)
Reference- Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021. A new phylogenetic hypothesis of Tanystropheidae (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) and other "protorosaurs", and its implications for the early evolution of stem archosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e11143.

Protanystropheus Sennikov, 2011
P. antiquus (Huene, 1908) Sennikov, 2011
= Tanystropheus "antiquus" Huene, 1905
= Tanystropheus antiquus Huene, 1908
= "Macroscelosaurus" antiquus (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1937
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Lectotype- (SMNS 10110; Huene's No. 7) cervical vertebra (63.1 mm)
Paralectotypes- (MGUWr 3872s; Huene's No. 9) cervical vertebra (61 mm)
(MGUWr 3888s; Huene's No. 1) cervical vertebra (93 mm)
(MGUWr 3895s; Huene's No. 4) cervical vertebra (76 mm)
(MGUWr 3902s; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebra (Skawinski et al., 2017)
(MGUWr coll.; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebrae
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 2; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (83 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 3; lost) cervical vertebra (74 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 5; lost) cervical vertebra (~75 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 6; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (37 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 8; lost) cervical vertebra (62 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 11; lost) cervical centrum (40 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 12; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (42 mm)
(University of Technology at Gliwice coll.; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebra
(Vienna Natural History Museum coll.; Huene's No. 10) cervical vertebra (47 mm)
Referred- (MB.R M.13.1970.42.5) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(MB.R M.13.1970.42.6) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(MB.R M.13.1970.42.9) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(SMNS 16687; = SMNS 16256; lost; "lectotype" of Protanystropheus antiquus) cervical vertebra (67.2 mm) (Peyer, 1931)
?(SMNS 50831) cervical vertebra (68.7 mm) (Wild, 1980)
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Vossenveld Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Netherlands
?(Oosterink coll. No. A 638) mid cervical vertebra (58 mm) (Wild and Oosterink, 1984)
?(RGM coll.) cervical vertebrae (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Schaumkalk Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Germany
?(Institute of Geosciences, University of Jena coll.) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.1) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.3) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.4) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.7) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.8) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.10) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(SMNS 56836) cervical vertebra (66.5 mm) (Fraser and Rieppel, 2006)
Comments- This taxon was initially based on ten cervical vertebrae described by Huene (1908) as Numbers 1-10, of which 7 was in the SMNS, 10 in the Vienna Natural History Museum and the rest at the University of Breslau. Wild (1973; and Fraser and Rieppel, 2006) believed those in Breslau were destroyed in World War II, so proposed to make No. 7 the lectotype. However, Wild mistook SMNS 16687 described by Peyer (1931) with SMNS 10110 which was Huene's No. 7 (Fraser and Rieppel, 2006). As the lectotype must be one of the syntypes, SMNS 16687 is not elligible and SMNS 10110 is the lectotype. Skawinski et al. (2017) later revealed some of the University of Breslau (now the Geological Museum, Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Wrocław- MGUWr) survived the bombing, including figured Numbers 1, 4 and 9, as well as unfigured MGUWr 3902s which corresponds to another number, and a "few uncatalogued specimens." Furthermore, one of the syntypes is now an uncatalogued specimen at the University of Technology at Gliwice. This leaves at most four lost syntype vertebrae.
Huene (1905) first merely announced "Tanystrophaeus antiquus n. sp. Oberschlesien" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908. It was described as a coelurid, and like T. conspicuus was thought to be represented by caudal vertebrae which were in actuality cervical vertebrae. Fraser and Rieppel state T. antiquus vertebrae can only be distinguished from T. conspicuus/longobardicus by their elongation and stratigraphy. Sennikov (2011) proposed the genus Protanystropheus for T. antiquus, following Wild's misidentification of SMNS 16687 as the lectotype. Unlike the case of Longosaurus longicollis however, since SMNS 16687 was never a syntype of Tanystropheus antiquus, it cannot be a lectotype of a new taxon- "If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype" (ICZN Article74.2). While some new specimens have been described as T. antiquus (e.g. Huene, 1931; Wild, 1980; Wild and Oosterink, 1984), the species remains poorly known and needs redescription. Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) state the "original material is currently under study, and, therefore, we refrain from assessing this taxon in detail and consider all material later assigned to this taxon preliminarily to Tanystropheus cf. T. antiquus." Skawinski et al. (2017) state "a redescription of all Tanystropheus fossils from the Polish Triassic is in preparation (Surmik et al. in prep.), which will discuss historical and new material of tanystropheids from the Middle and Upper Triassic of Silesia and Holy Cross Mountains. Preliminary observations of the holotype (MGUWr) suggest that T. antiquus is a valid species." Spiekman et al. (2021) recovered antiquus in a trichotomy with Pectodens and Dinocephalosaurus in Dinocephalosauridae, far from Tanystropheus species nested in Tanystropheidae, so that a new genus seems appropriate. Protanystropheus is used as Sennikov did specify T. antiquus of Huene was the type species even if he used the wrong lectotype for that species, and the ICZN only requires explicit fixation of type material for species-group names (Article 16.4.1), not genus-group names.
The femur assigned to Tanystropheus antiquus by Huene (1931) (MGUWr 3894s) was reassigned to Archosauromorpha indet. by Skawinski et al. (2017). Ortlam (1967) described material from the Upper Buntsandstein of Germany as T. longobardicus and Macrocnemus, but this was reinterpreted as T. antiquus by Wild (1980) who redescribed it. Wild (1987) claimed T. antiquus was no longer considered to belong to Tanystropheus based on these specimens, but the material was later described as Amotosaurus rotfeldensis by Fraser and Rieppel (2006). Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) exclude several other specimens previously referred to T. antiquus- a cervical rib fragment from the Jena Formation of Germany housed at the MHI (= Tanystropheus sp.); a vertebra described by Huene (1931; fig. 17) possibly at the MB.R from Podloer Beach, Poland (= ?Archosauromorpha indet.); and two proximal femora from the Lower Muschelkalk of Germany (Konig coll.) described by Huene (1914: figs. 1 and 2) (= ?Archosauromorpha indet.).
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie. 67, 65-86.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Ortlam, 1967. Fossile Böden als Leithorizonte für die Gliederung des Höheren Buntsandsteins im nördlichen Scwarzwald und südlichen Odenwald. Geologisches Jahrbuch. 84, 485-590.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1980. Tanystropheus (Reptilia: Squamata) and its importance for stratigraphy. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France. 139, 201-206.
Wild and Oosterink, 1984. Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata) aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk von Winterswijk, Holland. Grondboor en Hamer. 5(1984), 142-148.
Wild, 1987. An example of biological reasons for extinction: Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 150, 37-44.
Fraser and Rieppel, 2006. A new protorosaur from the Upper Buntsandstein of the Black Forest, Germany. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(4), 866-871.
Sennikov, 2011. New tanystropheids (Reptilia: Archosauromorpha) from the Triassic of Europe. Paleontological Journal. 45(1), 90-104.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021. A new phylogenetic hypothesis of Tanystropheidae (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) and other "protorosaurs", and its implications for the early evolution of stem archosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e11143.

Tanystropheidae Gervais, 1859
= Tribelesodontidae Nopcsa, 1922
= Tribelesodontoidea Nopcsa, 1922 vide Nopcsa, 1928
= Tribelesodontia Nopcsa, 1923
= Macroscelosauridae Kuhn, 1935
Definition- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Macrocnemus bassanii + Langobardisaurus pandolfii) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
Other definitions- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Tanytrachelos ahynis) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- Tribelesodontidae was named by Nopcsa (1922) as a basal family of pterosaurs including Tribelesodon and Rhabdopelix. Tribelesodontia was proposed by Nopcsa (1923) as a suborder of pterosaurs along with rhamphorhynchoids and pterodactylods.
Spiekman et al. (2020) noted "Gervais (1858) has widely been cited as first mentioning the family-group Tanystropheidae. However, this text contains no reference to either Tanystropheidae or Tanystropheus." However, they erred when they claimed that because "Tanystropheus remains are referred to as "Les Tanystrophes" in Gervais (1859)", "this does not constitute a valid family-group name. Instead, Camp (1945) first published the family-group name Tanystrophaeidae, ... Therefore, the corrected name should be Tanystropheidae Camp, 1945 following article 35.4.1 of the ICZN." As Kammerer (DML, 2020) explained, "Les Tanystrophes" is specifically stated to be a family by Gervais and "if a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form" (ICZN Article 11.7.2). Thus Gervais (1859) can be the the accepted author and date if later authors latinized it and accepted it as the valid reference, which they overwealmingly have until Spiekman et al..
Kuhn's (1935) Macroscelosauridae is invalid as its eponym "Macroscelosaurus" is placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Melville, 1981).
References- Gervais, 1858. Description de l'Aphelosaurus latevensis, saurien fossile des schistes Permiens de Lodeve. Annales de Sciences Naturelles. 10, 233-235.
Gervais, 1859. Zoologie et paléontologie françaises: Nouvelles recherches sur les animaux vertébrés dont on trouve les ossements enfouis dans le sol de la France et sur leur comparaison avec les espèces propres aux autres régions du globe. Bertrand. 544 pp.
Nopcsa, 1922. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(2), 161-181.
Nopcsa, 1923. Die Familien der Reptilien. Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie. 210 pp.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Kuhn, 1935. Rhynchocephalia (Eosuchia). Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 71, 1-38.
Camp, 1945. Prolacerta and the protorosaurian reptiles. Part II. American Journal of Science. 243, 84-101.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Kammerer, DML 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201020224142/http://dml.cmnh.org/2020Aug/msg00149.html
Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 2020. Aquatic habits and niche partitioning in the extraordinarily long-necked Triassic reptile Tanystropheus. Current Biology. 30(19), 3889-3895.

Gwyneddosaurus Bock, 1945
= Tanytrachelos Olsen, 1979
G. erici Bock, 1945
= Tanytrachelos ahynis Olsen, 1979
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Gwynedd or North Wales Member of Lockatong Formation, Pennsylvania, US
Holotype- (ANSP 15072) braincase or palatal element?, axis (8 mm), two anterior cervical neural arches (~8 mm), three posterior cervicals (7.5 mm), cervical vertebra, cervical ribs, dorsal vertebra, at least 11 dorsal ribs, gastralia, distal caudal vertebra (4 mm), three chevrons, heterotopic bone?, neural arch, scapulocoracoids, clavicles, interclavicle, radius (9 mm), proximal ulna (~9 mm), incomplete ilium (10 mm), pubis?, ischium?, femur (23 mm), proximal fibula, three phalanges (2.5, 4 mm), fragments, coelacanth fragments?
Paratype- ?(ANSP coll.) femur (36.5 mm), tibia (30 mm)
Comments- Gwyneddosaurus erici was described by Bock (1945) based on a disarticulated specimen, in which he labeled the bones he identified with numbers 1-51. Bock provisionally placed the reptile in Theropoda and furthermore in Podokesauridae within Coelurosauria. This was based on the supposedly short forelimbs and gracile (perhaps hollow) postcrania, with the Triassic age probably responsible for the familial identification. The procoelous vertebrae, distally expanded presacral neural spines, and differently shaped pectoral girdle were all seen as different from Podokesaurus though. Bock also referred to "several leg bones, similar to those of our specimen" from the same locality though he did not describe these. Huene (1948) examined photographs of the material from before it was prepared by Bock, leading him to reidentify almost every element. The supposed pterygoid (16), and two other cranial elements were reidentified as a possible squamosal, basisphenoid or parasphenoid (15), and cervical vertebra (13) respectively. The supposed dorsal vertebrae (3 and 4) were reidentified as posterior cervicals, the cervical ribs (39) as chevrons, and one of the dorsal ribs (45) as an ulna. The scapula (18) and coracoid (17) were each actually a complete scapulocoracoid, and the bone Bock identified as a fused radius and ulna (22) was not mentioned but is far too short to be such. One of the ilia is actualy a probable ischium (2), and a supposed tarsal (25, perhaps meant as metatarsal) is a radius. Huene also described and figured a femur and tibia larger than the holotype which is seemingly the additional specimen noted by Bock. He felt these were possibly referrable to Gwyneddosaurus, as the femur "may be structurally identical." Huene assigned the taxon to Protorosauria based on cervicals similar to Macrocnemus and Microcnemus, holocephalous dorsal ribs, elongate and only slightly curved gastralia as in Macrocnemus and Tanystropheus, extremely short scapula with one broad and one rounded corner as in Adelosaurus, clavicle similar to Macrocnemus, ilium with small preacetabular and large postacetabular process as in Protorosaurus, and distally narrowing paratype femur as in Macrocnemus. This was followed by Camp et al. (1953) and Romer (1966), who placed it in Protorosauridae and ?Prolacertidae respectively. However, the cervical and clavicle similarities were never specified, the ilial proportions are plesiomorphic for amniotes, Adelosaurus has been more recently recognized as being of Youngina-grade, holocephalous dorsals are found in numerous taxa, gastralial morphology has not been shown to be diagnostic for tanystropheids, and the holotype femur seems not to distally narrow. Huene later (1956) placed Gwyneddosaurus in Askeptosauridae, but Askeptosaurus has shorter amphicoelous presacrals, a shorter scapula, rod-like interclavicle, no preactabular process, a longer postacetabular process, and much more robust limb elements with poorly developed features. Perhaps it was a typo.
Steel (1970) followed Bock in placing Gwyneddosaurus in Theropoda, Romer (1976) listed it as a podokesaurid coelurosaur, and Welles (1984) placed it in Theropoda incertae sedis (though stating "it certainly is not even remotely related to Dilophosaurus"). While Huene never explicitly stated reasons to exclude the taxon from Theropoda, they include- procoelous cervical centra, no cervical pleurocoels, holocephalous dorsal ribs, short scapular blade, unfused clavicles, ossified interclavicle, short preacetabular process, femoral head not inturned, internal trochanter and intertrochanteric fossa present. Furthermore, the supposedly short forelimb elements were incorrectly identified, and numerous reptiles have gracile postcrania which can appear hollowed.
Olsen first (1979) stated that Gwyneddosaurus had an emargnate scapulocoracoid (though this is untrue), so could be a lizard, but was not closely related to his new 'tanystropheid' Tanytrachelos. He did state it was nearly identical to some elements of Rhabdopelix though, and would be redescribed in the future. Olsen later (1980) thought it and Rhabdopelix could be senior synonyms of Tanytrachelos, as some elements could not be distinguished from it. As other elements differ between the taxa, Olsen thought Gwyneddosaurus should be a nomen dubium. Yet chimaerical status does not make a taxon a nomen dubium. Olsen and Baird (1986) considered Gwyneddosaurus to be a chimaera of coelacanth and possible Tanytrachelos bones. Similarly, Olsen and Flynn (1989) thought it to be a chimaera of Tanytrachelos and possible coelacanth fragments. Specifically, they stated "the large, quadranglular and keeled interclavicle characteristic of Tanytrachelos is present as are procoelous vertebrae." Instead of sinking Tanytrachelos into Gwyneddosaurus, Olsen and Flynn incorrectly consider the latter a nomen dubium because "there is significant room for doubt- certainly at the species level it is indeterminate." This statement is meaningless though as Tanytrachelos only has one recognized species, and the historical recognization of genus- and species-level characters for monospecific taxa is outdated. Indeed, when "at least part of Gwyneddosaurus more assuredly is Tanytrachelos", the former cannot be a nomen dubium. An ICZN petition would be necessary to sink Gwyneddosaurus, and since this has not been made yet it is more proper to make Gwyneddosaurus a senior synonym of Tanytrachelos. The identity of Rhabdopelix deserves further scrutiny, though it does include procoelous vertebrae. Whether the referred hindlimb is correctly referred is uncertain, as there are no proposed hindlimb apomorphies of Gwyneddosaurus, but is does seem to be tanystropheid based on the distal narrowing and is similar in size to large Tanytrachelos specimens. Spamer et al. (1995) placed Gwyneddosaurus in Tanystropheidae.
Unfortunately, comparison between the two taxa is difficult, as the pre-preparation photos of Gwyneddosaurus remain unpublished (though they are archived at the ANSP), while Tanytrachelos has only received a preliminary description. Bone 2 is not mentioned by either Bock or Huene but may be another posterior cervical. I think Huene switched bones 5 and 6 in his description, with 5 being the axis and 6 being a neural arch in dorsal view. Element 14 was believed to be an atlas or cranial bone by Bock, but is certainly too large for the former. Olsen and Baird's description of the interclavicle and comparison with Tanytrachelos suggests it is element 15, identified as a cranial bone by Bock and a para- or basisphenoid by Huene. Element 16 was identified as a possible squamosal by Huene, but does not match that element in Tanytrachelos and may be from the braincase or palate instead. Bock's supposed fused radius and ulna (22), may be an anterior dorsal rib if element 22 refers to the elongate curved bone and not the posterior cervical(?) the distal end lies over. Elements 23 and 24, identified as ischia by Bock, seem to be posterior dorsal ribs. Based on the identification as congeneric with Tanytrachelos, the two metatarsals or phalanges identified by Huene (31 and another unlabeled) are definitely the latter. The radius (25) and perhaps the ulna (45) as identified by Huene may actually be metatarsals then. A supposed (meta?)tarsal identified by Bock (27) seems more likely to be a posterior dorsal rib. Interestingly, curved triangular element 29 (called a rib by Bock), may be a heterotopic bone as found in some Tanytrachelos individuals. All of the "foot bones (32-38) which probably are toes" are anterior cervical ribs or gastralia as is at least one of the supposed manus bones (41). The other proposed manual elements (40 and 42) are very small and could be distal gastralia or fish bones. Notably, despite Olsen's statements Gwyneddosaurus contains coelacanth material (presumably of the common and contemporaneous Osteopleurus newarki), which material this refers to has never been specified nor has the referral been justified.
References- Bock, 1945. A new small reptile from the Triassic of Pennsylvania. Notulae Naturae of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 154, 1-8.
Huene, 1948. Notes on Gwyneddosaurus. American Journal of Science. 246, 208-213.
Camp, Welles and Green, 1953. Bibliography of Fossil Vertebrates 1934-1938. The Geological Society of America, GSA Special Paper 42.
Huene, 1956. Palaeontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. Jena. 716 pp.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago University Press. 468 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 1-87.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Olsen, 1979. New aquatic eosuchian from the Newark Supergroup (Late Triassic-Early Jurassic) of North Carolina and Virginia. Postilla. 176, 14 pp.
Olsen, 1980. Comparison of the vertebrate assemblages from the Newark and Hartford basins (Early Mesozoic, Newark Supergroup) of eastern North America. in Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona Press. 35-53.
Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.
Olsen and Baird, 1986. The ichnogenus Atreipus and its significance for Triassic biostratigraphy. in Padian (ed.). In the Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs: Faunal Change Across the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61-87.
Olsen and Flynn, 1989. Field guide to the vertebrate paleontology of Late Triassic rocks in the southwestern Newark Basin (Newark Supergroup, New Jersey and Pennsylvania). The Mosasaur. 4, 1-35.
Spamer, Daeschler and Vostreys-Shapiro, 1995. A study of fossil vertebrate types in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Taxonomic, systematic and historical perspectives. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publication 16, 435 pp.

Cosesaurus

Tanystropheus Meyer, 1852
= "Macroscelosaurus" Münster vide Meyer, 1852 (nomen rejectum)
= Tribelesodon Bassani, 1886
?= Chelyzoon Huene, 1902
= Procerosaurus Huene, 1902
Comments- The misspelling Tanystrophaeus was very common in early works, perhaps originating with Owen (1860) and being used consistantly by Cope and Huene.
The first Tanystropheus remains were illustrated by Plieninger (1847a: pl. 3 fig. 4, 6) as part of his new taxon Smilodon laevis, consisting of two Tanystropheus cervicals, a Nothosaurus vertebra, placodont osteoderms and the namesake partial maxilla (Wild, 1973). Plieninger (1847b) quickly renamed this genus Zanclodon as Smilodon was preoccupied by a mammal. Wild (1973) reported that except for the maxilla, (translated) "all skeletal remains described as Z. laevis have been lost (own research at the Staatl. Mus. Für Naturk. Stuttgart)." "In order to protect Tanystropheus from being declared a junior synonym of Zanclodon simply because two vertebrae may belong to Tanystropheus," Wild (1975) petitioned the ICZN "that an endorsement be placed against Tanystropheus on the Official List to the effect that any zoologist who thinks that Tanystropheus and Zanclodon are congeneric shall give the former precedence over the latter." After discussion with the ICZN, Wild (1976) solved the problem by unambiguously designating the maxilla (SMNS 6045) the lectotype of Zanclodon laevis. Interestingly, Zanclodon comes from the Erfurt Formation (Lower Keuper), stratigraphically higher (Late Ladinian) than most Tanystropheus conspicuus or other named species. Note numerous other remains are known from other countries which would not be assigned to named species here (usually published as T. sp. or T. cf. longobardicus).
Tanystropheus a theropod? Tanystropheus conspicuus was named for cervical vertebrae originally identified as caudals. Owen (1860) thought they might belong to the tail of a contemporaneous sauropterygian such as Nothosaurus, Simosaurus or Placodus. Cope (1887b) referred the genus to Theropoda (his Goniopoda) based on coelophysid remains he had previously described as new Coelurus species, but which he moved to Tanystropheus (T. bauri, T. longicollis and the new T. willistoni) that year. This was followed by Lydekker (1889), Zittel (1890) and Haeckel (1895) who both placed it in Coeluridae. Even after Cope's species were made the types of his new genus Coelophysis in 1889, Tanystropheus remained in Coeluridae (e.g. Huene 1902, 1908). Huene later (1914, 1926) moved it to Podokesauridae once he separated the Triassic coelurosaurs into that family. Nopcsa (1928) listed it as a podokesaurine podokesaurid. The comparisons to Coelurus and coelophysid distal caudal vertebrae were due to all three being elongate, amphicoelous, thin-walled, with low neural spines and no transverse processes. Of course articulated Tanystropheus material now shows these are cervicals, and Huene (1908) even identified parapophyses but thought the majority of evidence indicated they were caudals. Unlike theropods, they lack pleurocoels, angled articular facets, and laminae. Once Tanystropheus was reinterpreted by Peyer (1930, 1931) based on more complete material of T. longobardicus, Huene (1931) agreed in removing it from Dinosauria.
Not Tanystropheus- Cope (1887a) described Coelurus bauri and C. longicollis from the Petrified Forest Formation of New Mexico, and later that year (1887b) moved them to Tanystropheus along with his new species T. willistoni from the same locality. This was due to the elongate amphicoelous caudal centra, as Tanystropheus conspicuus cervicals were thought to be caudals at the time. Cope later (1889) erected the genus Coelophysis for the three species, because he incorrectly thought Tanystropheus' vertebrae lacked neural canals. Coelophysis bauri has since received a more complete neotype and is a coelophysid theropod, but Cope's material and other species have proven harder to diagnose within Coelophysidae. Huene (1908) named Tanystropheus posthumus, which was later renamed Tanystrosuchus and seems to be an archosaur caudal vertebra. Huene (1931) proposed a humerus (U-MO coll.; lost; fig. 4) belonged to Tanystropheus, but Wild (1973) considered it more likely a placodont femur. Huene (1958) proposed an element was a Tanystropheus ilium, but Wild (1973) reidentified it as a nothosaur scapula. Wild (1980) described partial cervical series MCSNB 4035 from the Norian of Italy as Tanystropheus fossai, but Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) separated this as Sclerostropheus fossai based on differences from Tanystropheus, some shared with Dinocephalosaurus and Pectodens.
References- Plieninger, 1847a. Über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in Eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 148-154.
Plieninger, 1847b. Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu dem Vortrage über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 247-254.
Meyer, 1852. Die saurier des Muschelkalkes mit ruecksicht auf die saurier aus Buntem Sanstein und Keuper. in Zur fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abteilung 42. 167 pp.
Owen, 1860. Palaeontology, or a Systematic Summary of Extinct Animals and their Geological Relations. Second Edition. Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. 463 pp.
Bassani, 1886. Sui Fossili e sull’ età degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali. 19, 15-72.
Cope, 1887a. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. American Naturalist. 21, 367-369.
Cope, 1887b. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 24(126), 209-228.
Cope, 1889. On a new genus of Triassic Dinosauria. American Naturalist. 23, 626.
Lydekker, 1889. On a coelurid dinosaur from the Wealden. Geological Magazine. 6, 119-121.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Haeckel, 1895. Systematische Phylogenie der Wirbelthiere: (Vertebrata). 660 pp.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914a. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Edinger, 1923. Eine Bemerkung über Tanystropheus. Senckenbergiana. 5, 143-144.
Edinger, 1924. Rückenmark im Wirbelkörper. Anatomischer Anzeiger. 57, 515-519.
Huene, 1926. The carnivorous Saurischia in the Jura and Cretaceous formations, principally in Europe. Revista del Museo de La Plata. 29, 1-167.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Peyer, 1930. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass. sp. Centralblatt für Mineralogie Abteilung B. 1930, 336-337.
Edinger, 1931. Tanystropheus aufgeklärt. Naturwissenschaften, 19, 846-847.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1958. Neue Vertebratenfunde aus dem Muschelkalk Württembergs. Jahreshefte des Vereins für Vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 113, 316-319.
Wild, 1971. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). PhD thesis. Universitat Zurich.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1975. Tanystropheus H. v. Meyer, 1855 (Reptilia): Request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 32(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1976. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia): Revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Wild, 1985. Tanystropheus and its importance for stratigraphy. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 139, 201-206.
Wild, 1987. An example of biological reasons for exctinction: Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 150, 37-44.
Vickers-Rich, Rich, Rieppel, Thulborn and McClure, 1999. A Middle Triassic vertebrate fauna from the Jilh Formation, Saudi Arabia. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie. 213(2), 201-232.
Dalla Vecchia, 2000. Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Prolacertiformes) remains from the Triassic of Northern Friuli (NE Italy). Revista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(2), 135-140.
Li, 2007. A juvenile Tanystropheus sp. (Protorosauria, Tanystropheidae) from the Middle Triassic of Guizhou, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 45, 37-42.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. conspicuus Meyer, 1852
= "Macroscelosaurus" Münster vide Meyer, 1852 (nomen rejectum)
?= Chelyzoon blezingeri Huene, 1902
?= Chelyzoon latum Huene, 1902
= Procerosaurus cruralis Huene, 1902
= Thecodontosaurus "latespinatus" Huene, 1905
= Thecodontosaurus latespinatus Huene, 1908
= "Macroscelosaurus" conspicuus (Meyer, 1852) Kuhn, 1937
= Tanystropheus latespinatus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932 in Galton and Cluver, 1976
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Germany
Lectotype- (U-MO BT 740; material of "Macroscelosaurus") tenth cervical vertebra (253 mm)
Paralectotypes- (U-MO BT 732; material of "Macroscelosaurus") third cervical vertebra (190 mm)
(U-MO BT 733; material of "Macroscelosaurus") incomplete fourth cervical vertebra (~220 mm)
(U-MO BT 734; material of "Macroscelosaurus") partial cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 736; material of "Macroscelosaurus") tenth cervical vertebra (288 mm)
(U-MO BT 737; material of "Macroscelosaurus") incomplete tenth cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 738; material of "Macroscelosaurus") partial cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 739; material of "Macroscelosaurus") ninth cervical vertebra (265 mm)
Referred- (Blezinger coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete middle dorsal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 5)
(Blezinger coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) middle dorsal centrum (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 6)
(Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete fifth dorsal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 7)
(Blezinger coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 3)
(Blezinger coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 4)
(Blezinger coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 5)
(Blezinger coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 6)
(Blezinger coll.; lost) posterior seventh cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 7)
(BSP coll.) incomplete fifth cervical vertebra (207 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) mid dorsal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 4)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete ~eighth caudal vertebra (30 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 2)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) ~third caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 4)
?(BSP coll.; destroyed; holotype of Chelyzoon latum) partial ?first sacral vertebra (58 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(GPIT/RE/00651) fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/00652) fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03190)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03191)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03193)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT coll.) partial second sacral vertebra (35 mm) (Huene, 1902: pl. 6 fig. 6)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial first caudal vertebra (31 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 8)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~twelfth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 3)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~twelfth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 6)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~eighth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 7)
(GPIT coll.) posterior tenth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 2)
(GPIT coll.; holotype of Procerosaurus cruralis) (~6 m) incomplete femur (305 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(Martin coll.) seventh cervical vertebra (208 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(Mascke coll.; lost?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~third caudal vertebra (35 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 1)
(MB.R M. 13.1970.42.2)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MB.R coll.) twelfth cervical centrum (85 mm) (Huene, 1931: fig. 2)
(MB.R coll; was PaläontoIogisches Heimatmuseum Bedheim coll.) cervical spine (Lang and Huene, 1952)
(MHI 1) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 67, MHI coll.) partial mid cervical vertebra, caudal vertebra, pelvic fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 788) ?rib fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1104) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1142) dorsal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1172) proximal caudal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1339) posterior cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1966) femur (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 2136) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI coll.) about ten teeth (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R69)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R282a; was Strunz coll.; lectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) proximal caudal vertebra (~31 mm) (Huene, 1908: fig. 237)
(SMF R282b; was Strunz coll.) posterior eighth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: fig. 250)
(SMF R283; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) ~eighth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 5)
(SMF R285; was Strunz coll.) eleventh cervical vertebra (135 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 8)
(SMF R286; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete ~eighth caudal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: fig. 238)
(SMF R287; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) distal caudal vertebra (38 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 1)
(SMF R820) ~sixth or seventh dorsal vertebra (36 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R998) posterior eleventh cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R999a-c)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1059)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SML R1061)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1063)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1076)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R2022)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4034) humerus (196 mm) (Huene, 1920: fig. 1)
(SMF R4092) ~eighth caudal vertebra (45 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R4182)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4183)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4748)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
?(SMNS 8728; holotype of Chelyzoon blezingeri) incomplete twelfth cervical vertebra (85 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(SMNS 9863) posterior eighth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 10)
(SMNS 14731) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 15891)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16364) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16643) proximal caudal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16737c) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 50226) axis (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 52063) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 52479) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54620)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54621)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54623)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54624)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54625)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54626)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54627)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54628)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54629)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54630)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54631)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54632)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54633)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54639)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54640)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54641)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54642)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54643)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54644)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54648)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54652)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54653)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54654) posterior cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54690) mid dorsal vertebra (Diedrich, 2012)
(SMNS 55002) ischium (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 55341) dorsal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 56289) dentary (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59362)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59380) femur (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59411) partial mid cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 81583) incomplete seventh cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 1)
(SMNS 81721)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 84816)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 84817)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 91473)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS coll.) fragmentary eleventh cervical vertebra (Peyer, 1931)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) eleventh cervical vertebra (188 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 49)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973: fig. 51)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild 86) incomplete first sacral vertebra (47 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 55)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) femur (183 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 73)
(SMNS coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS coll.)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(U-MO 26) incomplete second caudal vertebra (36 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(U-MO 775) ~eighth to tenth dorsal vertebra (41 mm) (Huene, 1931: fig. 1)
(U-MO Bayr-65) anterior tooth (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO Bayr-66) humerus (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO BT 735)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(U-MO BT 741) anterior dorsal vertebra (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO BT 2171; = U-MO 30) ~third caudal vertebra (37 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(U-MO coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) distal caudal vertebra (43 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 2)
(U-MO coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 6)
(U-MO coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 7)
(U-MO coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 9)
(U-MO coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 9)
(U-MO coll.)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(Wild 691) incomplete first sacral vertebra (40 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(Wild coll.) anterior third cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973)
(Wild coll.) incomplete ?second dorsal vertebra (60 mm) (Wild, 1973)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, France
(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) mid dorsal vertebra (~40 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 3)
(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.; destroyed) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 8)
(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.) femur, tibia, fibula (Corroy, 1928)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Spain
(GIM L53 Vert.11) incomplete coracoid (Wild, 1980)
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found that Tanystropheus conspicuus could not be distinguished from T. langobardicus, which itself has now been split to recognize the larger T. "hydroides." It is retained here pending discovery and description of cranial material (e.g. the undescribed dentary SMNS 56289), but only specimens from the Upper Muschelkalk are assigned to it. This means several specimens from the Ladinian Lettenkeuper placed in T. conspicuus by Spiekman and Scheyer aren't listed here.
Huene (1908) thought Zanclodon schuetzii (based on a tooth) might belong to T. conspicuus, but Tanystropheus differs in having conical, unserrated teeth with longitudinal crests. Wild (1973) referred a second sacral (GPIT coll.) described by Huene (1902) as a primitive plesiosaur to Tanystropheus conspicuus. The specimens with an asterisk above are listed in Spiekman and Scheyer's (2019) supplementary table but may correspond to other unnumbered specimens listed here, as no exact preserved element identity or figure correspondance with e.g. Huene or Wild was provided. The SMNS material from Germany is notable in preserving two ischia and a distal femur however.
"Macroscelosaurus"- In the original desciption of Tanystropheus, Meyer (1852; sometimes cited as 1847 to/or 1855) stated that Münster thought the type cervical vertebrae were reptilian limb bones and had named them Macroscelosaurus. No species name was given, and references to "Macroscelosaurus janseni" are misspellings of the therapsid Macroscelesaurus janseni (inappropriately renamed Haughtoniscus by Kuhn, who thought the name was too similar to "Macroscelosaurus").  Huene (e.g. 1902, 1908) and Nopcsa (1901) listed "Macroscelosaurus" as a junior synonym of Tanystropheus in Coeluridae.  Kuhn (1934) used "Macroscelosaurus" as a senior synonym of Tanystropheus, citing a "Münster, 1834" reference which subsequent authors have not been able to verify (Münster's 1834 "Vorläufige Nachricht über einige neue Reptilien im Muschelkalke von Baiern" being about Nothosaurus mirabilis instead). 1830 is another year that has often been cited, though Wild (1976) stated that a search of all known works of Münster had proved fruitless. Piveteau (1955) used "Macroscelosaurus" as a valid genus of tanystropheid non-synonymous with Tanystropheus, which is not possible as they are based on the same material.  Wild (1975) petitioned the ICZN to "suppress the generic name Macroscelosaurus G. zu Münster in H. V. Meyer, 1855 and in any previous publication for the purposes of the Law of Priority" so that it would not have priority over Tanystropheus. After consulting the ICZN, Wild (1976) revised his petition to state that "Macroscelosaurus" was "first published as a synonym of Tanystropheus and must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 11d." This was approved by the ICZN in 1981 (Melville, 1981), who ruled "(1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy" and "(4) The generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2118." The genus and species Tanystropheus conspicuus were correspondingly placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2129, and the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2756, respectively.
Procerosaurus- Procerosaurus cruralis was described by Huene (1902) as a eusuchian most similar to gavials, though in a rather confusing paragraph which also states the lack of a fourth trochanter seems to prove it is dinosaurian. He ironically stated some similarity could exist with Tanystropheus longicollis (now recognized as coelophysid material, in this case AMNH 2704) based on Cope's description, but examination of the specimen itself showed they weren't similar after all. In 1910, Huene stated it was similar to Saltopus and that he never regarded it as crocodilian (though he did not synonymize it with Tanystropheus yet, contra Olshevsky, 1991). Huene later (1914a) placed Procerosaurus in parentheses under Tanystropheus, perhaps indicating he had synonymized them by this time, and included both as a central coelurosaur lineage within Podokesauridae. In the same year (1914b), he described additional supposed coelurosaur femora from the slightly younger Lower Muschelkalk as being most similar to Procerosaurus (Konig coll.; since excluded from Tanystropheus as Archosauromorpha indet. by Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019). However, Huene still had Procerosaurus listed as a valid genus of podokesaurid in 1920, as did Nopcsa in 1928 (in the subfamily Podokesaurinae). With the discovery of articulated Tanystropheus longobardicus skeletons, Huene (1931) now noted the synonymy with Procerosaurus (translated) "is now almost a certainty for me", given the similar morphology and the same length ratio compared to T. conspicuus cervicals. Kuhn (1939) listed it as an indeterminate coelurosaur, and stated it was a possible pan-mammal ("theromorphe"). General reference works such as Zittel (1927), Romer (1956) and Kuhn (1969) used it as a synonym of Tanystropheus, which Wild's (1973) osteology of the latter genus concurred with as well. It was synonymized with T. conspicuus by Wild, probably due to provenence. Notably, Huene's favorable comparisons to theropods used taxa which are no longer thought to be dinosaurian (Saltopus, the Lower Muschelkalk archosauromorph femora), while his initial comparison to Tanystropheus was based on a theropod femur as no appendicular elements were yet referred to that genus. The femur of Procerosaurus differs from Triassic theropods in lacking a fourth trochanter and an ectocondylar tuber, and is here accepted as a junior synonym of Tanystropheus conspicuus. While Olshevsky stated it has sometimes been classified as an ornithischian, this seems to only be true of Procerosaurus Fritsch, 1905. This was a new genus for Iguanodon exogirarum, a Cretaceous taxon named by Fritsch in 1878 for a possible tibia. Because Fritsch's genus was preoccupied by Huene's, Olshevsky renamed it Ponerosteus in 2000.
Thecodontosaurus latespinatus- Huene (1905) first merely announced "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus n. sp. Rücken und Schwanzwirbel. Bayreuth, Crailsheim, Lüneville, Thüringen" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908. Placed in Thecodontosauridae along with Anchisaurus and Massospondylus, Huene assigned this and other 'prosauropod' families in Theropoda. Upon Peyer's 1931 discovery that Tanystropheus was based on non-dinosaurian cervical vertebrae, Huene (1931) reidentified the latespinatus dorsals and caudals as belonging to Tanystropheus, as they closely resemble articulated Tanystropheus longobardicus in the long proximal caudal transverse processes, and in the dorsal vertebrae (translated) "a relatively elongated centrum, weakly braced, low-lying transverse process, without a paraphophysis, i.e. simple rib articulation" and "a high neural spine that widens above." Huene also notes it would be coincidental to only discover cervicals of Tanystropheus and only dorsals and caudals of latespinatus, and that the two had even been found in the same piece of rock (SMF R282). Huene (1932) said "I also count "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus" and "primus" (only dorsal and tail vertebrae) with a high degree of probability as Tanystropheus", which Galton and Cluver (1976) thought implied the new combination Tanystropheus latespinus which they listed. However Huene's wording and logic make more sense as attributing primus and latespinatus to different vertebral sections of "Tanystropheus (only cervical vertebrae)" conspicuus. Kuhn (1965) stated (translated) "it is probably identical with Tanystropheus conspicuus" and Westphal (pers. comm. to Colbert, 1970) confirmed the close resemblance. Colbert stated only the mid dorsals (Huene's 1908 plate 91 figs. 3, 4, 7) "might show any possible indication of being saurischian", "but at best their identification is open to question." Wild (1973) made the specimen shown in figure 237 of Huene (1908) the type, which makes it the lectotype while other material described by Huene become paralectotypes. Wild reidentified the supposed axes (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 1 and 2) as distal caudal vertebrae. A supposed osteoderm (Strunz coll.) associated with SMF R282a and b was tentatively referred to Thecodontosaurus latespinatus by Huene (1908), but "turned out to be part of an interclavicle of Placodus gigas" (translated from Huene, 1931).
References- Meyer, 1852. Die saurier des Muschelkalkes mit ruecksicht auf die saurier aus Buntem Sanstein und Keuper. In Zur fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abteilung 42. 167 pp.
Fritsch, 1878. Die Reptilien und Fische der böhmischen Kreideformation. Prague. 46 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. Synopsis und Abstammung der Dinosaurier. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 247-288.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Fritsch, 1905. Synopsis der Saurier der böhm. Kreideformation. Sitzungsberichte der königlich-böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, II Classe. 1905(8), 1-7.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1910. Ein primitiver Dinosaurier aus der mittleren Trias von Elgin. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen, 8, 315-322.
Huene, 1914a. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Huene, 1914b. Coelurosaurier Reste aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie. 1914, 670-672.
Broili, 1915. Beobachtungen über Tanystropheus conspicuus. Neues Jahrbuch für Minerologie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 2, 51-62.
Huene, 1920. Stammesgeschichtliche Ergebnisse einiger Untersuchungen an Trias-Reptilien. Zeitschrift für Induktive Abstammungsund Vererbungslehre. 24, 159-163.
Zittel, 1927. Textbook of Paleontology. Macmillan Co. Limited. Vol. I, 839 pp.
Corroy, 1928. Les Vertébrés du Trias de Lorraine et le Trias Lorrain. Annales de Paléontologie, 17, 81-136.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1934. Sauropterygia. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 69, 127 pp.
Kuhn, 1935. Rhynchocephalia (Eosuchia). Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 71, 38 pp.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Lang and Huene, 1952 (eds.). Die Saurier Thüringens nach Erhebungen ihres centralen Betreuters Dr. med. u. Dr. rer. nat. h. c. Hugo Rühle von Lilienstern†. Fischer. 42 pp.
Piveteau, 1955. Traite de paleontologie. V. Amphibiens, reptiles, oiseaux. Masson, Paris. 1113 pp.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia. Supplementum 1. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, 109, 94 pp.
Kuhn, 1969. Proganosauria, Bolosauria, Placodontia, Araeoscelidia, Trilophosauria, Weigeltisauria, Millerosauria, Rhynchocephalia, Protorosauria. Handbuch der Palahoerpetologie. 9, 74 pp.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1975. Tanystropheus H. v. Meyer, 1855 (Reptilia): Request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 32(2), 124-126.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae (Reptilia, Saurischia). Annals of the South African Museum. 69, 121-159.
Wild, 1976. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia): Revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen Paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An Annotated Checklist of Dinosaur Species by Continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 157 pp.
Diedrich, 2012. The Middle Triassic marine reptile biodiversity in the Germanic Basin, in the centre of the Pangaean world. Central European Journal of Geosciences. 4(1), 9-46.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. longobardicus (Bassani, 1886) Peyer, 1930
= Tribelesodon longobardicus Bassani, 1886
= "Macroscelosaurus" longobardicus (Bassani, 1886) Kuhn, 1937
= Tanystropheus meridensis Wild, 1980
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Italy
Holotype- (Milan Museum coll.; holotype of Tribelesodon longobardicus; destroyed) partial skull, mandible (31.5 mm), eight cervical vertebrae, cervical ribs, four dorsal vertebrae (6 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, sacral vertebra, sacral rib, three proximal caudal vertebrae (5 mm), sternum, pelvic elements, femur (43.5 mm), tibiae (one distal; 37 mm), fibulae (one distal), tarsals, metatarsi, pedal phalanges
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Switzerland
Neotype- (PIMUZ T 2791; exemplar a of Wild) skull (46 mm), mandibles, hyoid, axis (9.5 mm), third cervical vertebra (25 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (30 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (31 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (30 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (32 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (41 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (51 mm), tenth cervical vertebra (45 mm), eleventh cervical vertebra (26.5 mm), twelfth cervical vertebra (12 mm), cervical ribs, dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, proximal caudal vertebrae, chevrons, scapula, humeri (45 mm), radii, ulnae (29 mm), incomplete manus, ilium, pubis, ischium, femora (57 mm), tibiae (49 mm), fibulae, metatarsals, pedal phalanges (Peyer, 1930)
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Meride Limestone, Switzerland
Referred- (PIMUZ T 3901; holotype of Tanystropheus meridensis) skull, mandible, scleral plates, axis (9.3 mm), third cervical vertebra (25.2 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (38 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (39 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (38 mm), anterior seveneth cervical vertebra, cervical ribs (Wild, 1980)
Comments- Tribelesodon longobardicus was described by Bessani (1886) as a possible pterosaur, the doubt being caused by the tricusped posterior teeth which were seen as more similar to some ornithischians, mammals and lizards. Subsequent authors followed this assignment or felt Tribelesodon's placement was too uncertain owing to the short original description, until Nopcsa (1922, 1923) redescribed it in detail and assigned it to his new basal pterosaurian family Tribelesodontidae. While Olshevsky (2000) claims Tribelesodon has sometimes been called a theropod, I'm unaware of any such instances in the literature. The holotype was destroyed in World War II (Pinna pers. comm. to Wild, 1973). Peyer discovered complete skeleton PIMUZ T 2791 in September 1929, which was announced in 1930 and described in detail in 1931. He referred this specimen to longobardicus but recognized it was also Tanystropheus, with the supposed elongate manual digit IV phalanges of Tribelesodon being cervical vertebrae instead. Thus Peyer synonymized the genera and placed Tanystropheus in Protorosauridae. Wild (1973) made Peyer's main specimen (PIMUZ T 2791, exemplar a in Wild's paper) the neotype of Tanystropheus longobardicus since the holotype was destroyed.
See Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) for a complete specimen list.
References- Bassani, 1886. Sui Fossili e sull’ età degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali. 19, 15-72.
Nopcsa, 1922. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(2), 161-181.
Nopcsa, 1923. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(3), 161-181.
Peyer, 1930. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass. sp. Centralblatt für Mineralogie Abteilung B. 1930, 336-337.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Wild, 1971. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). PhD thesis. Universitat Zurich.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen Paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. hydroides Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 2020
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Switzerland
Holotype- (PIMUZ T 2790) skull, mandibles, atlas to eighth cervical vertebrae
References- Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 2020. Aquatic habits and niche partitioning in the extraordinarily long-necked Triassic reptile Tanystropheus. Current Biology. 30(19), 3889-3895.e2.
T. haasi Rieppel, 2001
Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Makhtesh Ramon, Isreal
Holotype- (HUJ-Pal. TR 1) posterior end of eighth cervical vertebra
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found this to be indeterminate relative to T. conspicuus and T. "hydroides" (their large longobardicus).
References- Rieppel, 2001. A new species of Tanystropheus (Reptilia: Protorosauria) from the Middle Triassic of Makhtesh Ramon, Israel. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 221(2), 271-287.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. biharicus Jurcsak, 1975
Mid-Late Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lugaşu de Sus, Bihor, Romania
Holotype- (MTCO 8988) sixth cervical vertebra (~111 mm)
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found this to be indeterminate relative to T. conspicuus and T. "hydroides" (their large longobardicus).
Reference- Jurcsak, 1975. Tanystropheus biharicus n.sp. (Reptilia, Squamata), o nouva specie pentru fauna Triasica a României. Nymphaea. 3, 45-52.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.

Crocopoda Ezcurra, 2016
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis, Trilophosaurus buettneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps, Proterosuchus fergusi <- Protorosaurus speneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus) (Ezcurra, 2016)
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Allokotosauria Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis, Trilophosaurus buettneri <- Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Protorosaurus speneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps) (Nesbitt et al., 2015)
Reference- Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Azendohsauridae Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis <- Trilophosaurus buettneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Protorosaurus speneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt et al., 2015)
Reference- Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Azendohsaurus

Trilophosauridae Gregory, 1945
= Trilophosauria Romer, 1956

Trilophosaurus Case, 1928
= Spinosuchus Huene, 1932
= Chinleogomphius Sues and Olsen, 1993
T. buettneri Case, 1928
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 1 NMMNH L-860 TMM 31025 YPM 5830, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Referred- (TMM 31025-coll.) (Gregory, 1945)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TMM 31100-coll.) (Elder, 1978)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3A TMM 31185, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TMM 31185-coll.) (Elder, 1978)
Comments- Gregory (1945) first listed Coelophysis sp. material from Quarry 1 or 2, followed by Elder (1987) stating "the saurischian dinosaur Coelophysis" was preserved in the Howard County quarries. He indicated a minimum number of one individual from Trilophosaurus Quarries 1, 3 and 3A, with none preserved in Trilophosaurus Quarry 2. For Trilophosaurus Quarry 3, he states "The material of Coelophysis, Trilophosaurus, and the aetosaur indicates possible adults of these taxa." While this information was originally from Elder's (1978) thesis where preserved specimens of each taxon in the quarry are discussed, confusingly Coelophysis and coelurosaurs are not otherwise mentioned in the thesis. All of this material was collected between August 1939 and April 1941. Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "most of these specimens pertain to Trilophosaurus buettneri" with "The only possible dinosaur specimen" being proximal femur TMM 31100-523 from Quarry 3 that has been identified as Chindesaurus. However, preparation has since identified shuvosaurid, Dromomeron gregorii, silesaur and saurischian material (femur and tibia TMM 31100-545 and 1324) from Quarry 3 and D. gregorii specimens from Quarry 3A that may have been confused for Coelophysis, and most collected fossils have yet to be prepared (Stocker, 2013).
References- Gregory, 1945. Osteology and relationships of Trilophosaurus. University of Texas Publication. 4401, 273-359.
Elder, 1978. Paleontology and paleoecology of the Dockum Group, Upper Triassic, Howard County, Texas. Masters thesis, University of Texas. 206 pp.
Elder, 1987. Taphonomy and paleoecology of the Dockum Group, Howard County, Texas. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 22, 85-94.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Stocker, 2013. Contextualizing vertebrate faunal dynamics: New perspectives from the Triassic and Eocene of western North America. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 297 pp.
T. dornorum Mueller and Parker, 2006
T. phasmalophos Kligman, Marsh, Nesbitt, Parker and Stocker, 2020
T. caseanus (Huene, 1932) new combination
= Spinosuchus caseanus Huene, 1932
= Trilophosaurus jacobsi Murry, 1987
= Chinleogomphius jacobsi Sues and Olsen, 1993
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Holotype- (UMMP 7507) incomplete third cervical vertebra (45.5 mm), incomplete fourth cervical vertebra (48.2 mm), incomplete fifth cervical vertebra (54.8 mm), incomplete sixth cervical vertebra (51.9 mm), first transitional vertebra (32.9 mm), second transitional vertebra (31.5 mm), third transitional vertebra (29.1 mm), first dorsal vertebra (30.4 mm), incomplete second dorsal vertebra (33 mm), third dorsal vertebra (32.5 mm), incomplete fourth dorsal vertebra (35.6 mm), incomplete fifth dorsal vertebra (37 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (36.6 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (44.3 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (39 mm), incomplete ninth dorsal vertebra (37 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (49.2 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (43.7 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (38.4 mm), incomplete thirteenth dorsal vertebra (41.5 mm), incomplete fourteenth dorsal vertebra (41.2 mm), fifteenth dorsal vertebra (39.6 mm), dorsal rib fragments, intercentrum
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Los Esteros Member of the Santa Rosa Formation, New Mexico, US
Referred- (private coll.) dorsal vertebrae (Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Kahle Trilophosaurus Quarry NMMNH L-3775, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(NMMNH P-57852) proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57853) mid dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57854) transitional vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57855) transitional vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57856) transitionalvertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57857) incomplete caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57858) incomplete mid dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57859) incomplete fifteenth dorsal vertebra, first sacral vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-5760) second sacral vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57861) incomplete posterior dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57862) incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57863) incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57864) distal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-5765) mid caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
[for other referred material see Spielmann et al., 2009 (as Trilophosaurus jacobsi) and 2009]
Comments- Discovered in Summer 1921, this was described by Case (1922) as Coelophysis sp. based on similarities in the cervical diapophyses and parapophyses. Case (1927) described it in more detail, this time noting the specimen "was identified by comparison with Huene's figure of the cervical vertebrae of C. longicollis and will be referred to as C. aff. longicollis", also referring other specimens to the genus (UMMP 2680, 7277, 7473, 8870, 9805). Huene (1932) felt it was unlikely the vertebral series belonged to Coelophysis based on the high neural spines, and named it Spinosuchus caseanus. Huene believed (translated) "Spinosuchus belongs to the coelurosaurs and is probably not closely related to Coelophysis", although he did asign both to Podokesauridae, and also assigned braincase UMMP 7473 to his new genus (it has since been referred to Postosuchus kirkpatricki- Chatterjee, 1985). Padian (1986) wrote that "probably none of this material belongs to Coelophysis or to any dinosaur", while Long and Murry (1995) referred it to Neodiapsida incertae sedis. Hunt et al. (1998) "tentatively assign Spinosuchus to cf. Theropoda incertae sedis on the basis of hollow centra" and also noted "A possible synapomorphy that Spinosuchus shares with Herrerasauridae is the presence of spine tables on the posterior dorsal vertebrae", but concluded "Further preparation of the specimen is necessary before the taxonomic affinities of this specimen can be adequately evaluated." They also referred "dorsal vertebrae with elongate neural spines (private collection)" from the Los Esteros Member of New Mexico to the taxon, first reported as cf. Spinosuchus sp. in an abstract by Hunt et al. (1995). Heckert et al. (2001) reported "vertebrae possessing extremely tall neural spines from NMMNH locality 3775" that they associated with "apparently hollow bones from this locality that appear to have been subsequently filled with matrix and/or calcite (e.g., NMMNH P-34123-34127" as evidence of "the presence of a small theropod dinosaur, probably Spinosuchus." The appendicular fragments are catalogued as Archosauria indet. here as various other ornithodirans and crurotarsans can also have hollow limb elements, while Spielmann et al. (2009) later described the vertebrae. Richards (1999) referred Spinosuchus to Trilophosauria in his unpublished thesis based on numerous shared characters with Trilophosaurus, but Nesbitt et al. (2007) suggested they are also found in other pan-archosaurs, though they confusingly listed it as Archosauriformes indet. instead of Archosauromorpha indet.. Nesbitt et al. also ignored the complexity of vertebral morphology in such three-dimensional specimens when they wrote "There are no other vertebral character states that distinguish Spinosuchus from other archosauriforms other than the autapomorphic neural spines." Spielmann et al. (2007, 2009) have more recently demonstrated its trilophosaurid identity convincingly and redescribed the taxon, while Nesbitt et al. (2015) argued effectively it is synonymous with Trilophosaurus jacobsi. Because jacobsi was named 55 years latyer, this would make the correct combination Trilophosaurus caseanus unless T. dornorum and/or phasmalophos are assigned to other genera or found to be closer to T. buettneri. Specimens referred to Spinosuchus or Trilophosaurus jacobsi after a non-dinosaurian identity was established are not listed here.
References- Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309, 395-460.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Hunt, Heckert and Lucas, 1995. Vertebrate paleontology and biochronology of the Santa Rosa Formation, Santa Fe County, north-central New Mexico. 1995 New Mexico Geological Society Annual Spring Meeting. 32.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Richards, 1999. Osteology and relationships of Spinosuchus caseanus HUENE, 1932 from Texas (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic): A new interpretation. Masters thesis, Fort Hays State University. 157 pp.
Heckert, Lucas, Kahle and Zeigler, 2001. New occurrence of Trilophosaurus (Reptilia: Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of west Texas and its biochronological significance. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook. 52, 115-122.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Spielmann, Lucas, Hunt and Heckert, 2007. A revision of the Trilophosauridae (Archosauromorpha) from the Late Triassic of western North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27(3), 151A.
Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009. Redescription of Spinosuchus caseanus (Archosauromorpha: Trilophosauridae) from the Upper Triassic of North America. Palaeodiversity. 2, 283-313.
Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Rhynchosauria Parker, 1879
Definition- (Mesosuchus browni + Rhynchosaurus articeps) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Mesosuchus browni + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Mesosuchus browni + Howesia browni) (modified after Dilkes, 1998)
Comments- The authorship is often given as "Osborn, 1903 (Gervais, 1859)", but Gervais used "Rhynchosaures" which is merely French for "rhynchosaurs." Rhynchosauria goes back at least to Parker (1879), though Osborn (1903) did establish it more officially.

Rhynchosauroidea Huxley, 1887 vide Nopcsa, 1928
Other definitions- (Howesia browni + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- According to the ICZN any superfamily must include its eponymous family, in this case Rhynchosauridae. If the latter were defined to exclude Hyperodapedon, Rhynchosauroidea could exist to include both Rhynchosauridae and Hyperodapedontidae.

Rhynchosauridae Huxley, 1887
Other definitions- (Rhynchosaurus articeps + Scaphonyx fischeri + Stenaulorhynchus stockleyi + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Dilkes, 1998)
(Stenaulorhynchus stockleyi + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- While Rhynchosauridae was defined prior to Hyperodapedontidae, according to the ICZN a family including both Rhynchosaurus and Hyperodapedon must be named after the latter since its family level taxon was named two years earlier. Rhynchosauridae remains available for a sister taxon to Hyperodapedontidae.

Hyperodapedontidae Lydekker, 1885
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Rhynchosaurus articeps) (modified after Langer and Schultz, 2000)
= Scaphonychidae Huene, 1928

Hyperodapedontinae Lydekker, 1885 vide Chatterjee, 1969
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Fodonyx spenceri) (Langer and Schultz, 2000)

Hyperodapedon Huxley vide Murchison, 1858
= Stenometopon Boulenger, 1904
= Scaphonyx Woodward, 1907
= Cephalastron Huene, 1926
= Cephalonia Huene, 1926
= Cephalostronius Huene, 1926
= Scaphonychimus Huene, 1926
= Macrocephalosaurus Tupi-Caldas, 1933
= Paradapedon Huene, 1938
= Supradapedon Chatterjee, 1980
= Teyumbaita Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Teyumbaita sulcognathus) (Langer and Schultz, 2000)
Comments- Huene's (1926) new taxa (Cephalastron brasiliense, Cephalastron gondwanicum, Cephalonia lotziana, Cephalostronius angustispinatus, Scaphonyx australis and Scaphonychimus eurychors) are all near certainly referrable to Hyperodapedon (H. sanjuanensis, H. huenei or H. mariensis), but currently viewed as indeterminate (Langer, 1996). These species are not given their own entries here, as I lack both Langer's thesis and Huene's original description and none have been formally made new combinations with Hyperodapedon.
References- Murchison, 1858. On the sandstones of Morayshire (Elgin, &c.) containing reptilian remains; and on their relations to the Old Red Sandstone of that country. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 15, 419-439.
Boulenger, 1904. On reptilian remains from the Triass of Elgin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 196, 175-189.
Woodward, 1907. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista. 7, 46-57.
Huene, 1926. Gondwana-Reptilien in Südamerika. Palaeontologia Hungarica. 2, 1-108.
Tupi-Caldas, 1933. Contribuição ao estudo do fossil da Alemoa, Município de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. In Tupi-Caldas (ed.). Curso Geral de Mineralogia e Geologia, aplicada ao Brasil. Edições da Livraria do Globo. 333-339.
Huene, 1938. Stenaulorhynchus, ein Rhynchosauridae der ostafrikanischen Obertrias. Nova Acta Leopoldina. 1938, 83-121.
Chatterjee, 1980. The evolution of rhynchosaurs. Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France, Nouvelle Serie. 139, 57-65.
Langer, 1996. Rincossauros sul-brasileiros: Historico e filogenia. Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 361 pp.
Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010. Cranial anatomy of a new genus of hyperodapedontine rhynchosaur (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Earth and Environmental Sciences Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 27-52.
H. fischeri (Woodward, 1907) Whatley, 2005
= "Scaphonyx fischeri" White, 1906
= Scaphonyx fischeri Woodward, 1907
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Holotype- (BM R-5033) two cervical centra, dorsal centrum, central fragment, phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, manual ungual III, pedal ungual I
Comments- The holotype was discovered in 1902, and initially announced by Woodward in 1903 before being described and named by him in 1907. White (1906) first published the name in a note in Science, but did not provide a description or definition (ICZN Article 12.1), making the name a nomen nudum. Woodward (1907) identified Scaphonyx as a Euskelosaurus-like dinosaur based on several characters. First, the dorsal centrum lacks a parapophysis, supposedly unlike 'anomodonts' (under which he included pareiasaurs, procolophonids and therapsids), but rhynchosaurs (which Woodward classified as rhynchocephalians) possess the same state as Scaphonyx. Second, the cervical supposedly resembled Euskelosaurus, but this was based on a specimen (NHMUK R2791) now referred to Erythrosuchus (as foreseen in Woodward's postscript). The large pedal ungual I with obliquely curved unguals was compared favorably to sauropods, but is also present in derived hyperodapedontines. Finally, a pedal digit with four phalanges was considered similar to dinosaurs and unlike 'anomodonts', but rhynchosaurs have three pedal digits with this many phalanges as well, and the digit closely matches manual digit III of Alemoa Hyperodapedon. Woodward's 1907 paper was actually written in 1904, and when reprinted in 1908 he included a postscript which recognized NHMUK R2791 as non-dinosaurian. As he compared it favorably to Erythrosuchus (considered by Woodward to resemble both 'anomodonts' and 'belodonts'- the latter containing phytosaurs and aetosaurs), Woodward now considered Scaphonyx an 'anomodont'.
Huene (1908) noted Scaphonyx was unlike dinosaurs in the presence of postaxial intercentra, cervical diapophyses and parapophyses which are placed high on the vertebra, and dissimilar unguals. He suggested it might be a therapsid or phytosaur. In 1911, Huene proposed Scaphonyx and Erythrosuchus were members of his new 'thecodont' group Pelycosimia, which continued through 1926 when he gave Scaphonyx its own family. In 1929, Huene finally recognized the similarity between Scaphonyx and rhynchosaurs, assigning the genus to the group. While long considered a valid genus of rhynchosaur, Langer (1996; published in Langer and Schultz, 2000a) proposed Scaphonyx fischeri's holotype is indeterminate, as multiple species are known from the Alemoa member (mariensis, sanjuanensis, and what would be named huenei) which have only been distinguished using cranial characters. Although huenei is not known from postcrania (so can't be compared to fischeri), mariensis and sanjuanensis have not had their vertebral or pedal anatomy compared in detail in the published literature. Indeed, Alemoa rhynchosaurs have not had their postcrania well described in over seventy years. Given these facts and that I lack access to both Langer's thesis and mariensis' original and only published description, I only consider it provisionally indeterminate here. Additional specimens assigned to S. fischeri by Huene (1926, 1942) have been considered indeterminate or referrable to S. sanjuanensis (Langer and Schultz, 2000b; Montefeltro, 2008; Langer, pers. comm. 2015).
References- Woodward, 1903. On some dinosaurian bones from south Brazil. Geological Magazine. 10(11), 512.
White, 1906. Geology of south Brazil. Science. 24(612), 377-379.
Woodward, 1907. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista. 7, 46-57.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Woodward, 1908. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Geological Magazine. 5(6), 251-255.
Huene, 1911. Über Erythrosuchus, Vertreter der neuen Reptil-Ordnung Pelycosimia. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 10(1), 1-60.
Huene, 1926. Gondwana-Reptilien in Südamerika. Palaeontologia Hungarica. 2, 1-108.
Huene, 1929. Über Rhynchosaurier und andere Reptilien aus den Gondwana-Ablagerungen Südamerikas. Geologie und Palaeontogie Abhandlungen. 17, 1-61.
Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes. C. H. Beck, Munich. 342 pp.
Langer, 1996. Rincossauros sul-brasileiros: Historico e filogenia. Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 361 pp.
Langer and Schultz, 2000a. Rincossauros-herbivoros cosmopolitas do Triassico. In Holz and de Ros (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre. Ediitora da Universidade, CIGO/UFRGS, Brazil. 246-272.
Langer and Schultz, 2000b. A new species of the Late Triassic rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon from the Santa Maria Formation of south Brazil. Palaeontology. 43, 633-652.
Whatley, 2005. Phylogenetic relationships of Isalorhynchus genovefae, the rhynchosaur (Reptilia, Archosauromorpha) from Madagascar. PhD thesis, University of California. 276 pp.
Montefeltro, 2008. Inter-relações filogenéticas dos rincossauros (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha). Masters thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo. 203 pp.
H. gordoni Huxley vide Murchison, 1858
?= Hyperodapedon minor Burckhardt, 1900b
= Stenometopon taylori Boulenger, 1904
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lossiemouth Sandstone Formation, Scotland
Comments- The citation for Murchison (1858) is often listed incorrectly, misspelled 'Murchinson', cited as 1859, with an erroneous title, and pagination from Huxley's 1869 paper.
Hyperodapedon minor- While Hyperodapedon minor has never been associated with saurischians, its details are not widely known so are discussed here. This species was established by Burckhardt (1900b; page 492) for two small maxillae and a mandible from Warwickshire which were mentioned in a footnote by Huxley (1869) as H. gordoni. Only a few statements were made about H. minor in Burckhardt's work, with the only proposed distinguishing character being a more posteriorly extensive dentary tooth row than H. gordoni. The taxon has been virtually ignored in the literature since, though Huene (1942) did say its distinctiveness from H. gordoni is unfounded and that it should probably be rejected. Discussion with Benton (pers. comm 2015) indicates Burckhardt only visited the NHMUK, though no specimens there were indicated as belonging to this species. Based on Benton's unpublished thesis notes, I believe NHMUK R3150 (listed as "Partial skull 18 pieces, some fitting: palate views of mx, pal etc - small animal") is the best possibility for being H. minor's holotype, though it's possible the holotype has remained unnoticed or become lost. Regardless, the fact all diagnostic Lossiemouth Sandstone rhynchosaurs have been referred to H. gordoni suggests H. minor is similarly referrable.
References- Murchison, 1858. On the sandstones of Morayshire (Elgin, &c.) containing reptilian remains; and on their relations to the Old Red Sandstone of that country. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 15, 419-439.
Huxley, 1869. On Hyperodapedon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 25, 138-152.
Burckhardt, 1900a. On Hyperodapedon gordoni. Geological Magazine. 7(12), 529-535.
Burckhardt, 1900b. On Hyperodapedon gordoni. Geological Magazine. 7(37), 486-492.
Boulenger, 1904. On reptilian remains from the Triass of Elgin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 196, 175-189.
Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes. C. H. Beck, Munich. 342 pp.
Benton, 1981. The Triassic reptile Hyperodapedon from Elgin, functional morphology and relationships. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. [? pp].
H. sanjuanensis (Sill, 1970) Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000
= Scaphonyx sanjuanensis Sill, 1970
Middle-Late Carnian, Late Triassic
La Pena and Cancha de Bochas Members of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
References- Sill, 1970. Scaphonyx sanjuanensis, nuevo rincosaurio (Reptilia) de la formacion Ischigualasto, Triasico de San Juan, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 7, 341-354.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
H. huxleyi Lydekker, 1881
= Paradapedon huxleyi (Lydekker, 1881) Huene, 1938
Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
References- Lydekker, 1881. Note on some Gondwana vertebrates. Records of the Geological Survey of India. 15, 174-178.
Huene, 1938. Stenaulorhynchus, ein Rhynchosauridae der ostafrikanischen Obertrias. Nova Acta Leopoldina. 1938, 83-121.
H. mariensis (Tupi-Caldas, 1933) Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000
= Macrocephalosaurus mariensis Tupi-Caldas, 1933
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
References- Tupi-Caldas, 1933. Contribuição ao estudo do fossil da Alemoa, Município de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. In Tupi-Caldas (ed.). Curso Geral de Mineralogia e Geologia, aplicada ao Brasil. Edições da Livraria do Globo. 333-339.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
H. tikiensis Mukherjee and Ray, 2014
Carnian, Late Triassic
Tiki Formation, India
Reference- Mukherjee and Ray, 2014. A new Hyperodapedon (Archosauromorpha, Rhynchosauria) from the Upper Triassic of India: Implications for rhynchosaur phylogeny. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1241-1276.
H. stockleyi (Boonstra, 1953) Mukherjee and Ray, 2014
= Scaphonyx stockleyi Boonstra, 1953
= Supradapedon stockleyi (Boonstra, 1953) Chatterjee, 1980
Carnian?, Late Triassic
Tunduru District, Tanzania
Comments- While the combination Hyperodapedon stockleyi is usually credited to Langer et al. (2000), they merely listed Scaphonyx stockleyi under "Described rhynchosaurs attributable to Hyperodapedon" without claiming the species was valid or using the new combination.
References- Boonstra, 1953. A note on some rhynchosaurian remains from Tanganyika territory. Annals of the South African Museum. 42, 1-4.
Chatterjee, 1980. The evolution of rhynchosaurs. Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France, Nouvelle Serie. 139, 57-65.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
Mukherjee and Ray, 2014. A new Hyperodapedon (Archosauromorpha, Rhynchosauria) from the Upper Triassic of India: Implications for rhynchosaur phylogeny. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1241-1276.
H. sulcognathus (Azevedo and Schultz, 1987) Elsler, 2018
= Scaphonyx "sulcognathus" Azevedo, 1982
= Scaphonyx sulcognathus Azevedo and Schultz, 1987
= Teyumbaita sulcognathus (Azevedo and Schultz, 1987) Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010
References- Azevedo, 1982. Scaphonyx sulcognathus (sp. nov.) um novo rincossaurıdeo do Neotriassico do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Masters Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 86 pp.
Azevedo and Schultz, 1987. Scaphonyx sulcognathus (sp. nov.), um novo rincossaurideo do Neotriassico do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Proceedings of X Congresso Brasileiro de Paleontologia. 99-113.
Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010. Cranial anatomy of a new genus of hyperodapedontine rhynchosaur (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Earth and Environmental Sciences Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 27-52.
Elsler, 2018. Macroevolution of early tetrapods. PhD thesis, University of Bristol. 497 pp.
H. huenei Langer and Schultz, 2000
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Reference- Langer and Schultz, 2000. A new species of the Late Triassic rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon from the Santa Maria Formation of south Brazil. Palaeontology. 43, 633-652.

unnamed taxon (Teyujagua paradoxa + Alligator mississippiensis)
Comments- This clade is notable here for being the only archosauromorphs to have finely serrated teeth, which is slightly more inclusive than Archosauriformes as shown recently by taxa like Teyujagua and Tasmaniosaurus. Thus isolated teeth from before the Late Triassic that would classically be assigned to Archosauriformes are placed at this level instead.

Ankistrodon Huxley, 1865
= Epicampodon Lydekker, 1885
A. indicus Huxley, 1865
= Epicampodon indicus (Huxley, 1865) Lydekker, 1885
= Thecodontosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) Huene, 1908
= Chasmatosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) Huene, 1942
Induan, Early Triassic
Deoli, Panchet Formation, India
Holotype- (GSI 2259) maxillary fragment, two teeth
Referred- ?(GSI coll.) cervical vertebrae, anterior dorsal vertebrae, sacral vertebrae, proximal caudal vertebrae (Huene, 1942)
Comments- Huxley named and described the holotype, believing it to be a thecodont most similar to the phytosaur Clepsysaurus based on the presence of only distal serrations. He later (1870) referred Thecodontia to Dinosauria, leading him to refer Ankistrodon to the latter clade. Seeley (1880) mentioned the genus as a dinosaur related to Megalosaurus. He later (1885) created the genus Epicampodon for the taxon, since he incorrectly thought Ankistrodon was preoccupied by the recent viperid genus Agkistrodon Palisot de Beauvois, 1799 (or its own unjustified emmendation Ancistrodon Wagler, 1830; or the pycnodontiform fish Ancistrodon Roemer, 1849, which was renamed Ankistrodus then Grypodon). Seeley (1888) illustrated Epicampodon as an anchisaurid theropod, Nicholson and Lydekker (1889) included it in Megalosauridae, while Nopcsa (1901) listed it as an anchisaurine megalosaurid. It was listed as a zanclodontid theropod by Zittel (1890) and Huene (1902), who incorrectly believed it to be from the Late Triassic Maleri beds. Huene (1906) stated that the species was probably referrable to Thecodontosaurus, though he did not explicitly list the new combination until 1908. In that work he called it Thecodontosaurus(?) indicus, believing it to be most similar to Paleosaurus (his Thecodontosaurus cylindrodon). Das-Gupta (1931) thought the species was similar to his new theropod Orthogoniosaurus in having only distal serrations and having a straight distal edge (actually caused by apical breakage in indicus), placing both in Anchisauridae within Theropoda. Huene still referred Epicampodon to Saurischia in 1940, but in 1942 recognized it was a more basal archosauriform and made it a species of Chasmatosaurus. This was followed by Tatarinov (1961) and Hughes (1963; who nonetheless considered the holotype generically indeterminate), but Charig et al. (1976) correctly noted Ankistrodon has priority over Chasmatosaurus (and its senior synonym Proterosuchus). Charig and Reig (1970) and Reig (1970) considered it an indeterminate proterosuchian. Romer (1972) considered the material to be Proterosuchus without explicitly naming the new combination, though he later (1976) questionably synonymized it with Chasmatosaurus. Most recently, Charig et al. (1976) considered Ankistrodon a seemingly valid genus of proterosuchid, which was followed by Olshevsky (1991). While the presence of serrations does indicate an archosauriform, the Early Triassic age excludes phytosaurs and theropods, and the recurved crowns exclude a relationship to sauropodomorphs like Thecodontosaurus or Anchisaurus, evidence supporting a close relationship with Proterosuchus was perhaps only given by Huene (1942), prior to the discovery of a large amount of 'proterosuchian' diversity. Most recently, Ezcurra (2016) recovers Ankistrodon in several potential positions at least as derived as Tasmaniosaurus but outside Eucrocopoda, including sister to Eorasaurus or anywhere within Proterosuchia (see his Figure 60).
Huxley (1865) also described vertebrae as belonging to Dicynodon orientalis (now Lystrosaurus murrayi), which were recognized by Huene (1942) as being archosauriform and referred to his Chasmatosaurus indicus. As the vertebrae cannot be compared to the type jaw fragment, Charig and Reig (1970) merely called them cf. Chasmatosaurus sp..
References- Huxley, 1865. On a collection of vertebrate fossils from the Panchet Rocks, Ranigunu, Bengal. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India; Paleontologia Indica, Series IV. Indian Pretertiary Vertebrata. i, 3-24.
Huxley, 1870. Triassic Dinosauria. Nature. 1, 23-24.
Lydekker, 1880. A sketch of the history of the fossil Vertebrata of India. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 69(2), 8-40.
Lydekker, 1885. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Maleria and Denwa Groups. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. Palaeontologia Indica, Series IV. Indian Pretertiary Vertebrata. 1(5), 1-38.
Seeley, 1888. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum of Natural History, London. 309 pp.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889. A manual of palaeontology for the use of students: with a general introduction on the principles of palæontology, Volume 2. 1624 pp.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Das-Gupta, 1931. On a new theropod dinosaur (Orthogoniosaurus matleyi, n. gen. et n. sp.) from the Lameta beds of Jubbulpore. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 26, 367-369.
Huene, 1940. Die Saurier der Karroo-, Gondwana-, und verwandten Ablagerungen in faunistischer, biologischer und phylogenetischer Hinsicht. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 83, 246-347.
Huene, 1942. Die Fauna der Panchet-Schichten in Bengalen. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 1941(11), 354-360.
Tatarinov, 1961. Pseudosuchians of the USSR. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1961(1), 117-132.
Hughes, 1963. The earliest archosaurian reptiles. South African Journal of Science. 59, 221-240.
Charig and Reig, 1970. The classification of the Proterosuchia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2, 125-171.
Reig, 1970. The Proterosuchia and the early evolution of the archosaurs; an essay about the origin of a major taxon. Bulletin of The Museum of Comparative Zoology. 139, 229-292.
Romer, 1972. The Chaneres (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XVI. Thecodont classification. Breviora. 395, 24 pp.
Charig, Krebs, Sues and Westphal, 1976. Thecodontia. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. 13, 137 pp.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Cladeiodon Owen, 1841
C. lloydi Owen, 1841
= Teratosaurus lloydii (Owen, 1841) Huene, 1908
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation, England
Holotype- (lost) tooth
Referred- (NHMUK R2645) tooth (Huene, 1908)
(NHMUK R4847) tooth (Benton and Gower, 1997)
(NHMUK R4848) tooth (Benton and Gower, 1997)
(CAMSM G352) tooth (Huene, 1908)
(WARMS G.7) tooth (Murchison and Strickland, 1840)
(WARMS G.8) tooth (Murchison and Strickland, 1840)
(WARMS G.954) tooth (18 x 10 x ? mm)
(WARMS G.956.1) tooth (Walker, 1969)
(WARMS G.956.2) tooth (47 mm)
(WARMS G.957) tooth (Walker, 1969)
(WARMS G.969) tooth (18 mm) (Walker, 1969)
Comments- The entry for this taxon is in progress, though the opinions of several authors are liasted below.
Owen, 1841- 'thecodont' intermediate between Thecodontosaurus and "Paleosaurus" platyodon in Lacertilia.
Owen, 1842b- same as above, states "one of the teeth of Cladyodon" is WARMS G.7.
Pictet, 1845- Lacertiformes.
Geinitz, 1846- Lacertia.
Owen, 1860- Thecodontia related to Paleosaurus, not distinguishable from Belodon, states original specimen is WARMS G.7.
Owen, 1868- Crocodilia.
Huxley, 1870- dinosaur, not similar to Thecodontosaurus or "Paleosaurus" platyodon, two teeth referrable to Paleosaurus cylindrodon, another possibly Teratosaurus (lost; contra Benton and Gower, 1997 this is not WARMS G.956.2, as it is less elongate).
Phillips, 1871- dinosaur.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889- megalosaurid, possibly synonym of Paleosaurus.
Woodward and Sherborn, 1890- =Belodon?, type in the Geol. Soc. London.
Zittel, 1902- megalosaurid close to Zanclodon.
Huene, 1908- in Teratosaurus.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941- theropod.
Walker, 1969- belongs to poposaurid (later named Bromsgroveia).
Kuhn, 1970- ornithosuchid.
Charig et al., 1976- saurischian dinosaur.
Romer, 1976- teratosaurid carnosaur.
Welles, 1984- probably theropod, indeterminate, nomen nudum.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989- teratosaurid theropod.
Olshevsky, 1991- synonym of Teratosaurus suevicus.
Benton et al., 1994- Archosauria indet., maybe Bromsgroveia or "large thecodont" (= Bromsgroveia- Benton and Gower, 1997).
Benton and Gower, 1997- provisional synonym of Bromsgroveia, within range of shape of Postosuchus but higher serration density, WARMS G.954 may be the holotype (though this is not true, as it is too short and lacks recurvature).
Often misspelled as- Cladyodon Owen, 1842b; Kladyodon and Kladeisteriodon Plieninger, 1846;Claderodon Agassiz, 1846; Claydyodon Mantell, 1848.
References- Murchison and Strickland, 1840. On the upper formations of the New Red Sandstone
Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842a. Second rapport sur le reptiles fossiles de le Grande Bretagne. L'Institut. 11-14.
Owen, 1842b. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Pictet, 1845. Traité élémentaire de paléontologie: ou, Histoire naturelle des animaux fossiles considérés dans leurs rapports zoologiques et géologiques, Volume 2. 407 pp.
Geinitz, 1846. Grundriss der Versteinerungskunde. 813 pp.
Plieninger, 1846a.
Mantell, 1848. The wonders of geology: or A familiar exposition of geological phenomena. Volume 2. 938 pp.
Owen, 1860. Palaeontology, or a systematic summary of extinct animals and their geological relations. 420 pp.
Owen, 1868. On the Anatomy of Vertebrates. Volume III. Mammals. 915 pp.
Huxley, 1870. On the classification of the Dinosauria, with observations on the Dinosauria of the Trias. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 26, 32-51.
Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames: Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 523pp.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889. A manual of palaeontology for the use of students: with a general introduction on the principles of palæontology, Volume 2. 1624 pp.
Woodward and Sherborn, 1890. A catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. 396 pp.
Zittel, 1902. Text-book of palaeontology, Volume 2. 283 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941. The type of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus
Walker, 1969. The reptile fauna of the "Lower Keuper" Sandstone. Geological Magazine. 106, 470-476.
Kuhn, 1970.
Charig, Krebs, Sues and Westphal, 1976. Thecodontia. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. 13, 137 pp.
Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.
Benton,Warrington, Newell and Spencer, 1994. A review of the British Middle Triassic tetrapod assemblages. in Fraser and Sues (eds). In the shadow of the dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic tetrapods. 131-160.
Galton and Walker, 1996a. Bromsgroveia from the Middle Triassic of England
Galton and Walker, 1996b. Supposed prosauropod dinosaurs from Middle Triassic
Benton and Gower, 1997. Richard Owen's giant Triassic frogs:

Teratosaurus? bengalensis Das-Gupta, 1929
= Teratosaurus "bengalensis" Das-Gupta, 1927
Early Scythian, Early Triassic
Panchet Formation, India
Holotype- tooth
Comments- This species was first reported by Das-Gupta in 1927 without a description, making that mention a nomen nudum. In 1927 it was explicitly called a theropod, while in 1929 it was referred to as a carnivorous dinosaur. The description does not include any explicit rationale for referring bengalensis to Teratosaurus, which was done because it was similar to teeth illustrated by Huene. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as incorrectly referred to Teratosaurus, while Olshevsky (1991) retains it questionably in that genus. It is probably indeterminate based on the description and is here referred to Archosaauriformes due to its serrations.
References- Das-Gupta, 1927. Batrachian and reptilian remains found in the Panchet Beds at Deoli, Bengal. Proceedings of the Indian Science Congress. 14, 240.
Das-Gupta, 1929. Batrachian and reptilian remains found in the Panchet Beds at Deoli, Bengal. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 24(4), 473-479.
Rozhdestvensky, 1977. The study of dinosaurs in Asia. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 20, 102-119.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.

Zanclodon? crenatus

Zanclodon? schuetzii Fraas, 1900 emmend. Olshevsky, 2000
= Zanclodon schützii Fraas, 1900
= Teratosaurus schützii (Fraas, 1900) Huene, 1932
Middle Triassic
Muschelkalk, Germany
Holotype- (SMNS coll.) tooth
Comments- Huene (1908) thought this tooth might be referrable to Tanystropheus conspicuus, which he placed in Coeluridae.
References- FFraas, 1900. Zanclodon schützii n. sp. aus dem Trigonodusdolomit von Hall. Jahreshefte des Vereins für Vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 56, 510-513.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.

"Zanclodon" silesiacus Jaekel, 1910
= Megalosaurus silesiacus (Jaekel, 1910) Kuhn, 1965
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Holotype- (University of Griefswalden/Göttinger coll.; lost?) tooth (24x12x5 mm)
Referred- ?(Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute-National Research Institute coll.) tooth (Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017)
?(Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Mining and Geology coll.) tooth (37 mm) (Surmik and Brachaniec, 2013)
Comments- Jaekel (1910) noted (translated) "a dinosaur tooth from the lower shell limestone of Upper Silesia, which would probably be the oldest known dinosaur tooth to date. It comes from the Chorzov strata of the lower shell limestone of Gogolin, Upper Silesia, and came to me through the kindness of engineer Fedder in Opole. The crown shown is 24 mm high, 12 mm wide and 5 mm thick, so it is quite strongly compressed and slightly curved backwards. Its edge is extremely finely serrated (Fig. 16 A). I call the form, which for the time being cannot be specified generically, Zanclodon silesiacus. The only difference between [phytosaur Mesorhinosuchus] and this tooth form lies in the fact that the former is somewhat thicker, somewhat less bent back, and that no notch can be detected on the edge." He referred it to Megalosauridae, and Kuhn (1965) later referred it to the genus Megalosaurus. Carrano et al. (2012) correctly noted "could be considered as Theropoda indet., but we cannot rule out the possibility that it represents a 'rauisuchian' archosaur." Surmik and Brachaniec (2013) describe a tooth from Gogolin Quarry in which "a poor state of preservation makes it impossible to identification of the presence of edge serration, however it still shows a slightly curvature and specific both sides flattening" and identify it as seemingly archosaurian. Skawiński et al. (2017) listed this and another tooth labeled as Megalosaurus silesiacus as other material of Zanclodon silesiacus. The latter tooth is stated to be serrated mesially and distally with a density of 12 per 5 mm. They describe the holotype tooth as "Probably lost" and "lost", and place all three teeth as Archosauromorpha indet.. They are more specifically referred to the Teyujagua plus archosauriform clade here given the recurvature and small serrations, as authors from Kuhn onward have noted plesiomorphic theropod teeth are difficult to distinguish from several clades of archosauriforms (e.g. erythrosuchids, euparkeriids) known from the Anisian. The age is far too early for Megalosaurus or another neotheropod, and the presence of serrations is unlike Zanclodon, so neither genus is appropriate. It should also be noted the three Gogolin teeth differ in shape with the Silesian University specimen less recurved and less tapered than the other two, while the Polish Geological Institute specimen is shorter than the holotype and less concave distally. This could be positional variation, but given the lack of proposed synapomorphies could easily represent multiple taxa.
References- Jaekel, 1910. Ueber einen neuen Belodonten aus dem Buntsandstein von Bernburg. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin. 5, 197-229.
Kuhn, 1965. Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia. Pars 109: Saurischia. Ysel Press. 94 pp.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.
Surmik and Brachaniec, 2013. The large superpredators' teeth from Middle Triassic of Poland. Contemporary Trends in Geoscience. 2, 91-94.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Archosauriformes Gauthier, 1994
Official Definition- (Gallus gallus + Alligator mississippiensis + Proterosuchus fergusi) (Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 174)
Other definitions- (Proterosuchus fergusi + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Proterosuchus fergusi + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
References- Gauthier, 1994. The diversification of the amniotes. In Prothero (ed.). Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution: Short Courses in Paleontology. Paleontological Society. 129-159.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Gauthier, 2020. Archosauriformes J. A. Gauthier 1994 [J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1182-1185.

Proterosuchia Broom, 1906
Definition- (Proterosuchus fergusi <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Proterosuchidae Hunen, 1908
Definition- (Proterosuchus fergusi <- Erythrosuchus africanus, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Ezcurra, Butler and Gower, 2013)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Ezcurra, Butler and Gower, 2013. 'Proterosuchia': The origin and early history of Archosauriformes. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and
Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, Special Publication. 379, 9-33.

unnamed clade (Cuyosuchus huenei + Crocodylus niloticus)
Comments- This clade is notable here because it currently contains all taxa with finely serrated teeth that are of Late Triassic age or younger in Ezcurra's (2016) archosauromorph phylogeny, thanks to Late Carnian-Early Norian Cuyosuchus. While no teeth are known from Cuyosuchus itself, its position between proterosuchians and erythrosuchians suggests they would be serrated. Similarly, this clade contains all known Late Triassic archosauriforms.
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

unnamed archosauriform (Huene, 1932)
Late Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
'Woźniki Limestone', Poland
Material- (University of Wroclaw coll.; lost) tooth (5.6x2.0x? mm)
Comments- Discovered in 1867, Huene (1932) figures this and describes it as having no mesial carina, and 8 serrations per mm on the distal edge. Stated to probably be a coelurosaur, this included coelophysoid-grade taxa in Huene's conception. Skawiński et al. (2017) note it is now lost (perhaps during WWII) and refer it too broadly to Archosauromorpha indet., as the small serrations on recurved teeth are only present in taxa as close to archosaurs as Teyujagua while Late Triassic age is only present in Cuyosuchus plus Archosauria. Its anatomy and age are thus consistent with coelophysoids, but also with many other carnivorous archosauriforms.
References- Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Avalonianus Kuhn, 1961
= Avalonia Seeley, 1898 (preoccupied Walcott, 1890)
A. sanfordi (Seeley, 1898) Kuhn, 1961
= Avalonia sanfordi Seeley, 1898
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Westbury Formation, England
Holotype- (NHMUK R2869) tooth (33 x 15 x 7 mm)
Comments- The holotype was found in 1894 along with Picrodon herveyi's holotype and various postcrania (NHMUK R2870-2874, 2676-2878), all described by Sanford (1894) as a dinosaur similar to Megalosaurus. Seeley (1898) later more fully described and named the remains, associating the tooth NHMUK R2869 with NHMUK R2870-2873 (two posterior dorsal vertebrae, femur, proximal tibia, two pedal phalanges, pedal ungual) to form Avalonia sanfordi. Seeley referred most of the other remains to Picrodon and referred to both as zanclodont dinosaurs. Newton (1899) believed Avalonia was not sufficiently distinguished from Zanclodon and that Picrodon and its associated postcrania probably belonged to the same individual. He thought the Avalonia holotype closely resembled his new taxon "Zanclodon" cambrensis but differed in having more strongly curved teeth. Seeley (in Newton, 1899) also thought cambrensis was most similar to Avalonia, but felt the latter was generically diagnostic compared to Zanclodon. Nopcsa (1901) listed Avalonia as an anchisaurine megalosaurid, with Picrodon listed as Avalonia? herveyi. Huene (1902) listed both Avalonia and Picrodon as synonyms of Gressylosaurus, which he believed was a zanclodontid theropod. He later (1905) listed them as synonyms of Gresslyosaurus cf. ingens in the precursor to his 1908 study which more firmly accepted their synonymy with G. ingens, which he placed as a plateosaurid theropod. In that paper, Huene stated the synonymy was based on the postcrania and believed it and the two teeth came from one individual. The slight differences in serration morphology and density, tooth size and serration extent were seen as due to different positions in the jaw, with Avalonia being more anterior than Picrodon. Huene (1932) continued to list Avalonia and Picrodon as synonyms of Gresslyosaurus ingens, which he had moved to Teratosauridae within Carnosauria. In 1956, Huene still followed that synonymy. Romer (1976) and Chure and McIntosh (1989) both listed Avalonia as a teratosaurid theropod as well, with the former believing it to be a junior synonym of Teratosaurus within Carnosauria. Kuhn (1961) noted that Avalonia was preoccupied by an ?atopid trilobite genus named in 1890, so proposed the replacement name Avalonianus. Charig et al. (1965) referred the Avalonianus postcrania to Melanorosauridae, which was followed by Steel (1970), White (1973) and Cooper (1980, 1981). While Cooper seemed to accept the referral of carnivorous teeth to Melanorosauridae, Charig et al. correctly noted such teeth did not belong to sauropodomorphs, so presumably thought the same of the Avalonianus holotype. Van Heerden (1979) followed Charig et al.'s thought on this matter, making Avalonianus an indeterminate archosaur(-iform) but noting the associated femur resembles Riojasaurus. The issue was finally resolved in 1985, when Galton made the postcrania the type material of a new melanorosaurid sauropodomorph- Camelotia borealis, though he did not comment further on the identity of Avalonianus. Further references to Camelotia are not given here, but it is now placed as a basal sauropod or very closely related to that group, more derived than Gresslyosaurus but perhaps a melanorosaurid. Storrs (1993) also declared Avalonianus to be a nomen dubium, Glut (1997) merely called it a "thecodontian", and Naish and Martill (2007) referred it to Archosauria indet.. Olshevsky (1991) listed it as an ornithosuchid, with Picrodon herveyi as a junior synonym of the species. The most recent extensive review has been Galton's (1998) paper, where he agreed with past authors that the teeth are not sauropodomorph, are nomina dubia, and are similar enough to each other to belong to the same taxon. Galton also agreed with Newton and Seeley that the teeth were similar to cambrensis, so that he provisionally referred them to "?Megalosaurus cambrensis (Newton) of the suborder Theropoda (and possibly Infraorder Carnosauria)."
When determining the affinities of Avalonianus sanfordi, we can exclude a close relationship to Gresslyosaurus, melanorosaurids or other sauropodomorphs, as these have lanceolate teeth with enlarged apically oriented serrations. However, despite an apparent consensus the tooth is conspecific with Picrodon herveyi and both are most similar to those of "Newtonsaurus" cambrensis (which is neither Zanclodon nor Megalosaurus), this has never been supported by explicit characters. Indeed, the teeth of "Newtonsaurus" have not been shown to be diagnostic compared to the large variety of Late Triassic and Early Jurassic theropods now known. If Avalonianus did happen to be synonymous with "Newtonsaurus" (and thus its correct genus name), sanfordi has priority over cambrensis by one year, so the former cannot be a junior synonym of the latter (contra Galton). An additional issue is that while Avalonia has priority over Picrodon (thanks to Nopcsa, 1901 being the first revisor), Avalonianus does not. Thus if the genera were synonymous, Picrodon would be the correct name (contra Nopcsa and Olshevsky). Confounding matters is that sanfordi has priority over herveyi, making the correct name the unpublished new combination Picrodon sanfordi. None of this matters though, as Avalonianus and Picrodon have not been shown to be more similar to each other than they are to other archosauriforms, and indeed both have been called indeterminate by several authors. If this is true, they cannot be synonyms of each other or any other taxon (contra Galton). Thus Avalonianus, Picrodon and "Newtonsaurus" have no established relationship to each other, and placing the former two more precisely within Archosauriformes will require further study. The presence of serrations does suggest they are archosauriform, and the Late Triassic age suggests they are at least as derived as Cuyosuchus. It can also be noted that the presence of serrations is different from Zanclodon, suggesting no close relationship with that genus.
References- Walcott, 1890. Descriptive notes of new genera and species from the Lower Cambrian or Olenellus zone of North America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 12(763), 33-46.
Sanford, 1894. On the bones of an animal resembling the megalosaur, found in the Rhaetic Formation at Wedmore. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological Society. 40, 227-235.
Seeley, 1898. On large terrestrial saurians from the Rhaetic beds of Wedmore Hill, described as Avalonia sanfordi and Picrodon herveyi. Geological Magazine. 5(1), 1-6.
Newton, 1899. On a megalosauroid jaw from Rhaetic beds near Bridgend (Glamorganshire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 55, 89-96.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Huene, 1956. Palaontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. 716 pp.
Kuhn, 1961. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, Reptila. supplementum 1(2), 1-163.
Charig, Attridge and Crompton, 1965. On the origin of the sauropods and the classification of the Saurischia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 176, 197-221.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
White, 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Annals of Carnegie Museum. 44(9), 117-155.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1980. The first record of the prosauropod dinosaur Euskelosaurus from Zimbabwe. Arnoldia. 9(3), 1-17.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Galton, 1985. Notes on the Melanorosauridae, a family of large prosauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha). Géobios. 18(5), 671-676.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Storrs, 1993. Terrestrial components of the Rhaetian (uppermost Triassic) Westbury Formation of southwestern Britain. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 447-451.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Galton, 1998. Saurischian dinosaurs from the Upper Triassic of England: Camelotia (Prosauropoda, Melanorosauridae) and Avalonianus (Theropoda, ?Carnosauria). Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 250, 155-172.
Naish and Martill, 2007. Dinosaurs of Great Britain and the role of the Geological Society of London in their discovery: Basal Dinosauria and Saurischia. Journal of the Geological Society, London. 164, 493-510.

Basutodon Huene, 1932
B. ferox Huene, 1932
Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Elliot Formation, Lesotho
Holotype- (NMB R.610) tooth
References- Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Charig, Attridge and Crompton, 1965. On the origin of the sauropods and the classification of the Saurischia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 176, 197-221.
Kuhn, 1970.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1980. The first record of the prosauropod dinosaur Euskelosaurus from Zimbabwe. Arnoldia Zimbabwe. 9, 1-17.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Hopson, 1984. Late Triassic traversodont cynodonts from Nova Scotia and Southern Africa. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 181-201.
Kitching and Raath, 1984. Fossils from the Elliot and Clarens Formations (Karoo Sequence) of the Northeastern Cape, Orange Free State and Lesotho, and a suggested biozonation based on tetrapods. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 111-125.
Anderson, Anderson and Cruikshank, 1998. Late Triassic ecosystems of the Molteno/Lower Elliot biome of southern Africa. Palaeontology. 41(3), 387-421.
Olsen and Galton, 1984. A review of the reptile and amphibian assemblages from the Stormberg of Southern Africa with special emphasis on the footprints and the age of the Stormberg. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 87-110.
Galton and van Heerden, 1998. Anatomy of the prosauropod dinosaur Blikanasaurus cromptoni (Upper Triassic, South Africa) with notes on the other tetrapods from the Lower Elliot Formation. Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 72, 163-177.
Ray and Chinsamy, 2002. A theropod tooth from the Late Triassic of southern Africa. Journal of Biosciences. 27(3), 295-298.
Knoll, 2004. Review of the tetrapod fauna of the "Lower Stormberg Group" of the main Karoo Basin (southern Africa): Implication for the age of the Lower Elliot Formation. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 175(1), 73-83.

"Cinizasaurus" Heckert, 1997a vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
"C. hunti" Heckert, 1997a vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-18400) dorsal centra, caudal centra, distal humerus, metacarpals, proximal tibia, proximal fibula, metatarsals, phalanges, fragments
Comments- Originally described as a new genus of theropod in Heckert's (1997a) unpublished thesis, the specimen was later claimed to be indeterminate when published without a name by Heckert et al. (2000). Nesbitt et al. (2007) noted the vertebrae could not be distinguished from non-theropods, while the tibia lacks a cnemial crest and lateral and medial condyles, unlike dinosauriforms and theropods respectively. They assigned it to Archosauriformes indet..
Although the name "Cinizasaurus hunti" was originally used in thesis, and thus not available for use in this website, it was later published by Nesbitt et al. (2007).
References- Heckert, Lucas and Hunt,1994. New Mexico's oldest dinosaur. New Mexico Geology. 17, 16.
Heckert, 1997b. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic lower Chinle Group (Adamanian: Latest Carnian), of the Zuni Mountains, west-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 11, 29-39.
Heckert, 1997a. Litho- and biostratigraphy of the Lower Chinle Group, east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico, with a description of a new theropod (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Bluewater Creek Formation. Masters Thesis, University of New Mexico. 278 pp.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

"Likhoelesaurus" Ellenberger, 1970
"L. ingens" Ellenberger, 1970
= "Likhoelesaurus ferox" Ellenberger, 1972
Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Elliot Formation, Lesotho
Material- (?LES coll.) five teeth (70 mm)
Comments- Ellenberger and Ginsberg (1966) mentioned carnivorous dinosaur teeth from the Lower Elliot Formation, which were later called "Likhoelesaurus ingens" by Ellenberger (1970) and referred to Ornithosuchidae. These were not described properly though, making the name a nomen nudum. Ellenberger (1972) referred to "Likhoelesaurus ferox" as a "giant carnosaur" from zone A/5 of his lower red beds, illustrating five associated recurved teeth in a plate. This was another nomen nudum, with no explanation of the different species name (it may involve Basutodon ferox, but even if "Likhoelesaurus" were officially named, Basutodon would have priority). Kitching and Raath (1984) suggested it may be a junior synonym of Basutodon ferox. It was listed as a teratosaurid theropod by Chure and McIntosh (1989) and a melanorosaurid by Olshevsky (1991). Glut (1997) listed it as ?Theropoda incertae sedis, listed "?bones" among the remains and stated the teeth were 70 mm long. Knoll (2004) discusses the material under Rauisuchia, but notes it could be theropod as well. If the material is not lost, it is presumably held with the rest of Ellenberger's material in the "Collection Paul Ellenberger - Pistes du Stormberg", stored in the Laboratoire de Paleontologie, Institut de Sciences de l’Evolution, Universite Montpellier II.
With no published description, and only one undetailed photograph, the phylogenetic position of "Likhoelesaurus" remains uncertain. While their recurved morphology excludes referral to Melanorosauridae or any other sauropodomorph clade, differences between the teeth of carnivorous dinosaurs, crutotarsans (including ornithosuchids and teratosaurs) and other carnivorous archosauriforms have yet to be studied. Indeed, they are only assumed to be archosauriform here due to past identifications, since the presence of serrations has not been confirmed. Synonymy with Basutodon is possible, but no shared derived characters have been suggested, Basutodon itself is probably undiagnostic and multiple archosauriform taxa are known from other Late Triassic localities.
References- Ellenberger and Ginsberg, 1966. Le gisement de Dinosauriens triasiques de Maphutseng (Basutoland) et l'origine des Sauropodes. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris, Série D. 262, 444-447.
Ellenberger, 1970. Les niveaux paléontologiques de première apparition des mammifères primoridaux en Afrique du Sud et leur ichnologie. Establissement de zones stratigraphiques detaillees dans le Stormberg du Lesotho (Afrique du Sud) (Trias Supérieur à Jurassique). In Haughton (ed.). Second Symposium on Gondwana Stratigraphy and Paleontology, International Union of Geological Sciences. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria. 343-370.
Ellenberger, 1972. Contribution à la classification des Pistes de Vertébrés du Trias: Les types du Stormberg d'Afrique du Sud (I). Palaeovertebrata. 104, 152 pp.
Kitching and Raath, 1984. Fossils from the Elliot and Clarens Formations (Karoo Sequence) of the Northeastern Cape, Orange Free State and Lesotho, and a suggested biozonation based on tetrapods. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 111-125.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Knoll, 2004. Review of the tetrapod fauna of the "Lower Stormberg Group" of the main Karoo Basin (southern Africa): Implication for the age of the Lower Elliot Formation. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 175(1), 73-83.

"Massospondylus" hislopi

"Megalosaurus" cloacinus Quenstedt, 1858
= Plateosaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1905
= Gresslyosaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1932
= Pachysaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1932
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Exter Formation, Germany
Syntypes- (lost) two teeth
Referred- ?(GPIT and SMNS coll.) many teeth (Huene, 1905)
?(SMNS 52457) tooth (~25x11x? mm) (Huene, 1905)
?(SMNS coll.) teeth (Roemer, 1870)
? seven teeth (Miller Endlich, 1870)
Norian-Rhaetian?, Late Triassic
'Lisów Breccia', Poland
?(University of Wroclaw coll.; lost) two teeth (Roemer, 1870)
Comments- Quenstedt (1858) originally described (translated) "barb-shaped teeth, which are sharp and finely serrated on the concave side, but rounded and smooth on the convex side" with a large mesioapically placed wear facet that makes that edge look straight in side view. He also figures a smaller tooth which has mesial serrations apically that transition to a rounded edge basally. These teeth do not share any obvious synapomorphies and differ in elongation (height/FABL ~300% vs. 138%) and transverse thickness (42% vs. 75% of FABL), so may not belong to the same taxon. Miller Endlich (1870) figured seven teeth from the type locality, stating (translated) they "are mostly flat teeth, slightly curved on one side, with fine serrations on the sharp inner edge. The convex side, the back, does not seem to be serrated, but it is not certain." The figured teeth show a wide range of variation, with figure 13 in particular being stout and unrecurved with large serrations, similar to the Lucianosaurus paratype and similarly referrable to Archosauromorpha incertae sedis. The other teeth have small serrations, with 14 and 18 being straight and 15-17 and 19 being recurved, with 14, 18 and 15 being progressively more transversely compressed. As with the syntypes, these exhibit variation which could be positional or interspecific, and share no obvious characters that connect them to each other or the syntypes. Roemer (1870) wrote (translated) "In the Stuttgart Museum I saw teeth from the bone breccia of Bebenhausen near Tubingen, which show the same fine serration of the side edges as the teeth described by Quenstedt, but are not curved in a sickle shape, but are straight. It is very likely that these latter teeth belong to the same dinosaur as the crooked teeth. With these straight teeth from Bebenhausen, the tooth shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 from the Lisów Breccia from Lubsza near Woźniki completely coincides. The double-edged tooth, which is very delicately and regularly notched at the edges, shows a more strongly curved (outer) and a less curved (inner) surface, both of which are smooth except for a very fine, irregular wrinkle. There is also a much smaller tooth of the same type from the same location." The straight Bebenhausen teeth sound similar to Miller Endlich's figures 14 and 18, although the illustrated straight tooth from Lubsza differs from these in having an increased amount of mesiodistal expansion basally. The Lubsza tooth also has this marked basal expansion labiolingually, and both types of root expansion are atypical of dinosaurs, suggesting this is some other type of vertebrate. Dzik and Sulej (2007) suggested it "may have belonged to a phytosaur" without evidence but Skawiński et al. (2017) stated "phytosaur fossils have not been found in the upper Keuper strata in Silesia" and instead placed it in Archosauromorpha indet.. While this could merely mean phytosaurs were rare in that strata, phytosaur teeth don't seem to have expanded roots either (e.g. Nicrosaurus), and it could even be a fish tooth which often have these types of root expansion. Huene (1905) listed the species as "Plateosaurus" cloacinus within Theropoda, stating it includes Rhaetian dentary "Zanclodon cambrensis". In 1908 he places it in Plateosauridae within Theropoda and states (translated) "The originals can no longer be found. The Tübingen collection still has several teeth from Bebenhausen and Schloßlesmuehle, which can be reconciled well with [Quenstedt's] fig. 12 (l. c.), but are larger. The serrations are coarse and short, the mesial carina does not extend all the way to the base."  He illustrated a tooth in figure  274 as "From the Rhaetian Bonebed of Bebenhausen near Tübingen. Tooth in nat. Size. The tip is missing. Original in the natural history cabinet in Stuttgart." Regarding cambrensis, Huene states "The teeth have the greatest resemblance to Plateosaurus cloacinus both in the whole shape and in the serrations. Whether it is really the same or just a very similar species, of course, cannot be decided with certainty given the scanty material", which is not explicit enough to evaluate given published details. Huene later (1932) assigns cloacinus to Teratosauridae within Carnosauria, listed as both Pachysaurus cloacinus (pg. 6) and Gresslyosaurus cloacinus (pg. 72, 114). Steel (1970) calls it Gresslyosaurus cloacinus within Plateosauridae. Buffetaut et al. (1991) mentions "A tooth referred to Megalosaurus cloacinus Quenstedt, from the Lower Hettangian of the Calcaire de Valognes at Valognes (Manche), [which] has been mentioned by Rioult (1978a) as having been destroyed by an air raid on the University of Caen in 1944." Without additional details, it can only be said that the timing suggests a neotheropod. Carrano et al. (2012) incorrectly claimed SMNS 52457, apparently the tooth in Huene's (1908) figure 274, is "the holotype and only specimen" of cloacinus, when Huene stated it was only one of "Many teeth ... in the stone quarries of the Schoenbuch (e.g. Bebenhausen, Schloesslesmuehle), Wuerttemberg; in the university collection in Tubingen and in the natural history cabinet in Stuttgart", and that Quenstedt's originals were lost. SMNS 52457 could be made into a neotype, but this must be done explicitly (ICZN Article 75.3) and so has not been accomplished yet. Carrano et al. say the specimen "is a serrated, recurved tooth of the form typical for theropods. It is mesiodistally slender but does not show any diagnostic features and is therefore Theropoda indet", but other taxa with similar teeth lived in the Rhaetian (e.g. crocodylomorphs, Daemonosaurus), so is here placed in Archosauriformes indet.. Note Huene (1905, 1908) used "Plateosaurus" as a placeholder genus because until 1911 Plateosaurus was thought to have carnivorous teeth, and used "Pachysaurus" and "Gressylosaurus" in 1932 because until the 1980s more robust 'prosauropod' postcrania were still associated with carnivorous cranial elements, while Huene viewed megalosaurids as Jurassic carnosaurs. Our modern consensus suggests a Rhaetian theropod is more likely to be coelophysoid or dilophosaur-grade than megalosaurian, but the genus is still used here as a placeholder as Megalosaurus teeth are more similar to cloacinus' syntypes and SMNS 52457 than prosauropod teeth.
References- Quenstedt, 1858. Der Jura. H. Laupp'schen. 842 pp.
Miller Endlich, 1870. Das Bonebed Württembergs. Druck Von Ludwig Friedrich Fues. 30 pp.
Roemer, 1870. Geologie von Oberschlesien. Robert Nischkowsky. 587 pp.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1-87.
Rioult, 1978. Inventaire des dinosauriens mésozoïques de Normandie. Ecosystèmes continentaux mésozoiques de Normandie (Livret-guide). Université de Caen. 26-29.
Buffetaut, Cuny and le Loeuff, 1991. French dinosaurs: The best record in Europe? Modern Geology. 16, 17-42.
Dzik and Sulej, 2007. A review of the early Late Triassic Krasiejów biota from Silesia, Poland. Palaeontologia Polonica. 64, 1-27.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

"Megalosaurus" obtusus

Palaeosauria Romer, 1956
Palaeosauridae Huene, 1926
Paleosaurus Riley and Stutchbury, 1840
= "Palaeosaurus" Riley and Stutchbury, 1836 (preoccupied Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1833)
= "Paleosaurus" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= Palaeosauriscus Kuhn, 1959
Comments- This genus has an extremely complicated history due to several nomina nuda and homonyms. Geoffroy Sant-Hillaire named Palaeosaurus in 1836, which is currently a junior synonym of the teleosaurid Steneosaurus priscus. Riley and Stutchbury (1836) used the names "Palaeosaurus cylindricum" and "P. platyodon" in an abstract, but these are nomina nuda. Those same authors wrote another short paper in 1837 in which the genus for those speciesw was spelled both "Palaeosaurus" and "Paleosaurus", though these were also nomina nuda. The taxa were finally validly published in 1840 under the genus Paleosaurus, though this was misspelled Palaeosaurus by many later authors. Another Palaeosaurus was named by Sternberg (1940), though this was renamed Sphenosaurus by Meyer (1847) and is currently classified as a procolophonid. Kuhn noticed Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire's Palaeosaurus and thought this caused Riley and Stutchbury's genus to be preoccupied, so proposed the replacement name Palaeosauriscus. Yet as Paleosaurus is spelled differently than Palaeosaurus and is not the valid name for any other genus, it does not need to be replaced. Though originally based on archosaurian teeth, the genus and its spelling variants were widely used until the 1970s for basal sauropodomorphs based on the specimen later named Efraasia.
References- Riley and Stutchbury, 1836. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Proc. Geol. Soc. London 2, 397-399.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1837. On an additional species of the newly-discovered saurian animals in the Magnesian Conglomerate of Durdham Down, near Bristol. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections. 1836, 90-94.
Fitzinger, 1840. Ãber Palaeosaurus sternbergii, eine neue Gattung vorweltlicher Reptilien und die Stellung dieser Thiere im Systeme Ãberhaupt. Wiener Mus. Annalen II, 175-187.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1840. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Trans. Geol. Soc. London 5(2), 349-357.
Kuhn, 1959. Ein neuer Microsaurier aus dem deutschen Rotliegenden. N. Jb. Geol. Palaeontol. Mh. 1959: 424-426.
P. cylindrodon Riley and Stutchbury, 1840
= "Palaeosaurus cylindricum" Riley and Stutchbury, 1836
= "Palaeosaurus cylindrodon" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= "Paleosaurus cylindrodon" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= Thecodontosaurus cylindrodon (Riley and Stutchbury, 1840) Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus "cylindricum" (Riley and Stutchbury, 1836) Huene, 1914
= Palaeosauriscus cylindrodon (Riley and Stutchbury, 1840) Kuhn, 1959
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Durdham Down, England
Holotype- (destroyed) tooth
References- Riley and Stutchbury, 1836. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Proc. Geol. Soc. London 2, 397-399.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1837. On an additional species of the newly-discovered saurian animals in the Magnesian Conglomerate of Durdham Down, near Bristol. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections. 1836, 90-94.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1840. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Trans. Geol. Soc. London 5(2), 349-357.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914. Nachtrige zu meinen fruheren Beschreibungen triassischer Saurischia. Geol. Palaeontol. Abhandl. 13: 69-82.
Huene, 1926. Vollstandige Osteologie eines Plateosauriden aus dem schwabischen Trias. Geol. Palaeontol. Abhandl. 15:129-179.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kuhn, 1959. Ein neuer Microsaurier aus dem deutschen Rotliegenden. N. Jb. Geol. Palaeontol. Mh. 1959: 424-426.
Benton, Juul, Storrs and Galton, 2000. Anatomy and systematics of the prosauropod dinosaur Thecodontosaurus antiquus from the Upper Triassic of southern England. J. Vertebr. Palaeontol. 20, 77-108.

Paleosaurus? subcylindrodon (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932
= Zanclodon "subcylindrodon" Huene, 1905
= Thecodontosaurus subcylindrodon Huene, 1908
= Palaeosauriscus subcylindrodon (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1965
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Schilfsandstein, Germany
Holotype- (SMNS 52456) tooth (14x4.2x? mm)
Comments- Huene (1905) first merely announced ""Zanclodon" subcylindrodon n. sp. 1 Zahn, Feuerbacher Haide" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908. Note this shows Olshevsky (2000) was incorrect in listing Huene's 1905 nomen nudum as Thecodontosaurus subcylindrodon, a combination which did not get used until 1908. Indeed, even in 1908 Huene put the genus Thecodontosaurus in quotation marks because (translated) "the generic name used here is only intended to express the probability of belonging to the theropods." Olshevsky (2000) stated "This species may be a herrerasaurian dinosaur (cf. Galton, 1984)", but Galton only wrote "it is probably from a carnivorous archosaur; it is certainly not from a prosauropod."
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1965.
Galton, 1984. An early prosauropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of Nordwürttemberg, West Germany. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 106, 1-25.
Olshevsky, 2000. An Annotated Checklist of Dinosaur Species by Continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 157 pp.

Picrodon Seeley, 1898
P. herveyi Seeley, 1898
= Avalonia herveyi (Seeley, 1898) Nopcsa, 1901
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Westbury Formation, England
Holotype- (NHMUK R2875) fragmented dentaries, tooth (23 x 9.5 x ? mm)
Comments- This taxon shares much of its history with Avalonianus sanfordi. Kuhn (1970) listed it as an ornithosuchid
References- Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Kuhn, 1970.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.

"Thecodontosaurus" elizae

Zanclodon? bavaricus

Zanclodon Plieninger, 1847b
= Smilodon Plieninger, 1847a (preoccupied)
Z. laevis (Plieninger, 1847a) Plieninger, 1847b
= Smilodon laevis Plieninger, 1847a
= Zanclodon plieningeri Fraas, 1896
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Erfurt Formation, Germany
Lectotype- (SMNS 6045) partial maxilla
Comments- This is like erythrosuchians and eucrocopods in having thecodont tooth implantation, but unlike Archosauriformes in lacking interdental plates and unlike Teyujagua plus Archosauriformes in lacking dental serrations.
References- Plieninger, 1847a. Über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in Eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 148-154.
Plieninger, 1847b. Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu dem Vortrage über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 247-254.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.

Zatomus

Protopyknosia Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021
Definition- (Triopticus primus <- Passer domesticus, Triceratops horridus, Alligator mississippiensis, Sphenodon punctatus, Heloderma suspectum, Chrysemys picta) (Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021)
Reference- Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021. A remarkable group of thick‐headed Triassic Period archosauromorphs with a wide, possibly Pangean distribution. Journal of Anatomy. 239(1), 184-206.

Archosauriformes indet. (Welles, 1972)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Downs Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA coll.) teeth (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA.V.3689) five teeth (4.0-18.0 mm) (Kaye and Padian, 1994)
(MNA coll.) teeth (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Comments- Jacobs and Murry (1980) report that "Isolated teeth and vertebrae probably belonging to the small theropod dinosaur Coelophysis" were found at the Downs and Placerias Quarries, and that "Welles (1972) mentions the presence of Coelophysis at the Placerias Quarry." Murry and Long (1989) noted "cf. Coelophysis teeth (probably some variety of thecodont or primitive saurischian)" from the Placerias Quarry. Kaye and Padian (1994) figured some of the Placerias Quarry teeth (MNA.V.3689) as Archosauria incertae sedis Type E. Hunt et al. (1998) stated "these teeth are indeterminate", and they are reassigned to Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Welles, 1972. Fossil-hunting for tetrapods in the Chinle Formation: A brief pictorial history. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 47, 13-18.
Jacobs and Murry, 1980. The vertebrate community of the Triassic Chinle Formation near St. Johns, Arizona. In Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona. 55-73.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Kaye and Padian, 1994. Microvertebrates from the Placerias quarry: A window on Late Triassic vertebrate diversity in the American southwest. In Fraser and Sues (eds.). In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge University Press. 171-196.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Kirby, 1989)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 360, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA.V.7233) incomplete tooth (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 791, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MNA.V.7234) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7235) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7236) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7238) incomplete pedal ungual (Kirby, 1989)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MNA.V.7239) proximal pedal ungual (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Upper Tohashi Wash, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA coll.) (Kirby, 1991)
Comments- Kirby (1989) initially reported "A recurved ungual, and astragalus, and several laterally compressed, recurved teeth with serrated edges from locality 791 are similar to those of theropod dinosaurs." Kirby (1991) described the ungual MNA.V.7238 from 791 as ?Ceratosauria indet., saying "The Owl Rock unguals are compatible with the condition in C. bauri as evidenced by the articulated pes of a specimen from the Ghost Ranch Quarry (MNA V3318), but are approximately twice as large." The astragalus (MNA.V.7237) was also described as ?Ceratosauria indet. by Kirby (1991) and has since been referred to Dromomeron romeri (Marsh, 2018). Kirby (1991) described and figured MNA.V.7233, a ?Ceratosauria indet. tooth from locality 360, describing it as "compatible with maxillary and dentary morphotypes exhibited by AMNH skull specimens (7240-7242) of Coelophysis bauri." Three other ?ceratosaur dental specimens merely stated to be "identical tooth morphotypes" were said to be from locality 360 in Kirby's (1991) thesis, but are actually from 791 (Gillette, pers. comm. 2021) so may be those referred to in 1989. These are all probably Archosauria indet. considering the current state of Triassic archosaur tooth knowledge. Kirby (1991) also described an ungual from locality 853 as "a posterior fragment lacking the flexor tubercle but identical in shape and proportion to MNA.V.7238", also referring it to ?Ceratosauria indet.. Notably, although Kirby refers all supposed theropod specimens to ?Ceratosauria, he also states "The Owl Rock astragalus exhibits evidence of the astragalocalcaneal fusion characteristic of ceratosauroids but the remaining elements are non-diagnostic below a subordinal level [Theropoda]." Kirby's Figure 96 indicates an uncertain occurence of Ceratosauria from the Upper Tohashi Wash, which was otherwise unnoted in the thesis. None of the specimens are mentioned in Spielmann et al.'s (2007) latest review of Kirby's material.
References- Kirby, 1989. Late Triassic vertebrate localities of the Owl Rock Member (Chinle Formation) in the Ward Terrace area of northern Arizona. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 12-28.
Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). The Global Triassic, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.
Marsh, 2018. A new record of Dromomeron romeri Irmis et al., 2007 (Lagerpetidae) from the Chinle Formation of Arizona, U.S.A. PaleoBios. 35, 1-8.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Sixmile Spring NMMNH L-2739, Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-34450) tooth
Comments- NMMNH P-34468 was discovered in 1994, it was suggested by Heckert (2001, 2004) to closely resemble Gojirasaurus in that "the anterior carina bears somewhat finer (15-20+/mm) serrations than the posterior (12-18/mm) carina, and the denticles comprising the serrations are offset slightly from the perpendicular." Yet not only has there been no study on variation in DSDI and serration orientation in Triassic archosaurs, the tooth associated with Gojirasaurus has not been shown to belong to that individual due to the mixed nature of its locality. So instead of placing it in Theropoda indet. as Heckert did, it is classified as Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Spielmann, Hunt, Lucas and Heckert, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Gregory's Quarry NMMNH L-485, Duke Ranch Member, Redonda Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-7113) proximal metapodial or phalanx (Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006)
(NMMNH P-7114) twenty-two tooth fragments (Spielmann and Lucas, 2012)
(NMMNH P-25672) partial ungual (Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006)
Comments- Spielmann et al. (2005) first reported "Theropod material from the Redonda consists of isolated teeth and fragmentary limb material." Spielmann et al. (2006) later described this material, figuring NMMNH P-7113, an element collected June 1 1998 consisting of "the proximal end, which is elliptical in proximal view, and likely represents a metapodial or proximal phalanx." They also figured ungual NMMNH P-25672, discovered on March 16 1995, and referred only to Saurischia in the online catalogue. This was "identified as belonging to a theropod because it is recurved and laterally compressed." Spielmann et al. noted the teeth "cannot definitively be identified as belonging to a theropod and could also pertain to a sphenosuchian or rauisuchian", and only figured teeth as Rauisuchidae? indet. and Sphenosuchian? indet.. However, the NMMNH online catalogue does include NMMNH P-7114, discovered June 1 1998, as Theropoda?. Nesbitt and Stocker (2008) stated Spielmann et al. "were not able to assign NMMNH P-7113 to a specific element and the authors failed to illustrate exclusive synapomorphies shared among NMMNH [P-25672] with theropods, dinosaurs, or even archosaurs. Therefore, NMMNH P-7113 and NMMNH [P-25672] cannot be assigned to Theropoda." Spielmann and Lucas (2012) later listed them all as Archosauria indet., but they are placed more generally as Archosauriformes here.
References- Spielmann, Hunt, Lucas and Heckert, 2005. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic (Rhaetian) Redonda Formation. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 117A.
Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006. The vertebrate macrofauna of the Upper Triassic (Apachean) Redonda Formation, east-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin. 37, 502-509.
Nesbitt and Stocker, 2008. The vertebrate assemblage of the Late Triassic Canjilon Quarry (northern New Mexico, USA), and the importance of apomorphy-based assemblage comparisons. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(4), 1063-1072.
Spielmann and Lucas, 2012. Tetrapod Fauna of the Redonda Formation. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin. 55, 119 pp.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 1 NMMNH L-860, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (NMMNH P-34011) four teeth (8.3x3.2x2.6 mm; 2.8x1.8x0.9 mm; ?x4.5x3.0 mm)
(NMMNH P-34012) tooth (2.5x3.0x2.1 mm)
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) referred these teeth collected in 1988 to Theropoda because they "are tall, laterally compressed, recurved, and serrated", but noted these characters are common in other archosaurs as well.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Kalgary NMMNH L-1312, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (NMMNH P-30804; Morphotype L) tooth
(NMMNH P-34204) tooth (24x4.3x2.5 mm)
(NMMNH P-34205) tooth
(NMMNH P-34206) tooth
(NMMNH P-34207) tooth
(NMMNH P-34250) tooth
(NMMNH P-34358; Morphotype K) tooth
(NMMNH P-34359; Morphotype L) tooth
(NMMNH P-34491; Morphotype K) two teeth
(NMMNH P-34492; Morphotype L) tooth
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) describes several transversely compressed, recurved and serrated teeth from the Lower Kalgary as possible theropods, although he correctly notes they "could also represent dinosaurian precursors, rauisuchians sensu lato, or other archosauriforms." The only specimen with proposed similarities to theropods specifically is NMMNH P-34204, discovered in 1998, with mesial serrations only present apically and 6 serrations per mm distally. Heckert says "It is more laterally compressed than most rauisuchian teeth I have observed, and may represent the tooth of a ceratosaurian theropod, as it closely resembles large teeth of Liliensternus or Coelophysis." Yet transverse compression has not been shown to be greater in theropods than pseudosuchians. Other noted characters of teeth Heckert questionably refers to Theropoda are a thin distal carina on NMMNH P-34206, a high DSDI on NMMNH P-34207, and very fine mesial and distal serrations (~20/mm) in Morphotype K and L teeth.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Case, 1927)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (UMMP 2680) tooth
(UMMP coll.) twenty-one teeth (11x3.7x? - 70x28.6x? mm)
Comments- Case (1922) stated "There are twenty-two teeth of dinosaurs in the collection" with "the same form, a nearly symmetrical, slender oval cross-section, a slight recurvature, and serrate cutting edges." He referred these to Coelophysis and figured one in side view and section. Huene (1932) stated it was likely they belonged to his new podokesaurid Spinosuchus, noting they did not look like parasuchian teeth. Hunt et al. (1998) suggested these teeth "could represent theropods, rauisuchians or the "canine" teeth of a heterodont phytosaur."
References- Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Case, 1932)
Middle Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (UMMP 13765) tooth
(UMMP 13766) tooth
(UMMP coll.) teeth (<10-65 mm)
Comments- Case (1932) stated "There are numerous dinosaur teeth in the collection, gathered from all the localities investigated in Texas", figuring and describing two. These have typical archosauriform morphology, although the smaller teeth are said to have "no serrations on the anterior face, or else they are very imperfect ones", better developed enamel wrinkles and in UMMP 13766 at least, distal serrations that "are oblique to the axis of the tooth, and are of unequal size." Hunt et al. (1998) suggested these teeth "could represent theropods, rauisuchians or the "canine" teeth of a heterodont phytosaur."
References- Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Warrener, 1983)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Pant-y-ffynnon Quarry, Wales
Material- (field number P65/23; lost) metapodial
?...(field number P65/30; lost) phalanx
?...(field number P65/45; lost) ungual
?...(field number P65/49; lost) phalanx
Comments- Warrener (1983) provisionally referred these to her coelurosaur taxon, later named Pendraig by Spiekman et al. (2021). The latter felt they "cannot be confidently attributed to any other known taxa known from Pant-y-ffynnon and were likely recovered from the same block as the partial left ischium of P. milnerae (field number P65/66b) as indicated by the shared number 65 in their field number", but also noted "The location of these elements is currently unknown and there is no record of them in the NHMUK collections." Because they "do not exhibit diagnostic theropod features, there is currently insufficient support for an unequivocal attribution of this material to P. milnerae."
References- Warrener, 1983. An archosaurian fauna from a Welsh locality. PhD thesis, University College London. 384 pp.
Spiekman, Ezcurra, Butler, Fraser and Maidment, 2021. Pendraig milnerae, a new small-sized coelophysoid theropod from the Late Triassic of Wales. Royal Society Open Science. 8: 210915.

Archosauriformes indet. (Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012)
Mid-Late Norian, Late Triassic
Poręba, Zbaszynek Beds, Poland
Material- (ZPAL V.39/36a-c) three pedal unguals
(ZPAL V.39/37a-b) two teeth
(ZPAL V.39/38a-b) two ?distal caudal vertebrae
Comments- Discovered from 2008-2012, Sulej et al. (2012) first assigned teeth ZPAL V.39/37, caudal vertebrae ZPAL V.39/38 and pedal unguals ZPAL V.39/36 to Coelophysoidea indet., but Niedzwiedzki et al. reported they "do not preserve any clear neotheropod (or dinosaur or dinosauriform) character states; this material is not described in this article and will be the subject of future study." Niedzwiedzki et al. state they "were collected from three horizons (b-d) and include bones of animals of different sizes" and that the caudals are elongated, suggesting they are from the distal portion of the tail. They are placed in Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012. A new Late Triassic vertebrate fauna from Poland with turtles, aetosaurs, and coelophysoid dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32(5), 1033-1041.
Niedzwiedzki, Brusatte, Sulej and Butler, 2014. Basal dinosauriform and theropod dinosaurs from the Mid-Late Norian (Late Triassic) of Poland: Implications for Triassic dinosaur evolution and distribution. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1121-1142.

Archosauriformes indet. (Lapparent, Claracq and Nougarède, 1958)
Late Triassic
Lower Sandstone Member of Lower Zarzaitine Formation, Algeria
Material- (MNNHM coll.) tooth (43x16x? mm)
(MNNHM coll.) tooth (22x9x? mm)
Comments- These ware described by Lapparent et al. (1958) as a teratosaurid theropod, and later (1960) as Teratosaurus sp.. Both are recurved and serrated on both carinae, typical of basal pseudosuchians like Teratosaurus as well as basal theropods. They are of similar shape and from the same locality, but have no described diagnostic characters and may belong to different taxa.
References- Lapparent, Claracq and Nougarède, 1958. Nouvelles découvertes de Vertébrés dans les séries continentales au Nord d'Edjeleh (Sahara central). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 247, 2399-2402.
Lapparent, 1960. Les dinosauriens du "Continental intercalaire" du Sahara central. Memoirs of the Geological Society of France. 88A, 1-57.

Erythrosuchia Watson, 1957
Definition- (Erythrosuchus africanus <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Erythrosuchidae Watson, 1917
Definition- (Erythrosuchus africanus <- Proterosuchus fergusi, Passer domesticus) (Ezcurra, Lecuona and Martinelli, 2010)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Ezcurra, Lecuona and Martinelli, 2010. A new basal archosauriform diapsid from the Lower Triassic of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 30(5), 1433-1450.

Eucrocopoda Ezcurra, 2016
Definition- (Euparkeria capensis, Proterochampsa barrionuevoi, Doswellia kaltenbachi, Parasuchus hislopi, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus <- Proterosuchus fergusi, Erythrosuchus africanus)
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Euparkeriidae Huene, 1920
Definition- (Euparkeria capensis <- Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Sookias and Butler, 2013)
Reference- Sookias and Butler, 2013. Euparkeriidae. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, Special Publication. 379, 35-48.

Proterochampsia Bonaparte, 1971
Definition- (Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Euparkeria capensis, Erythrosuchus africanus, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Doswelliidae Weems, 1980
Definition- (Doswellia kaltenbachi <- Proterochampsa barrionuevoi, Erythrosuchus africanus, Caiman latirostris, Passer domesticus) (Desojo, Ezcurra and Schultz, 2011)
Reference- Desojo, Ezcurra and Schultz, 2011. An unusual new archosauriform from the Middle-Late Triassic of southern Brazil and the monophyly of Doswelliidae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 161, 839-871.

Proterochampsidae Sill, 1967
Definition- (Chanaresuchus bonapartei, Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Euparkeria capensis, Doswellia kaltenbachi, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Trotteyn, 2011)
= Rhadinosuchidae Hofstetter, 1955
Reference- Trotteyn, 2011. The phylogenetic relationships and monophyly of Proterochampsidae. IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados, 224.

Proterochampsidae indet. (Romer, 1972)
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Material- (PULR 01; in part; = MLP 1964-XI-14-14; in part) astragalus, metatarsal II (30 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (31 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III
Comments- Originally described as part of the holotype of Lewisuchus admixtus (Romer, 1972), this pes is the source of Paul's (1988) claim "The second toe is unusually long and robust (the opposite of Lagerpeton); it was probably a defensive weapon." Arcucci (1998) found that this pedal material and a previously unpublished astragalus "can be identified as belonging to a much smaller proterochampsid." Bittencourt et al. (2015) concurred and also assigned the dentary of the Lewisuchus holotype to Proterochampsidae, but this was rejected by Agnolín (2017) and Ezcurra et al. (2020) based on a new Lewisuchus specimen preserving a smiliar dentary. Taxonomy of Chañares proterosuchids is currently in flux, with Tropidosuchus, Gualosuchus and Chaneresuchus all reported, but at least some differences potentially attributable to individual and/or ontogenetic variation (Ezcurra et al., 2019).
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIV. Lewisuchus admixtus, gen. et sp. nov., a further thecodont from the Chañares beds. Breviora. 390, 1-13.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Arcucci, 1998. New information about dinosaur precursors from the Triassic Los Chanares fauna, La Rioja, Argentina. Gopndwana 10: Event Stratigraphy of Gondwana. 9-10.
Bittencourt, Arcucci, Marsicano and Langer, 2015 (online 2014). Osteology of the Middle Triassic archosaur Lewisuchus admixtus Romer (Chañares Formation, Argentina), its inclusivity, and relationships amongst early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 13(3), 189-219.
Agnolín, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Ezcurra, Von Baczko, Trotteyn and Desojo, 2019. New proterochampsid specimens expand the morphological diversity of the rhadinosuchines of the Chañares Formation (Lower Carnian, northwestern Argentina). Ameghiniana. 56, 79-115.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Fiorelli and Desojo, 2020 (online 2019). New specimen sheds light on the anatomy and taxonomy of the early Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Chañares Formation, NW Argentina. The Anatomical Record. 303(5), 1393-1438.

Rhadinosuchinae Hofstetter, 1955 vide Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015
Definition- (Rhadinosuchus gracilis, Chanaresuchus bonapartei <- Cerritosaurus binsfeldi, Tropidosuchus romeri, Doswellia kaltenbachi) (Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015)
Reference- Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of the proterochampsid Rhadinosuchus gracilis (Diapsida: Archosauriformes) from the early Late Triassic of southern Brazil. Ameghiniana. 52, 391-417.

Archosauria Cope, 1869
Official Definition- crown(Alligator mississippiensis + Compsognathus longipes) (Gauthier and Padian, 2020; Registration Number 173)
Other definitions- (Crocodylus niloticus + Passer domesticus) (Sereno, 2004; modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
(Crocodylus niloticus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
crown(Caiman crocodilus + Compsognathus longipes + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
= Hyperosauria Jaekel, 1911
= Proquadrata Walker, 1977
= Nidosuchia Whetstone and Whybrow, 1983
= Neoarchosauria Benton, 1985
= Avesuchia Benton, 1985
Definition- (Crurotarsi + Avemetatarsalia) (Benton, 1985)
References- Cope, 1869. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America, Part I. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 14, 1-235.
Benton, 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 84(2), 97-164.
Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham, Rowe and Clarke, 2004. A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on non-avian Reptilia Laurentus 1768. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, abstracts. 24.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Gauthier and Padian, 2020. Archosauria E. D. Cope 1869 [J. A. Gauthier and K. Padian], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1186-1193.

unnamed Archosauria (Parrish, 1999)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Four Aces Mine, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Utah, US
Material- ?(UCM 76198) several caudal centra
Comments- Discovered between 1983 and 1988, Parrish (1999) figured and commented on "Several caudal vertebrae (UCM 76198) [which] may be referable to the Theropoda as well, on the basis of the distinctive, subhexagonal cross section that they share with Coelophysis." Jenkin's et al. (2017) disagreed, stating "From examination of C. bauri specimens at MNA, GRMP, and NMMNHS we do not agree that C. bauri can be diagnosed from a subhexagonal cross section of the caudal vertebrae (personal observation of Robert Gay) as the morphology exhibited in undisputed C. bauri specimens tends to be more box-like, a plesiomorphic condition within Archosauria." The figured specimens exhibit both rounded and more quadrangular articular surfaces and are placed as Archosauria indet. here as most sources agree Triassic archosaur caudal centra are undiagnostic.
References- Parrish, 1999. Small fossil vertebrates from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of southern Utah. In Gillette (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication. 99-1, 45-50.
Jenkins, Foster and Gay, 2017. First unambiguous dinosaur specimen from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West. 4, 231-242.

undescribed archosaur (Nesbitt, 2001)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Holbrook Member of the Moenkopi Formation, Arizona, US
Material- distal pubis
Comments- Nesbitt mentions this as a possible herrerasaurid, which would be notable as dinosaurs are otherwise unknown from Middle Triassic strata. Nesbitt (pers. comm, 2010) now believes the morphology is equivocal between poposauroids and basal theropods, suggesting it should be referred to Archosauria incertae sedis.
Reference- Nesbitt, 2001. New fossil vertebrate material from the Holbrook Member, Moenkopi Formation (Middle Triassic) from Northern Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 83A.

Archosauria indet. (Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Krzyzanowski bonebed NMMNH L-3764, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- ?(NMMNH P-34620) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34621) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34622) ten centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34623) dorsal vertebra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34624) eighteen centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34625) twelve fragmentary centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34626) twelve centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34628) proximal metapodial (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34629) vertebral fragment (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34630) two centrum fragments (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34631) five centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34632) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34633) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34634) caudal centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34635) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34636) three centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34637) two centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34638) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34639) centrum fragment (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34640) limb element fragment (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Dinosaur Ridge PFV 211, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MDM or PEFO coll.) jaw fragments, dentary fragments, teeth, centra, phalanges (Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996)
Comments- Hunt et al. (1996) note specimens found at Dinosaur Ridge that year, including "vertebrae, podials, teeth, cranial and dentary fragments." Hunt (1998) later states "A smaller species [than PEFO 43909] is represented by several specimens including phalanges, vertebrae and tooth-bearing cranial and dentary fragments." Hunt et al. (1998) similarly noted "vertebrae and dentulous jaw fragments (uncatalogued PEFO specimens)", while Hunt and Wright (1999) mentioned "postcranial and cranial fragments of a small theropod" at the MDM. While the specimens have never been described, Parker and Irmis (2005) write the current consensus- "with the exception of a partial dentary (Hunt et al., 1996) the majority of these specimens consist of isolated vertebral centra. Unfortunately, isolated theropod vertebrae cannot be distinguished from those of chatterjeeids, so these records cannot be confirmed (S. Nesbitt, pers. comm., 2004)." Note this may instead be from Dinosaur Ridge N PFV 212 (Parker, 2006).
The Krzyzanowski specimens were collected on June 15 1998. Heckert et al. (1999) announced the material in an abstract, stating that of the at least eight archosauromorph vertebral morphotypes in the yet unnamed locality, "At least two vertebral types appear to have been hollow, a theropod synapomorphy." Heckert first described the material as Theropoda indet. in his 2001 thesis, then published that in 2004. He states "The original Krzyzanowski collection included as many as nine morphotypes and no fewer than 20 hollow centra (NMMNH P-34620-639), as well as a proximal metapodial (NMMNH P-34628) and another indeterminate hollow limb bone (NMMNH P-34640)." His introduction indicates these were referred to Theropoda (in which he includes herrerasaurids and Eoraptor) based on hollow vertebral centra and thin-walled long bones, but these are also both present in some pseudosuchians like poposaurs, so pending more information they should all be Archosauria indet. (as Parker, 2005 noted for the centra). NMMNH P-34620 through 34626 are already classified more broadly as Reptilia indet. in their online catalogue. Note while Heckert's specimen range also includes NMMNH P-34627, that is actually a Dinosauromorpha indet. (based on the large cnemial crest) proximal tibia.
References- Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Hunt, 1998. Preliminary results of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs Project Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Santucci and McClelland (eds.). National Park Service Paleontological Research. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/1. 135-137.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Heckert, Lucas, Krzyzanowski and Estep, 1999. Additions to the vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Blue Mesa Member (Adamanian-latest Carnian) of the Petrified Forest Formation in the Blue Hills, Apache County, Arizona. Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 1999. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 6, 19.
Hunt and Wright, 1999. New discoveries of Late Triassic dinosaurs from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. in Santucci and McClelland (eds.). National Park Service Paleontological Research Volume 4. Geologic Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-99/03. 96-100.
Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.
Parker, 2005. Faunal review of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of Arizona. In McCord (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology of Arizona. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 11, 34-54.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Parker, 2006. The stratigraphic distribution of major fossil localities in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 62, 46-61.

Archosauria indet. (Murry and Long, 1989)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Downs Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA coll.) vertebrae (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA.V.3091; = MNA.V.2777 of Long and Murry, 1995; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
(MNA coll.) vertebrae (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
(UCMP 138591; field number UCMP A269/CG2; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) partial synsacrum (Lucas, Hunt and Long, 1992)
(UCMP 177314; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis?) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 177317) dorsal centrum (Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007)
(UCMP 177318; field number UCMP A269/CK2-1) proximal pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP '178045') partial dorsal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178047; field number UCMP A269/CF2-7; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) two fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178048; field number UCMP A269C; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) two fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178049; field number UCMP A269 C 63 M; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) three fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- Jacobs and Murry (1980) report that "Isolated teeth and vertebrae probably belonging to the small theropod dinosaur Coelophysis" were found at the Downs and Placerias Quarries based on MNA specimens recovered since 1978, which might include MNA.V.3091. Tannenbaum (1983) mentions "several worn caudal vertebrae that at least superficially resemble the alleged Coelophysis caudal vertebrae" from at least one of the quarries. Some of the UCMP material was first published by Murry and Long (1989), who said "Theropod bones (tarsi, sacral and distal vertebrae) are present in the University of California Museum of Paleontology collections from the Placerias Quarry."
UCMP 138591 was first incorrectly figured as part of UCMP 34498 (the type of Camposaurus) by Lucas et al. (1992) as a probable ceratosaurian (sensu lato) "sacrum made up of at least four vertebral centra." This was later figured as Ceratosauria indet. and described as Theropoda indet. by Long and Murry (1995; who give the field number as both C63M and CG2; the latter is used here as it was also used by Hunt et al., 1998). Hunt et al. made it a paratype of Camposaurus, believing the presence of at least four sacrals supported a ceratosaurian (sensu lato) identity, but this also matches shuvosaurids. While not explicitly stated, Nesbitt et al. (2007) probably had this in mind when relegating this and other Camposaurus vertebral paratypes to Archosauria indet. when they stated "they are equally comparable to many dinosauriforms as well as Shuvosaurus."
Long and Murry (1995) figured a Ceratosauria indet. dorsal centrum (fig. 192Q-U) as UCMP A 269, which is just the UCMP locality number for the Placerias Quarry. Hunt et al. (1998) listed this (as UCMP uncatalogued) as a paratype of Camposaurus. Angielczyk (2002) in a review of unnumbered UCMP specimens in Long and Murry's paper stated "Specimen is UCMP 177314. Labeled as Chatterjeea elegans on a hand-written tag in the box." However, Irmis (2005) wrote "The vertebra (UCMP 177314) that Long and Murry (1995) referred to "Chatterjeea" from the Placerias Quarry is undiagnostic; it is identical to similar vertebrae in "Chatterjeea", but cannon [sic] be assigned to this taxon using synapomorphies as it is also identical to vertebrae of Poposaurus, Chindesaurus, and Coelophysis." Angielczyk says that the Placerias Quarry 'Chatterjeea' vertebra, which was called an unnumbered sacral by Long and Murry, "could not be found." Confusing the matter is that Nesbitt et al. (2007) list a UCMP 177317 as a future Camposaurus dorsal figured by Long and Murry along with the MNA specimen of figure 192M-P, which corresponds to what Angielczyk thought was UCMP 177314. While there is the slight importance of which specimen number corresponds to the Camposaurus paratype, both are probably Archosauria indet. in the end.
Long and Murry (1995) listed three sacral specimens less complete than the figured UCMP 138591 as Theropoda indet. Hunt et al. (1998) made these paratypes of Camposaurus, which contradicts their proposal there is "no duplication of elements" as this would lead to a sacrum with seven vertebrae, and in turn falsifies one of their reasons for referring the paratype specimens. Angielczyk (2002) revealed the numbers of these specimens. While these have never been described or illustrated, Nesbitt et al. (2007) made them Archosauria indet. when they stated they "are equally comparable to many dinosauriforms as well as Shuvosaurus."
Long and Murry (1995) figured dorsal centrum MNA.V.2777 as Ceratosauria indet., which they stated is "identical to a mid-dorsal centrum of AMNH 7224 (Colbert et al., 1992, "neotype" of C. bauri), [and so] is believed to represent a theropod dinosaur." Hunt et al. (1998) made this a paratype of Camposaurus, but Nesbitt et al. (2007) noted its actual number is MNA.V.3091 and that like earlier discussed axial material it can only be referred to Archosauria indet..
Long and Murry (1995) figured a proximal pubis as Ceratosauria indet., mentioned "the proximal extremity of a left pubis (UCMP A269/ck2-1; Fig. 192 K-L) which may also represent a small theropod." Hunt et al. (1998) tentatively referred this specimen to Camposaurus, saying it was a smaller individual that "cannot be unequivocably assigned to" the genus. Angielczyk (2002) found the specimen number is UCMP 177318. While it is similar to basal dinosauromorphs like coelophysoids, it also closely resembles some pseudosuchians like Terrestrisuchus, so is placed as Archosauria indet. here pending further study.
Long and Murry (1995) figured a dorsal vertebra (fig. 192V-X) as Ceratosauria indet., which Angielczyk (2002) stated was UCMP 178045. However, the UCMP online catalogue records UCMP 178045 as a Cantius molar, with no obvious similar number that could have been mistyped (e.g. UCMP 178044 is a taller Postosuchus vertebra figured as the fourth one in Long and Murry's Figure 130L).
References- Jacobs and Murry, 1980. The vertebrate community of the Triassic Chinle Formation near St. Johns, Arizona. In Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona. 55-73.
Tannenbaum, 1983. The microvertebrate fauna of the Placerias and Downs' quarries, Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) near St. Johns, Arizona. Masters thesis, University of California. 111 pp.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Lucas, Hunt and Long, 1992. The oldest dinosaurs. Naturwissenschaften. 79(4), 171-172.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (MNA.V.7241) dorsal centrum
?(MNA.V.7311) fragmentary calcaneum
Comments- Kirby (1991) described a centrum from 853 that is "consistent with the thoracic condition of Coelophysis" as ?Ceratosauria indet.. Kirby further states it has "a constricted median region, yielding an "hourglass" shape in articular view" and that "The articular faces are at right angles to the median axis of the centrum", but coelophysoid and shuvosaurid centra are generally agreed to be indistinguishable so that it is referred to Archosauria indet. here. He later mentions a "fragmentary calcaenum [sic] (MNA V7311) [which] may be referable to a theropod dinosaur" noted under Diapsida indet. with no locality given, but which Gillette (pers. comm., 2021) verifies is 853. Given how distinct ornithodiran calcanea are from pseudosuchians, this may be diagnostic to a more specific group once described.
Reference- Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.

unnamed Archosauria (Gay, 2001)
Sinemurian-Pliensbachian, Early Jurassic
Rock Head (Bowl Area) MNA 219-0, Silty Facies Member of the Kayenta Formation, Arizona, US
Referred- (MNA.V.102) distal ?fibula
(MNA.V.111) dentary fragments
(MNA.V.122) ?ischial fragment
(MNA.V.138) caudal centrum (45 mm)
(MNA.V.247) rib fragment
Comments- Discovered in 1978, these were described by Gay (2001) as Dilophosaurus but stated to be "incongruent in size with the Dilophosaurus remains and attributable to Archosauria" by Marsh and Rowe (2020). The dentary fragments MNA.V.111 are said by Gay to include alveoli with the same cross section as referred tooth MNA.V.97. Gay stated MNA.V.247 was "a partial rib head" that "conform[s] well to what is known of the ribs in D. wetherilli." MNA.V.138 is an amphicoelous or platycoelous centrum 2.25 times longer than tall with an open neurocentral suture, considered juvenile by Gay. MNA.V.102 was described by Gay as "broken on both ends, and weathered on one end, making diagnosis somewhat difficult. However, it would appear that this is a fragment of the pelvis, and is too wide and flat to be a portion of the pubis." The distal fibula MNA.V.102 was assigned to a juvenile by Gay and said to have "the same shape as the fibula illustrated by Welles (1984), and also conforms to the other two distal fibulae referred herein."
References- Gay, 2001. New specimens of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 8, 19-23.
Marsh and Rowe, 2020. A comprehensive anatomical and phylogenetic evaluation of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda) with descriptions of new specimens from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Journal of Paleontology. 94(Memoir 78), 103 pp.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Santa Rosa Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-13006) two fused sacral centra
(NMMNH P-25749) pubis, fragmentary femur(?)
(NMMNH P-25750) metatarsals
Comments- Heckert et al. (2000) considered these specimens to be theropod and probably coelophysoid, in part based on the hollow sacral centra. Nesbitt et al. (2007) notes that the latter are found in shuvosaurids too, and that the pubis lacks an acetabular rim, so may be from a more basal archosaur. They assign them to Archosauria indet..
References- Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17–26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 1997)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Sixmile Spring NMMNH L-2739, Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-18401) (~1.1-1.2 m; juvenile to subadult) dorsal centrum (25 mm), eight distal caudal centra (Heckert, 1997)
(NMMNH P-34468) distal manual phalanx (Heckert, 2001)
Comments- Collected on Febrary 20 1997, Heckert (1997) described NMMNH P-18401 as Theropoda incertae sedis, and figured the dorsal in cross sectional view. Heckert et al. (2000) later stated it was generically indeterminate but appeared more derived than herrerasaurids, and "similar to theropod centra recently discovered in the Blue Mesa Member of the Petrified Forest Formation (NMMNH L-3764) in the Blue Hills of eastern Arizona by Stan Krzyzanowski" (NMMNH P-34620-34626, 34628-34639). Nesbitt et al. (2007) concluded "The centra have no characteristics they share with Coelophysis and other theropods to the exclusion of all other archosaurs. Furthermore, a ventral keel on dorsal vertebrae is found in Postosuchus (Long & Murry 1995) and basal crocodylomorphs such as Hesperosuchus (Parrish 1991). Therefore, a ventral keel is not unique to theropods. Accordingly, both of these specimens should be considered Archosauriformes indet." However, because the centra are hollow as in poposaurs and ornithodirans, the vertebrae are referred to Archosauria indet. here, which is also true of the Krzyzanowski bonebed centra.
NMMNH P-34468 was discovered on December 31, 1994, and was said by Heckert (2001, 2004) to have "a thin ring of bone surrounding a comparatively large calcite infilling. There is an extensor pit, so this is probably a theropod phalanx." However, both thin-walled limb bones and extensor pits are also present in poposaurs and pterosauromorphs, so this is more conservatively Archosauria indet..
References- Heckert, 1997. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic lower Chinle Group (Adamanian: Latest Carnian), of the Zuni Mountains, west-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 11, 29-39.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000)
Norian, Late Triassic
Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, New Mexico
Material- (NMMNH P-29996) distal caudal vertebra
(NMMNH P-33691) dorsal vertebra
Comments- Heckert et al. (2000) assigned the dorsal vertebra to Eucoelophysis sp., but it is not identifiable past Archosauria (Nesbitt et al., 2007). The distal caudal vertebra is indistinguishable from Coelophysis and catalogued as Theropoda, but is also not identifiable past Archosauria (Nesbitt et al., 2007).
References- Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000. Preliminary description of coelophysoids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian: early-mid Norian) Snyder quarry, north-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 27–32.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas and Rinehart, 2003. Coelophysids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Snyder quarry. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 24, 127–132.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-176, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-16656; paratype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli; intended paratype of "Revueltoraptor lucasi") anterior dorsal centra, posterior dorsal centra, caudal centra (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-177, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-4882) partial sacral vertebra (Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-463, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-16844) partial dorsal vertebra (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-4126) proximal femur (Heckert et al., 2000)
(NMMNH P4375) vertebral fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4380) vertebral fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4440) central fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4547) phalanx (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4666) two pubic fragments (Hunt, 1994)
?(NMMNH P16607) tooth fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P16946) two centrum fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17134) dorsal vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, pelvic fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17154) three centra (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17258) vertebrae, scapula, fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(UCM 47221; in part; holotype of Gojirasaurus quayi) tooth, proximal cervical rib, mid dorsal rib, mid dorsal rib shaft, proximal posterior dorsal rib, two partial gastralia, proximal chevron, scapula (314 mm), partial metatarsal (Hunt, 1994)
(UMMP 7274) two dorsal centra (Hunt, 1994)
Comments- NMMNH P4666, P16607, P16946, P17134, P17258, UCM 47221 and UMMP 7274 were originally referred to Hunt's (1994) new taxon of herrerasaurid "Revueltoraptor lucasi", called herrerasaurid A by Hunt et al. (1998). UCM 47221 (which also includes dorsal material, a pubis and a tibia) was made the holotype of the coelophysoid Gojirasaurus quayi by Carpenter (1997) after being described by Parrish and Carpenter (1986). NMMNH P16656 was referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995). Nesbitt et al. (2007) found that the referred specimens noted by Hunt could not be assigned to a particular taxon, nor could the Gojirasaurus material except for the dorsal vertebrae (Shuvosaurus) and the pubis and tibia (a possibly indeterminate coelophysoid). The remaining parts of the Gojirasaurus/'Revueltoraptor" holotype and the referred "Revueltoraptor" material are possibly shuvosaurid or theropod, and are listed here.
NMMNH P4375, P4380, P4440 and P4547 were originally referred to Hunt's (1994) new taxon of herrerasaurid "Comanchesaurus kuesi", called herrerasaurid B by Hunt et al. (1998). Nesbitt et al. (2007) found they could not be assigned to a particular archosaurian taxon. Heckert et al. (2000) described and illustrated NMMNH P-4126 as hererrasaurid B, noted to be similar to Chindesaurus in their medially angled and squared-off femoral heads, but these characters are also seen in shuvosaurids and other basal dinosaurs.
NMMNH P-16656 consists of dorsal and caudal centra from Revuelto Creek collected in 1987 which were probably among those referred to "staurikosaurid (?"Chindesaurus")" by Hunt and Lucas (1989), and later officially referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995). Hunt (1994) referred them to his supposed herrerasaurid "Revultoraptor lucasi" (whose holotype became Gojirasaurus), but later only called the specimen "a ?theropod", which Heckert et al. (2000) agreed with. Nesbitt et al. (2007) cosnidered this among the material which cannot "be distinguished from those of Shuvosaurus or other archosaurs" and so placed it in Archosauria indet.. It has never been figured or described.
Discovered in 1987, Heckert et al. (2000) figured partial sacral vertebra NMMNH P-4882 (labeled as a dorsal in the figure) from Revuelto Creek locality NMMNH L-177 as possibly being Chindesaurus. However, comparison with dorsals and sacrals of Chindesaurus show the latter has transversely broader centra in both ventral and articular views so it is here assigned to Archosauria indet..
Discovered in 1987, Hunt (1994) listed partial dorsal NMMNH P-16844 from Revuelto Creek locality NMMNH L-463 as 'Herrerasauridae indet.', by which he meant "a distinct herrarasaurid taxon of the size of "Chindesaurus bryansmalli"" and which was later called "A third, smaller herrerasaurid (C)" by Hunt et al. (1998). Heckert et al. (2000) figured it as a herrerasaur which "generally conforms to the holotype vertebrae of Chindesaurus bryansmalli", but it is even more transversely compressed than NMMNH P-4882 so is referred to Archosauria indet. here as well.
References- Parrish and Carpenter, 1986. A new vertebrate fauna from the Dockum Formation (Late Triassic) of eastern New Mexico. In: Padian, K. (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge Univ. Press, NewYork. Pp.151-160.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Albuquerque, Univerrsity of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Carpenter, 1997. A Giant Coelophysoid (Ceratosauria) Theropod from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie, Abhandlungen 205(2): 189-208.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. In Lucas and Heckert (eds). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

undescribed? archosaur (Anonymous, 1988)
Middle Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Guadalupe or Quay county, Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Comments- This is listed under Lagerpetonidae by Olshevsky (1991) as "Genus: [To be described from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico: a new kind of "thecodont similar to a small dinosaur"; cf. New Mexico Museum of Natural History publication Timetracks 8(4): p.4]".
References- Anonymous, 1988. Curator's Corner. Timetracks. 8(4), 4.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry NMMNH L-860, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (NMMNH P-34057) partial ?caudal centrum
(NMMNH P-34058) two incomplete ?distal caudal centra
(NMMNH P-34069) partial metapodial
(NMMNH P-41435) partial ?caudal centrum
(NMMNH P-41436) partial metapodial
(NMMNH P-41439; lost) partial ?caudal centrum
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) referred this material to Theropoda because of its hollow nature, but this is also true in pterosauromorphs and poposaurs, and indeed the small size and age suggests lagerpetids as a possibility. The vertebrae "bear dual ventral keels, and thus are almost certainly caudals." All of this material was collected in 1988, and the NMMNH online catalogue reports that P-41439 is missing.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Kalgary NMMNH L-1312, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (NMMNH P-34325) proximal metapodial
(NMMNH P-34326) partial cervical or anterior dorsal centrum
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Upper Kalgary NMMNH L-1430, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(NMMNH P-34154) distal phalanx
?(NMMNH P-26340) proximal ?femur
(NMMNH P-26341) proximal ?metapodial
Comments- The metapodial and centrum from Lower Kalgary are both hollow, which led Heckert (2001, 2004) to refer them to theropods, but is also true of pterosauromorphs and poposaurs. While he suggests "its small size would indicate that it is from little more than a hatchling", its length (~5 mm when complete) is comparable to lagerpetids and Lagosuchus.
Discovered in 1988 (P-34154) and February 21, 1997 (P-26340, P-26341), Heckert (2001, 2004) referred the Upper Kalgary specimens to Theropoda indet. based on their hollow shafts, but that's true in pterosauromorphs and poposaurs as well. While Heckert describes NMMNH P-26341 as "elongate distal limb element, possibly a femoral shaft", the NMMNH online catalogue classifies it as a proximal metapodial of Reptilia indet.. Heckert states "Although it appears hollow in cross-sectional view, this may well just be the marrow cavity", so it may be another kind of amniote. Similarly, while he describes NMMNH V26340 as "an elongate distal phalanx with several extensor pits lateral(?) to a deeper dorsal pit", it's a proximal femur of Reptilia indet. in the catalogue.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauria indet. (Chatterjee, 1993)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material- (TTU-P11045; = TTU-P9281 in part; paratype of Shuvosaurus inexpectatus) proximal scapula
Comments- Chatterjee (1993) referred a scapula (then part of TTU-P9281; since separated as TTU-P11045) to his new supposed ornithomimosaur Shuvosaurus, but the latter ended up being a pseudosuchian. The element doesn't resemble shuvosaurid scapulae (Long and Murry, 1995), and is too small to belong to any Shuvosaurus individuals preserved in the quarry (Lehane, 2005). Lehane ascribed it to Theropoda indet., and indeed there is a small coelophysoid femur in the quarry, but it also resembles other small taxa from the quarry such as silesaurids. While Martz et al. (2012) retained its referral to Shuvosaurus, they didn't comment further and this seems unlikely based on the slender shaft which is more like ornithodirans.
References- Chatterjee, 1993. Shuvosaurus, a new theropod. National Geographic Research and Exploration. 9(3), 274-285.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Martz, Mueller, Nesbitt, Stocker, Parker, Atanassov, Fraser, Weinbaum and Lehane, 2012. A taxonomic and biostratigraphic re-evaluation of the Post Quarry vertebrate assemblage from the Cooper Canyon Formation (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic) of southern Garza County, western Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26.

unnamed archosaur (Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Downs, Clemmenssen, Bonde, Davidson and Osbaeck, 1993)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Orsted Dal Member of the Fleming Fjord Formation, Greenland, Denmark
Material- (MCZ coll.) vertebrae including dorsal centra, ribs, partial pelvis, partial hindlimb including femur (330 mm), phalanges and pedal unguals
Comments- Jenkins et al. (1993) reported theropods from this formation, but the eventual more detailed version of Jenkins et al. (1994) reported only a single specimen. This was referred to Theropoda based on- constricted dorsal vertebral centra; slender and hollow limb elements; mediolaterally compressed and curved pedal unguals. Clammensen et al. (2015) reported "classification of the remains attributed to theropods is not supported by any clear diagnostic theropodan feature and might alternatively be phytosaurian in origin."
References- Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Downs, Clemmenssen, Bonde, Davidson and Osbaeck, 1993. A Late Triassic continental vertebrate fauna from the Fleming Fjord Formation, Jameson Land, east Greenland. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 74.
Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Clemmensen, Rowns, Davidson, Bonde and Osbaeck, 1994. Late Triassic continental vertebrates and depositional environments of the Fleming Fjord Formation, Jameson Land, east Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Geoscience. 32, 1-25.
Clemmensen, Milàn, Adolfssen, Estrup, Frobøse, Klein, Mateusand Wings, 2015. The vertebrate-bearing Late Triassic Fleming Fjord Formation of central east Greenland revisited: Stratigraphy, palaeoclimate and new palaeontological data. Geological Society Special Publications. 434. doi: 10.1144/SP434.3

Archosauria indet. (Seeley, 1887)
Late Albian, Early Cretaceous
Gault Clay (reworked into Cambridge Greensand), England
Lectotype- (SMC B58402) incomplete sacral vertebra (11 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Barrett and Evans, 2002) femoral head strongly curved anteriorly; very strong trochanteric crest and intertrochanteric fossa.
Comments- Patricosaurus merocratus was based on two unassociated specimens, a sacral vertebra found before 1859 and a proximal femur (SMC B58401) discovered in the 1880's. Seeley (1887) believed both belonged to the same taxon since he thought "there was little chance of any remains of two lizards occurring" in the Cambridge Greensand, but stated the femur could remain as the type if the vertebra was found to not belong to the same taxon. Barrett and Evans (2002) redescribed the specimens and removed the vertebra from Patricosaurus, believing it to be either a crocodylian or an ornithischian. They thus referred it to Archosauria indet..
References- Seeley, 1887. On Patricosaurus merocratus, Seeley, a lizard from the Cambridge Greensand, preserved in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 43, 216-220.
Barrett and Evans, 2002. A reassessment of the Early Cretaceous reptile 'Patricosaurus merocratus' Seeley from the Cambridge Greensand, Cambridgeshire, UK. Cretaceous Research. 23, 231-240.

Archosauria indet. (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984)
Late Berriasian-Early Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Cornet bauxite, Bihor, Romania
Material- (MTCO 14422; = MTCO-P 1503) incomplete long bone
(MTCO 17956; = MTCO-P 6966; paratype of Limnornis corneti) long bone shaft
Comments- MTCO 14422 was discovered in 1978 and described by Kessler and Jurcsak (1984 and subsequent publications) as a humerus of Archaeopteryx sp.. Benton et al. (1997) noted it could equally well be from a non-bird theropod. Indeed, the missing proximal end, deltopectoral crest and distal end leave very little anatomical detail. Dyke et al. (2011) redescribed it, noting it cannot even be definitively identified as a humerus and could only refer it to Archosauria indet. as a long bone.
MTCO 17956 was originally (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984) decribed as an ulnar shaft and paratype of Limnornis corneti (later renamed Palaeocursornis corneti), and later (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986) a paratype of Eurolimnornis corneti. Hope (2002) noted it couldn't be referred definitively to either species, and Dyke et al. (2011) couldn't identify it past Archosauria indet., as the shaft of a long bone. The supposed nodes for secondary feathers are largely taphonomic.
References- Kessler and Jurcsák, 1984. Fossil birds remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Pa¢durea Craiului Mountains, Romania). 75 years of the Laboratory of Paleontology, University of Bucharest, Romania, Special Volume. 129-134.
Kessler and Jurcsák, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Bihor county, Romania), Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. Grigore Antipa, Bucharest. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1986. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea I: Introducere (Evolution of the avifauna in the territory of Romania. Part I: Introduction). Crisia. 16, 577-615.
Kessler and Jurcsák, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania), Bucharest, Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. Grigore Antipa. 28, 290-295.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1987. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea II: Morfologia speciilor fosile (Evolution of the avifaune in the territory of Romania. Part II: Morphology of fossil species). Crisia. 17, 583-609.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1988. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea III: Filogenie si sistematice (Evolution of the avifauna in the territory of Romania. Part III: Phylogeny and systematics). Crisia. 18, 647-688.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1991. The Lower Cretaceous paleofauna from Cornet, Bihor County, Romania and its importance. Nymphaea. 21, 5-32.
Benton, Cook, Grigorescu, Popa and Tallodi, 1997. Dinosaurs and other tetrapods in an Early Cretaceous bauxite-filled fissure, northwestern Romania. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 130(1-4), 275-292.
Hope, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In Chiappe and Witmer (eds). Mesozoic birds: Above the heads of dinosaurs. Berkeley: University of California Press. 339-388.
Dyke, Benton, Posmosanu and Naish, 2011. Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) birds and pterosaurs from the Cornet bauxite mine, Romania. Palaeontology. 54(1), 79-95.

Archosauria indet. (Huene, 1942)
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Excavation site 44, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Material- (GPIT 479/0249; paratype of Spondylosoma absconditum) partial mid caudal vertebra (33.4 mm)
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Excavation site 45, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
(GPIT 479/0256a; paratype of Spondylosoma absconditum) proximal radius
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Find site 1045, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
(GPIT 479/0256b) partial cervical vertebra
(GPIT 479/30/14) proximal tibia
Comments- Huene (1942) described GPIT 479/0249 as an anterior dorsal vertebra of a larger individual of Spondylosoma than the type, but Galton (2000) reidentified it as caudal and noted "The maximum height and length of the centrum are subequal, somewhat in contrast to the relatively low and elongate centra of the dorsal and sacral vertebrae of Spondylosoma, so it is unlikely that this caudal vertebra is referable to Spondylosoma." Huene described GPIT 479/0256a as a distal radius probably referrable to Spondylosoma, but Galton noted "the articular end surface is not convex, as it should be for a distal end, but is sinuous, being partly concave and partly convex as is the case for the proximal surface of a radius." He referred both of these specimens to Archosauria incertae sedis. Huene described GPIT 479/0256b as a saurischian, probably a coelurosaur, but it was "provisionally regarded as Archosauria incertae sedis" by Galton, who stated "it indicates the existence of a form with an extremely specialized neck" as the anterior centrum surface is angled dorsally. Huene stated tibia GPIT 479/30/14 was most similar to saurischians and especially coelurosaurs but was much smaller than Spondylosoma. Galton reidentified it as Archosauria incertae sedis due to "the absence of a cnemial crest, one of the synapomorphies supporting monophyly of the Dinosauriformes."
References- Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes: Ergebnisse der Sauriergrabungen in Sudbrasilien 1928/29. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 332 pp.
Galton, 2000. Are Spondylosoma and Staurikosaurus (Santa Maria Formation, Middle-Upper Triassic, Brazil) the oldest saurischian dinosaurs? Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 74, 393-423.

Archosauria indet. (Malkani, 2006)
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan
Material- (GSP/MSM-780-2) ?vertebral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-984-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1027-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1041-2) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1044-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-1054-2) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1076-2) proximal ?ulna (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-43-4) ?metatarsal III fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-1042-4) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-282-15) ?caudal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-41-16) ?metatarsal II fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-42-16) ?metatarsal II fragment (Malkani, 2020)
(GSP/MSM-1040-16) ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1043-16) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1044-16) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1048-16) partial ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-61-19; intended syntype of "Vitakridrinda sulaimani") ?cranial and/or ?axial elements (Malkani, 2006)
(GSP/MSM-706-19) partial ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-765-19) partial ?dorsal vertebra (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1039-19) ?limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-unnumbered-19) ?cranial material, teeth? (Malkani, 2020)
(GSP/MSM-1057-K) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1059-K) long bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1050) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1051) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1052) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1053) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
Comments- A supposed holotype (actually syntype) specimen of Malkani's proposed abelisaurid "Vitakridrinda" is block GSP/MSM-61-19 (mislabeled GSP/MSM-62-19 in early papers), initially reported as including the triangular coronal section of a tooth (e.g. Malkani, 2006). Malkani (2020) later included a drawing showing at least thirteen additional much smaller structures labeled as teeth and another two labeled as cranial bones. Malkani compares it to abelisaurids, but while the first premaxillary tooth of Majungasaurus is roughly similar in shape with a flat lingual side, it differs greatly in having enamel of roughly equal thickness around the entire tooth. The structure in GSP/MSM-61-19 instead has "walls" that steadily decrease in thickness to tapered points "mesially" and "distally" from a maximum thickness at the "labial" corner. This is unlike any theropod tooth sections, so the Vitakri structure is something else. The additional supposed teeth are at most a third the size of the main supposed tooth and are of varying shapes, while the only visible supposed cranial element (described as "eye peripheral bone/lacrimal and other trirays star like bones") is equal in size to some of these larger supposed teeth. Thus if the major structure were a tooth, these would be far too small to be additional teeth or circumorbital elements like a lacrimal or postorbital. Given the preservation style in Vitakri taxa like Induszalim and Vitakrisaurus, it is likely this block shows cross sections of often hollow cranial and/or axial elements. It is tentatively referred to Archosauria indet. here.
GSP/MSM-780-2, 984-2 and 1027-2 were referred to the abelisaur "Vitakridrinda" by Malkani (2009), then to supposed abelisauroid Vitakrisaurus by Malkani (2019) along with GSP/MSM-1044-2 and 1076-2. None of these specimens can be confirmed anatomically or taxonomically besides being large enough to be archosaurs in a Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystem.
Several additional specimens were referred to "Vitakririnda" by Malkani (2009). GSP/MSM-1082-15 is a subcircular and concave central articular surface, while 1040-16 is concave but 1.4 times taller than wide and 1048-16 is taller than wide as well. GSP/MSM-706-19 may be tall or with a dorsally displaced articular surface, and may be camellate interiorly in which case it would be saurischian. GSP/MSM-765-19 is presented as a dorsal centrum with "central hollow cavity", but the latter instead seems to be the centrum itself with attached ventral portion of the neural arch including the neural canal. Malkani's supposed centrum would then be the sediment nodule around the bone. GSP/MSM-1057-K is a shaft fragment ~71x63 mm with a bone thickness ratio of ~0.22. GSP/MSM-1041-2, 1042-4, 1043-16, 1044-16 and 1039-19 are either unillustrated or illustrated/preserved too poorly for comment. GSP/MSM-1050, 1051, 1052, 1053 and 1054-2 are all supposedly pieces of coprolites. All of this material is tentatively referred to Archosauria indet. here.
Finally, some elements were referred by Malkani (2020). GSP/MSM-43-4, 41-16 and 42-16 are supposed metatarsal fragments. "MSM-un-number-19" is labeled "teeth and cranial materials" and is represented by a low resolution photo containing two elongate subparalell structures that could be teeth with other bony material proximal(?) to them. If these are teeth, they could just as easily be theropod, sauropod or crocodylian among other options.
References- Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2019. Vitakrisaurus saraiki theropod from south Asia. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 643-645.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.

unnamed archosaur (Chatterjee, 1987)
Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Nennel Village, Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material- (ISI R 306 in part; holotype of Walkeria maleriensis in part) distal left femur (23 mm trans)
Comments- Discovered in 1974 and originally referred to Podokesauridae (Chatterjee, 1987), Alwalkeria was later found to be chimaerical by Remes and Rauhut (2005). Interestingly, while agreeing the proximal femur is dinosaurian, Lecuona et al. state "the distal half of the femur exhibits a strongly asymmetric distal end, in which the fibular condyle is considerably more distally projected than the tibial one, closely resembling the condition present in pseudosuchians (including phytosaurs), but contrasting with the more symmetric distal end of femur of ornithodirans. Therefore, the distal half of the femur probably belongs to an indeterminate pseudosuchian." In contrast, Agnolín (2017) suggests (translated) "the distal end of the femur has important similarities with Silesaurus. The distal condyles are poorly developed, the intercondylar fossa extends markedly proximally and is medially and laterally surrounded by two undeveloped crests. The large proximal extension of these structures has been considered as a diagnostic feature of Silesauridae." Re
References- Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.
Agnolín, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.

"Cryptoraptor" Hunt, 1994 vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
"C. lockleyi" Hunt, 1994 vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-17375; theropod D) (small) vertebral centra, pubis, proximal femora
Comments- Discovered on July 1 1989. Originally named by Hunt (1994) in his unpublished thesis, it was identified as a theropod there, by Hunt et al. (1998) and by Hunt (2001). Nesbitt et al. (2007) later found the femora are too fragmentary for identification, the vertebrae are identical to Shuvosaurus, and that the pubis resembles Shuvosaurus more than dinosaurs. Specifically the acetabulum is closed as in non-dinosaurian taxa and the symphysis extends far proximally as in shuvosaurids. They assigned it to Archosauria indet., but it seems possible this is a shuvosaurid or even a specimen of Shuvosaurus itself.
Although the name "Cryptoraptor lockleyi" was originally used in thesis, and thus not available for use in this website, it was later published by Nesbitt et al. (2007).
References- Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Albuquerque, Univerrsity of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Hunt, 2001. The vertebrate fauna, biostratigraphy and biochronology of the type Revueltian land-vertebrate faunachron, Bull Canyon Formation (Upper Triassic), east-central New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook. 52, 123-151.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Lametasaurus

Lukousaurus

"Plateosaurus" ornatus

Shansaraiki Malkani, 2022
S. insafi Malkani, 2022
Etymology- "Shansaraiki can be understood as Shan, Saraiki language means respect and honor, saraiki means Saraiki peoples and areas which host the fossils. Qaid Azeem Imran Khan is the shan and honour of the Saraiki peoples By the efforts of Qaid Azeem Imran Khan Niazi and other leaders, the South Punjab (Saraiki area) civil secretariat were established at Multan and Bahawalpur and construction of buildings of South Punjab civil secretariat happened, besides other facilities for these remote Saraiki areas." "The species name S. insafi honor the Pakistani leaders, journalists (Waqar Malik, Imran Riaz Khan, Shahbaz Gil, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, Sami Abraham, Sabir Shakir, Shaheen Sehbai, Irfan Hashmi, Shaheed Arshad Sharif, Adv. Abdul Ghaffar, Siddique Jaan, Dr. Moeed Pirzada, Former Lt. Gen. Amjad Shuaib, Sajid Gondal, Fayyaz Raja, Abdul Qadir, Asad Ullah Khan, Fahim Akhtar, Makhdoom Shahab-ud-Din, Faisal Tarar, Essa Naqvi, Adeel Warraich, Faiq Siddiqi, Tariq Mateen, Jameel Farooqui, Muhammad Zameer, Zain Ali and others), lawyers, farmers, labors and peoples of Pakistan which support insaf (justice), rule of law and deletion of corruption in Pakistan."
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Shalghara (MSM locality 3), Vitakri Formation, Balochistan, Pakistan
Holotype- (GSP/MSM-5-3; paratype of Vitakrisaurus saraiki) left anterior dentary fragment
...?(GSP/MSM-57-3; paratype of Vitakrisaurus saraiki) dorsal centrum (83 mm)
...?(GSP/MSM-140-3; paratype of Vitakrisaurus saraiki) fused anterior dentaries
Diagnosis- (after Malkani, 2022) Dentary "thick and deep" (transverse width >83% of depth).
Differs from Rahiolisaurus (and other abelisaurids) in having- V-shaped snout symphysis.
Differs from Rajasaurus (and other abelisaurids except Ilokelesia) in having low concavity for ventral edge of dorsal centrum.
Differs from Rajasaurus in having- more elongated dorsal centrum (height 80% of length versus 114%).
Other diagnoses- (after Malkani, 2022) dentary "represents rough pitted structures and irregular lineations".
Differs from Vitakridrinda supposed holotype teeth in having- only oval teeth (instead of "D-shaped, oval and subcircular teeth"); not having any tall dorsal centra.
Differs from Rahiolisaurus in having- some teeth asymmetrical in section; basal length of teeth relatively larger; dorsal amphicoelous.
Differs from 'Indosuchus' AMNH 1960 in having- widely spaced dentary teeth; "differ on tooth shape".
Differs from Rajasaurus in having- dorsal centrum's articular face not deeper than wide; dorsal strongly amphicoelous.
(after Malkani, 2023b) Differs from Rajasaurus in having- no lateral dentary step.
(after Malkani, 2024) Differs from Rahiolisaurus in having- rounded mesial carina and sharp distal carina on teeth.
Malkani's (2022) diagnosis is highly problematic. First, the dorsoventral depth of dentary symphysis GSP/MSM-140-3 is never stated nor visible in the single photo, so 'thickness and depth' cannot be evaluated, although that of dentary fragment GSP/MSM-5-3 is much higher than theropods'. Second, a rough and pitted texture is typical for abelisaurids and is also seen in Rahiolisaurus and to a lesser extent AMNH 1960. However, abelisaurids (e.g. Majungasaurus, Carnotaurus) differ in having only a rough ventral half of the dentary, with the dorsal half separated by a longitudinal groove containing neurovascular foramina and being smoother with vertical grooves. GSP/MSM-5-3 has a rough lateral surface across its entire height with no longitudinal groove. When it comes to comparisons between individual taxa, even if the supposed teeth included in Vitakridrinda's holotype are correctly identified (and of them only GSP/MSM-1091-19 has the right shape based on the figures), claiming that genus has a greater variety of tooth sectional shapes simply isn't possible since only four tooth positions (all from the dentary) are known in Shansaraiki. Similarly, the one complete supposed dorsal centrum face included in the Vitakridrinda holotype (GSP/MSM-765-19) is only 109% taller than wide compared to the supposed equal dimensions for Shansaraiki, which is well within the range of individual and positional variation (e.g. Majungasaurus' ratio varies from 84-115% between dorsal vertebrae with taller centra more anterior). Thus even if the remains are correctly identified and associated for Vitakridrinda, none of Malkani's differences are valid. Malkani correctly notes that Shansaraiki has a narrow dentary symphysis (though he contrasts this with the premaxillary symphysis of Rahiolisaurus), but this differs from all other abelisaurids where known (Carnotaurus, Chenanisaurus, Majungasaurus, Lameta dentaries GSI K27/550 and K27/709), so if anything would suggest it is not a member of that clade. Contra Malkani, the anteriormost preserved teeth in Rahiolisaurus are asymmetrical, but this is comparing premaxillary to dentary teeth so would be invalid anyway. Malkani is correct that Shansaraiki is larger than Rahiolisaurus, with a first alveolus basal length of 18.6 mm versus 12.5 mm in their dentary and premaxilla respectively (49% larger), but this is meaningless as the Rahiolisaurus bonebed includes at least seven individuals at different ontogenetic stages (none of which have been matched to the preserved premaxilla). Finally, one of the seven preserved posterior dorsal centra of Rahiolisaurus was described as having "flat" articular surfaces, while Shansaraiki's single known centrum has both faces concave, but the amount of concavity varies within the dorsal column of e.g. Aucasaurus, and amphiplatyan versus amphicoelous morphologies are generally considered comparable in theropods. Malkani is correct that the more posterior dentary teeth are spaced further from each other in Shansaraiki than the anterior dentary teeth of 'Indosuchus' AMNH 1960, but this positional variation in tooth spacing is also present in e.g. Carnotaurus. The claimed difference in tooth shape between the specimens is ambiguous. Comparisons to Rajasaurus are purely vertebral as it lacks jaw material. The single described dorsal of Rajasaurus is indeed taller (height 114% of length) than the single centrum of Shansaraiki (80%), but given the positional variation of 96-112% in Majungasaurus and 85-107% in Carnotaurus, that's not as significant as it might seem although still outside their range of variation. However, Rajasaurus being 119% taller than wide compared to Shansaraiki's 100% is easily within Majungasaurus' range of variation noted above (84-115%) and close to Carnotaurus' (83-100%). The difference in articular face concavity is even less than with Rahiolisaurus, with the single dorsal of Rajasaurus' faces being described as "gently amphicoelous" and thus only supposedly less concave than Shansaraiki's. Malkani is correct that Shansaraiki's ventral centrum edge is not nearly as concave as Rajasaurus', but this also distinguishes it from all other abelisaurids where known (Majungasaurus, Xenotarsosaurus, Dahalokely, Rahiolisaurus, "Bayosaurus", Viavenator, Niebla, Carnotaurus, Aucasaurus) with the exception of Ilokelesia. Ilokelesia's single known dorsal (a posterior one) differs from Shansaraiki's in being much wider (height ~73% of width) and having a ventral median keel, but the latter does generally vary within theropod dorsal columns.
Malkani (2023) writes "The dentary ramus of Shansaraiki insafi does not bear lateral step while Rajasaurus narmadensis [102] represent lateral step on dentary ramus", with reference 102 being the error-ridden Khosla and Lucas 2023 who figure a "reconstructed skull" of a taxon whose only cranial material is a braincase (note they were incorrect in listing premaxillae, maxillae and a quadrate as part of the holotype on the previous page). Thus the "step" noted by Malkani (actually the typical theropod lateral dentary groove) is a mere reconstruction, and not useful for distinguishing the genera.
Malkani (2024) claimed Shansaraiki "has relatively rounded mesial keel and sharp distal keel on one tooth" unlike the inverse reported for Rahiolisaurus' premaxillary teeth, but both teeth in GSP/MSM-5-3 have rounded distal edges and no teeth are preserved in GSP/MSM-140-3 (plus a comparison of premaxillary teeth to dentary teeth isn't homologous).
Comments- Malkani (2022) claims "Holotypic bones found as fragmentary on the surface of same Formation, same locality, same time, fit size and no duplication shows associated bones of single individual", but given Pakisaurus and Sulaimanisaurus were also reported from Shalghara 3, the anatomical distance between dentaries and dorsal vertebrae, and the lack of a specified ground distance between specimens, this should be considered with caution. Dentary fragment GSP/MSM-5-3 is also significantly larger than symphysis GSP/MSM-140-3 (dentary width ~52 mm versus ~28-36 mm), suggesting they do not belong to the same individual. The three specimens were originally paratypes of Vitakrisaurus (Malkani, 2021), originally based on a set of much smaller (~24 mm) archosaurian vertebrae interpreted by Malkani as an abelisauroid manus. With the only overlap between the current specimens and Malkani's set of Vitakrisaurus holotype elements being maybe undetermined supposed vertebral fragment GSP/MSM-780-2, there was certainly no reason to refer them to the same taxon. Note much more useful photos of GSP/MSM-5-3 taken in cardinal directions were published by Malkani (2023a), compared to the oblique posterodorsolateral photo in prior works. One odd aspect is the materials list describes "mandibular rami fused at symphysis" (Malkani, 2022), while he later writes "dentary symphysis (GSP/MSM-140-3) shows weak anterior articulation." No suture is visible, but this could be due to preparation, taphonomy or perhaps even pathology as in the only theropod specimen with anterior teeth whose symphysis is fused (Daspletosaurus torosus holotype CMN 8506). Note that despite claims of articulated teeth, all three alveoli of GSP/MSM-140-3 seem to be filled with matrix instead, and thus descriptions of tooth sectional shapes are questionable since these do not always correspond closely to alveolus shape. Considering GSP/MSM-503, Malkani (2002) states the "teeth articulated with dentary ramus are relatively large to moderate in size, asymmetric oval and D-shaped", but his 2023a figure shows the large tooth could be described as D-shaped with the flat edge anterolateral while the second much smaller tooth is slightly drop-shaped with the apex anterolateral. Similarly, the 2022 figure points to four locations describing dental shape, but the 2023 figure shows only one large alveolus followed by two small alveoli of which only the large and adjacent small ones contain teeth. Malkani's 2022 text states "Dentary ramus lack vertical ridges and also dental foramina", but while the 2023 figure shows a lack of any vertical ridges or a paradental groove of any sort to distinguish paradental plates, it also shows two large "medial foramina" that don't equate to anything on medial theropod or crocodyliform mandibles.
Relationships- Dentary symphysis GSP/MSM-140-3 is clearly archosaurian based on its size, thecodonty and the terrestrial environment of the Vitakri Formation. The size, short and broad symphysis and presence of teeth this late clearly excludes pterosaurs. Malkani (2022) claims based on the two smaller left teeth across from the large right first tooth "variation of teeth size on same position of both jaws/rami confirms assignment to theropods than mesoeucrocodile. Because mesoeucrocodile have mostly same size teeth on relevant position on both sides of rami/jaws", but this is untrue as seen by the asymmetrical development of e.g. the Sebecus ayrampu holotype's dentary alveoli. A more valid argument is the short symphysis is unlike crocodyliforms, and note breakage is unlikely to explain it as the median dorsal surface between alveoli and area directly posteromedial to the first alveoli is extremely depressed whereas crocodiliforms have a flat dorsal symphyseal surface. With only a dorsal view published, comparison is extremely limited but it does seem to lack to U-shaped symphysis of abelisaurids and the 'alveolar groove' forming an anterolateral concavity in toothed noasaurids (Masiakasaurus, Lameta dentary RTMNU/DG/VERT/1/55P/2020). Thus it it probably tetanurine, and given it's almost twice the size of Austroraptor, the most likely Gondwanan Late Cretaceous theropod identification is megaraptorid. That being said, there is no particularly close resemblence to Australovenator, but those of more late diverging members of the clade are as of yet unknown.
Dentary fragment GSP/MSM-5-3 is similarly either crocodilian or dinosaurian based on size, thecodonty and terrestrial environment. They key here comes from the 'first' alveolus being ~1.5 times the size of the next two, which does not occur in Late Cretaceous theropods except for spinosaurids but is common in crocodyliforms. Yet spinosaurids are unconfirmed after the Cenomanian and have never been reported from Indo-Pakistan, and GSP/MSM-5-3 differs from them and all large theropods in being much wider compared to its depth. Among Gondwanan crocodyliforms, the specimen resembles peirosaurids most, particularly dentary tooth positions 4-6 of Antaeusuchus, Barrosasuchus, Gasparinisuchus, Hamadasuchus, Kinesuchus, Montealtosuchus and Patagosuchus, which correspond to peirosaurines in Ruiz et al.'s 2024 topology except for Kinesuchus being the basalmost pepesuchine. The two large "medial foramina" are likely to be exposed internal structures if not taphonomic.
Centrum GSP/MSM-57-3 is probably theropodan based on the lateral fossae (e.g. absent in crocodyliforms like Baurusuchus albertoi and Adamantina baurusuchid IFSP-VTP/PALEO 0003), is probably not a caudal based on the lack of chevron facets, can be excluded from Megaraptoridae by the absence of actual pleurocoels, and from Noasauridae and Alvarezsauridae based on size (though note something like Gualicho or Deltadromeus could be viable, though without preserved dorsal centra this cannot be tested). While it is somewhat similar to Ilokelesia among abelisaurids as noted above, the reduced ventral concavity with no median keel or pleurocoel is also like the much smaller (dorsals up to ~15 mm) Buitreraptor. Interestingly though, the Austroraptor referred specimen MML-220 is said by Currie and Paulina Carabajal 2012 to include "A badly shattered vertebra ... probably from the mid to posterior dorsal series, based on its proportions, the presence of a shallow lateral depression, but the lack of a clear pleurocoel. The centrum is 96 mm long and at least 54 mm wide. It is smooth and flat ventrally." This is 16% larger than GSP/MSM-57-3 but is also 78% longer than wide compared to 26% in GSP/MSM-57-3, although the other published details fit. This suggests GSP/MSM-57-3 is best assigned to Averostra indet., and probably not the same taxon as dentary symphysis GSP/MSM-140-3.
This leaves my provisional conclusion based on generally poor photographs and inexact description that none of the three "holotype" specimens of Shansaraiki are referrable to the same taxon. It is left to others (probably Malkani) to designate a lectotype or provide further studies and until then the taxon is considered a chimaera of different archosaurian individuals.
References- Malknani, 2021. Jurassic-Cretaceous and Cretaceous-Paleogene transitions and Mesozoic vertebrates from Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 11, 275-318.
Malkani, 2022. Plates boundary and structural geology of Balochistan and Indus Basins through field observations on Chaman Transform Fault and Western Indus Suture (Pakistan): Dinosaurs from Pakistan with attributed bones and key features: Titanosaurs from India with updated assessment on Jainosaurus. Open Journal of Geology. 12, 1032-1079.
Malkani, 2023a. Geology and mineral deposits of Saraikistan (south Punjab, Koh Sulaiman Range) of Pakistan: A tabular review of recently discovered biotas from Pakistan and paleobiogeographic link: Phylogeny and
hypodigm of poripuchian titanosaurs from Indo-Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 13, 900-958.
Malkani, 2023b. A glance on the mineral deposits and stratigraphic sequential variations and structures in different sections of Indus Basin (Pakistan): New titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 13, 1069-1138.
Malkani, 2024. New data on coal, gypsum, iron and silica sand deposits and geochemical exploration (Pakistan): Revision of 25 years history of dinosaur discoveries from Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 14, 431-511.

Tanystrosuchus Kuhn, 1963
T. posthumus (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1963
= Tanystropheus posthumus Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus posthumus (Huene, 1908) Fraas, 1913
= Halticosaurus posthumus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932
= Coelophysis posthumus (Huene, 1908) Olshevsky, 1991
Norian, Late Triassic
Middle Stubensandstein, Germany
Holotype- (SMNS 4385) distal caudal vertebra (39 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Huene, 1908) no notch between distal caudal prezygapophysis and centrum.
Other diagnoses- Huene (1908) also distinguished posthumus from Tanystropheus conspicuus and T. antiquus based on its supposedly enlarged and elongated postzygapophyses, while the prezygapophyses were said to be rudimentary. Yet he had the vertebra oriented backwards, as it is actually the prezygapophyses which are elongate (65% of central length). Comparably elongate prezygapophyses are known in other taxa such as Effigia, herrerasaurids and many averostrans. Additionally, the neural spine was said to be more reduced than other Tanystropheus species, and the ventral surface has a median groove instead of being flat and/or keeled. The former is typical of theropod distal caudals while the latter is also found in Effigia and most neotheropods.
Huene (1932) states a unique character is the lack of elongation, but this varies continuously in most archosaur caudal series.
Comments- Collected in the 1860's, this was first described and figured by Meyer (1865) as the caudal vertebra of an unknown reptile. Huene (1908) named it Tanystropheus (consistantly misspelled Tanystrophaeus) posthumus, as the elongate cervicals of Tanystropheus were thought to be theropod caudals at the time. SMNS 4385 was noted to be similar to Tanystropheus cervicals in being elongate, lacking transverse processes and having a reduced neural spine. These characters led Huene to refer Tanystropheus to Coeluridae, though they are now recognized as typical features for theropod caudal vertebrae. Today, coelurids and other related basal coelurosaurs are known to be restricted to the Jurassic and Cretaceous and have shorter prezygapophyses than Tanystrosuchus. Both Meyer and Huene had the vertebra backwards, interpreting its elongate prezygapophyses as postzygapophyses. Fraas (1913) thought much of the Pfaffenhofen quarry material was probably referrable to a small thecodontosaur, which he provisionally used the combination Thecodontosaurus (misspelled Thekodontosaurus) posthumus for. However, posthumus is from the Heslach quarry, not Pfaffenhofen. Fraas did not provide evidence for his reassignment, and Tanystrosuchus differs supposed Thecodontosaurus distal caudals (e.g. YPM 56736) in having a ventral groove, smaller more medially placed postzygapophyses, and larger, longer prezygapophyses. By 1932, Huene had oriented the vertebra correctly and removed posthumus from Tanystropheus, since new remains of the latter had shown it was a nondinosaurian reptile whose elongated vertebrae were cervicals. He instead called it "Tanystropheus" (gen. indet.) posthumus and assigned it to Coelurosauria, although in one table it is listed as Halticosaurus posthumus. This may have been mistakenly retained from an earlier version of the paper, since he does say posthumus could belong to Halticosaurus or Dolichosuchus. Steel (1970) also suggested posthumus might be referrable to Halticosaurus, while Olshevsky (1991) listed it as possibly being Halticosaurus or Liliensternus (which was placed in Halticosaurus until 1984). While Halticosaurus and Dolichosuchus are known from the same formation (but different quarries), they do not preserve distal caudal vertebrae so cannot be compared. Liliensternus loses its transverse processes on caudal 22 and its neural spines at about caudal 30. This fits with Tanystrosuchus' holotype being most similar in proportions to caudal 32 of those illustrated for Liliensternus. It differs from Liliensternus in having longer prezygapophyses (65% of central length compared to 17-22%), less dorsally projected zygapophyses, and lacking a notch between the prezygapophysis and centrum. These seem to be true in all illustrated caudals similar in position to Tanystrosuchus' (20, 24, 32, 38), so probably indicate it is not synonymous. Kuhn (1963) created the new genus Tanystrosuchus for posthumus, as he also decided it was not referrable to Tanystropheus. Wild (1973) also rejected the synonymy of posthumus with Tanystropheus conspicuus. Tanystrosuchus differs from Tanystropheus in having longer prezygapophyses and lacks Tanystropheus' tall bladelike neural spine. In 1965, Kuhn stated Tanystrosuchus might be protorosaurid instead of dinosaurian. Yet Protorosaurus distal caudals differ in having short prezygapophyses, longer postzygapophyses, knob-like transverse processes and a tall bifurcated neural spine. Norman (1990) noted the long prezygapophyses were suggestive of theropod relationship, but considered it a nomen dubium. Olshevsky (1991) placed Tanystrosuchus in Halticosauridae and listed the combination Coelophysis posthumus as a prior synonym, though I have yet to locate this in an earlier published work. Glut (1997) merely listed the genus as a nondinosaurian reptile. Most recently, Rauhut and Hungerbuhler (2000) briefly redescribed and illustrated the material, listing it as Tanystrophaeus posthumus. Their conclusions match Norman's- that it is an indeterminate theropod based on the prezygapophyseal length.
Tanystrosuchus is similar to coelophysoids in general form- elongate amphicoelous centrum (3.25 times longer than tall) with median ventral groove, neural spine reduced to a slight ridge over the postzygapophyses, transverse process reduced to a longitudinal ridge, elongate prezygopophysis and short postzygapophysis. However, the prezygapophysis is actually longer than in coelophysids, 65% of central length compared to 35% in Coelophysis rhodesiensis, 25% in Coelophysis bauri, 22% in Liliensternus and 37% in Dilophosaurus. In this respect Tanystrosuchus is more similar to herrerasaurids and averostrans (e.g. Elaphrosaurus). It differs from herrerasaurids in having the ventral groove and from known averostrans in being Triassic in age, though if coelophysoids are monophyletic we would expect Norian averostrans. Another perhaps more plausible identification is as a shuvosaurid, which are common in the Late Triassic. Effigia has distal caudals which exhibit the same characters noted above for coelophysoids (including the ventral groove), except its prezygapophyses are longer (at least 58% of central length). The preserved caudals have neural spines, albeit low ones, but these are all proximal to the thirtieth caudal and it is probable that more distal ones lacked neural spines as in theropods and Tanystrosuchus. It differs from all examined theropods and Effigia in lacking a notch between the prezygapophysis and centrum. While the anatomy favors a shuvosaurid or averostran identification, stratigraphy favors the former only to the extent that Triassic shuvosaurids are certainly known while Triassic averostrans are unknown but possible depending on theropod topology. Also a factor is that variation along the tail is poorly described for most taxa discussed here, so while the published evidence suggests coelophysoid prezygapophyses never exceed half of centrum length and herrerasaurids lack ventral grooves, this is not as well established as it could be. For now, I recommend Tanystrosuchus posthumus be referred to Archosauria incertae sedis.
References- Meyer, 1865. Reptilien aus dem Stubensandstein des oberen Keupers (Dritte Folge). Palaeontographica. 14, 99-124.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Fraas, 1913. Die neuesten Dinosaurierfunde in der schwäbischen Trias. Naturwissenschaften. 1(45), 1097-1100.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1963. Sauria (Supplementum I). In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 104. 87 pp.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia (Supplementum 1). In Fossilium Catalogus 1. Animalia. 109, 94 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1-87.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Norman, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Coelurosaurs". In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 280-305.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press. 1076 pp.
Rauhut and Hungerbuhler, 2000. A review of European Triassic theropods. Gaia. 15, 75-88.

Vitakrisauria Malkani, 2010c
Vitakrisauridae Malkani, 2010c
= "Vitakrisauridae" Malkani, 2010a
Vitakrisaurinae Malkani, 2010c
= "Vitakrisaurinae" Malkani, 2010a
Comments- Malkani (2010c) proposed the theropod taxon Vitakrisauria for his new genus Vitakrisaurus (and presumably other taxa he referred to Vitakrisauridae- "Vitakridrinda" and Rajasaurus), but never states its diagnosis or relation to established theropod taxa like Abelisauria or Ceratosauria. It is probable he intended it as an inapprioriate replacement name for Abelisauria, similar to his use of "Pakisauridae" and "Balochisauridae" for Titanosauridae and Saltasauridae respectively. Unfortunately, as Vitakrisaurus is here viewed as an indeterminate archosaur, any higher taxon associated with it is useless.
Malkani (2010a) first proposed Vitakrisauridae for Vitakridrinda, Rajasaurus "and its close relative" within abelisaurs. As he did not name Vitakrisaurus itself until six months later, this was a nomen nudum (ICZN Article 13.2). It is further invalid in lacking a diagnosis (13.1.1; Malkani merely says it's due to "complex characters of Vitakridrinda sulaimani", "very far locations from South America", and "an endemic character of its associated Balochisauridae and Pakisauridae"). The same issues invalidate his proposed subfamily Vitakrisaurinae, for "Vitakridrinda" only. Malkani (2010b) later used Vitakrisauridae in the title of a paper on "Vitakridrinda", but Vitakrisaurus was still unnamed. In 2010c, Malkani officially named Vitakrisaurus and used both Vitakrisauridae and Vitakrisaurinae. These again lack diagnoses, but since Vitakrisaurus itself was given one and both family and subfamily are noted as being new, they are valid as of that publication. Vitakrisaurus and "Vitakridrinda" do not share any preserved elements, and contra Malkani, cannot be assumed to be related due to geography alone. Indeed, Vitakrisaurus is here reinterpreted as archosaur vertebral sections while "Vitakridrinda" is currently based on probably abelisaurid proximal femora. Rajasaurus does not preserve proximal femora and its vertebrae are difficult to compare to Vitakrisaurus but are about three times as large. Both Virakrisauridae and Vitakrisaurinae are unfortunately not useful without a more precise identification of Vitakrisaurus itself.
References- Malkani, 2010a. New Pakisaurus (Pakisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) remains, and Cretaceous Tertiary (K-T) boundary from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(1), 39-64.
Malkani, 2010b. Vitakridrinda (Vitakrisauridae, Theropoda) from the Latest Cretaceous of Pakistan. Journal of Earth Science. 21(Special Issue 3), 204-212.
Malkani, 2010c. Stratigraphy and mineral potential of Sulaiman (Middle Indus) basin, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(2), 39-66.
Vitakrisaurus Malkani, 2010
V. saraiki Malkani, 2010
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan
Holotype- (GSP/MSM-303-2) posterior centrum fragment, partial vertebra (~24 mm), partial vertebra (~24 mm), partial vertebra (~24 mm), anterior centrum fragment?, element
Other diagnoses- Originally Malkani (2010) diagnosed Vitakrisaurus versus his titanosaur "Pakisaurus" with "the length and width ratio is 3 in this theropod while in Pakisaurus (Pakisauridae, Sauropoda) is 1.5." The supposed pedal ungual is here identified as a vertebral centrum fragment, making the diagnosis obsolete.
Malkni (2019) provided an extensive diagnosis, of which the following refers to the holotype (identified as a manus at the time)- "thick bones of manus/hand; Metacarpal I is short and thick, metacarpal II and metacarpal III are thick, long and subequal; manual phalanges are thick; and manual ungual/claw I is thick and slightly recurved downward." While these are obsolete under my interpretation of the specimen as vertebrae, the manual elements as interpreted by Malkani aren't particularly thick, metacarpal I is illustrated as slender and ~60% of metacarpal II length, metacarpal II is also illustrated as slender, and metacarpal III is illustrated as unpreserved. Additional supposed diagnostic characters are based on referred specimens placed in Titanosauria below- "circular elongated cylinder type dorsal centrum jointed on all dorsal length with neural arch (while dorsal centra of Vitakridrinda is rectangular and elongated while the dorsal centrum of Rajasaurus is tall); Vitakrisaurus has transverse process on upper part of caudal centrum and extends into neural arch like Rajasaurus while Vitakridrinda has oval shaped transverse process which did not contact with neural arch and located on upper part of posterior articular ring on anterior caudal centrum. Neural arch on anterior caudal is forwardly inserted while in Rajasaurus the neural arch covers all along the dorsal surface of centrum [note this is a titanosaurian character]. Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel in dorsal and caudal centra while Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus had ventral keel. Vitakrisaurus neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed while Rajasaurus it is circular shaped; Vitakrisaurus has well developed chevron facets in anterior/mid caudals while Rajasaurus has no chevron facets. Vitakrisaurus anterior and midcaudal vertebrae have posterior yard on posterior uncover part of dorsal aspect of centrum surrounded by laterally and posteriorly thin boundary wall while this yard is not found in Rajasaurus".
Comments- Malkani's GSP specimen numbers are designed so that the last number is the locality and the first is the specimen-specific number from that locality, so are listed in order of locality first. Malkani proposed the name Vitakrisaurus saraiki in 2010 for a supposed pes he had previously referred to juvenile "Vitakridrinda" in 2009. Malkani only explicitly diagnoses it relative to the sauropod "Pakisaurus" and assigns it to Vitakrisauridae within Abelisauroidea along with "Vitakridrinda", which was not assigned pedal material until 2020. Thus it is uncertain how Vitakrisaurus is supposed to differ from other theropods. The photo differs markedly from the illustration, with three segments obvious that Malkani interprets as distal metatarsal II (mislabeled 'metacarpal'), a too-short phalanx II-1 and phalanx II-2. The "medial" view interprets these same segments as phalanges II-1, II-2 and pedal ungual II. However, the side edges of these segments do not resemble pedal elements except that "lateral" metatarsal II and "ventral" phalanx II-2 are concave, with "lateral" edges of both phalanges being convex and other "ventral" and "dorsal" edges broken. There is a continuous strip of bone where digit III should be, but with an irregular outline completely unlike the three phalanges and ungual drawn by Malkani. There is a structure "lateral" to metatarsal II which would correspond to metatarsal III, but it is not represented in Malkani's drawing. Of the supposed four phalanges plus ungual from digit IV, only one structure is obvious, "lateral" to the joint bwtween phalanges II-1 and II-2. The "medial" view adds structures "distal" and "ventral" to phalanx II-2, neither claw shaped, plus some irregularities further "ventral" in the matrix. A supposed structure labeled 'scale' is shown far "dorsal" to where the matrix ends in the illustration, though whether this is supposed to derive from Vitakrisaurus or something else like a fish is never stated. By 2019, Malkani had reinterpreted the specimen as a manus, and while his drawing is more accurate the same criticisms largely apply. The three obvious segments are reinterpreted as metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, and manual ungual I (in both "dorsal" and "medial" views this time), the continuous strip of bone is manual digit II (this time with what would be distal metacarpal II represented in Malkani's drawing) and of digit III only one structure is obvious (this time a phalanx between drawn phalanges III-1 and III-2). The distal and ventral structures in "medial" view are now interpreted as "Phalange II & III of digit III", while the irregularities are labeled "Armor Spike or tooth", "Claw/ungual" and "Carpal".
After reviewing the available photos, I don't believe the holotype is a manus or pes. Instead, aware of Vitakri specimens that are cross sections (e.g. the proposed type of "Induszalim"), this is interpreted as a sagittal section of three main consecutive vertebrae. The "dorsal" view becomes a right lateral view, with the medialmost digit being the dorsal sections of each centrum. The irregular middle digit is then the neural arches in section, with the gap between supposed digits being the neural canal in section. The single obvious structure of the lateral digit is then a neural spine of the middle vertebra, placed at its posterior margin. The "medial" view becomes ventral view, with the left half of each centrum in coronal section and potential pieces of the previous and next centra preserved in place. Only one additional element is definitely present in this view, which has a section with a constricted middle, positioned to the left of the posterior vertebra. While its outline might suggest a sacral rib, as a cross section it might be a distal humerus or femur instead, among other possibilities.
Given this new interpretation, the vertebrae are ~24 mm long, which is too small for adult abelisaurids but could match noasaurids or baurusuchids among recognized Late Cretaceous Indo-Pakastani terrestrial vertebrates. Theropod centra have thin walls even when not pneumatic, so are unlikely to correspond to the apparently solid centra of Vitakrisaurus. Baurusuchid cervicals and posterior dorsals have the approximate dimensions of neural arch height versus centrum length with a posteriorly limited neural spine, so are a possibility. Yet with no obvious crocodyliform characters and the likely presence of ornithischians in the fauna, Vitakrisaurus is left as Archosauria indet. here.
Referred material- Malkani (2019) referred additional material to Vitakrisaurus, incorrectly calling other elements from the type locality lectotypes (a lectotype is actually a specimen subsequently chosen from a series of syntypes, whereas Vitakrisaurus only had a holotype originally instead of syntypes), and incorrectly calling them holotypes in 2020. Most of these were originally intended paratypes (GSP/MSM53-2, 54-2, 55-2) or referred material (GSP/MSM-780-2, 984-2, 1027-2) of supposed abelisaur "Vitakridrinda" and seemingly referred based solely on the locality and Malkani's new interpretation of Vitakrisaurus as large after reidentifying its pes as a manus. Given my interpretation of the holotype as ~24 mm long vertebrae, the "Vitakridrinda" paratypes are over three times too large and appear more likely to be titanosaur vertebrae based on the anteriorly restricted caudal neural arch. Another intended "Vitakridrinda" paratype from a different locality (GSP/MSM-57-3) was referred to Vitakrisaurus in 2019 and is similarly three times too large and referred to Titanosauria here. The other referred material from locality 2 (including GSP/MSM-1044-2 and 1076-2 of Malkani, 2020) consists of fragments preserved in section which cannot be identified given the available photos and should be Archosauria indet.. A proximal femur (GSP/MSM-1049-K) originally listed as a referred "Vitakridrinda" specimen (Malkani, 2009) was referred to Vitakrisaurus in 2019. It is approximately two-thirds as large as "Vitakridrinda" and differs in having a greater trochanter extend proximally past the head as in several coelurosaur and ornithischian groups. It is placed in Dinosauria indet. here, as the inturned head is unlike crocodyliforms. Finally, Malkani (2019) referred a caudal vertebra and two chevron fragments (GSI K20/316, 318) described by Huene and Matley (1933) as referrable to Titanosaurus indicus. Malkani may have decided this based on the amphicoelous centrum of GSI K20/316 unlike the usual procoelous titanosaur caudals, but Huene and Matley noted it was found with procoelous GSI K20/315 and "are, therefore, almost certainly adjoining vertebrae", and indeed several articulated examples of mixed coely in titanosaur tails have been described since. The large size and anteriorly placed neural arch further confirm titanosaur affinities.
References- Huene and Matley, 1933. The Cretaceous Saurischia and Ornithischia of the central provinces of India. Palaeontologica Indica. 21, 1-74.
Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2010. Stratigraphy and mineral potential of Sulaiman (Middle Indus) basin, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(2), 39-66.
Malkani, 2011. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus of Vitakrisauridae Theropoda from Pakistan. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of IGCP 507 on Paleoclimates of the Cretaceous in Asia and their global correlation. Beijing, China. 59-66.
Malkani, 2015. Dinosaurs, mesoeucrocodiles, pterosaurs, new fauna and flora from Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-32.
Malkani, 2019. Vitakrisaurus saraiki theropod from south Asia. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 643-645.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.

Pseudosuchia Zittel, 1887
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
= Crocodylotarsi Benton and Clark, 1988
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Vultur gryphus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci, 1990
Definition- (Parasuchus hislopi + Ornithosuchus longidens + Prestosuchus chiniquensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
Other definitions- (Belodon plieningeri + Ornithosuchus longidens + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Phytosaurus cylindricodon + Ornithosuchus longidens + Prestosuchus chiniquensis+ Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Benton, 2004)
(fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal crurotarsal articulation as in Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Rutiodon carolinensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Dasygnathoides

Phytosauria Baur, 1889
Definition- (Rutiodon carolinensis, Phytosaurus cylindricodon <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocodylus niloticus) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Paleorhinus bransoni + Phytosaurus cylindricodon) (modified from Doyle and Sues, 1995)
(Rutiodon carolinensis <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Parasuchia Huxley, 1875
= Belodontia Marsh, 1895
Definition- (Belodon plieningeri <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Phytosauriformes Hay, 1830
= Phytosauromorphi Hay, 1930
Comments- Phytosauria is often credited to Jaeger (1828), the original publication of Phytosaurus. However, Jaeger never uses this term and the practice is based on a comment by Doyle and Sues (1995), who used the ICZN to argue "Phytosauren" counts as establishing Phytosauridae (itself questionable, see Mystrosuchinae comments). Given this conclusion, they then claim Phytosauria should also be credited to Jaeger, 1828 based on the Principle of Coordination (then Article 36a, now Article 36.1- "A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group"). But the principle of coordination does not apply between group ranks, only within group ranks (family-group is Article 36; genus-group is Article 43; species-group is Article 46). Otherwise, the author of a genus would be the author of the coordinated family, which is not the case. Furthermore, taxa higher than family rank are not even governed by the ICZN, so its rules couldn't apply anyway. Thus the correct author of Phytosauria is Baur, 1889.
Regarding its phylogenetic definition, that of Nesbitt (2011) is accepted with the addition of the eponymous species Phytosaurus cylindricodon (ICPN Article 11.10- "when a clade name is converted from a preexisting name that is typified under a rank-based code or is a new or converted name derived from the stem of a typified name, the definition of the clade name must use the type species of that preexisting typified name or of the genus name from which it is derived (or the type specimen of that species) as an internal specifier.").
References- Jaeger, 1828. Uber die fossilen Reptilien, welche in Wurtemberg aufgefunden worden sind. Metzler. 48 pp.
Baur, 1889. Mr. E. T. Newton on Pterosauria. The Geological Magazine. New Series. Decade III. 6(6), 171-174.
Doyle and Sues, 1995. Phytosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic New Oxford Formation of York County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15, 545-553.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

"Zanclodon" arenaceus
Comments- This is closer to parasuchids than Diandongosuchus based on the splenial symphysis.

Parasuchidae Lydekker, 1885
Definition- (Parasuchus hislopi + Wannia scurriensis + Mystriosuchus planirostris) (Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015)
= Belodontidae Cope, 1871
References- Lydekker, 1885. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Maleri and Denwa groups. Palaeontologia Indica, Series 1. 1(1), 1-38.
Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015. Relationships of the Indian phytosaur Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(1), 1-23.

Belodon

Centemodon

Clepsysaurus
C. pennsylvanicus
Clepsysaurus? fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Hay, 1930
= Paleosaurus fraserianus Cope, 1878a (as Palaeosaurus fraserianus)
= Thecodontosaurus fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Hay, 1902
= Palaeosauriscus fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Kuhn, 1965
Norian, Late Triassic
New Oxford Formation, Pennsylvania, US
Holotype- (AMNH 1861) tooth (20x6.5x? mm)
Comments- Cope (1878a) described this tooth (which was first presented the year prior) as a new species of Palaeosaurus, at the time a common misspelling of Paleosaurus. Olshevsky (2000) was the first to correct the genus' spelling in this binomial. Note there is a valid genus Palaeosaurus (Geoffroy Sant-Hillaire, 1836; which is currently a junior synonym of the teleosaurid Steneosaurus) however, which caused Kuhn (1965) to incorrectly think Paleosaurus was preoccupied since its spelling is so similar. Thus he referred all Paleosaurus species to his new genus Palaeosauriscus, but this is unnecessary according to the ICZN. Paleosaurus itself is based on P. cylindrodon, an archosauriform tooth of uncertain affinities from the Norian of England which differs from fraserianus in having elongate and oblique serrations, being less recurved, and having a more tapered distal edge in section.
fraserianus a dinosaur? Nopsca (1901) was the first to assign the species explicitly to Dinosauria or Theropoda, assigning it to a subfamily Anchisauridae [sic] within Megalosauridae, but his anchisaurids consisted largely of basal sauropodomorphs and Triassic carnivorous archosauriform teeth. Hay (1902) had a similar concept for Anchisauridae within his Theropoda, similarly placing fraserianus there though assigning it to Thecodontosaurus, as he synonymized the genus with Paleosaurus. Note Colbert and Chaffee (1941) wrongly cited Cope (1878b) as using the combination Thecodontosaurus fraserianus, but that work only uses Thecodontosaurus for T. gibbidens. Hay (1930) retained fraserianus in Anchisauridae and Theropoda, but now placed it in the genus Clepsysaurus (a phytosaur), perhaps based on the similarity noted by Huene (see below). Steel (1970) referred it to his theropodan Ornithosuchidae, which besides Ornithosuchus contained Teratosaurus, Triassic carnivorous archosauriform teeth, and basal sauropodomorph remains incorrectly associated with the latter. The most confusing generic assignment has been that of Olshevsky (1991, 2000), who made fraserianus a junior synonym of Anchisaurus polyzelus, which is from the much later (Pliensbachian) Portland Formation of Connecticut. fraserianus is quite unlike sauropodomorph teeth (including Thecodontosaurus and Anchisaurus) in being highly recurved, with an unconstricted base, little labiolingual compression, and small serrations which are perpendicular to the tooth axis. The connection was maintained through history largely via ignorance of fraserianus' actual morphology in addition to continued confusion of Paleosaurus with Thecodontosaurus and Efraasia.
fraserianus a phytosaur? Lesley (1889) may be the first author to suggest fraserianus is phytosaur, albeit without evidence. Huene (1921) has been the only author to illustrate fraserianus, and briefly described the specimen as well. Huene convincingly illustrated the similarity with other New Oxford phytosaur teeth. He suggested fraserianus was synonymous with Clepsysaurus? veatleianus and/or Rutiodon carolinensis from the same formation. Colbert and Chaffee (1941) made fraserianus a junior synonym of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus, based on geography. Of Norian archosauriforms which have recurved teeth with small serrations, only some proterochampsids and parasuchid phytosaurs are reported to have reduced labiolingual compression as in fraserianus (80% of FABL). While proterochampsid teeth remain largely undescribed, they are exclusively South American, so are an unlikely identification for fraserianus. Indeed, parasuchid material is common in the New Oxford Formation, with Rutiodon carolinensis the only currently recognized valid taxon. It's therefore possible Huene was correct and that fraserianus is synonymous with Rutiodon, but the most recent review also suggested the presence of a larger, poorly characterized form (e.g. SMP VP-36; YPM-PU 11544). The tooth of fraserianus is much smaller than these latter elements, but could be ontogenetically young as well. Unfortunately, heterodonty is so great among parasuchid dentitions, few of which have been described in detail, that it is not currently possible to assign isolated teeth to particular genera or species. Thus fraserianus remains Parasuchidae indet., and is here placed questionably in Clepsysaurus as that is the only parasuchid genus prior authors have referred the species to.
References- Cope, 1878a. On some saurians found in the Triassic of Pennsylvania, by C. M. Wheatley. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 17(100), 231-232.
Cope, 1878b. Triassic saurians from Pennsylvania. The American Naturalist. 12, 58.
Lesley, 1889. A Dictionary of the Fossils of Pennsylvania and Neighboring States Named in the Reports and Catalogues of the Survey. Volume 2. The Board of Commissioners for the Geological Survey, Harrisburg. 914 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United States Geological Survey Bulletin. 179, 868 pp.
Huene, 1921. Reptilian and stegocephalian remains from the Triassic of Pennsylvania in the Cope collection. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. 44(19), 561-574.
Hay, 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington. 390(II), 1-1074.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941. The type of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus and its bearing upon the genus Rutiodon.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia (Supplementum 1). In Fossilium Catalogus 1. Animalia. 109, 94 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.
C? veatleianus

"Megalosaurus" terquemi
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
France
Comments- Quenstedt (1858) states (translated) "Mr. Terquem also mentions a big tooth from the Grès von Hettingen", referring to this.
References- Quenstedt, 1858. Der Jura. H. Laupp'schen. 842 pp.

Palaeoctanus
P. appalachianus
P? aulacodus
P? dumblianus
P? orthodon

"Paleosaurus" platyodon

"Paleosaurus" stricklandi

Rileyasuchus
R. bristolensis
R? stutchburyi

Rutiodon? leaii

Ornithosuchia Huene, 1908
Definition- (Ornithosuchus longidens <- Crocodylus niloticus, Vultur gryphus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Vultur gryphus <- Caiman crocodilus) (modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
References- Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Ornithosuchidae Huene, 1908
Definition- (Ornithosuchus longidens + Riojasuchus tenuisceps + Venaticosuchus rusconii) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
Other definitions- (Ornithosuchus longidens <- Rutiodon carolinensis, Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Ornithosuchus

Riojasuchus

Venaticosuchus

Erpetosuchidae Watson, 1917
Definition- (Erpetosuchus granti <- Passer domesticus, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt and Butler, 2012 online)
References- Watson, 1917. A sketch-classification of the pre-Jurassic tetrapod vertebrates. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London. 1917, 167-186.
Nesbitt and Butler, 2013 (online 2012). Redescription of the archosaur Parringtonia gracilis from the Middle Triassic Manda beds of Tanzania, and the antiquity of Erpetosuchidae. Geological Magazine. 150(2), 225-238.

Aetosauria Marsh, 1884
Definition- (Aetosaurus ferratus, Desmatosuchus haplocerus <- Leptosuchus crosbiensis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Sphenosuchus acutus, Alligator mississippiensis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Revueltosaurus callenderi) (modified from Parker, 2007)
Other definitions- (Aetosaurus ferratus <- Belodon plieningeri, Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Aetosaurus ferratus + Desmatosuchus haplocerus <- Rutiodon carolinensis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Crocodylus niloticus, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Revueltosaurus callenderi) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Stegonolepididae Lydekker, 1887
Other definitions- (Aetosaurus ferratus + Desmatosuchus spurensis) (modified from Heckert and Lucas, 2000)
(Aetosaurus ferratus + Stegonolepis robertsoni <- Mystriosuchus planirostris, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocoylus niloticus) (modified from Benton, 2004)
References- Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.

Desmatosuchus Case, 1920
D. spurensis Case, 1920
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Referred- ?(UMMP 3396) femur (421.6 mm) (Case, 1922)
Comments- Case (1922) described femur UMMP 3396 which he claimed "has a very dinosaurian aspect, resembling in many details the figures of the femora of Plateosaurus and Gressylosaurus from the Triassic of Europe, and, so far as can be determined, the femur of Anchisaurus from the Triassic of North America." Unlike the braincase (UMMP 7473) and presacral column (UMMP 7507) described in that work, Camp stated this was too large to refer to Coelophysis. He repeated this in 1927, but suggested "it may well be associated with some of the large teeth mentioned below", referring to a portion of twenty-two teeth from carnivorous archosauriforms (e.g. UMMP 13765). Huene (1932) suggested (translated) "it is also much too clumsy for a coelurosaur. But it agrees perfectly with Typothorax. Typothorax is not a dinosaur, but a parasuchian. This femur will not belong to the otherwise known species because of its different size and different horizon." This proved to be prescient, as Hunt et al. (1998) wrote it "obviously pertains to an aetosaur, possibly Desmatosuchus", and Murry and Long (1997) said "represents a robust aetosaurian, probably Desmatosuchus." Thus it was an aetosaur like Typothorax, but while Case had described Desmatosuchus from the same beds as UMMP 3396, it didn't include limb material.
References- Case, 1920. Preliminary description of a new suborder of phytosaurian reptiles with a description of a new species of Phytosaurus. Journal of Geology. 28, 524-535.
Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Murry and Long, 1997. Dockum Group. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 191-193.

Gracilisuchidae Butler, Sullivan, Ezcurra, Liu, Lecuona and Sookias, 2014
= "Gracilisuchidae" Anderson and Anderson, 1993
Definition- (Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum <- Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus, Poposaurus gracilis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Rutiodon carolinensis, Erpetosuchus granti, Revueltosaurus callenderi, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus)
Comments- Gracilisuchidae was first used in Figure 4 and Table 6 of Anderson and Anderson (1993), but was a nomen nudum due to not following ICZN Article 13.1.1- "be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon."
References- Anderson and Anderson, 1993. Terrestral flora and fauna of the Gondwana Triassic: Part 2- Co-evolution. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 13-25.
Butler, Sullivan, Ezcurra, Liu, Lecuona and Sookias, 2014. New clade of enigmatic early archosaurs yields insights into early pseudosuchian phylogeny and the biogeography of the archosaur radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 14:128.

Gracilisuchus

Ticinosuchidae Sennikov, 1995

Paracrocodylomorpha Parrish, 1993
Definition- (Poposaurus gracilis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Parrish, 1993)
References- Parrish, 1993. Phylogeny of the Crocodylotarsi, with reference to archosaurian and crurotarsan monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(3), 287-308.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Poposauroidea Nopcsa, 1928
Definition- (Poposaurus gracilis <- Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Poposauria Olshevsky, 1991
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Ctenosauriscidae Kuhn, 1964
Definition- (Ctenosauriscus koeneni <- Poposaurus gracilis, Effigia okeeffeae, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Butler, Brusatte, Reich, Nesbitt, Schoch and Hornung, 2011)
Reference- Butler, Brusatte, Reich, Nesbitt, Schoch and Hornung, 2011. The sail-backed reptile Ctenosauriscus from the latest Early Triassic of Germany and the timing and biogeography of the early archosaur radiation. PLoS ONE. 6(10), e25693.

Arizonasaurus

Hypselorhachis

Poposauridae Nopcsa, 1928
Poposaurus Mehl, 1915
P. gracilis Mehl, 1915
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Referred- (UCMP 25968) incomplete ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25971) proximal pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25978) partial ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25982) ilial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25990) fragmentary ischium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25994) proximal ischium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 27982) ilial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- This material was collected in 1934 and is referred to Coelophysis on the UCMP collections website, but is Poposaurus (Long and Murry, 1995; Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007).
[Entry incomplete]
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007. A revision of Poposaurus gracilis (Archosauria: Suchia) based on two new specimens from the Late Triassic of the southwestern U.S.A. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 81(2), 131-145.
P. langstoni

Shuvosauridae Chatterjee, 1993
Definition- (Shuvosaurus inexpectatus + Sillosuchus longicervix) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Shuvosaurinae Chatterjee, 1993
= Chatterjeeidae Long and Murry, 1995
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Effigia Nesbitt and Norell, 2006
E. okeeffeae Nesbitt and Norell, 2006
Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Coelophysis Quarry NMMNH L-3115, 'Siltstone Member' of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Holotype- (AMNH 30587) (~2 m, juvenile) skull, sclerotic plates, mandibles, atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neural arches, anterior cervical vertebra, mid-posterior cervical vertebra, two cervicodorsal vertebrae, several anterior dorsal vertebrae, four mid dorsal vertebrae, last two dorsal vertebrae, dorsal rib fragments, gastralia, synsacrum, first caudal vertebra, second caudal vertebra, scapulae (one partial; 180 mm), coracoids, clavicle fragment, proximal and distal humerus (~150 mm), radius (~140 mm), ulna (~140 mm), two carpals, metacarpal I (~12 mm), metacarpal III (20 mm), phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV (18 mm), metacarpal V (12 mm), phalanx V-1 (5 mm), incomplete ilia, incomplete pubis, pubic boot fragment, ischia, proximal femur, distal femora, tibiae (one incomplete, one partial), fibulae (one incomplete, one partial), astragalus, calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (74 mm), pedal ungual I, metatarsal II (90 mm), metatarsal III (89 mm), metatarsal IV (73 mm), metatarsal V (47 mm), six pedal phalanges
Paratypes- (AMNH 30588) synsacrum, first to twenty-ninth caudal vertebrae, partial chevrons, incomplete ilia, proximal pubes, ischia, proximal femur
(AMNH 30589) partial skull, sclerotic plates, three anterior-mid cervical vertebrae
(AMNH 30590) proximal femur
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 360, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Referred- ?(MNA.V.5615) incomplete femur (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA.V.5602) proximal tibia (Kirby, 1991)
?(MNA.V.5603) proximal tibia (Kirby, 1991)
?(MNA coll.) incomplete cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, femora, metatarsal fragments (Nesbitt, 2007)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Zuni Well North 2 PFV 003 UCMP V82247, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(UCMP coll.; lost) dorsal centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Dinosaur Hollow PFV 020, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(lost) partial pelvis including anterior ilia and proximal ischia, hindlimb including femur (Miller, 1985)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Paulcell Shell Bed PFV 056 UCMP V93136, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(UCMP coll.; lost) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 33953) partial skeleton (Irmis, 2005)
?(PEFO 34038) proximal femur (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
?(PEFO coll.) several limb elements (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revueltosaurus Quarry PFV 297, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 33919) cervical centrum fragments (Nesbitt, 2009)
?(PEFO 33920) astragalus (Nesbitt, 2009)
?(PEFO coll.) vertebrae, limb fragments (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
PFV 300, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO coll.) proximal femur (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Rabbit Foot Hills PFV 302, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 34924) (Parker and Martz, 2010)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Arroyo Seco, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
?(AMNH 2725; = AMNH 2702 before 1973; paralectotype of Coelurus bauri) distal femur (Cope, 1887)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Dry Creek Tank SE1 PFV 055, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 4859) (Atchley et al., 2013)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA.V.3743) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(UCMP coll.; lost) sacral vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- Note all Chinle Formation shuvosaurids are listed here for convenience, but as no postcranial characters have been suggested to distinguish Effigia and Shuvosaurus (besides coracoid foramen size) all except the holotype and AMNH 30589 would be more technically considered Shuvosauridae indet..
AMNH 2725 is a syntype of Coelophysis bauri and was collected with the lectotypes of C. bauri, C. longicollis, C. willistoni and the holotype of Longosaurus (Cope, 1887, 1887; Padian, 1986). Most recently, it was viewed as generically indeterminate (along with the types of the above species), and Coelophysis was assigned a neotype from a different locality (Hunt and Lucas, 1991; ICZN, 1996). Sullivan and Lucas (1999) erected a new species of coelophysid from the Coelophysis lectotype locality, Eucoelophysis baldwini, and felt AMNH 2725 was probably referrable to Eucoelophysis, but could not definitively assign it due to its undiagnostic nature. Nesbitt et al. (2005, 2007) determined Eucoelophysis was not a theropod, however, and that AMNH 2725 is not either. While Eucoelophysis is a basal dinosauriform, AMNH 2725 is a shuvosaurid based on the small distal sulcus and absent fourth trochanter (Nesbitt et al., 2007). Additional material originally assigned to Coelophysis by Cope may also turn out to belong to shuvosaurids, although some is coelophysoid (e.g. AMNH 2705, 2706, 2708, 2722).
In an article announcing the discovery of the then-unnamed Chindesaurus holotype, Miller (1985) reported "The number of thigh bones found indicate that the site actually contains more than one skeleton of the species." Long and Murry (1995) later stated this was "a partial skeleton of Chatterjeea elegens", while Parker (2006) reports "unpublished field notes from Long also document a partial skeleton of Shuvosaurus (=Chatterjeea) from this locality, although this specimen is lost." Marsh et al. (2019) note "a smaller partial pelvis and hind limb ... probably belong to a shuvosaurid, but those bones have been missing since the preparation of the block (T. Rowe, pers. comm., 2017; Rob Long field notes, 1985..."
Parker and Irmis (2005) comment on "the partial skeletons of three coelophysoids" discovered at the Giving Site in 2004. "These specimens have not yet been completely prepared, though preliminary research has shown them to be identical to UCMP 129618." Two of these ended up being catalogued as PEFO 33981 and 33983 and generally called Coelophysis sp., while the third partial skeleton turned out to be shuvosaurid PEFO 33953 (Parker, pers. comm. 2021). The specimen number was first reported by Irmis (2005).
Not Effigia- Discovered in 1982, Long and Murry (1995) referred UCMP 126751 from Flattops W in the Petrified Forest Member to Chatterjeea (= Shuvosaurus) without comment, but it has since been identified as Saurischia indet. (e.g. Marsh and Parker, 2020). Nesbitt (2007) listed femur PEFO 33956 as belonging to his Group Y, later called shuvosaurids. Marsh and Parker (2020) figured it and assigned it to Saurischia.
References- Cope, 1887. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. Amer. Naturalist xxi pp. 367-369.
Cope, 1887. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. xxiv pp. 209-228, pls. i, ii.
Miller, 1985. Ghost from the dawn of the dinosaurs - Oldest dinosaur skeleton found in Arizona. Science News. 127(21), 325.
Hunt and Lucas, 1991. Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a Late Triassic dinosaur from New Mexico (USA). Paläontol. Z. 65 p. 191-198.
Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.
International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature, 1996. Opinion 1842. Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, Saurischia): lectotype replaced by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53, 142-144.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Sullivan and Lucas, 1999. Eucoelophysis baldwini, a new theropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, and the status of the original types of Coelophysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(1): 81-90.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Nesbitt and Norell, 2006. Extreme convergence in the body plans of an early suchian (Archosauria) and ornithomimid dinosaurs (Theropoda). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 273, 1045-1048.
Parker, 2006. The stratigraphic distribution of major fossil localities in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Parker, Ash and Irmis (eds.). A Century of Research at Petrified Forest National Park. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 62. 46-61.
Nesbitt, 2007. The anatomy of Effigia okeeffeae (Archosauria, Suchia), theropod-like convergence, and the distribution of related taxa. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 302, 84 pp.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.
Parker and Martz, 2010. The Late Triassic (Norian) Adamanian-Revueltian tetrapod faunal transition in the Chinle Formation of Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101(3-4), 231-260.
Atchley, Nordt, Dworkin, Ramezani, Parker, Ash and Bowring, 2013. A linkage among Pangean tectonism, cyclic alluviation, climate change, and biologic turnover in the Late Triassic: The record from the Chinle Formation, southwestern United States. Journal of Sedimentary Research. 83(12), 1147-1161.
Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

Shuvosaurus Chatterjee, 1993
= "Chatterjeea" Murry and Long, 1989
= Chatterjeea Long and Murry, 1995
S. inexpectatus Chatterjee, 1993
= "Chatterjeea elegans" Murry and Long, 1989
= Chatterjeea elegans Long and Murry, 1995
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Holotype- (TTU-P9280) incomplete skull (~189 mm), partial mandible
Paratypes- (TTU-P9281) maxillary fragment, frontal, squamosal (may belong to 9282), quadrate, anterior dentaries, dorsal vertebra
(TTU-P9282) premaxillae, frontals, quadrate, braincase, atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neural arch
Referred- (TTU-P9001; holotype of Chatterjeea elegans; paratype of Postosuchus kirkpatricki) three cervical vertebrae, partial dorsal vertebra, twenty presacral centra, four fused incomplete sacral centra, partial proximal caudal vertebra, two proximal caudal centra, two incomplete distal caudal vertebrae, scapulae (one incomplete; one partial), coracoids, humerus (152 mm), incomplete ilium, partial pubis (200 mm), incomplete ischium (150 mm), femur (231 mm), tibia (198 mm), fibula (201 mm), astragalus (33 mm wide), calcaneum, metatarsal I (66 mm), phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II (83 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (85 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV (61 mm), phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, pedal ungual IV, metatarsal V (41 mm) (Chatterjee, 1985)
(TTU-P9003-9011; paratypes of Postosuchus kirkpatricki) nine incomplete postcranial skeletons (Chatterjee, 1985)
(TTU-P9021 in part; paralectotype of Technosaurus smalli) posterior mandible (Chatterjee, 1984)
(TTU-P9235) vertebrae (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
(TTU-P9419) vertebrae(?), femur (Martz et al., 2013)
(TTU-P10969) quadrate (Lehane, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Patricia Quarry MOTT 3870, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P10783) femur, partial tibia, phalanx (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Lot Hill MOTT 3878, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11601) calcaneum (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters Site MOTT 3892, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11865) centra (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters South MOTT 3898, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11414) proximal femur (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Boren (=Neyland) Quarry MOTT 3869, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P10555) partial centrum (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
OS Ranch Flat Road MOTT 3872, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P9605) (skull ~257 mm) maxilla (Lehane, 2005)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
DMNH 1160, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(DMNH 9887) several cervical vertebral fragments, vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9888) partial posterior cervical vertebra, two fragmentary mid dorsal vertebrae, partial mid caudal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9901) four fragmentary dorsal centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9905) two distal caudal vertebrae, incomplete distal caudal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9907) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9924) caudal centrum fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9925) three partial cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9926) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
TMM Site 2 TMM 31173, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TMM 31173-106) two mid dorsal vertebrae, posterior dorsal vertebra, caudal vertebra, many vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Davidson Creek, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(UMMP 7445) astragalus (Case, 1929)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
West of Walker's Tank, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(UMMP 11746) sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(UMMP 45593) incomplete ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TMM 31100-210) femur (115 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-353) incomplete ischia (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-408) femur (233 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-414) pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-495) sacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-496) posterior cervical vertebra, dorsal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-497) anterior-mid cervical vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-509) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-512) ischia (~250 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
?(NMMNH P4160) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4380) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4440) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4601) ischial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4687) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4693) astragalus (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4695) femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4856) partial dorsal centrum, central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4859) ischia (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4891) partial cervical vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4893) cervical vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4913) eight fragmentary cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4920) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4927) (several individuals) five dorsal centra, sacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4948) partial centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P16643) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P16654) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17134) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17247) cervical vertebra, vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17262) cervical centrum, several incomplete presacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17469) six cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17470) nine dorsal central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17271) two dorsal central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17281) dorsal central fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17881) proximal femur (Nesbitt, 2007)
(UCM 47221; in part; holotype of Gojirasaurus quayi) (immature) four mid or posterior dorsal centra (66, 68, 74 mm), partial mid dorsal neural arch (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?...(UCM 52080) partial ilium, pubic fragment (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?...(UCM 52081) premaxilla (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?(UMMP 7438) three fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Other diagnoses- Chatterjee (1993) listed several characters of the taxon. The concave medial quadrate cotyle and medial dentary shelf are shared with Effigia. A deep and pointed premaxilla, and posteriorly placed external naris are shared with at least Effigia. The premaxilla is not hooked. The external naris is not necessarily smaller than ornithomimosaurs, as the anterior nasal is unpreserved (Lehane, 2005). The maxilla is not especially short, as the posterior portion is merely missing. Similarly, the nasal cannot be shown to be shorter than the frontal due to these unpreserved portions. Rauhut and Lehane have agreed no maxillary fenestra is present, so the nasal cannot participate.
Comments- Several elements have changed identifications and numbers between Chatterjee's (1993) original description and Lehane's (2005) thesis. The dorsal vertebra in TTU-P9281 was originally listed under P9280. Similarly, the scapula originally part of TTU-P9281 was separated as TTU-P11045. Originally, a left atlantal neural arch was listed under TTU-P9281, which may have been reidentified as the maxillary fragment, frontal, squamosal or quadrate. A left squamosal was listed under P9282 by Chatterjee, figured as such by Lehane, but listed under P2981 by Lehane in his text and table 1. An additional frontal was identified in TTU-P9282. Nesbitt (2007) noted based on Effigia, "The bone originally described as the palatine by Chatterjee (1993) is actually the ectopterygoid, and the bone described by Chatterjee (1993) and Rauhut (1997) as the ectopterygoid is actually portions of the pterygoid."
Shuvosaurus' holotype skull was discovered in 1984, and originally described as an ornithomimosaur by Chatterjee (1993). Rauhut (1997) rejected this based on the lack of an expanded cultriform process, long elongate basipterygoid processes, small endocranial cavity, lack of (pro)maxillary fenestrae, and ventral ectopterygoid groove (instead of an expanded fossa). This is unsurprising given the lack of any known Triassic tetanurines, let alone coelurosaurs. He proposed it was a non-tetanurine, though still a theropod. Rauhut (2000; published in 2003) later found Shuvosaurus to fall out in Coelophysoidea based on the elongate basispenoid and posteriorly forked premaxilla, shared with Coelophysis rhodesiensis. Lehane (2005) also found Shuvosaurus to be a coelophysoid sister to rhodesiensis, while Tykoski (2005) recovered it as the basalmost theropod. Lehman and Chatterjee (2005) agreed Shuvosaurus was likely not ornithomimosaurian, but did state "additional cranial and postcranial material suggests that Shuvosaurus is more derived than ceratosaurs."
Long and Murry (1995) on the other hand proposed Shuvosaurus was synonymous with their new pseudosuchian Chatterjeea, with both holotypes discovered in the same quarry and even potentially belonging to the same individual. They referred a premaxilla originally described by Parrish and Carpenter (1986) as Reptilia indet. to Shuvosaurus, and noted a Chatterjeea ilium was found with it (described by Parrish and Carpenter as Poposaurus). Nesbitt et al. (2007) referred the dorsal vertebrae of the Gojirasaurus holotype from this same quarry to Shuvosaurus. While the pubis and tibia are coelophysoid, some of the other elements of the specimen may belong to Shuvosaurus as well. Rauhut (1997) and Lehane both raised objections to the pseudosuchian identification, noting it possesses dinosaurian, saurischian and theropod characters. The issue was decided by the description of Effigia (Nesbitt and Norell, 2006), which has a Shuvosaurus-like skull on a pseudosuchian body. Both taxa do share numerous theropod synapomorphies, but these are seen as convergences. Note both the non-shuvosaurid scapula and neotheropod tibia which Long and Murry stated raised questions about their proposed synonymy have since been removed from the genus (see below).
Chatterjeea's holotype was originally identified as a juvenile Postosuchus (Chatterjee, 1985), along with nine other specimens. None have been described in detail. Note all Dockum Group shuvosaurids are listed here for convenience, but as no postcranial characters have been suggested to distinguish Effigia and Shuvosaurus (besides coracoid foramen size) all except the holotype and whichever paratype the squamosal belongs to would be more technically considered Shuvosauridae indet..
Not Shuvosaurus- Chatterjee (1993) originally included a proximal scapula in the paratype TTU-P9281, but this was separated as TTU-P11045 by Lehane (2005). Chatterjee also stated as correspondence at the end of his description "we have just found a diagnostic leg bone (tibia) from the Post quarry which confirms the presence of an ostrich dinosaur", though this was not technically referred to Shuvosaurus. The tibia was later assigned the number TTU-P11044, as revealed in Lehane's thesis. Lehane noted both elements are too small to belong to Shuvosaurus individuals known from that quarry. The scapula is here placed as Archosauria indet. pending further study, while the tibia has been reidentified as a probable coelophysoid (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012).
Lehane listed several other postcranial specimens referred to Shuvosaurus. TTU-P10071 is an incomplete ilium identified as Coelophysis by Lehman and Chatterjee (2005) and agreed to be coelophysoid-grade by later authors (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012). TTU-P10072 is a fragmentary skeleton (containing dorsal vertebrae and pelvic fragments which Lehane doesn't mention) which was also identified as Coelophysis by Lehman and Chjatterjee, but reidentified as a poorly supported sister to Neotheropoda by Nesbitt and Chatterjee. Based on my own analysis, it may be a sauropodomorph instead so is here placed as Saurischia incertae sedis. Finally, TTU-P10082 is a partial pelvis yet again referred to Coelophysis by Lehman and Chatterjee, but which was reidentified as herrerasaurid by later authors (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012) and may belong to Chindesaurus.
References- Case, 1929. Description of the skull of a new form of phytosaur, with notes on the characters of described North American phytosaurs. Michigan State University, Paleontological Memoir. 2, 56 pp.
Chatterjee, 1984. A new ornithischian dinosaur from the Triassic of North America. Naturwissenschaften. 71, 630-631.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309(1139), 395-460.
Parrish and Carpenter, 1986. A new vertebrate fauna from the Dockum Formation (Late Triassic) of eastern New Mexico. In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press, NewYork. 151-160.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Chatterjee, 1993. Shuvosaurus, a new theropod. National Geographic Research and Exploration. 9(3), 274-285.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Rauhut, 1997. Zur Schädelanatomie von Shuvosaurus inexpectatus (Dinosauria, Theropoda). In Sachs, Rauhut and Weigert (eds.). Erstes Treffen der deutschsprachigen Paläoherpetologen, Extended Abstracts. Terra Nostra. 9, 17-21.
Rauhut, 2000. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropods (Dinosauria, Saurischia). PhD thesis, University of Bristol. 440 pp.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 96 pp.
Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005. Depositional setting and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Journal of Earth System Science. 114(3), 325-351.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2005. Critical review of the Late Triassic dinosaur record, part 3: Saurischians of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 96A.
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.
Nesbitt and Norell, 2006. Extreme convergence in the body plans of an early suchian (Archosauria) and ornithomimid dinosaurs (Theropoda). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 273, 1045-1048.
Nesbitt, 2007. The anatomy of Effigia okeeffeae (Archosauria, Suchia), theropod-like convergence, and the distribution of related taxa. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 302, 84 pp.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Martz, 2008. Lithostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of southern Garza County, west Texas. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University. 504 pp.
Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008. Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Post Quarry and surrounding areas, west Texas, U.S.A. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Abhandlungen. 249(2), 143-156.
Martz, Mueller, Nesbitt, Stocker, Parker, Atanassov, Fraser, Weinbaum and Lehane, 2012. A taxonomic and biostratigraphic re-evaluation of the Post Quarry vertebrate assemblage from the Cooper Canyon Formation (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic) of southern Garza County, western Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26.

Loricata Merrem, 1820 preoccupied Vicq d'Azyr, 1792 and Schumacher, 1817
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Paracrocodyliformes Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007
Definition- (Batrachotomus wildi, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Saurosuchus galilei, Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis) (Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007)
Comments- Though Nesbitt (2011) ressurected Merrem's (1820) name Loricata for this clade, Merrem used the term only for living crocodilians (he did not comment on fossils). Vicq d'Azyr (1792) used Loricata earlier for armadillos, Schumacher (1817) used it for chitons, and Ehrenberg (1830) later used it for a polyphyletic group of rotifers.
References- Vicq d'Azyr, 1792. Systeme anatomique des quadrupedes. Encyclopedic methodique. Volume 2. Paris.
Schumacher, 1817. Essai d'un Nouveau Systeme des Habitations des Vers Testaces. Copenhagen. 287 pp.
Merrem, 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Marburg. 191 pp.
Ehrenberg, 1830. Sur l'organisation des Infusoires. Isis. 2, 168. 8, 758.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Prestosuchidae Romer, 1966
= Prestosuchia Parrish, 1994

Apatosuchus
A. orbitoangulatus
References- Knoll, 2010. What is "Halticosaurus" orbitoangulatus? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2010, 116A.

unnamed loricatan (Ellenberger and Ellenberger, 1954)
Hettangian-Sinemurian, Early Jurassic
Upper Elliot Formation, South Africa
Material- (SAM 383) maxillary fragment, teeth
Comments- Ellenberger and Ellenberger (1954) mentioned a carnosaur maxilla, which Smith believes is SAM 383, as reported by Nesbitt (2009). The latter described it and identified the material as a paracrocodylomorph similar to Fasolasuchus.
References- Ellenberger and Ellenberger, 1954. Le gisement de Dinosauriens de Maphutseng (Basutoland, Afrique du Sud). Compte Rendus de la Société Géologique de France. 241, 99-101.
Nesbitt, 2009. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. PhD thesis, Columbia University. 665 pp.

Teratosauroidea Cope, 1871
= Rauisuchoidea Huene, 1942
= Teratosauria Colbert, 1970
= Rauisuchia Bonaparte, 1975

Teratosauridae Cope, 1871
= Rauisuchidae Huene, 1942
Definition- (Rauisuchus tiradentes <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Postosuchus Chatterjee, 1985
P. kirkpatricki Chatterjee, 1985
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Referred- (UMMP 7473) (adult) braincase (Case, 1922)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Rotten Hill, Potter County, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Referred- (UMMP 13670) dorsal rib, two partial dorsal ribs, thirty-one incomplete-complete caudal vertebrae, three partial caudal vertebrae (Case, 1932)
Comments- Case (1922) described braincase UMMP 7473 which he claimed "corresponds so well with the figures and descriptions, so far as they have been given, of the same region in the primitive Theropodous Dinosaurs, that there can be very little doubt of its subordinal position", and along with axial column UMMP 7507 provisionally placed it in or near Coelophysis based on stratigraphy. This opinion had strengthened by 1927, where he wrote "it is very probable that this is the skull of the genus Coelophysis." Huene (1932) named UMMP 7507 Spinosuchus caseanus and figured and described the braincase as a coelurosaur, stating (translated) "Whether the occiput belongs to the same genus, perhaps of the same species, as the vertebral series cannot be decided with certainty now, but the possibility does exist." Padian suggested it "may be rauisuchian", while Chatterjee (1985) concluded it "shows very little resemblance to Coelophysis, but corresponds so well with Postosuchus kirkpatricki that there is little doubt of its taxonomic affinity." Gower (2002) rejected this, claiming "the one important difference between this specimen and the known braincases of P. kirkpatricki lies in the position of the external foramen for the hypoglossal nerve" which instead was supposed to be more similar to aetosaurs and crocodylomorphs. However, Weinbaum (2011) concluded "the same configuration of the foramen is present in the holotype braincase, and the UMMP specimen is otherwise identical to the type specimens except for the more extensive fusion between elements."
On July 15 1931 caudal series UMMP 13670 was discovered, then described by Case (1932) as Coelophysis sp. based on the thin-walled centra supposed to be characteristic of coelurosaurs sensu Huene. Murry (1989) noted "Postosuchus kirkpatricki is represented at the locality by ... caudal vertebrae (UMMP 13670)" and Long and Murry (1995) later stated "The vertebrae are UMMP 13670, referrable to Postosuchus kirkpatricki." This referral has been followed by Peyer et al. (2008), but has yet to be justified.
References- Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309, 395-460.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Murry, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Dockum Formation (Upper Triassic), west Texas and eastern New Mexico. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 102-144.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Gower, 2002. Braincase evolution in suchian archosaurs (Reptilia: Diapsida): Evidence from the rauisuchian Batrachotomus kupferzellensis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 136, 49-76.
Peyer, Carter, Sues, Novak and Olsen, 2008. A new suchian archosaur from the Upper Triassic of North Carolina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(2), 363-381.
Weinbaum, 2011. The skull of Postosuchus kirkpatricki (Archosauria: Paracrocodyliformes) from the Upper Triassic of the United States. PaleoBios. 30, 18-44.

Teratosaurus

Crocodylomorpha Walker, 1968
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Postosuchus kirkpatricki) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
(Crocodylus niloticus <- Rauisuchus tiradentes, Poposaurus gracilis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Crocodylomorphi Hay, 1930
= Pedeticosauria Walker, 1968
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

unnamed crocodylomorph (Chatterjee, 1987)
Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Nennel Village, Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material - (ISI R 306 in part; holotype of Walkeria maleriensis in part) (juvenile) partial premaxilla, maxilla, partial dentary, teeth (to 5 mm)
Comments- This material is part of the Alwalkeria holotype discovered in 1974 as described by Chatterjee (1987), but Remes and Rauhut (2005) found it belonged to a pseudosuchian, perhaps an ornithosuchid. This agrees with Rauhut's (2003) comments that the long mandibular symphysis is present in members of Crurotarsi. Lecuona et al. (2016) examined the material and found "the partial skull included in this specimen possesses a synapomorphy of Crocodylomorpha (sensu Nesbitt 2011), namely an anteriorly and posteriorly expanded palatal process of the maxilla. The overall anatomy of this partial skull is also congruent with that observed in early crocodylomorphs, including the presence of a continuously dorsally bowed dentary in lateral view. As a result, we reinterpret the cranial remains of Alwalkeria maleriensis as belonging to a crocodylomorph."
References- Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos.Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.

Crocodylomorpha indet. (Bonaparte, 1975)
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Material- (PVL 3871 in part; holotype of Marasuchus lilloensis in part) incomplete scapulocoracoid (25.0 mm), humerus (38.6 mm), incomplete radius (~31.0 mm), incomplete ulna (~36.0 mm)
Comments- Bonaparte (1975) described specimens of Lagosuchus talampayensis, including a pectoral girdle assigned to PVL 3871, a specimen only described by Romer (1972) as including "a complete right limb (Fig. 5), the left limb complete except for phalanges, a series of vertebrae including the sacral region and the proximal part of the tail (Fig. 6), and much of the pelvis." Sereno and Arcucci (1994) believed the Lagosuchus talampayensis holotype differs from PVL 3871 in having a more slender scapula, a shorter radiohumeral ratio (65% vs. >72%) and an unexpanded distal ulna, which led them to create the new taxon Marasuchus for it. Agnolín and Ezcurra (2019) show the type has an expanded dorsal neural spine which was a proposed autapomorphy of Marasuchus and also shares a globose femoral head with 'Marasuchus' specimens MCZ 4137, PVL 3870, and PVL 3871, so synonymized the taxa. They further note the scapula of PVL 4672 is also slender, and that Coelophysis bauri radiohumeral ratios vary between 54-68%. Remes (2008) described the differences between the pectoral girdle and forelimb of PVL 3871 and that of PVL 4672, Lewisuchus and dinosauriform PVL 9483. Based on this, the fact Romer never mentioned the elements in his descriptions and that Bonaparte never reported an association with the rest of the specimen, Remes instead uses similarities with 'sphenosuchian' crocodylomorphs to suggest they belong to a member of that group and were incorrectly added to the lilloensis holotype. Besides the differences in scapular shape and slightly longer deltopectoral crest (29% vs.26% in the holotype), the ulnar morphology is so different that I agree they are unlikely to be conspecific. The ulna of PVL 3871 is not merely relatively longer than Lagosuchus, it also has an elongate olecranon while the holotype lacks one at all, and a much thinner (<5% of non-olecranon length vs. 10%) tapering shaft. This also makes sense with the slender PVL 4672 scapulocoracoid assigned to Lagosuchus. I therefore follow Remes in assigning the scapulocoracoid and forelimb of PVL 3871 to Crocodylomorpha indet..
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus. Breviora. 394, 1-7.
Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1994. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis gen. nov.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14(1), 53-73.
Remes, 2008. Evolution of the pectoral girdle and forelimb in Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia): Osteology, myology, and function. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 355 pp.
Agnolín, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Agnolín and Ezcurra, 2019. The validity of Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer, 1971 (Archosauria, Dinosauriformes), from the Late Triassic of Argentina. Breviora. 565, 1-21.

Clarencea

Trialestia Carroll, 1988
= Triassolestia Crush, 1984
Trialestidae Bonaparte, 1982
= Triassolestidae Bonaparte, 1970 (preoccupied Tillyard, 1918)
= Trialestinae Bonaparte, 1982 vide Kalandadze and Rautian, 1991
Comments- Eponymous suprageneric taxa of Trialestes (and its preoccupied original name Triassolestes) have only been used by those who place it outside Dinosauria, with Triassolestia and Trialestia being suborders of Crocodylia (senso lato, equivalent to modern Crocodylomorpha), and Triassolestidae initially being a family of Pseudosuchia and Trialestidae a family of Sphenosuchia or Trialestia. No other genus has been included in either eponymous suborder or family, with Pseudohesperosuchus included here based on the analysis of Leardi et al. (2017). Yet with no phylogenetic definition suggested yet, this is entirely subjective.
References- Tillyard, 1918. Mesozoic insects from Queensland. 3. Odonata and Protodonata. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 43, 417-435.
Bonaparte, 1970. Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods. In Haughton (ed.). Second Gondwana Symposium, South Africa, Proceedings and Papers. 665-682.
Bonaparte, 1982a. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Crush, 1984. A Late Upper Triassic sphenosuchid crocodilian from Wales. Palaeontology. 27, 131-157.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Kalandadze and Rautian, 1991. Late Triassic zoogeography and reconstruction of the terrestrial tetrapod fauna of North Africa. Paleontological Journal. 1, 1-12.
Leardi, Pol and Clark, 2017. Detailed anatomy of the braincase of Macelognathus vagans Marsh, 1884 (Archosauria, Crocodylomorpha) using high resolution tomography and new insights on basal crocodylomorph phylogeny. PeerJ. 5:e2801.

Trialestes Bonaparte, 1982a
= Triassolestes Reig, 1963 (preoccupied Tillyard, 1918)
T. romeri (Reig, 1963) Bonaparte, 1982a
= Triassolestes romeri Reig, 1963
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina
Holotype- (PVL 2561) incomplete maxillae, incomplete jugal, incomplete lacrimal, incomplete mandibles (214, 211 mm), four incomplete cervical vertebrae (lost?), cervical centrum (lost?), twelve or sixteen caudal centra (lost?), incomplete scapula, humerus (160 mm), radii (one incomplete; 179 mm), ulnae (185, 185 mm), radiales (36.8, 35.0 mm), ulnares (one partial; 27.2 mm), distal carpal, proximal metacarpal I, proximal metacarpal II, proximal metacarpal III, proximal metacarpal IV, incomplete pubes
Early Norian(?), Late Triassic
Valle de la Luna Member(?) of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina
Referred- ?(PVL 3889) partial ~third cervical centrum, ~fourth cervical vertebra (47.7 mm), ~fifth cervical vertebra (44.2 mm), partial ~sixth cervical vertebra, five cervical ribs, cervicodorsal vertebra, incomplete cervicodorsal vertebra, three anterior dorsal vertebrae (30.4 mm), five mid-posterior dorsal vertebrae (22.1, 25.1, 25.7, 21.4 mm), two partial ?dorsal vertebrae, four incomplete dorsal ribs, two gastralia, synsacrum, two proximal caudal vertebrae, incomplete scapulocoracoids (132.4 mm), humerus (160 mm), incomplete radius, incomplete ulna, ilia (87.4 mm), incomplete pubes, incomplete ischia, femora (one incomplete; 204 mm), tibiae (202, 197 mm), fibulae (one incomplete; 199 mm), astragalus (16.1 mm trans), calcaneum, metatarsal I (62.2 mm), metatarsal II (72.6 mm), metatarsal III (78.9 mm), metatarsal IV (79.8 mm), metatarsal V (73.4 mm) (Bonaparte, 1978)
Comments- The holotype was collected in May 1961 and initially described by Reig (1963) as a podokesaurid, with paratype PVL 2559 consisting of a pes and other fragments. Bonaparte (1978) first noticed (translated) "Triassolestidae and Triassolestes are names that are synonymous with the same names used by Tillyard (1918) for a genus and subfamily of insects from Australia" and later (1982a) stated "Trialestes is here proposed to replace "Triassolestes" (Reig, 1963), resulting in the species name Trialestes romeri..." Indeed, Triassolestes is currently recognized as a triassolestid odonatan.
Initially Reig stated the following axial material was preserved in the holotype- (translated) "four fairly complete cervical vertebrae, the centrum of another cervical and a collection of twelve vertebral centra, apparently all caudal vertebrae", but by the time of Clark et al. (2000) this was down to "several cervical and 16 caudal vertebrae." Ezcurra et al. (2008) and Lecuona et al. (2016) didn't report any axial material, so it may be lost. Reig noted pectoral and forelimb material was closely associated, and stated "Before its cleaning, we supposed that these last remains pertained to the same individual; however afterwards we noticed that the forelimb pertained to a typical crocodile, with the carpal structure characteristic of the order. These remains, associated with the skull and vertebrae of Triassolestes, confirm the presence of crocodiles in the Ischigualasto locality, advanced by me through the assignment of the genus Proterochampsa to this order (Reig, 1959). It is very probable that the forelimb could be referable to this same crocodile." Later discoveries revealed Proterochampsa was not a crocodylomorph and Bonaparte (1970) first referred the forelimb to the holotype and assigned the taxon to its own family Triassolestidae within Pseudosuchia (which he also referred Sphenosuchiade to). In his 1978 publication, Bonaparte illustrated a forelimb and stated "T. romeri is a pseudosuchian thecodont that we attribute to the infraorder Sphenosuchia, with forelimbs with crocodilian carpus." Bonaparte (1997) figures the entire specimen except the left cranial elements, including portions of the other forelimb and pubes not originally noted by Reig. The holotype was redescribed in depth by Lecuona et al. (2016).
Referred specimens- The paratype PVL 2559 shares no reported elements in common with the holotype, was discovered about 700 meters away, and the rationale for its referral was never explained. Fittingly, Bonaparte never mentions it and states (1982a) Trialestes is "presently known by two specimens" which would be the holotype and PVL 3889, while Benton and Clark (1988) say "There is some uncertainty as to whether specimens referred to this taxon that have a mesotarsal ankle indeed belong to Trialestes." Novas (1989) referred the astragalus and pes to Herrerasauridae indet. as PVL 2559a, and stated "The remaining associated material cited by Reig pertains to a larger individual which lacks synapomorphies of Herrerasauridae, and now constitutes specimen PVL 2559b." Most recently, PVL 2559a has been referred to Saurischia indet. (Lecuona et al., 2016) and PVL 2559b to Suchia indet. (Ezcurra et al., 2008).
Bonaparte (1975) first mentions (translated) "a practically complete undescribed skeleton exists, produced from the same beds. The pelvis of Triassolestidae has a long and robust ischium, very distinct from that of Lagosuchus, the femur does not possess an aliform 4th trochanter and is longer than the tibia, and the cervical vertebrae are very elongate." In 1978, he describes more details- (translated) "The relatively small size of the dorsal vertebrae and ribs in comparison with the length of the bones of the extremities is striking in this species. ... both the ischium and the pubis are long; the ilium, in addition to a brief anterior projection of the iliac blade, presents an incipient opening of the acetabular cavity." Later, Bonaparte (1982b) figures the proximal tarsals as Figure 3F and mentions a modest posteroventral coracoid process, short preacetabular process, and long and striaght ischium, which would all be from the new specimen although this is unstated. Oddly, he states "the tarsus of the Trialestidae is of the mesotarsal type, with marked size disparity between the astragalus and calcaneum" despite figuring the crurotarsal tarsus of the new specimen with the opposite size disparity. While one might think this description was based on the paratype astragalus, Bonaparte (1997) and Clark et al. (2000) explicitly describe the tarsus of the new specimen as mesotarsal. Thus it seems the astragalus and calcaneum were initially misidentified as each other and articulated incorrectly, which makes sense as Lecuona et al. (2016) state they are "difficult to interpret as they do not articulate perfectly with one another and suffer from poor preservation, overpreparation and possibly some degree of post-mortem distortion." Parrish (1987) suggested "the single specimen Bonaparte based this conclusion on may well be a composite (J.M. Clark, pers. comm. Gauthier 1984)", but this has never been supported by published evidence and seems simply untrue given the full description three decades later. Again it was Bonaparte (1997) who first figured most of the specimen, with that paper, Clark et al. and Lecuona and Desojo (2011) providing additional comments. Clark et al. first published the specimen number (PVL 3889), but were incorrect in claiming it has an inturned femoral head and functionally tridactyl pes. Lecuona et al. (2016) described the specimen in depth. While Reig's specimens were from the "lower third" of the Ischigualasto Formation (Cancha de Bochas Member), PVL 3889 was said to be from the middle, so may be from the later Valle de la Luna Member although it was found in the north area of exposures where stratigraphic correlation is still uncertain.
Is PVL 3889 Trialestes romeri? Clark et al. (2000) were the first authors to attempt to justify the referral of PVL 3889 to Trialestes based on synapomorphies. They argued "The radius and ulna are significantly longer than the humerus in both specimens (1.15 times in PVL 2559). In no other basal archosaur known to us are the radius and ulna significantly longer than the humerus", with 2559 an obvious typo for 2561. While this does differ from Pedeticosaurus (~99%), Terrestrisuchus (~99%), Hesperosuchus (106%), cf. Hesperosuchus CM 29894 (92%), Dibothrosuchus (98%), Hallopus (~104%) and Junggarsuchus (~86%), it is similar to Dromicosuchus (115%). Perhaps more importantly, the radius and ulna of PVL 3889 are incomplete so can only be said to be >100% of humeral length.
Ezcurra et al. (2008) disagreed, stating "Though elements shared by PVL 2561 and in PVL 3889 (scapulae, humeri, ulnae, and radi) are similarly shaped, they do not share any apomorphies to the exclusion of other basal crocodylomorphs. Thus, on the basis of the available bones, there is no evidence that PVL 3889 can be referred to Trialestes, and we prefer to be cautious in considering PVL 3889 an indeterminate crocodylomorph." Yet one of their Trialestes apomorphies is shared with PVL 3889- "scapular blade with rounded posterodistal corner", differing from Terrestrisuchus, Saltoposuchus, Hesperosuchus, cf. Hesperosuchus and Junggarsuchus, but shared with Sphenosuchus.
Lecuona et al. (2016) in their detailed description of both specimens found "strong similarity of the elements preserved in both" so that they "have the same states for all characters for which is is possible to score for both in the data matrix." They state "Among the character-states shared between both specimens, the most notable is a strongly laterally developed acromial ridge on the scapula, which to our knowledge is not present in any other early archosaurs." Such a ridge is present in Dibothrosuchus and seemingly Hallopus, while the ridge in Terrestrisuchus, Hesperosuchus and Dromicosuchus follows the dorsal edge of the acromion. Pseudohesperosuchus' ridge is in an intermediate position. Note Sphenosuchus was restored as having the ridge on the dorsal edge in Walker's Figure 42, but the lateral surface of the proximal scapula is unexposed in the actual specimen. Lecuona et al. found that when scored into Nesbitt's archosauriform matrix PVL 3889 and the holotype grouped together, but that "a negative topological constraint required only one additional step for the non-monophyly of both specimens of Trialestes" so that support for either hypothesis was very low.
Finally, Leardi et al. (2020) provided preliminary descriptions of new Ischigualasto basal crocodylomorphs, of which PVSJ 1090 has both the rounded posterodorsal scapular corner and Trialestes-like acromial ridge, while PVSJ 846 has at least the ridge. The authors state "The scapula of PVSJ 1090 and PVSJ 846 are practically indistinguishable from one another and are almost the same size, rendering this element as a taxonomic link between both specimens and a potentially diagnostic feature of this taxon" (which would also include PVSJ 890, 1078, 1088 and 1089). The Trialestes holotype and PVL 3889 can be distinguished from both scapulae by lacking a supraglenoid tuber on their scapula and from at least PVSJ 1090 by the lower angle between the posterior blade margin and supraglenoid process, but there is no single combination of characters that characterizes both Trialestes specimens to the exclusion of e.g. Sphenosuchus or Dibothrosuchus, although each specimen itself clearly differs from any other taxon including Leardi et al.'s. For example, the Trialestes holotype differs from the new taxon in the long and low deltopectoral crest and longitudinally ridged distal carpals, while PVL 3889 differs in having shallower cervical fossae, a much wider subglenoid notch on the coracoid, and various calcanear characters. Thus rather than recognize three diagnostic Ischigualasto sphenosuchians, PVL 3889 is provisionally retained in Trialestes based on the lack of differences between the few shared elements and results of Lecuona et al.'s phylogenetic analysis, with the recognition future specimens could support or reject this hypothesis.
Is Trialestes a dinosaur? Reig (1963) referred Trialestes to Podokesauridae, roughly equivalent to the modern Coelophysoidea, but this was in part due to the dinosaurian paratype astragalus and pes PVL 2559a. The only evidence cited for the holotype is "The general morphology of the skull, with a large orbit and a very elongate antorbital fossa; the elongation of the maxilla underneath the level of the orbit", which are all also present in e.g. Pseudohesperosuchus and Litargosuchus. Reig also states "The anterior end of the pubis also matches that of Coelophysis (see Colbert & Baird, 1958)", apparently based on the lost pubis of suchian PVL 2559b, which is being compared to a Newark ?Podokesaurus specimen (BSNH 13656) that I think is more likely to include an ischium than a pubis. Characters excluding the holotype from Dinosauria include the robust scapula, elongate radius and ulna, elongated radiale and ulnare and unreduced metacarpal IV. Colbert (1970) stated Triassolestes "certainly appears to be a podokesaurid, as maintained by [Reig]", but without further evidence. Padian (1986) went further and listed it among taxa "possessing the basal theropod synapomorphies listed above but lacking any of their own [which] are potentially referrable [to Coelophysis]." Despite these statements, the skull is not that similar to coelophysoids, differing the shorter snout, much deeper anterior maxillary ramus, deep external surface below the antorbital fossa, jugal contact with the antorbital fenestra, deeper and shorter jugal beneath the orbit, lacrimal without ventral expansion, more robust dentary with upcurved and expanded distal end, larger and fewer teeth, short and triangular deltopectoral crest, absent olcranon process, thick block-like distal carpal, and metacarpal III thicker than II.
Referred specimen PVL 3889 was first explicitly connected to dinosaurs by Bonaparte (1997), who claimed the supposed mesotarsal ankle with reduced calcaneum recalled early sarischians and thus (translated) "Trialestes romeri is a mixture of pre-crocodilian and predinosauroid forms." However it was Clark et al. (2000) who seriously proposed dinosaurian affinities. They claimed "The pelvis and hindlimb have features considered diagnostic for dinosaurs, including a perforated acetabulum with a well-developed supraacetabular crest, an inturned femoral head that is more distinct than that in sphenosuchians, a mesotarsal ankle joint and a functionally tridactyl pes. The vertebral centra have excavated lateral surfaces." As noted above, PVL 3889 lacks both an inturned femoral head as "The proximal end of the femora are strongly damaged, with much of the femoral head missing" (Lecuona et al., 2016) and the pes has subequally long metatarsals I-V so could even be functionally pentadacyl depending on phalangeal morphology. As also noted above, the ankle is crurotarsal despite being misinterpreted as mesotarsal for decades. A well developed supracetabular crest is typical of basal crocodylomorphs (e.g. Terrestrisuchus, Dromicosuchus, Kayentasuchus, Dibothrosuchus, NMMNH P-17346) and a perforated acetabulum is found in some as well (e.g. Terrestrisuchus, Kayentasuchus, Macelognathus, Dibothrosuchus). Dorsal central fossae are also present in Pseudohesperosuchus and Macelognathus. Therefore none of these characters are unexpected in a 'sphenosuchian' and there is no evidence favoring placing PVL 3889 in Dinosauria, agreeing with Lecuona et al. who constrained it to be ornithodiran and discovered "this topology required 12 extra steps (1706 steps) and the specimen was found as the sister taxon to Dinosauriformes." This is no doubt due to characters like the short and robust cervical ribs, mound-like fourth trtochanter and crurotarsal ankle with enlarged calcanear heel. Thus it is simply untrue that "The only apparent crocodylomorph feature [of any Trialestes specimen] is the elongation of the radiale and ulnare, whereas at least four different dinosaur-like features are present in the hind-limb and vertebrae" or that "The simplest solution would be to refer [both specimens of] this taxon to the Dinosauria and to interpret the elongate radiate [sic] and ulnare as the result of convergent evolution", contra Clark et al..
Phylogenetic relationships within Crocodylomorpha- Crush (1984) included Trialestes (as Triassolestes) in his new order Triassolestia within Crocodylia (sensu lato, equivalent to modern Crocodylomorpha), stating it "differs from the other crocodiles in having a coracoid without a dorsoventral or postero-ventral projection and a non-crocodilian tarsus" as examples of primitive characters. This suggests a sister group relationship with other crocodylomorphs (including Dibothrosuchus, Hallopus, Hesperosuchus, Pedeticosaurus, Pseudohesperosuchus, Saltoposuchus, Sphenosuchus and Terrestrisuchus). Benton and Clark (1988) presented a cladogram with Trialestes questionably basal to Crocodylomorpha (although it would be included given current definitions), with Pseudohesperosuchus and Saltoposuchus, Dibothrosuchus and Sphenosuchus, and the then-unnamed Kayentasuchus progressivly closer to Crocodyliformes. Trialestes has only been included in two phylogenetic analyses so far, the first by Leucona et al. (2016) for its first extensive description, who used Nesbitt's archosauriform analysis. They found it to be a crocodylomorph closer to Crocodyliformes than Carnufex, Pseudohesperosuchus, Dromicosuchus, Hesperosuchus and Sphenosuchus, but further than Terrestrisuchus, Dibothrosuchus, Litargosuchus and Kayentasuchus. However, placing it sister to other crocodylomorphs or sister to Crocodyliformes is only five steps longer each, so its position among 'sphenosuchians' is not strongly resolved. The topology used on this site is from Leardi et al. (2017) who used Clark's 'sphenosuchian' analysis, which is preferred as it uses more 'sphenosuchians' and mesoeucrocodylians.
References- Tillyard, 1918. Mesozoic insects from Queensland. 3. Odonata and Protodonata. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 43, 417-435.
Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estrados de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (Republica Argentina). Ameghiniana 3, 3-20.
Bonaparte, 1970. Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods. In Haughton (ed.). Second Gondwana Symposium, South Africa, Proceedings and Papers. 665-682.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Bonaparte, 1978. El Mesozoico de America del Sur y sus Tetrapodos. Opera Lilloana. 596 pp.
Bonaparte, 1982a. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Bonaparte, 1982b. Classification of the Thecodontia. Geobios, Memoire Special. 6, 99-112.
Parrish, 1987. The origin of crocodilian locomotion. Paleobiology. 13(4), 396-414.
Benton and Clark, 1988. Archosaur phylogeny and the relationships of the Crocodylia. In Benton (ed.). The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press. 295-338.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Bonaparte, 1997. El Triasico de San Juan - La Rioja Argentina y sus Dinosaurios. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. 190 pp.
Clark, Sues and Berman, 2000. A new specimen of Hesperosuchus agilis from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico and the interrelationships of basal crocodylomorph archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(4), 683-704.
Ezcurra, Lecuona and Irmis, 2008. A review of the archosaur Trialestes romeri (Suchia, Crocodylomorpha) from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina. III Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados. 88.
Lecuona and Desojo, 2011. Hind limb osteology of Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia). Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 102, 105-128.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.
Leardi, Pol and Clark, 2017. Detailed anatomy of the braincase of Macelognathus vagans Marsh, 1884 (Archosauria, Crocodylomorpha) using high resolution tomography and new insights on basal crocodylomorph phylogeny. PeerJ. 5:e2801.
Leardi, Yanez and Pol, 2020. South American crocodylomorphs (Archosauria; Crocodylomorpha): A review of the early fossil record in the continent and its relevance on understanding the origins of the clade. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 104, 102780.

Sphenosuchia Bonaparte, 1971
Definition- (Sphenosuchus acutus, Terrestrisuchus gracilis <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, in prep.)
Other definitions- (Terrestrisuchus gracilis <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)

Hallopoda Marsh, 1881
Definition- (Hallopus victor <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Hallopus

Macelognathus

Crocodyliformes Hay, 1930
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus + Protosuchus richardsoni) (Sereno et al., 2001; modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.