Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:43:24.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The taxonomic status of the phytosaurs (Archosauriformes) Machaeroprosopus and Pseudopalatus from the Late Triassic of the western United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

William G. Parker ,
Axel Hungerbühler  and
Jeffrey W. Martz
William G. Parker
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 2217, Petrified Forest National Park, Petrified Forest, AZ 86028, USA. Email: [email protected] Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Axel Hungerbühler
Affiliation:
Mesalands Community College, Tucumcari, NM 88401, USA
Jeffrey W. Martz
Affiliation:
Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Denver, CO 80205, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The genus Machaeroprosopus has long been considered invalid because the type specimen of the Late Triassic phytosaur species, M. validus, has been lost. Re-examination of the primary literature regarding the establishment of the Late Triassic phytosaur genus Machaeroprosopus demonstrates that M. buceros is the correct type species, not M. validus. Thus, the genus level name Machaeroprosopus has priority over the genera Pseudopalatus and Arribasuchus and all nominal species should be reassigned. Reassignment of these species to Machaeroprosopus satisfies the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and preserves historical context. The name Pseudopalatinae is retained as the valid clade name for these phytosaurs because its usage falls outside of the ICZN.

Keywords

ICZNNorth Americataxonomytype species
Type
Articles
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 103 , Issue 3-4: The Full Profession: A Celebration of the Life and Career of Wann Langston, Jr., Quintessential Vertebrate Palaeontologist , September 2012 , pp. 265 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

5. References

Abel, O. 1923. Die Schnauzenverletzungen der Parasuchier und ihre biologische Bedeutung. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 5, 26–57.Google Scholar
Ballew, K. L. 1989. A phylogenetic analysis of Phytosauria (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the late Triassic of the western United States. In Lucas, S. G. & Hunt, A. P. (eds) Dawn of the age of dinosaurs in the American Southwest, 309–39. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science.Google Scholar
Bell, C. J., Gauthier, J. A. & Bever, G. S. 2010. Covert biases, circularity, and apomorphies: a critical look at the North American quaternary herpetofaunal stability hypothesis. Quaternary International 217 (1–2), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, C. L. 1930. A study of the phytosaurs with description of new material from western North America. Memoirs of the University of California 10, 1–174.Google Scholar
Case, E. C. 1920. Preliminary description of a new suborder of phytosaurian reptiles with a description of a new species of Phytosaurus. Journal of Geology 28, 524–35.Google Scholar
Case, E. C. 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 321, 1–84.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. 1947. Studies of the phytosaurs Machaeroprosopus and Rutiodon. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 88, 53–96.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1881. Belodon in New Mexico. The American Naturalist 15, 922–23.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1887. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 24, 209–28.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1888. The pineal eye in extinct vertebrates. American Naturalist 24, 914–17.Google Scholar
Doyle, K. D. & Sues, H.-D. 1995. Phytosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic New Oxford Formation of York County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15 (3), 545–53.Google Scholar
Emmons, E. 1856. Geological report of the midland counties of North Carolina. New York: George P. Putnam and Co. XX+352 pp.Google Scholar
Fraas, E. 1896. Die schwäbischen Trias-Saurier nach dem Material der Kgl. Naturalien-Sammlung in Stuttgart zusammengestellt. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart. 18 pp.Google Scholar
Fraas, O. 1866. Vor der Sündfluth! Eine Geschichte der Urwelt. Stuttgart: Hoffmann. 512 pp.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J. A., Kluge, A. G. & Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4 (2), 105–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, J. T. 1962. The genera of phytosaurs. American Journal of Science 260, 652–90.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. T. 1972. Vertebrate faunas of the Dockum Group, Triassic, eastern New Mexico and west Texas. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 23, 120–23.Google Scholar
Hungerbühler, A. 2002. The Late Triassic phytosaur Mystriosuchus westphali, with a revision of the genus. Palaeontology 45 (2), 377–418.Google Scholar
Hungerbühler, A., Chatterjee, S. & Cunningham, D. 2003. A new phytosaur species from the Triassic of West Texas: new information on cranial anatomy, taxonomy and sexual dimorphism in Pseudopalatinae. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23 (Suppl. to 3), 63A.Google Scholar
Hungerbühler, A., Mueller, B., Chatterjee, S. & Cunningham, D. P. 2013. Cranial anatomy of the Late Triassic phytosaur Machaeroprosopus, with the description of a new species from west Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 103 (for 2012), 269–312Google Scholar
Hunt, A. P. 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group, Upper Triassic), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 404 pp.Google Scholar
Hunt, A. P. 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, 123–51.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th edition. London: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. 126 pp.Google Scholar
Irmis, R. B., Mundil, R., Martz, J. W. & Parker, W. G. 2011. High-resolution U–Pb ages from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation (New Mexico, USA) support a diachronous rise of dinosaurs. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 309 (3–4), 258–67.Google Scholar
Jaeger, G. F. 1828. Über die fossilen Reptilien, welche in Würtemberg aufgefunden worden sind. Stuttgart: Metzler. 48 pp.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1910. Ueber einen neuen Belodonten aus dem Buntsandstein von Bernburg. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1910, 197–229.Google Scholar
Long, R. A. & Murry, P. A. 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern United States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 4. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 254 pp.Google Scholar
Lucas, S. G., Heckert, A. B., Zeigler, K. E. & Hunt, A. 2002. The type locality of Belodon buceros Cope, 1881, a phytosaur (Archosauria: Parasuchidae) from the Upper Triassic of north-central New Mexico. In Heckert, A. B. & Lucas, S. G. (eds) Upper Triassic stratigraphy and paleontology. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 21, 189–92. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 301 pp.Google Scholar
Lucas, S. G. & Hunt, A. P. 1993. Tetrapod biochronology of the Chinle Group (Upper Triassic), western United States. In Lucas, S. G. & Morales, M. (eds) The nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 3, 327–29. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 478 pp.+59 pp.Google Scholar
Martz, J. W. 2008. Lithostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of southern Garza County, West Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 504 pp.Google Scholar
Mehl, M. G. 1916. New or little known phytosaurs from Arizona. In Mehl, M. G., Toepelmann, W. C. & Schwartz, G. M. (eds) New or little known reptiles from the Trias of Arizona and New Mexico, with notes from the fossil bearing horizons near Wingate, New Mexico. Bulletin of the University of Oklahoma, new series 103, University Studies Series 5. Norman: University of Oklahoma. 44 pp.Google Scholar
Mehl, M. G. 1922. A new phytosaur from the Trias of Arizona. Journal of Geology 30, 144–57.Google Scholar
Mehl, M. G. 1928. Pseudopalatus pristinus a new genus and species of phytosaurs from Arizona. University of Missouri Quarterly 3, 1–25.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. v. & Plieninger, T. 1844. Beiträge zur Paläontologie Württemberg's enthaltend die fossilen Wirbelthierreste aus den Triasgebilden mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Labyrinthodonten des Keupers. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart. 131 pp.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, S. J. 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: relationships and origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 352, 292 pp.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1908. New or little known titanotheres from the Eocene and Oligocene. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 24, 599–617.Google Scholar
Parker, W. G. & Irmis, R. B. 2006. A new species of the Late Triassic phytosaur Pseudopalatus (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 62, 126–43.Google Scholar
Parker, W. G. & Martz, J. W. 2011. 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 (for 2010), 231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramezani, J., Hoke, G. D., Fastovsky, D. E., Bowring, S. A., Therrien, F., Dworkin, S. I., Atchley, S. C., and Nordt, L. C. 2011. High-precision U-Pb zircon geochronology of the Late Triassic Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park (Arizona, USA): Temporal constraints on the early evolution of dinosaurs. Geological Society of America Bulletin 123 (11–12), 2142–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, M. R. 2010. A new taxon of phytosaur (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from the Norian (Late Triassic) Sonsela Member (Chinle Formation) in Arizona, and a critical re-evaluation of Leptosuchus Case, 1922. Palaeontology 53 (5), 997–1022.Google Scholar
Stovall, J. W. & Savage, D. E. 1939. A phytosaur in Union County, New Mexico, with notes on the stratigraphy. Journal of Geology 47, 759–66.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. W. 1979. Missing holotype Machaeroprosopus validus (Mehl, 1916). Journal of Paleontology 3, 741.Google Scholar
Woody, D. T. 2006. Revised stratigraphy of the lower Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 62, 17–45.Google Scholar
Zeigler, K. E., Lucas, S. G. & Heckert, A. B. 2002a. A phytosaur skull from the Upper Triassic Snyder Quarry (Petrified Forest Formation, Chinle Group of north-central New Mexico). In Heckert, A. B. & Lucas, S. G. (eds) Upper Triassic stratigraphy and paleontology. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 21, 171–77. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 302 pp.Google Scholar
Zeigler, K. E., Lucas, S. G. & Heckert, A. B. 2002b. The Late Triassic Canjilon Quarry (Upper Chinle Group, New Mexico) phytosaur skulls: evidence of sexual dimorphism in phytosaurs. In Heckert, A. B. & Lucas, S. G. (eds) Upper Triassic stratigraphy and paleontology. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 21, 179–88. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 302 pp.Google Scholar