Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:53:28.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protosuchus, Proterochampsa, and the origin of phytosaurs and crocodiles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

A. D. Walker
A. D. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Study of casts of Stegomosuchus, a small reptile from the Upper Trias of the Connecticut Valley, hitherto regarded as a pseudosuchian thecodont, suggests that the skull of Protosuchus includes two pairs of supraorbital bones, and as a consequence the narrow interorbital region indicates a closer relationship to the South African genus Notochampsa than has previously been thought. These three genera of late Triassic crocodilians are placed in the family Stegomosuchidae von Huene, 1922. Proterochampsa, from the Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina, described by Reig (1959) and Sill (1967) as an ancestral crocodile, is considered to be an extremely primitive phytosaur.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , February 1968 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Brink, A. S. 1955. Notes on some thecodonts. Navors. nas. Mus., Bloemfontein, 1, pt. 6, 141–148.Google Scholar
Broili, F. & Schroeder, J. 1934. Über Chasmatosaurus vanhoepeni Haughton. Sber. bayer. Akad. Wiss., math, -naturwiss. Abt., 225–264.Google Scholar
Broom, R. 1927. On Sphenosuchus and the origin of the crocodiles. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 359–369.Google Scholar
Brown, B. 1933. An ancestral crocodile. Am. Mus. Novit., no. 638, 1–4.Google Scholar
Brown, B. 1934. A change of names. Science, N.Y., n. ser. 79, 80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camp, C. L. 1930. A study of the phytosaurs with description of new material from Western N. America. Mem. Univ. Calif., 10, 1–161.Google Scholar
Case, E. C. 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of Western Texas. Carnegie lnstn Wash., Publ. No. 321, 7–84.Google Scholar
Code of Zoological Nomenclature. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Stoll, N. R. et al.). London, 1961.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. & Mook, C. C. 1951. The ancestral crocodile Protosuchus. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., 97, 147–182.Google Scholar
Emerson, B. K. & Loomis, F. B. 1904. On Stegomus longipes, a new reptile from the Triassic sandstones of the Connecticut Valley. Am. J. Sci., (4), 17, 377–380.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. T., 1962. The genera of phytosaurs. Am. J. Sci., 260, 652–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haughton, S. H. 1924. The fauna and stratigraphy of the Stormberg Series. Ann. S. Afr. Mus., 12, 323–497.Google Scholar
Haughton, S. H. & Brink, A. S. 1954. A bibliographical list of Reptilia from the Karroo Beds of Africa. Palaeont. afr., 2, 1–187.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. C. 1965. On the discovery of a new thecodont from the Middle Beaufort Beds. Navors. nas. Mus., Bloemfontein, 2, pt. 3, 33–40.Google Scholar
Huene, F. von 1914. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Archosaurier. Geol. paläont. Abh., N.F. 13, 3–53.Google Scholar
Huene, F. von 1922. The Triassic reptilian order Thecodontia. Am. J. Sci., (5), 4, 22–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huene, F. von 1925. Die Bedeutung der Sphenosuchus-Gruppe für den Ursprung der Krokodile. Z. indukt. Abstamm.—u. VererbLehre, 38, 307–320.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H. 1877. The crocodilian remains found in the Elgin sandstones, etc., Mem. geol. Surv. U.K., Monogr. III, 5–52.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1910. Ueber einen neuen Belodonten aus dem Buntsandstein von Bernburg. Sber. Ges. naturf. Freunde, Berl., Nr. 5, 197–229.Google Scholar
Kälin, J. A., 1933. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Osteologie des Crocodilidenschädels. Zool. Jb. (Anat.), 57, 535–714.Google Scholar
Kuhn, O. 1936. Weitere Parasuchier und Labyrinthodonten aus dem Blasensandstein des mittleren Keuper von Ebrach. Palaeontographica, Abt. A, 83, 61–98.Google Scholar
Langston, W. 1949. A new species of Paleorhinus from the Triassic of Texas. Am. J. Sci., 247, 324–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, J. H. 1906. The Phytosauria, with especial reference to Mystriosuchus and Rhytidodon. Mem. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., 9, 29–100.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. von. 1863. Der Schädel des Belodon aus dem Stubensandstein des oberen Keupers. Palaeontographica, 10, 227–246.Google Scholar
Price, L. I. 1946. Sôbre um novo pseudosuquio do Triássico superior do Rio Grande do Sul. Bolm Div. Geol. Miner., Bras., 120, 7–38.Google Scholar
Reig, O. A. 1959. Primeros datos descriptivos sobre nuevos reptiles arcosaurios del Triasico de Ischigualasto (San Juan, Argentina). Revta Asoc. geol. argent., 13, 257–270.Google Scholar
Reig, O. A. 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los “estratos de Ischigualasto”, etc. Revta Asoc. pal. argent., 3, 3–20.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. 3rd Edn., Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sill, W. D. 1967. Proterochampsa barrioneuvoi and the early evolution of the Crocodilia. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., 135, No. 8, 415–446.Google Scholar
Walker, A. D. 1961. Triassic reptiles from the Elgin area: Stagonolepis, Dasygnathus and their allies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc, B, 244, 103–204.Google Scholar