100


Journal of Paleontology 90(1):92–101


represents a gracile form, slighter in appearance than unlike Procolophon (deBraga, 2003).


Discussion


The assignment of SMNS 92100 and SMNS 92101 to the owenettid procolophonians sheds new light on the evolution of this parareptile clade after the Permian–Triassic extinction. The six known members of this family range from the late Permian to the Middle Triassic times. Owenetta rubidgei Broom, 1939 is based on several specimens from Permian localities of the Karroo Basin of South Africa, from the Cistecephalus and Dicynodon Assemblage Zones (AZs; Broom, 1939; Reisz and Scott, 2002). The other known species, Owenetta kitchingorum, was recorded in the Lower Triassic Lystrosaurus AZ (Reisz and


Laurin, 1991; Reisz and Scott, 2002). Barasaurus besairiei was first recognized in the upper Permian of the Lower Sakamena Formation, Ranohira, southern Madagascar (Piveteau, 1955; unpublished data, Meckert, 1995), and later on, the genus was recorded in the Lower Triassic Middle Sakamena Formation (Madagascar; considered intermediate in age between the Lystrosaurus and Cynognathus AZs; Ketchum and Barret, 2004). Saurodektes rogersorum Modesto et al., 2003 was described on the basis of cranial material from the Lystrosaurus AZ (Modesto et al., 2003, 2004). Ruhuhuaria reiszi Tsuji et al., 2013 is based on a single skull from the Middle Triassic Lifua Member of the Manda Formation (Ruhuhu Basin) of south- western Tanzania (Tsuji et al., 2013), and finally, Candelaria barbouri Price, 1947 is from the Dinodontosaurus AZ of the Pinheiros–Chiniquá Sequence, Santa Maria Supersequence of southern Brazil (Cisneros et al., 2004; Soares et al., 2011; Horn et al., 2014). The humeri from the Middle Triassic of Germany con-


The three described humeri indicate the coexistence of both procolophonian families in the Middle Triassic of Germany. Finally, although based on isolated specimens, these records highlight the taxonomic diversity of the still poorly known tetrapod assemblage of the lower Keuper in southwestern Germany.


Acknowledgments


We thank F. Ullmann and M. Salomon for donating the material and I. Rosin and M. Kamenz for skillfully preparing the specimens. We are grateful to C. Schultz and A.M. Ribeiro for providing helpful suggestions. Funds were provided by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecno- lógico (CNPq nº 304143/2012-0; grants to MBS and AGM). We thank the editor in chief S. Hageman, the associate editor H.-D. Sues, and the reviewer R.R. Reisz for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.


References


Abdala, F., 1999, Elementos postcraneanos de Cynognathus (Synapsida- Cynodontia) del Triásico Inferior de la Provincia de Mendoza, Argentina. Consideraciones sobre la morfología del húmero en cinodontes: Revista Española de Paleontología, v. 14, p. 13–24.


Abdala, F., Martinelli, A.G., Soares, M.B., de la Fuente, M., and Ribeiro, A.M., 2009, South American Middle Triassic continental faunas with amniotes: biostratigraphic and correlation: Palaeontologia Africana, v. 44, p. 83–87.


Angielczyk, K.D., Sidor, C.A., Nesbitt, S.J., Smith, R.M.H., and Tsuji, L.A., 2009, Taxonomic revision and new observations on the postcranial skeleton, biogeography, and biostratigraphy of the dicynodont genus Dicynodontoides, the senior subjective synonym of Kingoria (Therapsida, Anomodontia): Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 29, p. 1174–1187.


stitute the first owenettids from Europe and represent one of the youngest records for the group, together with Ruhuhuaria reiszi from Tanzania and Candelaria barbouri from Brazil. They also add support to the survival and diversification of this family of procolophonians during the Triassic, as stated by other authors (Modesto et al., 2001, 2003; Reisz and Scott, 2002; Cisneros et al., 2004), since the oldest representatives are known from the late Permian. The isolated procolophonid humerus represents the second


taxon of procolophonians in the lower Keuper of Germany. It resembles Anomoiodon from the Lower Triassic of Germany (Säilä, 2008); nonetheless, more complete skeletal material is needed to corroborate this hypothesis.


Conclusions


From two isolated humeri, we recognize the presence of an owenettid procolophonian, aff. Barasaurus, in the Middle Triassic of Germany. This family was first recorded from the late Permian to the Early Triassic (Reisz and Laurin, 1991; Reisz and Scott, 2002; Modesto et al., 2003; Ketchum and Barrett,


2004); therefore, the specimens from Germany represent the first record in Europe and one of the youngest records of the family, together with Ruhuhuaria reiszi from Tanzania and Candelaria barbouri from Brazil. The other specimen, SMNS 91573, indicates the presence of a small-sized procolophonid.


Battail, B., Beltan, L., and Dutuit, J.-M., 1987, Africa and Madagascar during Permo-Triassic time: the evidence of the vertebrate faunas. In MacKenzie, G.D., ed., Gondwana Six: Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Paleontology: Geophysical Monograph, v. 41, p. 147–155.


Bonaparte, J.F., 1963, Descripción del esqueleto postcraneano de Exaeretodon (Cynodontia-Traversodontidae): Acta Geológica Lilloana, v. 4, p. 5–54.


Borsuk–Białynicka, M., and Evans, S.E., 2009, A long-necked arch- osauromorph from the Early Triassic of Poland: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 65, p. 203–234.


Broom, R., 1939,Anew type of cotylosaurian, Owenetta rubidgei: Annals of the Transvaal Museum, v. 19, p. 319–321.


Case, E.C., 1928, A cotylosaur from the Upper Triassic of western Texas: Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, v. 18, p. 177–178.


Cisneros, J.C., 2008, Phylogenetic relationships of procolophonid parareptiles with remarks on their geological record: Journal of Systematic Palaeontol- ogy, v. 6, p. 345–366.


Cisneros, J.C., Damiani, R., Schultz, C.L., da Rosa, A.A.S., Schwanke, C., Neto, L.W., and Aurélio, P.L.P., 2004, A procolophonoid reptile with temporal fenestration from the Middle Triassic of Brazil: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, v. 271, p. 1541–1546.


Cluver, M.A., 1978, The skeleton of the mammal-like reptile Cistecephalus with evidence for a fossorial mode of life: Annals of the South African Museum, v. 76(5), p. 213–246.


Cox, C.B., 1965, New Triassic dicynodonts from South America, their origin and relationships: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B), v. 248(753), p. 57–514.


Cys, J.M., 1967, Osteology of the pristerognathid Cynariognathus platyrhinus (Reptilia: Theriodontia): Journal of Paleontology, v. 41(3), p. 776–790.


Deutsche Stratigraphische Kommission, ed., 2005, Stratigraphie von Deutschland. IV – Keuper: Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, v. 253, p. 1–296.


deBraga, M., 2003, The postcranial skeleton, phylogenetic position, and probable lifestyle of the Early Triassic reptile Procolophon trigoniceps: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 40, p. 527–556.


Dilkes, D.W., 1998, The Early Triassic rhynchosaur Mesosuchus browni and the interrelationships of basal archosauromorph reptiles: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B), v. 353, p. 501–541.


Ezcurra, M.D., Scheyer, T., and Butler, R.J., 2014, The origin and early evolu- tion of Sauria: reassessing the Permian saurian fossil record and the timing of the crocodile-lizard divergence: PLoS ONE, v. 9, e89165.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188