4.1 Article

POSTCRANIAL ANATOMY OF SEBECUS ICAEORHINUS (CROCODYLIFORMES, SEBECIDAE) FROM THE EOCENE OF PATAGONIA

期刊

JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 328-354

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2012.646833

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion de Ciencia y Tecnica [PICT 0736]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe postcranial remains of new specimens referred to Sebecus icaeorhinus found in the lower section of the Sarmiento Formation at Canadon Hondo (central Patagonia, Argentina), commonly regarded as part of the Casamayoran South American Land Mammal Age (middle Eocene). The new specimens include a partially articulated postcranium associated with teeth and fragmentary remains of the mandible that allows their identification as S. icaeorhinus. This taxon was almost exclusively known from skull remains from the same stratigraphic unit and was characterized by unique cranial features such as a long, high, and narrow rostrum bearing serrated teeth. The new material reveals numerous details on the postcranial anatomy of this crocodyliform, including the presence of proportionately long limbs and 10 autapomorphies in the vertebrae, forelimb, and pelvic girdle (some of which are interpreted as adaptations to terrestriality and an erect limb posture). These features depict a highly modified postcranial anatomy for S. icaeorhinus in comparison with that of neosuchian crocodyliforms, paralleling the uniqueness of its skull anatomy. The new information is also phylogenetically informative and incorporated into a cladistic analysis that corroborates not only the close affinities of Sebecidae with Baurusuchidae (sebecosuchian monophyly), but also the deeply nested position of this clade within Notosuchia. The incorporation of postcranial characters to the phylogenetic analysis also results in a novel arrangement of the basal mesoeucrocodylians recorded in the Cretaceous-Cenozoic of Gondwana, clustering all of these species into a large monophyletic clade.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据