Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:18:27.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of the taxonomy and systematics of aigialosaurs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2016

A.R. Dutchak
A.R. Dutchak*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA. Email: dutchak@colorado.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aigialosaurs have been recognised as a group of semi-aquatic marine reptiles for over one hundred years. While the taxonomic status of aigialosaurs has changed little in the past century, the interfamilial relationships have been modified considerably making the phylogenetic relationships between aigialosaurs, mosasaurs, dolichosaurs, coniasaurs, varanids and other squamates a topic of much debate. The monophyly of the family Aigialosauridae has been contested by recent studies and remains highly questionable. The higher-level relationships of mosasauroids within Squamata remain problematic with studies placing mosasauroids outside of Varanidae, Varanoidea and even Anguimorpha. These findings conflict with earlier views that aigialosaurs (and by association mosasaurs) were closely related to Varanus. This study concludes that further descriptions of aigialosaur taxa are needed, and several key flaws need to be addressed in the data matrices that have been used in previous studies. This should facilitate the clarification of aigialosaur systematic relationships both within Mosasauroidea and Squamata.

Keywords

aigialosaursmosasaurssystematicstaxonomy
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 84 , Special Issue 3: Proceedings of the First Mosasaur Meeting , September 2005 , pp. 221 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2005

References

Bell, G.L. Jr., 1993. A phylogenetic revision of the Mosasauroidea (Squamata). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas: 1–293.Google Scholar
Bell, G.L. Jr., 1997. A phylogenetic revision of North American and Adriatic Mosasauroidea. In: Callaway, J.M. and Nicholls, E.L. (eds): Ancient Marine Reptiles. Academic Press (San Diego): 281–332.Google Scholar
Bell, G.L. Jr. & Polcyn, M.J., 2005. Dallasaurus turnen, a new primitive mosasauroid from the Middle Turonian of Texas and comments on the phylogeny of Mosasauridae (Squamata). In: Schulp, A.S. & Jagt, J.W.M., (eds): Proceedings of the First Mosasaur Meeting. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 84: 177–194.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M.W., Carroll, R.L. & Kaiser, H., 1995. The pectoral girdle and forelimb of Carsosaurus marchesetti (Aigialosauridae), with a preliminary phylogenetic analysis of mosasauroids and varanoids. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15: 516–531.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M.W., 1996. Ontogeny and phylogeny of the mesopodial skeleton in mosasauroids reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 116: 407–436.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M.W., 1999a. Description and phylogenetic relationships of a new species of Coniasaurus Owen, 1850 (Squamata). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 438–455.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M.W., 1999b. Squamate phytogeny and the retationships of snakes and mosasauroids. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 125: 115–147.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M.W., 2000. On the aquatic squamate Dolichosaurus longicollis Owen, 1850 (Cenomanian, Upper Cretaceous), and the evolution of elongate necks in squamates. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20: 720–735.Google Scholar
Calligaris, R., 1988. I rettili fossili degli ‘Strati calcariei ittilitici di comeno’ e dell’isola di lesina. Atti del Museo Civico di Storia naturale Trieste 41: 85–125.Google Scholar
Camp, C.L., 1923. Classification of the lizard families. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 48: 289–481.Google Scholar
Camp, C.L. & Allison, H.J., 1961. Bibliography of fossil vertebrates 1949–1953. Memoirs of the Geological Society of America 84: 1–532.Google Scholar
Carroll, R.L. & DeBraga, M., 1992. Aigialosaurs: mid-Cretaceous varanoid lizards. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12: 66–86.Google Scholar
DeBraga, M. & Carroll, R.L., 1993. The origin of mosasaurs as a model of macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Evolutionary Biology 27: 245–322.Google Scholar
Dollo, L., 1904. L’origine des mosasauriens. Bulletin de la Société belge de Geologie, de Paléontologie et d’Hydrologie 18: 217–222.Google Scholar
Estes, R., de Quieroz, K. ɩ Gauthier, J. 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In: Estes, R. & Pregili, G. (eds): Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press (Stanford): 119–281.Google Scholar
Féjérvåry, G.J., 1918. Contributions to a monograph on fossil Varanidae and on Megalanidae. Annals of the National Museum of Hungary 16: 341–467.Google Scholar
Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press (Chicago): 263 pp.Google Scholar
Kornhuber, A.G., 1873. Über einen neuen fossilen Saurier aus Lesina. Abhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen geologischen Reichsanstalt zu Wien 5: 75–90.Google Scholar
Kornhuber, A.G., 1893. Carsosaurus Marchesettii, ein neuer fossiler Lacertilier aus den Kreideschichten des Karstes bei Komen. Abhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen geologischen Reichsanstalt zu Wien 17(3): 1–15.Google Scholar
Kornhuber, A.G., 1901. Opetiosaurus Bucchichi, eine neue fossile Eidechse aus der unteren Kreide von Lesina in Dalmatien. Abhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen geologischen Reichsanstalt zu Wien 17(5): 1–24.Google Scholar
Kramberger, K.G., 1892. Aigialosaurus, eine neue Eidechse aus den Kreideschiefern der Insel Lesina mit Rücksicht auf die bereits beschriebenen Lacertiden von Comen und Lesina. Glasnik huvatskoga naravolosovnoga derstva (Societas historico-matulis croatica) u Zagrebu 7: 74–106.Google Scholar
Kuhn, O., 1958. Ein neuer Lacertilier aus dem fränkischen Lithographieschiefer. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1958: 475–510.Google Scholar
Lee, M.S.Y., 1997. The phytogeny of varanoid lizards and the affinities of snakes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London: B352: 53–91.Google Scholar
Lee, M.S.Y., 1998. Convergent evolution and character correlation in burrowing reptiles: towards a resolution of squamate relationships. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 65: 369–453.Google Scholar
Lee, M.S.Y. & Caldwell, M.W., 2000. Adriosaurus and the affinities of mosasaurs, dolichosaurs, and snakes. Journal of Paleontology 74: 915–937.Google Scholar
Lee, M.S.Y. & Scanlon, J.D., 2002. The Cretaceous marine squamate Mesoleptos and the origin of snakes. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of London, Geology 68: 131–142.Google Scholar
McDowell, S.D. & Bogert, C.M., 1954. The systematic position of Lanthanotus and the affinities of the anguimorph lizards. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 105: 1–142.Google Scholar
Von Meyer, H., 1860. Acteosaurus tommasinii aus dem schwarzen Kredeschiefern von Comen am Karste. Palaeontgraphica 7: 223–231.Google Scholar
Nopcsa, F., 1903. Über die varanusartigen Lacerten Istriens. Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients 15: 31–42.Google Scholar
Nopcsa, F., 1908. Zur Kenntnis der fossilen Eidechsen. Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients 21: 33–62.Google Scholar
Nopcsa, F., 1923. Eidolosaurus und Pachyophis: zwei neue Neocom-Reptilien. Palaeontographica 65: 96–154.Google Scholar
Owen, R., 1850. Description of the fossil reptiles of the Chalk Formation. In: Dixon, F. (ed.): The Geology and Fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous Formations of Sussex. Longman, Brown, Green and Longman (London): 378–404.Google Scholar
Pierce, S.E. & Caldwell, M.W., 2004. Redescription and phylogenetic position of the Adriatic (Upper Cretaceous; Cenomanian) dolichosaur Pontosaurus lesinensis (Kornhuber, 1873). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 373–386.Google Scholar
Polcyn, M. & Bell, G.L., 2005. Russellosaurus coheni n. gen., n. sp., a 92 million-year-old mosasaur from Texas (USA), and the definition of the parafamily Russellosaurina. In: Schulp, A.S. & Jagt, J.W.M., (eds): Proceedings of the First Mosasaur Meeting. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 84:321–333.Google Scholar
Polcyn, M.J., Tchernov, E., & Jacobs, L.L., 1999. The Cretaceous biogeography of the Eastern Mediterranean with a description of a new basal mosasauroid from the ‘Ein Yabrud, Israel. In: Tomida, Y., Rich, T. H., & Vickers-Rich, P. (eds): Proceedings of the Second Gondwanan Dinosaur Symposium, National Science Museum Monogaphs, No. 15: 259–290.Google Scholar
Pregili, G.K., Gauthier, J.A. & Greene, H.W., 1986. The evolution of helodermatid squamates, with description of a new taxon and an overview of Varanoidea. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 21: 167–202.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O., 1988. A review of the origin of snakes. Evolutionary Biology 22: 37–130.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. & Zaher, H., 2000. The intramandibular joint in squamates, and the phylogenetic relationships of the fossil snake Pachyrachis problematicus Haas. Fieldiana (Geology), New Series 43: 1–69.Google Scholar
Russell, D.A., 1967. Systematics and morphology of American mosasaurs. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Bulletin 23: 1–241.Google Scholar
Seeley, H.G., 1881. On remains of a small lizard from Neocomian rocks of Comen, near Trieste, preserved in the Geological Museum of the University of Vienna. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 37: 52–56.Google Scholar
Williston, S.W., 1904. The relationships and habits of the mosasaurs. Journal of Geology 12: 43–51.Google Scholar