Dryomorpha sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Dryosaurus altus, Parasaurolophus walkeri)
Comments- Because Sereno accidentally defined this as "the most inclusive clade containing Dryosaurus altus (Marsh, 1878) and Parasaurolophus walkeri Parks, 1922" instead of the least exclusive clade, it would cover all of life on Earth.  It has since been defined officially in a different way (see below).


"Aeposaurus"
Glut, 1972
Comments- Glut (1972) included an entry for this supposed theropod from the Late Triassic or Early Jurassic.  The description states "discovered in Asia, fragmentary specimens classify this genus as apparently a theropod."  Future lists by Glut (1982) and Olshevsky (e.g. 1991, 2000) list Aeposaurus as a misspelling of the sauropod Aepisaurus credited to Romer (1966), given its own entry in Olshevsky (1972) and correctly differentiated as being from the Cretaceous of Europe.  Pending confirmation from Olshevsky, this entry is considered as mistake.
References- Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press. 687 pp.
Glut, 1972. The Dinosaur Dictionary. Citadel Press. 218 pp.
Glut, 1982. The New Dinosaur Dictionary. Citadel Press. 288 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.

"Dinosaurus" Lessem and Glut, 1993
Comments- Lessem and Glut (1993) included an entry for a genus named Dinosaurus in their popular book "The Dinosaur Society's Dinosaur Encyclopedia". This was supposed to be a theropod from the Late Cretaceous of India known from fragmentary ribs and a caudal vertebra. However, personal communication with Glut (2000) indicates that the entry was an error by Lessem and does not reflect any real specimen.
Dinosaurus is the name of two other proposed genera though. Dinosaurus murchisoni (Fischer, 1845) Fischer, 1847 is a junior synonym of the ?estemmenosuchid pan-mammal Brithopus priscus. Contra some sources, Seeley (1895) did not try to name another genus Dinosaurus, but rather described a femur he referred to Dinosaurus that has been subsequently referred to the dinocephalan pan-mammal Phreatosuchus qualeni. "Dinosaurus gresslyi" was named without a description by Rutimeyer (1856a), so was a nomen nudum. It needed to be renamed due to Fischer's genus anyway, so was officially described as Gresslyosaurus ingens by Rutimeyer later that year (1856b). As "Dinosaurus gresslyi" was invalid, Olshevsky's (2000) claim the species name should still be gresslyi is incorrect. The species is a plateosaurid and is often placed in Plateosaurus itself, though this is a matter of personal preference.
References- Fischer, 1845. Beitrag zur naeheren Bestimmung des von Hrn. Wangenheim von Qualen abgebildeten und beschriebenen Saurier-Schaedels. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 540-543.
Fischer, 1847. Bemerkungen uber das Schadel-Fragment, welches Herr Major Wangenheim von Qualen in dem West-Ural entdeckt und der Gesellschaft zur Beurteilung vorgelegt hat. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 20, 263-267.
Rutimeyer, 1856a. Dinosaurus gresslyi. Bibliotheque Universelle des Sciences Belles-Lettres et Arts, Geneve. September, 53.
Rutimeyer, 1856b. Reptilienknochen aus dem Keuper. Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft fur de Gesammten Naturwissenschaften. 41, 62-64.
Seeley, 1895. Researches on the structure, organization and classification of the fossil Reptilia. Part IX, section 1. On the Therosuchia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B. 185(21), 987-1018.
Lessem and Glut, 1993. The Dinosaur Society's Dinosaur Encyclopedia. New York: Random House.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.

Macrodontophion Zborzewski, 1834
Lochkovian-Eifelian, Early Devonian?
Dniester Series?, Podolia, Ukraine
Holotype
- shell (25 mm)
Comments- This genus was not given a species name when described by Zborzewski (1834). Macrodontophion's holotype was described as a snake tooth close to ophisaurs (actually anguid lizards) and pythons. It was also said to be similar to rhyncholites (cephalopod mandibles) and Beloptera (a spirulid cephalopod). Because Megalosaurus was mentioned in the same paragraph that the name first appears (the description proper is in the plate explanation), it was assigned to Megalosauridae by general reviews in the 1900's (e.g. Romer, 1956, 1976; Steel, 1970), and stated to be an indeterminate theropod by Weishampel (1990). Zborzewski tentatively referred it to the Jurassic, Molnar (1990) described its age as Late Jurassic or Cretaceous, and Weishampel assigned it to the Jurassic Nikolayevskaya Oblast based on personal comminication from Kurzanov. However, Nessov (1995) suggested its age was Early Devonian based on the geology of the region, Zborzewski's description of the locality as "ancient red sandstone" rich in lizard and snake teeth, comparable to the red strata in the Early Devonian Dniester Series which is rich in Porolepis teeth.
Molnar noted the insignificant distal taper was unlike theropod teeth and could not verify it was dinosaurian, though in pers. comm. to Olshevsky (2000) he stated it could be crocodilian or plesiosaurian, and in 1991 pers. comm. with Glut (1997) stated the abruptly flared base and lateral crests are similar to some shells. Sues (pers. comm. 1988 in Glut, 1997) also believed it was nondinosaurian. Nessov noted several characters which differ from theropod teeth- curvature perpendicular to plane of lateral crests (carinae of theropods); rounded apex; winding crest along inside edge of curve on long axis of tooth. Nessov believed that among Devonion fossils, Macrodontophion was most similar to the distal pectoral spine of an antiarch placoderm. While I agree the specimen is certainly not theropod, it does not resemble antiarch pectoral spines either. These spines are ironically like theropod teeth in being flattened parallel to their plane of curvature, lack the basal flare of Macrodontophion, and consist of numerous plates unlike the latter taxon. Even if most of Macrodontophion is an internal mold, the lateral crests seem to be made of one piece each and are too large to be single plates of an antiarch spine. Another possibility is the cornual process of an osteostracan or heterostracan, which are common in the Dniester Series (Dumbrava and Blieck, 2005; Voichyshyn, 2006). These are made of a single component, but still flattened in the plane of curvature. I believe an internal mold of a mollusk or annelid shell is most likely as an identification. Hyoliths, for instance, can have conical shells which are curved perpendicular to their axis of flattening, as in Macrodontophion. Yet hyoliths seem to lack the basal flare and have a more triangular section than the oval drawn for Macrodontophion. A large number of conical Palaeozoic shells are known which have controversial and problematic identifications, generally as hyoliths, scaphopods, nautiloids, cornulitids, coleolids or even worm tubes. Until Macrodontophion is examined by an expert in these taxa, it is probably best to keep it as Lophotrochozoa incertae sedis.
References- Zborzewski, 1834. Apercu des recherches physiques rationelles, sur les nouvelles curiosites Podoli-Colhyniennes, et sur leurs rapports geologiques aves les autres localites. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 7, 224-254.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Molnar, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Carnosaurs". in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 306-317.
Weishampel, 1990. Dinosaurian distribution. in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 63-139.
Nessov, 1995. Dinosaurs of nothern Eurasia: New data about assemblages, ecology, and paleobiogeography. Institute for Scientific Research on the Earth's Crust, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg. 1-156.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.
Dumbrava and Blieck, 2005. Review of the pteraspidiform heterostracans (Vertebrata, Agnatha) from the Devonian of Podolia, Ukraine, in the Theodor Vascautanu collection, Bucharest, Romania. Acta Palaeontologica Romianiae. 5, 163-171.
Voichyshyn, 2006. New osteostracans from the Lower Devonian terrigenous deposits of Podolia, Ukraine. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 51(1), 131-142.

Kuphus Guettard, 1770
?= Succinodon Huene, 1941
K? putzeri (Huene, 1941) comb. nov.
= Succinodon putzeri Huene, 1941
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous-Early Danian, Paleocene
Nasilow greensand, Poland

Syntypes- (Museum der Universitat Tubingen coll?) lined tubes (lost) (Huene, 1941)
Referred- (ZPAL Mo. XV/1-25) lined tubes (Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, 1981)
Comments- Succinodon putzeri was originally described by Huene (1941) based on adjacent cylindrical fossils interpreted as titanosaurian (titanosaurine of Huene) sauropod teeth.
These were recognized by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska (1981) as being the calcareous lining of burrowing bivalve tubes, ascribed to the teredinid Kuphus sp.. As a named species cannot be sunk within unspecified 'sp.', this would technically be a new combination Kuphus putzeri. However, this combination has yet to be used, even online. While the authors could not locate Huene's type material in collections, they did describe numerous new specimens (ZPAL Mo. XV/1-25) from the same locality. The tubes are often crushed at one end, corresponding to supposed labiolingual compression noted by Huene, and the inner and outer tube walls are formed of different layers which could be confused with dentine and enamel. Huene described adjacent cylinders as being preserved in mandibular fragments, but it's uncertain whether this was merely an assumption based on the proximity of the "teeth" to each other, a misinterpretation of perhaps reworked sediment, or even fossilized wood as found at other localities.
Abdel-Gawad (1986) doubted their referral to Kuphus, instead assigning Succinodon to Teredinidae indet.. He first stated that Kuphus pallets (stemmed cup-like structures which seal the posterior siphon holes) and valves had never been found as fossils, but this doesn't mean they cannot be found and indeed have definitely been found since in fossil K. melitensis (Zammit Maempel, 1993). He also said that Kuphus differs because it's not found in wood unlike his specimens from the Dziurknow and Kazimierz localities, but the specimens from Nasilow (including Succinodon's types) are preserved in stone. Finally, Abdel-Gawad argued the morphology of the pallets differed, confusing the septa described by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska (perhaps homologous to the camerations described in Kuphus by Zammit Maempel) with pallets (which are as of yet unreported in the Polish material). Abdel-Gawad also stated the tubes are Cretaceous and not Paleocene, contra Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, but Machalski (pers. comm., 2015) confirms they are present in both the Danian layers and as reworked Cretaceous material.
Zammit Maempel refined Kuphus taxonomy to include only K. arenarius and K. melitensis, with other species which are based solely on tubes being indeterminate. The Nasilow material described by Pozaryska and Pugaczewska can still be compared to arenarius and melitensis however. Based on Zammit Maempel's diagnoses, putzeri resembles arenarius in being thinner-shelled, with weaker annulations, and melitensis in being less acute. Only the amount of taper can be determined from Huene's publication, and as his material is lost a neotype (preferrably including pallets and/or valves) would need to be established if putzeri were to be validated.
Another approach is that of Savrda and Smith (1996), who argued bivalve tubes should be covered by ichnotaxonomy instead. In this case the Nasilow material falls under Teredolites longissimus (Kelly and Bromley, 1984), using the revised diagnoses of Pickerill et al. (2003). This is primarily based on its elongation, and other Kuphus would be referred to this ichnospecies as well. As the tubes are secreted by and perminently occupied by the animals however, and consist of multiple calcifications with specialized structure, I think they should be considered body fossils instead of trace fossils.
References- Guettard, 1770. Memories sur differentes parties des Sciences et des Arts. 3, 139-143.
Huene, 1941. Ein obercretacischer Saurierrest aus Polen. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 1941(3), 85-91.
Putzer, 1942. Die oberste Kreide bei Bochotnica a. d. mittleren Weichsel. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie B. 12, 361-377.
Pozaryska and Pugaczewska, 1981. Bivalve nature of Huene's dinosaur Succinodon. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 26(1), 27-34.
Kelly and Bromley, 1984. Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology. 27, 793-807.
Abdel-Gawad, 1986. Maastrichtian non-cephalopod mollusks (Scaphopoda, Gastropoda and Bivalvia) of the Middle Vistula Valley, Central Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica. 36(1-3), 69-224.
Zammit Maempel, 1993. Kuphus melitensis, a new teredinid bivalve from the Late Oligocene Lower Coralline Limestone of Malta. Contributions to Tertiary and Quaternary Geology. 30(3-4), 155-175.
Savrda and Smith, 1996. Behavioral implications of branching and tube-lining in Teredolites. Ichnos. 4, 191-198.
Pickerill, Donovan and Portell, 2003. Teredolites longissimus Kelly & Bromley from the Miocene Grand Bay Formation of Carriacou, the Grenadines, Lesser Antilles. Scripta Geologica. 125, 1-9.

Gnathostomata Gegenbaur, 1874
Official Definition- crown(jaws synapomorphic with Scyliorhinus canicula) (Downs, 2020; Registration Number 255)
References- Gegenbaur, 1874. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Anatomie. Wilhelm Engelmann. 660 pp.
Downs, 2020. Gnathostomata C. Gegenbaur 1874 [J. P. Downs], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 674-679.

Chondrichthyes Huxley, 1880

Elasmobranchii Bonaparte, 1838

Hybodontoidea Owen, 1846
Comments- Phylogeny shown after Rees (2008).
References- Rees, 2008. Interrelationships of Mesozoic hybodont sharks as indicated by dental morphology - preliminary results. Acta Geologica Polonica. 58(2), 217-221.

Lonchidiidae Herman, 1977

Vectiselachos Rees and Underwood, 2002
? = Priscavolucris Gomez Pallerola, 1979
V? montsechi (Gomez Pallerola, 1979) new combination
= Priscavolucris montsechi Gomez Pallerola, 1979
= Lissodus palustris Gomez Pallerola, 1992
= Lissodus montsechi (Gomez Pallerola, 1979) Duffin, 2001
Late Berriasian-Early Barremian, Early Cretaceous
La Pedrera de Rubies Lithographic Limestones, Spain
Holotype
- (LP-0088-G-IEI; was Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 4; holotype of Lissodus palustris) (~350 mm) cranium (33 mm), Meckel cartilage, ceratobranchial, teeth, few axial elements, scapulocoracoids (55 mm), propterygium, metapterygium, mesopterygium, radials, pectoral fins, scales
Comments- Gomez Pallerola (1979) originally identified the holotype as the skull, forelimbs and feathers of a Jurassic bird, naming it Priscavolucris montsechi (misspelled Priscavulucris in the figure captions). He later (1982) briefly reidentified it as a shark (cf. Selechia), which was apparent from the original photos. The skull was correctly identified, but the supposed humerus is a scapulocoracoid, the supposed radius and ulna are the basal fin elements, the wing itself is the pectoral fin with the feathers being its rays. The supposed metatarsus and pedal digits are a ceratobranchial and perhaps parts of adjacent gill arch elements (hypobranchial, epibranchial), while the supposed ribs may be ribs, neural spines or basiventrals. Gomez Pallerola later (1985, 1988) referred it to Lonchidion sp.. In 1992 he described it in detail as a new species- Lissodus palustris, as Lonchidion had been sunk into Lissodus by Duffin (1985). Duffin (2001) noted that while "It is obvious that the specimen is not a bird, so the generic name "Priscavolucris" falls as a junior synonym to Lissodus, but the species name montsechi must be retained, with L. palustris the junior synonym." This made the correct name for the taxon Lissodus montsechi.  As noted above, Rees and Underwood (2002) revised Lissodus and kept it separate from Lonchidion. They were unable to examine L. montsechi, but stated as the teeth were "extremely poorly figured, this species is at present not possible to distinguish from the contemporary L. microselachos."  However, L. montsechi differs from L. microselachos and all other Lonchidion species in having a row of granulae as in Vectiselachos.  Whether it has the weakly crenulate occlusal crest of Vectiselachos ornatus is uncertain, as Gomez Pallerola (1992; translated) states "occlusal crest normally smooth or with small notches in it (only observable in some teeth), not being able to be sure if they are characteristics of the tooth or perhaps produced in the extraction of the fossil."  Gomez Pallerola (1992) also found it most similar to Vectiselachos, which he used the junior synonym Lissodus pustulatus for.  Notably Priscavolucris has seniority over Vectiselachos, although ornatus has 90 years of seniority over montsechi.  Whether montsechi is really a Vectiselachos specimen and if so whether V. montsechi is a junior synonym of V. ornatus depends on reexamination of the montsechi holotype, though the individual is slightly smaller than described V. ornatus (dental mesiodistal length ~1.4-1.6 vs. 1.8-3.6 mm).  If the identification is correct, LP-0088-G-IEI would be the only specimen of Vectiselachos known from more than teeth.  Notably, several additional hybodont skeletons are known from the same locality, referred to Lonchidion sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 5) and Hybodus sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplar 7) by Gomez Pallerola (1985) and Lissodus sp. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplars 5 and 6) and Hybodontidae gen et sp. indet. (Gomez Pallerola coll. Ejemplars 7 and 8) by Pallerola (1992), but they were not evaluated here.  Two juvenile skeletons (MCCM-LH-15500a,b and MCCM-LH-17338a,b) referred to Lonchidion sp. from the Late Barremian Calizas de La Huerguina Formation of Spain have been described by Soler-Gijon et al. (2016), but are much smaller (dental mesiodistal length 0.4 mm) and lack granulae so are probably correctly referred to Lonchidion.
References- Gomez Pallerola, 1979. Un ave y otras especies fosiles nuevas de la biofacies de Santa Maria de Meya (Lerida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 90(4), 5-18.
Gomez Pallerola, 1982. Nuevas aportaciones a la ictiofauna y a la flora del Neocomiense del Montsech de Rubies (Lerida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 93(3), 199-213.
Gomez Pallerola, 1985. Nuevos hybodontidos del Cretacico Inferior de Santa Maria de Meya (Lerida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 96(4), 372-380.
Gomez Pallerola, 1988. Nota sobre los peces elasmobranquios de las calizas litograficas del Cretacico Inferior del Montsec (Lerida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 99(5), 748-756.
Gomez Pallerola, 1992. Nota sobre los tiburones hybodontos de las calizas litograficas del Cretacico Inferior del Montsec (Lerida). Boletin Geologico y Minero. 103(5), 783-813.
Soler Gijon and Poyato-Ariza, 1995. Overview of the Early Cretaceous chondrichthyan fauna from Montsec (Lérida, Spain). II International Symposium on Lithographic Limestones. Extended abstracts. 145-149.
Duffin, 2001. Synopsis of the selachian genus Lissodus Brough, 1935. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 221(2), 145-218.
Rees and Underwood, 2002. The status of the shark genus Lissodus Brough, 1935, and the position of nominal Lissodus species within the Hybodontoidea (Selachii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 22(3), 471-479.
Soler-Gijon, Poyato-Ariza, Maisey and Lane, 2016. Chondrichthyes. In Poyato-Ariza and Buscalioni (eds.). Las Hoyas: A Cretaceous Wetland. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. 103-113.
V. ornatus (Woodward, 1889) Rees and Underwood, 2002
= Acrodus ornatus Woodward, 1889
= Hylaeobatis ornata (Woodward, 1889) Patterson, 1966
= Lonchidion breve pustulatus Patterson, 1966
= Lissodus pustulatus (Patterson, 1966) Duffin, 1985
= Lissodus ornatus (Woodward, 1889) Batchelor and Ward, 1990
Hauterivian-Barremian, Early Cretaceous
Weald Clay Formation, England
References
- Woodward, 1889. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History). 1. Elasmobranchii. British Museum. 474 pp.
Patterson, 1966. British Wealden sharks. Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History (Geology). 11(7), 283-350.
Duffin, 1985. Revision of the hybodont selachian genus Lissodus Brough (1935). Palaeontographica, Abteilung A. 188, 105-152.
Batchelor and Ward, 1990. Fish remains from a temporary exposure of Hythe Beds (Aptian-Lower Cretaceous) near Godstone, Surrey. Mesozoic Research. 2(4). 181-203.
Rees and Underwood, 2002. The status of the shark genus Lissodus Brough, 1935, and the position of nominal Lissodus species within the Hybodontoidea (Selachii). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 22(3), 471-479.

Neoselachii Compagno, 1977

Selachimorpha Nelson, 1984

Galeomorphii Campagno, 1973

Lamniformes Berg, 1958

Odontaspidae Muller and Henle, 1839

undescribed Odontaspidae (Zinsmeister, 1985)
Late Maastrictian, Late Cretaceous
Lopez de Bertodano Formation, Seymour Island, Antarctica

Material- (?TTU-P coll.) several teeth
Comments
- Zinsmeister (1985) states "several small bones tentatively identified as belonging to the Cretaceous bird Ichthyornis were discovered in the upper Cretaceous Lopez de Bertodano formation."  Chatterjee (pers. comm. 12-6-2020) stated "It was misidentified in the field. These were some shark teeth."  Comparison of Ichthyornis with described chondrichthyan teeth from the same locality suggests odontaspid lateral teeth are the most likely to be confused (e.g. Figure 2.16 in Otero et al., 2014).  These were also the most abundant teeth in Otero et al., sample with 8 examples versus 1-3 for other taxa. 
References- Zinsmeister, 1985. 1985 Seymour Island expedition. Antarctic Journal of U.S. 20, 41-42.
Otero, Gutstein, Vargas, Rubilar-Rogers, Yury-Yañez, Bastías and Ramírez, 2014. New chondrichthyans from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) of Seymour and James Ross islands, Antarctica. Journal of Paleontology. 88(3), 411-420.

Osteichthyes Huxley, 1880
Official Definition- crown(Latimeria chalumnae + Neoceratodus forsteri + Polypterus bichir + Acipenser sturio + Lepisosteus osseus + Amia calva + Perca fluviatilis) (Moore and Near, 2020; Registration Number 214)
References- Huxley, 1880. On the application of the laws of evolution to the arrangement of the Vertebrata and more particularly of the Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 43, 649-662.
Moore and Near, 2020. Osteichthyes T. H. Huxley 1880 [J. A. Moore and T. J. Near], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 684-689.

Actinopterygii Woodward, 1891
Official Definition- crown(
Polypterus bichir + Acipenser sturio + Lepisosteus osseus + Amia calva + Perca fluviatilis) (Moore and Near, 2020: Registration Number 206)
Comments- Klein (1988) has been listed as the author of Actinopterygii, but uses Acanthopterygii instead (Moore and Near, 2020).
References-
Klein, 1885. Beiträge zur Bildung des Schadels der Knochenfische II. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 41, 107-261.
Woodward, 1891. Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Vol. 2. British Museum (Natural History). 567 pp.
Moore and Near, 2020. Actinopterygii A. S. Woodward 1891 [J. A. Moore and T. J. Near], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 694-699.

unnamed actinopterygian (Jasinski, 2018)
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Naashoibito Member of Ojo Alamo Formation, New Mexico, US
Material-
(SMP VP-2430 in part; holotype of Dineobellator notohesperis) four vertebrae (4.12, 5.10 mm)
Comments- Jasinoski et al. (2020) describe an articulated string of four vertebrae as fused distal caudals of their new dromaeosaurid Dineobellator, but they are about half as long as tall (43-54%) unlike theropod distal caudals which are always much longer than tall.  For a comparison, their centra are 75% as tall as the anterior face of the first caudal vertebra but 16-19% of its length, whereas in Deinonychus the caudal 75% as tall as the first (~caudal 15) is 143% its length.  Instead, these small (4.12, 5.10 mm) and tall centra resemble actinopterygians, in both size and the presence of foramina and anteroposterior ridges which the authors attributed to prezygapophyseal rods.  Multiple fish are present in the Alamo Wash local fauna including lepisosteids, although amiid and esocid vertebrae are also common in similar formations.
References- Jasinski, 2018. The integration of morphology, variation, and phylogenetics to better understand fossil taxa and their modern relatives. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 564 pp.
Jasinski, Sullivan and Dodson, 2020. New dromaeosaurid dinosaur (Theropoda, Dromaeosauridae) from New Mexico and biodiversity of dromaeosaurids at the end of the Cretaceous. Scientific Reports. 10:5105.

Sarcopterygii Romer, 1956
Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Perca fluviatilis) (Schultze and Arratia, 2004)

Actinistia Cope, 1872

Indocoelacanthus Jain, 1974
I? sp. (Jain, 1980)
= 'Kota bird' Anonymous?, 1979
Early Jurassic
Kota Formation, India

Material- (GSI coll.; Kota bird) partial skull (~166 mm), mandibles (~133 mm), cleithrum, scales
Comments- In 1979, the Indian popular press reported the discovery of a bird from the Early Jurassic Kota Formation of India. The find was attributed to Yadagiri, who claimed it was the oldest known bird and had a skull 150 mm long. Jain (1980) examined the specimen and identified it as a coelacanth skull. The supposed frontals are gulars, the supposed dentary is an infraorbital, the supposed radius and ulna (which are only a third of the skull's length, so would be far too short for a bird) are frontals, the supposed quadrate is an opercular, the supposed furcula is a cleithtrum and the supposed feathers are scales. Jain noted the skull is comparable to the Kota coelacanth Indocoelacanthus robustus (Jain, 1974) in gular, opercular and cleithral morphology, but differs in having two rows of mandibular denticulation. The absence of a skull roof made it difficult to compare in detail. He believed it could be a new species of Indocoelacanthus or a new genus of coelacanth. The specimen has not been examined since to my knowledge.
References- Jain, 1974. Indocoelacanthus robustus n. gen., n. sp. (Coelacanthidae, Lower Jurassic), the first fossil coelacanth from India. Journal of Paleontology. 48(1), 49-62.
Anonymous?, 1979. India Today. May 16-31. 4(10).
Jain, 1980. The continental Lower Jurassic fauna from the Kota Formation, India. In Jacobs (ed). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff. 99-123.

Tetrapoda Hatschek and Cori, 1896
Official Definition- crown(Homo sapiens + Caecilia tentaculata + Siren lacertina + Pipa pipa) (Laurin, 2020; Registration Number 106)
Other definitions- (Ascaphus truei + Homo sapiens) (Laurin, 2004)
References- Hatschek and Cori, 1896. Elementarcus der Zootomie in fünfzen Vorlesungen. Gustav Fischer. [pp]
Laurin, 2020. Tetrapoda B. Hatschek and C. J. Cori 1896 [M. Laurin], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 758-763.

Amphibia Linnaeus, 1758
Official Definition- (Caecilia tentaculata, Siren lacertina, Andrias japonicus, roteus anguinus, Rana temporaria < Homo sapiens) (Laurin, Arntzen, Báez, Bauer, Damiani, Evans, Kupfer, Larson, Marjanović, Müller, Olsson, Rage and Walsh, 2020; Registration Number 9)
Other definitions- (Ascaphus truei <- Homo sapiens) (Laurin, 2004)
References- Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I, Editio decima, reformata. Laurentius Salvius. 824 pp.
Laurin, Arntzen, Báez, Bauer, Damiani, Evans, Kupfer, Larson, Marjanović, Müller, Olsson, Rage and Walsh, 2020. Amphibia C. Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin, J. W. Arntzen, A. M. Báez, A. M. Bauer, R. Damiani, S. E. Evans, A. Kupfer, A. Larson, D. Marjanović, H. Müller, L. Olsson, J.-C. Rage and D. Walsh], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 764-771.

Gymnophionia Müller, 1832
Official Definition- crown(Caecilia tentaculata + Ichthyophis glutinosus + Rhinatrema bivittatum) (Wake, 2020; Registration Number 235)
Comments- While sometimes credited to Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1814), that work used Gymnophia.
References- Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814. Fine del prodromo d’erpetologia Siciliana. Speccio delle Scienze. 2, 102-104.
Müller, 1832. Beiträge zur Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Amphibien. I. Ueber die natürliche Eintheilung der Amphibien. Zeitschrift für Physiologie. 4, 190-275.
Wake, 2020. Gymnophiona J. Müller 1832 [M. H. Wake], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group.778-783.

Batrachia Latreille, 1800

Caudata Scopoli, 1777
Official Definition- crown(Salamandra salamandra + Siren lacertina + Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) (Wake, 2020; Registration Number 234)
References- Scopoli, 1777. Introductio ad Historiam Naturelam, Sistens Genera Lapidum, Planarum, et Animalium Hactenus Detecta, Caracteribus Essentialibus Donate, in Tribus Divisa, Subinde ad Leges Naturae. Gerle. 506 pp.
Wake, 2020. Caudata J. A. Scopoli 1777 [D. Wake], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 784-787.

Salientia Laurenti, 1768

Pan-Amniota Rowe, 2004
Official Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Pipa pipa, Caecilia tentaculata, Siren lacertina) (Laurin and Smithson, 2020; Registration Number 74)
= Reptiliomorpha Säve-Söderbergh, 1934
Definition- (Homo sapiens <- Ascaphus truei) (Laurin, 2004)
References- Säve-Söderbergh, 1934. Some points of view concerning the evolution of the vertebrates and the classification of this group. Arkiv för Zoologi. 26A, 1-20.
Rowe, 2004. Chordate phylogeny and development. In Cracraft and Donoghue (eds.). Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press. 384-409.
Laurin and Smithson, 2020. Pan-Amniota T. Rowe 2004 [M. Laurin and T. R. Smithson], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 788-791.

Lepospondyli Zittel, 1888

Amniota Haeckel, 1866
Official Definition- crown(Homo sapiens + Testudo graeca + Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 7)
Other definitions- (Mammalia + Reptilia) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Homo sapiens + Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Homo sapiens + Iguana iguana) (Reisz, 2004)
References- Haeckel, 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Reimer. 574 pp.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Amniota E. Haeckel 1866 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 792-799.

Pan-Mammalia Rowe, 2004
Official Definition- (total, Homo sapiens, Didelphis marsupialis, Tachyglossus aculeatus) (Rowe, 2020; Registration Number 224)
= Synapsida Osborn, 1903
Official Definition- (Cynognathus crateronotus <- Testudo graeca, Iguana iguana, Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 290)
Other definitions- (Eothyris parkeyi + Varanops brevirostris + Homo sapiens) (modified from Laurin and Reiz, 1995)
(Homo sapiens <- Hylonomus lyelli, Procolophon trigoniceps, Petrolacosaurus kansensis) (modified from Reisz, 2004; modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(lower temporal arch as in Homo sapiens) (Rowe et al., 2004)
(Dicynodon lacerticeps <- Crocodilus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
Comments- Both Pan-Mammalia and Synapsida were officially defined in the same publication, and are heterodefinitional synonyms.  PhyloCode Article 14.4 states "If a panclade name (Art. 10.3) and a name that was not explicitly established as applying to a total clade are judged to be heterodefinitional synonyms (Art. 14.1), the panclade name has precedence even if it was established later (except in cases covered by Art. 10.7)."  Thus Pan-Mammalia has precedence.
References- Osborn, 1903. The reptilian subclasses Diapsida and Synapsida and the early history of the Diaptosauria. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. 1, 265-270.
Rowe, 2004. Chordate phylogeny and development. In Cracraft and Donoghue (eds.). Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press. 384-409.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Synapsida H. F. Osborn 1903 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 810-813.
Rowe, 2020. Pan-Mammalia T. B. Rowe 2004 [T. B. Rowe], converted clade name.
In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 800-809.

Eupelycosauria Kemp, 1982

Sphenacomorpha Ivankhnenko, 2003

Sphenacodontia Romer and Price, 1940

Sphenacodontoidea Marsh, 1878

Sphenacodontidae Marsh, 1878

Sphenacodontinae Marsh, 1878 vide Romer, 1936

Dimetrodon Cope, 1878
= Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853
D. spp. [entries coming]
D. borealis (Leidy, 1853) Brink, Maddin, Evans and Reisz, 2015
= Bathygnathus borealis Leidy, 1853
Artinskian, Early Permian
Orby Head Formation, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Holotype
- (ANSP 9524) partial premaxilla, septomaxilla, incomplete maxilla, anterior nasal
Diagnosis- (after Brink et al., 2014) large facial exposure of septomaxilla.
Comments- The holotype of Bathygnathus borealis was discovered in 1845 and originally briefly described by Leidy (1853) as the mandible of a reptile, and later (1854, 1855) in more depth as a lizard ("lacertian"). Cope (1868) suggested it was related to Dryptosaurus and provisionally placed it in his Goniopoda (=Theropoda) in 1870. Huene (1902) referred it to his theropod family Zanclodontidae, believing it might be synonymous with Teratosaurus. It was also commonly referred to the Amphisauridae (e.g. Marsh, 1882), and the Anchisauridae which replaced it (e.g. Marsh, 1885) when these were thought to be theropod groups. Owen (1876) correctly identified the specimen as an upper jaw and suggested a relationship to theriodonts (and Lycosaurus in particular) based on the presence of a canine tooth, reduced incisor and other characters. This was not confirmed until Case (1905) and Huene (1905) independently reidentified Bathygnathus as a "pelycosaurian" pan-mammal, Case believing it to be either Dimetrodon or Naosaurus (a junior synonym of Edaphosaurus that was mistakenly given a Dimetrodon skull). It was referred to Sphenacodontidae by Romer and Price (1940), and Sphenacodontinae in particular by Reisz (1986). Most recently, Brink et al. (2014; published as Brink et al., 2015) reexamined and redescribed Bathygnathus and found it to be sister to Dimetrodon grandis within Dimetrodon based on tooth roots which lack plicidentine, tooth roots equal in length to crowns, postcaniniform teeth with longitudinal distal sulci, and mesial and distal serrations. They note Bathygnathus has precedence over Dimetrodon, so petitioned the ICZN to retain the latter genus (Brink, 2015).  This was upheld by the ICZN in 2019, who "conserved the generic name Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by giving it precedence over its senior subjective synonym Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853."
References- Leidy, 1853. [Remarks on Bathygnathus borealis]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 6, 404.
Leidy, 1854. On Bathygnathus borealis, an extinct saurian of the New Red Sandstone of Prince Edward Island. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series. 2(4), 327-330.
Leidy, 1855. On Bathygnathus borealis, an extinct saurian of the New Red Sandstone of Prince Edward's Island. American Journal of Science, series 2. 19, 444-446.
Cope, 1868. Remarks on extinct reptiles which approach birds. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 19, 234-235
Cope, 1870. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 14, 1-252.
Owen, 1876. Evidences of theriodonts in Permian deposits elsewhere than in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 32, 352-366.
Cope, 1878. Descriptions of extinct Batrachia and Reptilia from the Permian formations of Texas. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 17, 505-530.
Leidy, 1881. Remarks on Bathygnathus borealis. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series. 8(4), 449.
Marsh, 1882. Classification of the Dinosauria. American Journal of Science. 23, 81-86.
Marsh, 1885. On the classification and affinities of dinosaurian reptiles. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 1884, 763.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Case, 1905. Bathygnathus borealis Leidy and the Permian of Prince Edward Island. Science. 22(550), 52-53.
Huene, 1905. Pelycosaurier im deutschen Muschelkalk. Neues Jahrbuch fur Minerologie, Geologie und Paleontologie. 20, 321-353.
Case, 1907. Revision of the Pelycosauria of North America. 176 pp.
Romer and Price, 1940. Review of the Pelycosauria. Geological Society of America Special Paper. 28, 538 pp.
Langston, 1963. Fossil vertebrates and the Late Palaeozoic Red Beds of Prince Edward Island. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin. 187, 36 pp.
Reisz, 1986. Pelycosauria. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. 17A, 102 pp.
Spalding, 1995. Bathygnathus, Canada's first "dinosaur". In Sarjeant (ed.). Vertebrate Fossils and the Evolution of Scientific Concepts. 245-254.
Brink, Evans, Maddin and Reisz, 2014. Phylogenetic assessment of Bathygnathus borealis, a derived species of Dimetrodon from Canada. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2014, 97.
Brink, Maddin, Evans and Reisz, 2015. Re-evaluation of the historic Canadian fossil Bathygnathus borealis from the Early Permian of Prince Edward Island. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 52(12), 1109-1120.
Brink, 2015. Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 (Synapsida, Sphenacodontidae): Proposed conservation by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 72(4), 297-299.
Lucas, 2017. Comment (Case 3695) – Support for the proposed conservation of Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853 (Synapsida: Sphenacodontidae) (see BZN 72(4): 297–299 [Case]). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 74(1), 46.
Kammerer, 2017. Comment (Case 3695) – Additional remarks in support of the proposed conservation of Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 by reversal of precedence with Bathygnathus Leidy, 1853 (Synapsida, Sphenacodontidae) (see BZN 72(4): 297–299 [Case]; BZN 74: 46 [Comment]). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 74(2), 132.
ICZN, 2019. Opinion 2446 (Case 3695) – Dimetrodon Cope, 1878 (Synapsida, SPHENACODONTIDAE): name conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 76(1), 200-201.

Sauropsida Goodrich, 1916
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Homo sapiens) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006; modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
Other definition- (Mesosaurus tenuidens + Testudo graeca + Diapsida) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
= Eureptilia Olson, 1947
Definition- (Captorhinus aguti, Petrolacosaurus kansensis <-Procolophon trigoniceps) (Tsuji and Muller, 2009)
Other definitions- (Diapsida <- Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)

Romeriida Gauthier, Kluge and Rowe, 1988
Definition- (Paleothyris acadiana + Diapsida) (Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
Other definition- (Sauria <- Anapsida) (Gauthier et al., 1988)

Diapsida Osborn, 1903
Official Definition- (upper and lower temporal fenestrae synapomorphic with Sphenodon punctatus) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 120)
Other definitions- (Araeoscelis gracilis + Sauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Lepidosauria + Archosauria) (Laurin, 1991)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Youngina capensis) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Claudiosaurus germaini + Youngina capensis + Sauria) (modified from Braga and Rieppel, 1997)
(two temporal arches/fenestrae of Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Petrolacosaurus kansensis, Iguana iguana <- Captorhinus aguti, Procolophon trigoniceps, Paleothyris acadiana) (Reisz, 2004)
(Araeoscelis gracilis + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
References- Osborn, 1903. On the primary division of the Reptilia into two sub-classes, Synapsida and Diapsida. Science. 17(424), 275-276.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Diapsida H. F. Osborn 1903 [J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1032-1039.

Neoreptilia Ford and Benson, 2020
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Youngina capensis) (Ford and Benson, 2020)
= Procolophonia Seeley, 1888
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Pareiasaurus serridens + Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
Other definitions- (Owenetta rubidgei + Barasaurus besairei + Procolophon trigoniceps + Lanthanosuchus watsoni + Sclerosaurus armatus + Pareiasaurus serridens + Testudo graeca) (modified from Lee, 1997)
= Testudinomorpha Laurin and Reisz, 1995
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps + Testudo graeca) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
References- Ford and Benson, 2020 (online 2019). The phylogeny of early amniotes and the affinities of Parareptilia and Varanopidae. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 4, 57-65.

Parareptilia Olson, 1947
Definition- (Procolophon trigoniceps, Pareiasaurus serridens <- Homo sapiens, Iguana iguana) (Reisz, 2004)
Other definitions- (Testudo graeca <- Diapsida) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
(Milleretta rubidgei, Procolophon trigoniceps <- Captorhinus aguti) (Tsuji and Muller, 2009)

unnamed clade (Megalancosaurus preonensis + Reptilia)
= Basitheropoda Olshevsky, 1991
= Theropodomorpha Olshevsky, 1991
Definition- (Megalancosaurus preonensis + Longisquama insignis + Megalosaurus bucklandii, - Passer domesticus) (modified from Olshevsky, 1991)
= Avicephala Senter, 2004
Definition- (Coelurosauravus elivensis, Megalancosaurus preonensis <- Neodiapsida) (modified from Senter, 2004)
Other definition- (Weigeltisaurus jaekeli, Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus <-Petrolacosaurus kansensis, Orovenator mayorum, Claudiosaurus germaini, Youngina capensis, Sauria) (Pritchard, Sues, Scott and Reisz, 2021)
References- Pritchard, Sues, Scott and Reisz, 2021. Osteology, relationships and functional morphology of Weigeltisaurus jaekeli (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) based on a complete skeleton from the Upper Permian Kupferschiefer of Germany. PeerJ. 9:e11413.

Simiosauria Senter, 2004
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus <- Coelurosauravus elivensis, Sauria) (modified from Senter, 2004)
= Drepanosauromorpha Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010

Drepanosauridae Olsen and Sues, 1986
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus + Megalancosaurus preonensis + Dolabrosaurus aquatilis) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
= Megalancosauridae Olshevsky, 1991
Definition- (Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus + Megalancosaurus preonensis) (modified from Merck, 1997

unnamed Drepanosauridae (Parrish, 1999)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Four Aces Mine, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Utah, US

Material- (UCM 76197) two  incomplete manual unguals
Comments- Discovered between 1983 and 1988, Parrish (1999) figured and commented on "several incomplete ungual phalanges" including "a thick, rounded morph with a sharply curved claw" which he referred to ?Theropoda.  His figure 5C strongly resembles manual ungual II of some drepanosaurids (Drepanosaurus, Hayden Quarry ?Drepanosaurus, Ancistronychus) in its depth and shortness, high curvature and lack of vascular grooves, although it differs in shape from any of those.  Figure 5B is less deep but otherwise similar, suggesting an ungual from a different manual digit.  Jenkins et al. (2017) merely stated "these specimens are best considered Archosauriformes incertae sedis until further work is conducted", which seems too conservative.
References- Parrish, 1999. Small fossil vertebrates from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of southern Utah. In Gillette (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication. 99-1, 45-50.
Jenkins, Foster and Gay, 2017. First unambiguous dinosaur specimen from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West. 4, 231-242.

Protoavis in part

Megalancosaurus Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980
M. preonensis Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980
= Megalancosaurus endennae Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Dolomia di Forni Formation, Italy
Holotype
- (MFSN 1769) skull (30 mm), mandibles (18 mm), hyoid, several cervical vertebrae (c3 7 mm, c6 9 mm), second dorsal neural spine, fused third and fourth dorsal neural spines, two dorsal ribs, dorsal rib fragments, scapula (23 mm), coracoid fragment, humerus (22 mm), radius (15 mm), ulna (15 mm), intermedium, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, metacarpal I (1.5 mm), phalanx I-1 (6 mm), partial manual ungual I, metacarpal II (3 mm), incomplete phalanx II-1 (6 mm), metacarpal III (3.5 mm), partial phalanx III-1 (6 mm), manual ungual III (4 mm), metacarpal IV (3 mm), partial phalanx IV-1 (3 mm), phalanx IV-2 (5 mm), manual ungual IV (4.5 mm), metacarpal V (2 mm), partial phalanx V-1 (3 mm), phalanx V-2 (4 mm), manual ungual V (4.5 mm)
Referred- (MFSN 1801) caudal vertebrae 8-38 fused to chevrons (Pinna, 1987)
(MFSN 18443a) caudal vertebrae 13-38 (Renesto, 2000)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Zorzino Limestone Formation, Italy
(MBSN 25; paratype of Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus; holotype of Megalancosaurus endennae) seven posteriormost dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, first-third sacral vertebrae, first-twenty-ninth caudal vertebrae fused to chevrons (c10 6 mm), pelvis, femur (23.5 mm), tibia (14.5 mm), fibula (13 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (3 mm), phalanx I-1 (7 mm), phalanx I-2 (2.5 mm), metatarsal II (4 mm), phalanx II-1 (3.5 mm), phalanx II-2 (6 mm), pedal ungual II (4.5 mm), metatarsal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (3.5 mm), phalanx III-2 (6.5 mm), pedal ungual III (5 mm), metatarsal IV (4 mm), phalanx IV-1 (4 mm), phalanx IV-2 (6 mm), pedal ungual IV (5.5 mm), metatarsal V (3 mm), phalanx V-1 (3 mm), phalanx V-2 (5.5 mm), pedal ungual V (4 mm), skin (Pinna, 1980)
(MBSN 26; paratype of Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus) cervical vertebrae (c3 4.5 mm, c6 6 mm), anterior dorsal vertebrae (d2 4 mm), anterior dorsal ribs, posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs (d18 3 mm), supraneural element, caudal vertebrae fused with chevrons (c10 5.5 mm), scapulae (21 mm), humerus (18.5 mm), radius, ulna, pelvis, femur (20 mm), tibia (11.5 mm), fibula, pes (Pinna, 1980)
(MPUM 6008; = P 11 24) cervical vertebrae (c3 7.5 mm, c5 9.5 mm, c6 10 mm), anterior dorsal vertebrae (d2 6 mm), anterior dorsal ribs, posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, supraneural element, sacral vertebrae, caudal neural spines, scapula (23 mm), coracoids fused to sternal plates, furcula, humerus (22.5 mm), radius (14 mm), ulna (14 mm), proximal carpal, four distal carpals, phalanx I-1 (6 mm), manual ungual I (4 mm), metacarpal II (3 mm), phalanx II-1 (6 mm), manual ungual II (4 mm), metacarpal III (3 mm), phalanx III-1 (6 mm), manual ungual III (4 mm), metacarpal IV (2.5 mm), phalanx IV-1 (3 mm), phalanx IV-2 (5 mm), phalanx V-1 (2.5 mm), phalanx V-2 (4 mm), manual ungual V (3.5 mm), three manual phalanges, two manual unguals, partial pelvis (Renesto, 1994)
(MPUM 8437; = CCSR 63115) posterior skull, incomplete mandible, eight cervical vertebrae (c5 7 mm, c6 7.5 mm), five anterior dorsal vertebrae, anterior dorsal ribs, eighteen posterior dorsal vertebrae fused to dorsal ribs, supraneural element, three sacral vertebrae, thirty-nine caudal vertebrae fused to chevrons, partial scapula, partial coracoid, furcula, distal humerus (~21 mm), radius (11 mm), ulna (12 mm), intermedium, ulnare, two centrales, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, partial manual ungual I, metacarpal II, incomplete phalanx II-1, incomplete manual ungual II, metacarpal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (5 mm), manual ungual III, metacarpal IV, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, manual ungual IV, metacarpal V, phalanx V-1, incomplete phalanx V-2, manual ungual V, partial pelvis, femora (27 mm), tibiae (17.5 mm), fibulae (16 mm), astragali, calcanea, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (4 mm), phalanx III-1 (3 mm), phalanx III-2, pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2, pedal ungual (Renesto, 2000)
Late Triassic?
Italy?

(MCSNB 7833) (Senter, 2004)
Comments- Megalancosaurus preonensis was discovered in 1980 and originally assigned to Pseudosuchia sensu Huene (Calzavara et al., 1980). Although Carroll (1988) also placed it in Thecodontia (in the traditional paraphyletic sense), generally only those workers who reject cladistics and a dinosaurian origin for birds have continued to call Megalancosaurus an archosaur (e.g. Feduccia and Wild, 1993; Feduccia, 1996). This is almost exclusively based on its supposed antorbital fenestra (considered near certainly absent by Renesto and Dalla Vecchia, 2005), and presumably the need to have birds derive from archosaurs. Megalancosaurus is currently placed in the larger clade Simiosauria, which has a highly uncertain placement among eosuchians. Various analyses place them outside Neodiapsida, sister to Euryapsida, in Pan-Lepidosauria, as non-archosauromorph pan-archosaurs or as 'protorosaurs', with the latter three possibilities sometimes including a close relationship with pterosaurs. Determining their relationships will require a larger diapsid phylogenetic analysis than those currently published.
MBSN 25 was first described as a juvenile specimen of Drepanosaurus (Pinna, 1980), then referred to Megalancosaurus (Renesto, 1994). Renesto et al. (2010) have recently redescribed it as a new species based on differences in pedal digit I, but considering Vallesaurus also has specimens differing only in this regard (which Renesto et al. also named as a new species), the modified club-like digits in M. endennae and V. cenensis are here considered likely to be due to sexual dimorphism.
Megalancosaurus a theropod? Olshevsky (1991) believed Megalancosaurus to be a basal theropod (or in his taxonomy, a basitheropod theropodomorph), but this was based only on the holotype. Of the theropodomorph characters he lists, carnivorous dentition is primitive for gnathostomes, while new specimens show Megalancosaurus lacks erect limbs and a reduced calcaneum. Of Olshevsky's basitheropod characters, an antorbital fenestra is primitive for archosauriforms and probably lacking in Megalancosaurus, "generally avian appearence of the skull" is vague and unlike basal theropods, relatively large forelimbs are primitive for tetrapods and unlike basal theropods, "clavicles, fused clavicles, or primitive furcula" covers every possibility though Megalancosaurus' are fused as in theropods, and pentadactyl manus and pes are plesiomorphic for tetrapods and not found in basal theropods. The tarsus is not even incipiently mesotarsal and as noted above the calcaneum is not reduced. Megalancosaurus does share the presence of at least three sacral vertebrae with dinosaurs, but this is present in pterosaurs and some other taxa as well. Furthermore, the more basal Vallesaurus and Drepanosaurus only have two sacrals. While Megalancosaurus and theropods both have manus capable of grasping, in theropods digit I is angled towards II and III due to an asymmetrical metacarpal I articulation and twisted phalanx I-1, whereas in Megalancosaurus half the digits oppose the other half due merely to a lack of articulation between the metacarpals. This suggests the grasping abilities are convergent. Megalancosaurus lacks numerous characters expected in a basal theropod, such as subnarial fenestra, external mandibular fenestra, thecodont dentition, more than eight cervicals, cervical epipophyses, vertebral laminae, dicephalous dorsal ribs, reduced manual digits IV and V, perforated acetabulum, dorsally angled preacetabular process, elongate postacetabular process, elongate pubis and ischium, inturned femoral head, anterior and fourth trochanter, mesotarsal ankle, reduced calcaneum, centrale absent, less than three distal tarsals, and reduced pedal digit V. These make it virtually impossible to assign Megalancosaurus to Dinosauria, let alone Theropoda, despite its furcula.
Megalancosaurus a bird ancestor? Feduccia and Wild (1993) first suggested Megalancosaurus was more closely related to birds than theropods were, though the absence of other taxa in their cladogram leaves one uncertain exactly where in Archosauria they place the the Megalancosaurus+bird clade. The expanded braincase is also present in pterosaurs and coelurosaurs. Large orbits are found in those two groups as well, and many other small tetrapods. A pointed snout is also present in many maniraptoriforms, pterosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', choristoderes, thalattosaurs, and some basal pan-lepidosaurs. The "large, oval preorbital fenestra" is actually the external naris. The reduced premaxillary dentition is not present in basal birds, though the authors state it "may be important, because when modern birds loose their teeth they loose the maxilla that houses them, and in the Cretaceous toothed birds, the teeth are borne only on the maxilla." Even ignoring the fact Aves does retain a maxilla, and subsequently discovered birds like omnivoropterygids and longipterygids have toothed premaxillae and toothless maxillae, mere propensity for a group to exhibit a character is not a synapomorphy. The dentary is said to be birdlike, but this is too vague to evaluate. The foramen magnum is claimed to be posteroventrally oriented, but this is based solely on the angle of the quadrate and ventral squamosal process. The latter is also true in Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Tamaulipasaurus, the basal choristodere Lazarussuchus, Cosesaurus and pterosaurs. Feduccia and Wild state "the six to seven elongate cervical vertebrae create a highly movable birdlike neck." The high mobility is caused by heterocoelous centra, which are similar to euornithines but not basal birds. Elongate cervical centra are present in coelurosaurs, 'protorosaurs' and other taxa, while birds have at least nine cervicals. Though the authors claim the "anterior limbs, without manus, are proportionately similar to those of modern birds and Archaeopteryx; and dissimilar to theropods," the radiohumeral ratio of 68% is shorter than most maniraptorans (even taxa known in 1993, e.g. Oviraptor 87%, Deinonychus 76%) and Archaeopteryx (84-96%), while modern birds usually have ratios of more than 100%. The large manual ungual flexor tubercles are said to be birdlike, but these are absent in the more basal Hypuronector, and also found in most theropods and pterosaurs. Contra Feduccia and Wild, the forelimbs minus manus are not longer than the hindlimbs minus pes, being 72% as long instead. Finally, the straplike scapula is indeed superficially like Aves in being extremely slender, bowed and having a tapered distal end. Yet basal birds lack these features, and only have scapulae as slender as pterosaurs and most theropods.
Feduccia later (1996) refers to Megalancosaurus' "tiny isodont teeth set in sockets", but they are actually subthecodont as in most basal diapsids, while isodonty is also plesiomorphic.
After the mid-1990s, Feduccia and other Birds Are Not Dinosaurs supporters seem to have reduced their emphasis on Megalancosaurus' relationship with birds. Geist and Feduccia (2000) repeat the 1993 observations, but then state "though probably not the avian ancestor, Megalancosaurus represents a chronologically and biophysically plausible model for a gliding stage through which birds must have passed." Martin (2004) incorrectly stated Megalancosaurus has a furcula, but did not explicitly link it to bird origins.
Besides those characters noted above that exclude Megalancosaurus from Theropoda, it is less similar to basal birds than even basal coelurosaurs are in many other ways. These include the absence of pleurocoels, less than five sacral vertebrae, absence of a transition point in the tail, small distal carpal I, metacarpal III longer than II, presence of manual digits IV and V, absent pubic boot, absent obturator process, obturator foramen in pubis, astragalus without tall ascending process, robust metatarsus, metatarsal I reaching tarsus, and phalanx V-1 present.
References- Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1980. Megalancosaurus preonensis, n. g., n. sp., a new reptile from the Norian of Friuli. Gortania. 2, 49-63.
Pinna, 1980. Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus, nuovo genere e nuova specie di lepidosauro del Trias alpino. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali - Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. 121, 181-192.
Pinna, 1987. Un nuovo esemplare giovanile di Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus del Norico di Val Preone (Udine) [A new juvenile specimen of Drepanosaurus unguicaudatus from the Norian of the Preone Valley, Udine]. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali - Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. 128, 80-84.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Feduccia and Wild, 1993. Birdlike characters in the Triassic archosaur Megalancosaurus. Naturwissenschaften. 80, 564-566.
Renesto, 1994. Megalancosaurus, a possibly arboreal archosauromorph (Reptilia) from the Upper Triassic of northern Italy. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14(1), 38-52.
Feduccia, 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. 420 pp.
Padian and Chiappe, 1998. The origin and early evolution of birds. Biological Reviews. 73, 1-42.
Ruben, 1998. Gliding adaptations in the Triassic archosaur Megalancosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 18(3), 73A.
Geist and Feduccia, 2000. Gravity-defying behaviors: Identifying models for protoaves. American Zoologist. 40, 664-675.
Renesto, 2000. Bird-like head on a chameleon body: New specimens of the enigmatic diapsid reptile Megalancosaurus from the Late Triassic of northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(2), 157-180.
Martin, 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta Zoologica Sinica. 50(6), 978-990.
Senter, 2004. Phylogeny of the Drepanosauridae (Reptilia: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 2, 257-268.
Renesto and Dalla Vecchia, 2005. The skull and lower jaw of the holotype of Megalancosaurus preonensis (Diapsida, Drepanosauridae) from the Upper Triassic of Northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 111(2), 247-257.
Renesto, Spielmann, Lucas and Spagnoli, 2010. The taxonomy and paleobiology of the Late Triassic (Carnian-Norian: Adamanian-Apachean) drepanosaurs (Diapsida: Archosauromorpha: Drepanosauromorpha). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 46, 1-81.
Castiello, Renesto and Bennett, 2016 (online 2015). The role of the forelimb in prey capture in the Late Triassic reptile Megalancosaurus (Diapsida, Drepanosauromorpha). Historical Biology. 28(8), 1090-1100.

Longisquamidae Sharov, 1970
Longisquama Sharov, 1970
L. insignis Sharov, 1970
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Madygen Formation, Kyrgyzstan
Holotype
- (PIN 2584/4) incomplete skull (~23 mm), incomplete mandibles, eight cervical vertebrae, several anterior dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, scapula (12 mm), coracoid (5 mm), interclavicle? (9 mm), furcula, sternum?, humerus (13 mm), radii, ulnae (11 mm), radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, four distal carpals, metacarpals I, phalanx I-1, manual ungual I, metacarpals II (one proximal), metacarpals III (one proximal), proximal phalanx III-1, metacarpals IV (one proximal), phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, manual ungual IV, metacarpals V, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2, phalanx V-3, manual ungual V, scales, parafeathers
Paratypes- (PIN 2584/5) partial parafeather
(PIN 2584/6) two partial parafeathers
(PIN 2584/7) partial parafeather
(PIN 2584/9) six distal parafeathers
Referred- (FG 596/V/1) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
(FG 596/V/2) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
(FG 596/V/3) parafeather (Voigt et al., 2009)
Comments- Longisquama was originally described as a pseudosuchian, which at the time was used for all basal archosauriforms that were not phytosaurs. Surprisingly few authors have addressed its relationships since, traditionally assuming it to be an archosaur(-iform) because of the supposed antorbital and mandibular fenestrae. More recently, most reviewers (e.g. Reisz and Sues, 2000) have been even more cautious and refer to it merely as a diapsid. The matter is especially difficult to resolve as the holotype only received a short original description with poor illustrations and has not been osteologically described since, with the exception of Peters' (2000) seemingly overimaginative attempt. Several characters have proven controversial and will be discussed first.
Though originally described as having an antorbital fenestra, Senter (2003) found this was caused by breaks which were not present in the main slab, a conclusion also reached by Prum (2001). Peters (2000), Martin (2004) and James and Pourtless (2009) all disagree however, believing it to have maxillary and (for the former two authors) promaxillary fenestrae as well. The latter authors provide a photograph and interpretive drawing which allow evaluation. Their supposed antorbital fossa could easily be a naris if it is indeed a hole, and if properly identified by them would be unlike other taxa in its location along the dorsal edge of the anterior half of the antorbital/maxillary fenestra. Similarly, the entire ventral edge of the supposed antorbital fenestra looks like a crack to me, including the supposed dorsal process of the maxilla, said to support an interfenestral bar. I don't see any posterior edge of the antorbital fenestra either, so the whole area could be a solid maxilla. The ventral process for the interfenestral bar identified by them is apparent, but if anything seems separated from the nasal by a suture. This would place it on the lacrimal or prefrontal, both unlike any known taxon with a maxillary fenestra. Given the above information, I agree with Prum and Senter that no antorbital fenestra is present.
An external mandibular fenestra was also originally described, though all authors including Peters, Martin and Senter now agree this was due to damage.
The mode of tooth implantation was described as acrodont by Sharov, though Martin believes it is thecodont. He provided no evidence for this in 2004, and even qualified the character with a question mark. In a later 2008 paper, Martin states the mandible had become split between slabs, and what Sharov interpreted as tooth crowns were actually entire teeth with expanded bases. Yet supposing the mandible with preserved teeth is being viewed laterally, the teeth would more probably be pleurodont since no lingual wall is apparent. Certainly the roots would be too short for thecodont teeth in any case, though they might be subthecodont if socketed.
The posterodorsal skull is preserved expanding significantly past the orbit, described as two tubercles by Sharov, and interpreted as a crest by Peters and Senter. Martin (2008) believes it is merely part of the skull roof that has become disarticulated. Either interpretation seems possible.
The clavicles were described by Sharov as fused ("concrescent") though a suture was illustrated. Senter and Martin agree they are fused to form a furcula, Peters thinks they merely overlap each other, and Unwin and Benton (2001) believe they are unfused (incorrectly saying this was Sharov's opinion).
Senter (2003, 2004), Peters (2000) and James and Pourtless have been the only authors to include the taxon in a phylogenetic analysis.
Longisquama an avicephalan? Longisquama has often been placed close to Megalancosaurus, though opinions on where this clade or grade belongs have varied wildly. Olshevsky (1991) had both as basal theropods ("basitheropod theropodomorphs"), Feduccia and Wild (1993) and others against the dinosaurian origin of birds consider both to be "avimorph archosaurs" or "avimorph thecodonts" close to the base of birds, and Peters (2006) has both close to pterosaur origins in Pan-Lepidosauria. There is usually little opinion on whether the two taxa are more closely related to each other than to the clade they're viewed as ancestral to, so the discussions under each comment section below also function to examine these authors' evidence for placing Longisquama and Megalancosaurus in similar phylogenetic positions in their classification schemes.
Senter's analyses found Longisquama to emerge either in a polytomy with Coelurosauravus and Megalancosaurus (2003), or as the sister taxon of Coelurosauravus with both forming the sister taxon to simiosaurs (2004). He named this clade Avicephala, and supported it with several characters- premaxilla and dentary sharply pointed in lateral view; craniomandibular joint anteriorly placed below orbit; posterior border of skull strongly inclined posteriorly (correlated with previous character); scapula elongate; width of distal expansion of humerus <1/3 humeral length; length of manus subequal to or less than humeral length (untrue in Longisquama); metacarpal IV shorter than metacarpal III (only present in Hypuronecter among simiosaurs). Two characters (parietals posteriorly upswept, forming posterodorsal crest; parietal rim ornamented) placed Longisquama closer to Coelurosauravus in the published version. The homology of their posterior skull crests is doubtful however, since the elongate, ornamented bone in Coelurosauravus has been more recently identified as the squamosal, which is very short in Longisquama. Also, the parietal of Coelurosauravus is a midline strut, unlike the laterally placed rounded bone in Longisquama. While this is the most extensive analysis (the thesis version moreso than the published version), it still suffers from a lack of taxonomic sampling of non-pan-archosaurs and a paucity of characters for such a broad taxonomic scope. Only Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Youngina and Gephyrosaurus were used in the 2004 paper, while the thesis also used Icarosaurus, Askeptosaurus, Palaeopleurosaurus and two choristoderes. Yet many taxa including pterosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', choristoderes, thalattosaurs, and some basal pan-lepidosaurs have pointed snouts. Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Tamaulipasaurus, the basal choristodere Lazarussuchus, Cosesaurus and pterosaurs have inclined posterior skulls. Icarosaurus, the basal squamate Huehuecuetzpalli, choristoderes, trilophosaurs, pterosaurs and most archosauriforms have slender scapulae. Araeoscelidians, kuehneosaurids, Lazarussuchus, trilophosaurs, most 'protorosaurs', pterosaurs and many archosauriforms have slender humeri. Huehuecuetzpalli, archosaurs and some 'protorosaurs' have metacarpal IV shorter than III. Renesto and Binelli (2006) added Eudimorphodon to Senter's matrix and updated his simiosaur codings, which resulted in simiosaurs moving to a position sister to archosauriforms, providing further proof the matrix size and taxon sample are both too small to provide robust results. Notably, while Longisquama stayed outside Neodiapsida sister to Coelurosauravus in their tree, they stated that further analyses may indicate the taxon is related to simiosaurians after all. Besides the characters used by Senter, Renesto and Binelli also noted the lack of cervical ribs and the tight interclavicular articulation as potential synapomorphies. Adding a wide variety of over forty diapsids to Senter's published matrix results in Longisquama clading with pterosaurs, Lazarussuchus, a clade of simiosaurs plus Tamaulipasaurus and Trilophosaurus, and Coelurosauravus (with decreasing closeness), suggesting it has too few characters to properly place taxa.
Longisquama not a saurian? Senter (2003, 2004) found Avicephala to emerge outside of Neodiapsida (and thus also Sauria and Archosauromorpha), but closer to those clades than Petrolacosaurus and Araeoscelis. The absent retroarticular process excludes it from Icarosaurus+Neodiapsida in his thesis, but this is also true in basal squamates, Askeptosaurus, Claudiosaurus, Monjurosuchus and Dinocephalosaurus. The deltopectoral crest extending less than halfway down the humerus excludes it from Neodiapsida in his thesis, but a quick survey of potentially related taxa shows this is also true of 'protorosaurs', trilophosaurs, archosaurs and pterosaurs at least. Characters in Senter's analyses which exclude Longisquama from Icarosaurus+Neodiapsida, Sauria and Pan-Archosauria are- preorbital skull shorter than postorbital skull + orbit, short posterior jugal process, no ventral squamosal process, and ulnare over twice as large as radiale. However, it has nasals longer than frontals, a poorly developed olecranon, and a short metacarpal I, which are all diagnostic of neodiapsid groups in his trees. Again, note that Cosesaurus also has a short snout, short posterior jugal process, and no ventral squamosal process. Cosesaurus was included in the thesis analysis, but not the published version. While the published version has rather high bootstrap values for Avicephala, Neodiapsida and Sauria (87, 97 and 73 respectively), in the thesis these are not supported by the bootstrap analysis at all. In conclusion, the placement of Longisquama sister to Coelurosauravus seems doubtful, while its placement in Avicephala and outside Sauria or Archosauromorpha is only weakly supported.  It is tentatively placed Neodiapsida and Sauria here based on recent analyses recovering simiosaurs and weigeltisaurids in this position.
Longisquama a pan-lepidosaur? Unwin et al. (2000) and Unwin and Benton (2001) both stated that the supposedly acrodont teeth and interclavicle were "more typical of lepidosaurs" than archosaurs. Yet interclavicles are present in most non-ornithodiran pan-archosaurs (as noted by Jones et al., 2001), while Longisquama's tooth implantation is controversial (see above).
Peters has recently proposed a massive revision of amniote relationships where Longisquama and taxa he places close to it (pterosaurs, tanystropheids and drepanosaurs) are squamates, but his unpublished analysis is so filled with correlated characters, non-homologous states and miscodings based on his discredited photo-analyzing method that it can be ignored. Similarly ignorable is his recent (2006) magazine article on Longisquama where he claims to have found the entire posterior half of the animal (including wings, propatagia and uropatagia), a juvenile preserved next to it (also complete with patagia) and an embryo(!) inside the holotype. Nobody who has examined the actual specimen (e.g. Sharov, Jones, Martin, Prum, Senter, Voigt) has ever seen these things, leading one to conclude they are merely Peters' imagination inspired by noise in his photos and what he thinks should be there.
Longisquama a tanystropheid? Peters (2000) added Longisquama, additional taxa and sometimes additional characters to three previously published matrices (Evans, 1988; Jalil, 1997; Bennett, 1996). Longisquama emerged related to pterosaurs, Sharovipteryx and Cosesaurus in each analysis (a clade he named Fenestrasauria), which was always inside a clade containing Tanystropheus and Langobardisaurus (which he named Characiopoda, though it was previously defined as Tanystropheidae by Dilkes, 1998). However, only a few non-pan-archosaurs were included in each analysis, and the accuracy of his codings have been questioned by several experts. In relation to Longisquama, Senter (2003) questioned the antorbital fenestra's presence as noted above, stated the coracoid's outline is uncertain, and that the sternum and interclavicle "are bony wisps that defy interpretation." Of Peters' fenestrasaurian characters, Longisquama lacks antorbital fenestrae, a retroarticular process, and a manual digit IV which is at least three times as long as metacarpal IV. The anterior expansion of the lacrimal could be the prefrontal instead if Coelurosauravus is used as a guide. Pterosaurs, Sharovipteryx and Cosesaurus all lack short cervicals, making this character invalid (but supporting the exclusion of Longisquama from a traditional Prolacertiformes/Protorosauria). Clavicular overlap is uncertain in Longisquama, as noted above. The coracoid, sternum and interclavicle characters (reduced posterior interclavicle process; elongate anterior interclavicle process; sternum fuses with clavicles; elongate coracoid with articulation for sternum) must be considered uncertain given Senter's statements. Of his characiopodan characters, the posterior skull is also ventrally deflected in Coelurosauravus, and posterior teeth "reduced, elongated or multi-cusped" is not a valid character since it describes an array of sometimes exclusive states. Finally, of Peters' characters joining Characiopoda with Macrocnemus, whether Longisquama is "without a primitive quadratojugal" is uncertain as the area is fragmented (though Coelurosauravus lacks the bone regardless), while Coelurosauravus shares the elongate scapula and straight, closely appressed radius and ulna. Thus Peters' characters are highly problematic, and none of those which can be verified are lacking in Coelurosauravus.
Longisquama a non-dinosaurian pan-archosaur? Benton (1993) listed Longisquama as an ornithodiran without reason.
While opponents to the dinosaurian ancestry of birds have generally labeled Longisquama an archosaur, they are also generally silent as to where in that clade it belongs. However, Martin (2005) provides a cladogram which places Longisquama (and birds) outside the Crocodilia+Dinosauria clade but closer to it than prolacertids are, which would technically make Longisquama a non-archosaurian pan-archosaur. This hypothesis is based only on the absent external mandibular fenestra that would exclude it from Archosauriformes, and the supposed antorbital fenestra (probably absent) that would place it closer to that taxon than Prolacerta. Needless to say, such minimal character evidence is worthless except to suggest exclusion from Archosauriformes, and Martin's other included characters (such as dinosaurs and 'thecodonts' being united by having "superpleurodont" teeth) are equally flawed.
Longisquama a theropod? Olshevsky (1991) believed Longisquama to be a basal theropod (or in his taxonomy, a basitheropod theropodomorph), but of his noted characters for that group, it only has "generally avian appearence of the skull" (vague and unlike basal theropods), carnivorous dentition (plesiomorphic for gnathostomes), furcula (controversial), relatively large forelimbs with pentadactyl manus (plesiomorphic for tetrapods and not found in basal theropods), and "featherlike scales" (which is problematic, as parafeathers do not seem to be scales or necessarily homologous with feathers, and scales are not homologous with feathers in any case).
James and Pourtless (2009) included Longisquama in a cladistic analysis mostly composed of TWG coelurosaur characters, Chiappe's bird characters and characters proposed by people disputing theropod ancestry for birds. In this analysis, Longisquama emerged as the sister group of Ornithes deep within Eumaniraptora, Maniraptora, Coelurosauria, Theropoda and Saurischia. In their trees, it is a theropod due to- straplike scapula (also present in simiosaurs, pterosaurs and to a lesser extent in Coelurosauravus; none of which were included in the matrix); a neotheropod based on- maxillary fenestra (absent in Longisquama); a coelurosaur based on- anterior postorbital process dorsally curved (untrue even in their own drawing); intramandibular joint poorly developed (true for most tetrapods); a maniraptoriform based on- boomerang-shaped furcula (if Peters' interpretation is correct, the concave edge would face posteroventrally, making the shape topographically unlike theropods'); a maniraptoran based on- T-shaped lacrimal (at least equally likely to be a prefrontal); maxillary and dentary teeth with constricted roots (misleadingly coded as two separate characters; if Martin 2008 is correct that the entire teeth are visible, there is no constriction); weakly developed olecranon (common in tetrapods, e.g. Cosesaurus, Langobardisaurus, Prolacerta; none of which were included in the matrix); a eumaniraptoran based on- serrationless maxillary teeth (true of almost all non-archosauriforms); less than 25 dentary teeth (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. simiosaurs, Langobardisaurus, Azendohsaurus; none of which were included in the matrix); interdental plates absent (true of ?all non-archosauriforms); weakly developed acromion (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. some simiosaurs, Protorosaurus, pterosaurs; none of which were included in the matrix); furcula (actually an neotheropod character, and controversial in Longisquama); an avialan based on- inflated frontals (controversial as noted above; also in Megalancosaurus and pterosaurs, which were not included in the matrix); serrationless dentary teeth (true of almost all non-archosauriforms); a metornithine based on- reduced dorsal jugal process (not obvious in Longisquama, where it could merely be broken); parietals unfused (very common in numerous tetrapods, e.g. Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs; none of which were included in the matrix); all teeth with expanded roots (not actually different in birds compared to other theropods, the roots of Ichthyornis and Hesperornis illustrated by Martin and Stewart being due to cementum concretion); short coracoid (only optimized here due to Caudipteryx, this is the primitive state shared with most tetrapods and unlike birds or most paravians); poorly developed deltopectoral crest (same situation as previous character).
Thus no established characters of Longisquama are shared with theropods or subgroups yet not found in various potentially related non-archosauriforms. At best, it's possible James and Pourtless are correct in identifying the T-shaped lacrimal, low dorsal jugal process, and fused boomerang-shaped furcula if Peters got the orientation wrong. However, the lack of non-archosauriforms is a fatal flaw, as shown by Mortimer's (online, 2015) experiment adding the front half of the basal diapsid Coelurosauravus to their matrix. If this is done, Coelurosauravus and Longisquama both emerge as ornithomimosaurs (as does the pseudosuchian Effigia), proving not only is Longisquama's maniraptoran identification poorly supported, but that the characters and taxa necessary to keep non-archosaurs out of Theropoda are absent. Indeed, no manual characters were coded for any dinosaur. Characters more plesiomorphic than dinosaurs include the absent external mandibular fenestra (though reversed in some coelurosaurs and other obviously unrelated taxa), tooth implantation (whether acrodont, pleurodont or subthecodont), less than nine cervical vertebrae, interclavicle (if correctly identified), short deltopectoral crest, five phalanges on manual digit IV and four phalanges on digit V. It is thus near certainly not a dinosaur, theropod or otherwise.
Longisquama a bird ancestor? Another connection to dinosaurs has been the claim that Longisquama is related to the ancestor of birds. This originated with Sharov (1970), who believed the furcula and elongate forelimb scales were birdlike, but has more recently been popular among those arguing birds are not dinosaurs (beginning with Jones et al., 2000). Besides the furcula and forearm scales (which cannot be homologous with secondary feathers based on developmental data), Martin (2004) listed several other characters as being similar to birds- subdivided antorbital fenestra (absent as noted above), pointed snout (also in Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs, most coelurosaurs, and numerous other taxa), "expanded cranium" (uncertain even if the supposed crest is really a displaced skull roof, as its three dimensional placement is unknown, as is endocranial size; also in Megalancosaurus, pterosaurs and coelurosaurs), elongate postorbital (vague and actually reduced in most birds, with even basal forms like Archaeopteryx having a shorter ventral ramus that ironically resembles Coelurosauravus more), absent mandibular fenestra (variable in basal birds and true of almost all non-archosauriforms), teeth with expanded roots (unverified as noted above), neck attaches low to skull (only true if the parietal crest is taken as part of the skull, and not actually true in basal birds like Archaeopteryx), strap-like scapula (also present in averostrans, simiosaurs, pterosaurs and to a lesser extent in Coelurosauravus), elongate manus (also in pterosaurs, coelurosaurs and many other taxa), elongate penultimate manual phalanges (untrue in digit I, and only homologous in Martin's view in digit IV; also present in Coelurosauravus, simiosaurs, pterosaurs and theropods), and feathers.
The supposed feather homologs of Longisquama have generated the most research since Jones et al. first redescribed them, and have since been more accurately described by Voigt et al. (2009). Jones et al. described a number of similarities to feathers, and it seems fitting to use Feduccia's (2002) term 'parafeather' for the structures. Though Haubold and Buffetaut (1987) proposed the parafeathers were paired and could be horizontally extended as gliding surfaces (a claim followed by Martin), there is no evidence of this and Voigt et al. noted any such 'thoracic wing' would be compromised by having the aerodynamic surfaces so distally placed. The cylindrical, tapered base is similar to follicular structures like feathers, though Voigt et al. noted some scales such as those on iguanid dorsal frills have this characteristic as well. However, the supposed transverse partitions homologized to avian pulp caps by Jones et al. (and claimed to be pedal phalanges by Peters, 2006) are actually transverse ridges on both sides of the parafeather's middle lobe. The supposed calamus walls surrounding them are the anterior and posterior lobes, which lack ridges basally (Voigt et al., 2009). While parafeathers look roughly feather-like distally in having a central shaft and surrounding vane, the actual structure is quite different. Instead of a hollow rachis and separate barbs to form the vane, Longisquama has a pair of membranes which join at their edges (Reisz and Sues, 2000) and enclose two longitudinal lobes distally, as the posterior lobe tapers out before the vane-like expansion. The shaft analog is a continuation of the boundary between the anterior and middle lobes (so is not even continuous with the basal 'calamus' as identified by Jones et al.), while the supposed barbs never separate even at the parafeather's tip and often merge (blamed on taphonomy by Jones et al.). Instead, the 'barbs' are transverse ridges in the continuous membrane. There seems to be an outer sheath on the base of each parafeather, which was homologized by Jones et al. with the sheaths on avian feathers. Resemblences to feathers thus seem limited to the cylindrical and tapered base and basal sheath. While parafeathers may be homologous to feathers at the level of the follicle, they are no more similar than the stage 1 feathers of Tianyulong, Kulindadromeus and basal coelurosaurs, the quills of Psittacosaurus or the pycnofibres of pterosaurs.
More recently, James and Pourtless (2009) have recovered Longisquama as the sister to Ornithes in their flawed cladistic analysis described above. This is actually more closely related to birds than hypothesized by Martin and Feduccia in their latest papers, as the latter have oviraptorosaurs and deinonychosaurs closer to Aves albeit outside Dinosauria. The characters listed under "Longisquama a theropod?" above for Maniraptora through Metornithes could thus also be used to defend relationships with birds in Feduccia's or Martin's view. In addition to those, the characters James and Pourtless recovered as shared with Ornithes are- scapula parallel to dorsal column (very untrue in Longisquama); ossified sternum absent (optimized in their topology this way due to alvarezsaurids and Caudipteryx being next most basal, but also true of most theropods, as well as many non-archosaurs such as Coelurosauravus and Protorosaurus).
Longisquama does not share any characters with birds not found in basal coelurosaurs, and can be excluded from Tetanurae based on numerous characters such as maxillary teeth extending posteriorly under the orbit, lacking an enlarged distal carpal I+II, and having phalanges on manual digit IV and having digit V, in addition to the non-dinosaurian characters noted in the previous section.
References- Sharov, 1970. Svoyeobrazaya reptiliya iz nizhnego triasa Fergany. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1, 127-130.
Sharov, 1970. An unusual reptile from the Lower Triassic of Fergana. Paleontological Journal. 1, 127-130.
Haubold and Buffetaut, 1987. Une novelle interprétation de Longisquama insignis, reptile énigmatique du Trias supérieur d'Asie centrale. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences du Paris. 305, 65-70.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Benton, 1993. Reptilia. in Benton (ed). The Fossil Record 2. London. 681-715.
Jones, 2000. New insight into the morphology and physiology of Mesozoic archosaurs. PhD thesis, Oregon State University. 87 pp.
Jones, Ruben, Martin, Kurochkin, Feduccia, Maderson, Hillenius, Geist and Alifanov, 2000. Nonavian feathers in a Late Triassic archosaur. Science. 288(5474), 2202-2205.
Peters, 2000. A reexamination of four prolacertiforms with implications for pterosaur phylogenesis. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(3), 293-336.
Reisz and Sues, 2000. The "feathers" of Longisquama. Nature. 408(6811), 428.
Unwin, Alifanov and Benton, 2000. Enigmatic small reptiles from the Middle-Late Triassic of Kirgizstan. In Benton, Shishkin, Unwin and Kurochkin (eds). The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 177-186.
Jones, Ruben, Maderson and Martin, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1901-1902.
Prum, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1899-1900.
Reisz and Sues, 2001. Longisquama does not have feathers. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 92A.
Unwin and Benton, 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science. 291(5510), 1900-1901.
Feduccia, 2002. Birds are dinosaurs: Simple answer to a complex problem. The Auk. 119(4), 1187-1201.
Senter, 2003. Taxonomic sampling artifacts and the phylogenetic position of Aves. Unpublished PhD thesis. Northern Illinois University. 147 pp.
Senter, 2004. Phylogeny of the Drepanosauridae (Reptilia: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 2, 257-268.
Martin, 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta Zoologica Sinica. 50(6), 978-990.
Peters, 2006. The other half of Longisquama. Prehistoric Times. 75, 10-11.
Renesto and Binelli, 2006. Vallesaurus cenensis Wild 1991, a drepanosaurid (Reptilia, Diapsida) from the Late Triassic of northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 112, 77-94.
Martin, 2008. Origins of avian flight- a new perspective. Oryctos. 7, 45-54.
Buchwitz, Voigt and Fischer, 2009. Dorsal appendages of Longisquama reconsidered: Aspects of development and the link to the evolution of filamentous integumentary structures. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 72A.
James and Pourtless, 2009. Cladistics and the origin of birds: A review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs. 66, 78 pp.
Voigt, Buchwitz, Fischer, Krause and Georgi, 2009. Feather-like development of Triassic diapsid skin appendages. Naturwissenschaften. 96, 81-86.
Mortimer, online 2015. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2015/01/bandit-cladogram-evaluated-james-and.html

Eosuchia Broom, 1914
Definition- (Coelurosauravus elivensis + Apsisaurus witteri + Youngina capensis + Lepidosauria + Archosauria) (moidified from Laurin, 1991)
= Neodiapsida Benton, 1985
Definition- (Youngina capensis + Sauria) (Laurin, 1991)
References- Benton, 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 84(2), 97-164.

Weigeltisauridae Kuhn, 1939
= Paleochameleontidae Romer, 1933? (at least Kuhn, 1939)
= Coelurosauravidae Currie, 1981
Other definitions- (Coelurosauravus elivensis + Wapitisaurus problematicus) (modified after Merck, 1997)

Coelurosauravus Piveteau, 1926
= Daedalosaurus Carroll, 1978
References- Piveteau, 1926. Paleontologie de Madagascar, XIII: Amphibiens et reptiles permiens. Annales de Paleontologie. 15, 53-128.
Carroll, 1978. Permo-Triassic "lizards" from the Karoo System. Part II. A gliding reptile from the Upper Permian of Madagascar. Palaeontologia Africana. 21, 143-159.
C. elivensis Piveteau, 1926
= Daedalosaurus madagascariensis Carroll, 1978
Late Guadalupian-Late Lopingian, Middle-Late Permian
Lower Sakamena Formation, Madagascar

Lectotype- (MNHN.F.M AP325a; = IP 1908-11-21a) (adult) partial skull (~39 mm), three cervical vertebrae, first-eighteenth dorsal vertebrae, few dorsal ribs, few gastralia, fragmentary patagial spurs, sacral centra?, first-ninth caudal vertebrae, chevrons, scalulocoracoids, cleithrum, humeri (29.04 mm), incomplete radii, incomplete ulnae, carpals, several manual elements, three manual unguals, ilium, pubis, ischium, femora (one distal; 31 mm), tibiae (one incomplete; 20 mm), fibula (~20 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, centrale, distal tarsal I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, distal tarsal V, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, incomplete phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metatarsal III, phalanx III-1, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, proximal phalanx IV-2, metatarsal V, phalanx V-1, phalanx V-2
Paralectotype- (MNHN.F.M. AP317a, b; = IP 1908-11-22a) (adult) partial skull (~39 mm), posterior mandible, proatlas?, atlantal centrum (~.80 mm), atlantal neural arches, atlantal intercentrum, axial intercentrum, axis (5.31 mm), third cervical vertebra (5.52 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (5.62 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (5.98 mm), cervical ribs, first dorsal vertebra (5.50 mm), second dorsal vertebra (5.17 mm), third dorsal vertebra (5.23 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra (5.63 mm), fifth dorsal vertebra (~5.43 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (5.01 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (5.41 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (5.60 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (6.84 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (7.15 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (7.47 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (7.50 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (7.30 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (7.19 mm), fifteenth dorsal vertebra (7.07 mm), sixteenth dorsal vertebra (7.04 mm), seventeenth dorsal vertebra (6.69 mm), eighteenth dorsal vertebra (5.99 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, patagial spur, scapulocoracoid, clavicles, cleithrum, humeri (30.62 mm), radii, ulnae (23 mm), carpals, proximal metacarpal I, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metacarpal III, proximal phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV, metacarpal V, phalanx V-2, phalanx V-3
Referred- (MNHN.F.M AP327a, b; = IP 1908-5-2; holotype of Daedalosaurus madagascariensis) (adult) partial skull (~35 mm), fifth cervical vertebra, first-third dorsal vertebrae, few mid-posterior dorsal transverse processes, dorsal ribs, gastralia, patagial spurs (15.47-~133.74 mm), first-third sacral vertebrae, first caudal vertebra (~3.39 mm), second caudal vertebra (3.51 mm), third caudal vertebra (~3.35 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (~3.85 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (4.20 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (4.61 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (4.90 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (5.10 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (5.24 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (5.03 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (5.03 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (5.15 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (5.11 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (5.14 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (4.99 mm), twentieth caudal vertebra (5.02 mm), twentyt-first caudal vertebra (5.20 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra (5.02 mm), twenty-third caudal vertebra (5.04 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (5.13 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (4.93 mm), twenty-sixth caudal vertebra (4.80 mm), twenty-seventh caudal vertebra (4.74 mm), twenty-eighth caudal vertebra (4.87 mm), partial twenty-ninth caudal vertebra, caudal intercentra, chevrons, scapulocoracoids, clavicles, cleithra, humerus (30.05 mm), radius, ulna, radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, medial centrale, lateral centrale, distal carpals I-IV, proximal metacarpal I, proximal metacarpal II, proximal metacarpal III, proximal metacarpal IV, proximal metacarpal V, manual unguals, ilium, pubis, partial femora, tibia, distal fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, phalanges (Carroll, 1978)
Comments- The lectotype and paralectotype were discovered in 1907-1908 and described by Piveteau in 1926 as a new genus of basal coelurosaur, which he viewed as a separate group than saurischians or ornithischians.  In particular, while he felt Coelurosauravus was very similar to ornithosuchid thecodonts (Ornithosuchus, Scleromochlus and Mesosuchus), (translated) "To place it in the "Dinosaurians", it is to allow to see, in the smallest details, the evolution of anatomical characters whose importance or can only understand the importance by following the history throughout a phylum."  Piveateau's Coelurosauria also includes Coelurus and Ornitholestes, but he compares Coelurosauravus exclusively with Compsognathus, of which he claims "The similarities between these two genera are numerous and important: the skull has the same outline, the cervical, dorsal and caudal vertebrae are identical in both forms. The ribs are also comparable; the vertebrae and bones of the limbs are hollow and thin-walled. The teeth are thecodont in Compsognathus; the same is probably true of Coelurosauravus. The limbs are quite comparable."  These are obviously vague and the skull shape is unpreserved in the syntypes, and the supposed teeth are squamosal horns and are not socketed (as he states in the description).  It was soon recognized (e.g. Huene, 1930) to be non-dinosaurian, and is currently thought to be a non-reptilian diapsid. Obvious non-dinosaurian characters include the highly reduced lacrimal, large pineal foramen, single temporal fenestra, palatine teeth, pleurodonty, five cervical vertebrae, caudal intercentra, cleithrum, short deltopectoral crest, endo- and ectocondylar foramina in the distal humerus, two manual centralia, short pubis and ischium, no inturned femoral head, astragalocalcanear foramen, unreduced calcaneum, pedal centrale, five distal tarsals, at least three phalanges on pedal digit V, etc..
Buffa et al. (2021) noted "Piveteau (1926) first described this taxon based on both MNHN.F.MAP325a and MNHN.F.MAP317a without designating a holotype. Carroll (1978) later designated MNHN.F.MAP325a as the 'type' (Carroll, 1978:144), which was later considered as the holotype by Evans (1982) and Evans and Haubold (1987). Following the designation of Carroll (1978) among the two syntypes of Piveteau (1926), and in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999, article 74.5), MNHN.F.MAP325a is here considered as the lectotype of Coelurosauravus elivensis."  Carroll (1978) described a new specimen as a new genus of coelurosauravid eosuchian- Daedalosaurus madagascariensis. It was later synonymized with Coelurosauravus by Evans (1982), as the supposed acrodont maxillary teeth of Coelurosauravus were actually squamosal horns, and the supposedly absent patagial spurs of Coelurosauravus were present but fragmentary (previously referred to Daedalosaurus by Carroll).
References- Piveteau, 1926. Paleontologie de Madagascar, XIII: Amphibiens et reptiles permiens. Annales de Paleontologie. 15, 53-128.
Huene, 1930. Palaeochamaeleo und Coelurosauravus. Centralblatt fur Geologie und Palaontologie. 1930, 440-441.
Carroll, 1978. Permo-Triassic "lizards" from the Karoo System. Part II. A gliding reptile from the Upper Permian of Madagascar. Palaeontologia Africana. 21, 143-159.
Evans, 1982. The gliding reptiles of the Upper Permian. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 76(2), 97-123.
Evans and Haubold, 1987. A review of the Upper Permian genera Coelurosauravus, Weigeltisaurus and Gracilisaurus (Reptilia: Diapsida). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 90(3), 275-303.
Bulanov and Sennikov, 2015. New data on the morphology of the Late Permian gliding reptile Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau. Paleontological Journal. 49(4), 413-423.
Buffa, Frey, Steyer and Laurin, 2021. A new cranial reconstruction of Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau, 1926 (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) and its implications on the paleoecology of the first gliding vertebrates. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. e1930020.
Buffa, Frey, Steyer and Laurin, 2022. The postcranial skeleton of the gliding reptile Coelurosauravus elivensis Piveteau, 1926 (Diapsida, Weigeltisauridae) from the Late Permian Of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 42(1), e2108713.

Reptilia Linnaeus, 1758
Official Definition- crown(Testudo graeca + Iguana iguana + Crocodylus niloticus) (Laurin and Reisz, 2020; Registration Number 88)
Other definitions- (Testudines + Sauria) (Gauthier er al., 1988)
crown(Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Testudo hermani + Sphenodon punctatus + Iguana iguana + Crocodylis niloticus) (Reisz, 2004)
(Testudo hermani + Lacerta lacerta) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Sauria Macartney, 1802
Official Definition- crown(Alligator mississippiensis + Sphenodon punctatus + Lacerta agilis <- Testudo graeca, Homo sapiens) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 114)
= Sauria sensu Gauthier et al., 1988
Definition- crown(Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988; Gauthier et al., 2004)
References- Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus I, Editio decima, reformata. Laurentius Salvius. 824 pp.
Macartney, 1802. Tables of classification. In Cuvier (ed.). Lectures on Comparative Anatomy. Translated by William Ross under the inspection of James Macartney. T. N. Longman and O. Rees. 542 pp.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Sauria J. Macartney 1802 [J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1064-1073.
Laurin and Reisz, 2020. Reptilia C. Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin and R. R. Reisz], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1026-1031.

Albisaurus

Stremmeia Nopcsa, 1930
S. scabra Nopcsa, 1930
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Middle Dinosaur Member of the Tendaguru Formation, Tanzania

Holotype- (MB coll.) metatarsal ?II (24.5 mm) fused to metatarsal ?III (27.3)
Comments- This specimen was discovered on November 8 1910 associated with Giraffatitan's lectotype, initially noted by Janensch (1914) as a bird carpometacarpus probably related to Archaeopteryx, then illustrated and described by Stremme (1919). The latter author could not determine what kind of reptile was represented, or if it was a metacarpus or metatarsus. Lambrecht (1933) noted that Stremme only mentioned Archaeopteryx in the context of differences between its metacarpus and the Tendaguru specimen, so dismissed Parkinson (1930) who stated Stremme considered them relatives. His own opinion was that the carpometacarpus resembled Rhea, so might indicate ratite relationships. Nopcsa (1930) meanwhile had identified the specimen as "carpals" of a pelobatid anuran, citing similarity to the tibiofibulare of Macropelobates (as noted by Stipanicic and Reig, 1957), and named it Stremmeia scabra. Among more recent authors, Hecht (1963) merely said that his reexamination of Stremmeia "showed that these bones are not frog remains" and Estes and Reig (1973) and Gardner and Rage (2016) followed his interpretation with the latter "regarding the holotype and only material of S. scabra to be reptilian."  Yates (comment in Mortimer, online 2015) stated "I'd speculate pathologically fused metatarsals of a small crocodyliform (maybe MT III and IV?)."
Regardless of Hecht's comment, Stremmeia is more similar to e.g. Macropelobates' tibiofibulare than a maniraptoran carpometacarpus in the distinct proximal articular surfaces which form a flat outline instead of a single convex surface, and wide separation of the distal articular surfaces. This latter character is also unlike theropod metatarsals. However, the distal ends are more expanded transversely in anurans, and the distal articular surfaces seem to be simple instead of ginglymoid as in Stremmeia. Further differences from a coelurosaur manus include the large and quadrangular proximal surface of the shorter element (mcIII in most theropods) and sigmoid shape in side view.
Yates' suggestion this is a pathologically fused reptilian metatarsus seems to be the most plausible.  Of terrestrial Late Jurassic taxa, dinosaurs and pterosaurs differ in having compressed metatarsals.  Those of rhynchocephalians (e.g. II and II or III and IV of Clevosaurus and Homoeosaurus) are more gracile, while those of crocodylomorphs differ in being straight (e.g. Goniopholis and Alligator).  However, metatarsals of choristoderes (e.g. Coeruleodraco II and III), squamates (e.g. Saniwa II and III) and testudines (e.g. Podocnemis) are roughly similar in dorsal/ventral shape, with variation within each clade greater than that between clades.  Given the lack of detailed metatarsal descriptions and general lack of associated metatarsal material in Late Jurassic taxa, Stremmeia is referred to Reptilia incertae sedis.
References- Janensch, 1914. Ubersicht uber die Wirbeltierfauna der Tendaguru-Schichten. Archiv fur Biontologie. 3, 81-110.
Stremme, 1919. Uber die durch Bandverknocherung hervorgerufene proximale Verschmelzung zweier Mittelhand - oder Mittelfussknochen eines Reptils. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Tendaguru-Expedition. Archiv fur Biontologie. 4, 143-144.
Nopcsa, 1930. Notes on Stegocephalia and Amphibia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1930, 979-995.
Parkinson, 1930. The dinosaur in East Africa: An account of the giant reptile beds of Tendaguru, Tanganyika territory. H.F. & G. Witherby. 192 pp.
Lambrecht, 1933. Handbuch der Palaeornithologie. Gebruder Borntraeger. 1024 pp.
Stipanicic and Reig, 1957. El "Complejo Porfírico de la Patagonia extraandina" y su fauna de anuros. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 1, 185-297.
Hecht, 1963. A reevaluation of the early history of the frogs. Part II. Systematic Zoology. 12(1), 20-35.
Estes and Reig, 1973. The early fossil record of frogs: A review of the evidence. In Vial (ed.). Evolutionary biology of the anurans: Contemporary research on major problems. University of Missouri Press. 11-63.
Mortimer, online 2015. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2015/12/have-stremmeia-new-year.html
Gardner and Rage, 2016. The fossil record of lissamphibians from Africa, Madagascar, and the Arabian plate. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments. 96, 169-220.

undescribed possible reptile (Hutchinson, 2001)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (UCMP 25791) ulna or pubis (Hutchinson, 2001)
Comments- Tykoski (2005) referred to "a piece of the right pelvic girdle that includes the acetabular border formed by fusion of the pubic peduncle of the ilium and the proximal pubis (UCMP 25791)" as possibly from the Camposaurus type individual.  This had only been previously published as a Rutiodon specimen preserving a "Pubic tubercle reduced to a rugosity" by Hutchinson (2001), and is in the UCMP online catalogue as a reptilian ulna discovered in 1934.  It's possible Tykoski confused this with UCMP 177318, a paratype of Camposaurus figured by Long and Murry (1995), but this is a left proximal pubis that shows no evidence of fusion with the ilium.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hutchinson, 2001. The evolution of pelvic osteology and soft tissues on the line to extant birds (Neornithes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 131, 123-168.
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD thesis. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.

unnamed possible reptile (Dames, 1884)
Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Ober Solnhofen Plattenkalk, Germany

Material- (HMN coll.) metapodial (54 mm), metapodial (60 mm), metapodial (68 mm), proximal phalanx (20 mm)
Comments- Dames (1884) described three metapodials and a proximal phalanx (HMN coll.), which was questionably referred to Compsognathus by Huene (1925). However, Ostrom (1978) showed that the shortest metapodial is too short to be a Compsognathus metatarsal II (which is the shortest of its main three metatarsals) and that the phalanx associated with it is too long to be II-1. These may not be theropod, and may not even be metatarsals.
References- Dames, 1884. Uber Metatarsen eines Compsognathus - ahnlichen Reptils von Solnhofen. Sitz-Ber. Ges. Naturforsch.. 1884, 179-180.
Huene, 1925. Eine neue Rekonstrucktion von Compsognathus longipes. Clb. Mineral. Geol. u. Palaont. Jg. 1925, Abt. B(5), 157-160.
Ostrom, 1978. The osteology of Compsognathus longipes. Zitteliana Abbandlungen Bayerischen Staatssammlung Paldontol. historische Geol. (Munchen). 4, 73-118.

Pan-Lepidosauria Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020
Official Definition- total(Lacerta agilis + Sphenodon punctatus) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020; Registration Number 118)
= Lepidosauromorpha Benton, 1983
Definition- (Sphenodon punctatus + Squamata <- Crocodylia, Aves) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
References- Benton, 1983. The Triassic reptile Hyperodapedon from Elgin: Functional morphology and relationships. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences. 302, 605-717.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2020. Pan-Lepidosauria J. A. Gauthier and K. de Queiroz, new clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1074-1077.

Lepidosauria Haekel, 1866
Official Definition- crown(Lacerta agilis + Sphenodon punctatus) (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 61)
Other definitions- crown(Sphenodon punctatus + Draco volans) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988; Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Sphenodon punctatus + Scincus scincus) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
References- Haeckel, 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Band 2: Allgemeine Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen. George Reimer. 462 pp.
de Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020. Lepidosauria E. Haeckel 1866 [K. de Queiroz and J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1078-1085.

Oculudentavis Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020
Diagnosis- (after Bolet et al., 2021) large unpaired median premaxilla with a long dorsal crest along nasal process that is continued onto the dorsal surface of the nasals along most of its length; premaxilla replaces maxilla in anterolateral part of rostrum; ring-shaped lacrimal fully enclosing large lacrimal foramen; jugal expanded horizontally creating a wide ventral orbital flange; short vaulted parietals partially fused; vomers contact both the premaxillary and maxillary shelves; flat surface (forming a platform) on the dorsolateral side of the posterior third of the dentary.
Other diagnoses- Xing et al. (2020) listed additional supposedly diagnostic characters common in lepidosaurs- jugal process of maxilla reaches posteriorly to the level of mid-orbit (also in Sophineta, Marmoretta, Megachirella and Eichstattisaurus); jugal bar cross-section strongly angled dorsolaterally-ventromedially (difficult to evaluate in close fossil relatives due to crushing or disarticulation, but present in e.g. Agama, Aspidoscelis, Basiliscus, Brachylophus, etc. among coronally sectioned taxa with unreduced jugals in Digimorph); triangular, dorsolaterally oriented coronoid process on mandible (typical of lepidosaurs, e.g. present in Marmoretta, Megachirella, Huehuecuetzpalli and Eichstattisaurus); the high number of upper teeth (23) and number which are suborbital (4) would be odd for a taxon closer to Aves than Archaeopteryx, but is similar to Huehuecuetzpalli (19, ~3 suborbital), and higher values are known for other basal lepidosaurs- 26-30 in Sophineta, 12+ of which are suborbital; ~32-38 in Marmoretta, ~12 suborbital; ~30 in Eichstattisaurus, ~14 suborbital; antorbital fenestra reduced or absent is typical of lepidosaurs as opposed to archosauriforms; scleral ossicles spoon-shaped is typical of squamates, only absent in most gekkotans; scleral ossicles longer (from external to internal margin) than they are wide (distance between adjacent ossicles) is also typical of squamates, being seen in e.g. Aeluroscalabotes, Aspidoscelis, Basiliscus, Brachylophus, etc. among taxa with well preserved scleral rings in Digimorph.  The slender rostrum is exaggerated in O. khaungraae due to taphonomy and is otherwies similar to Huehuecuetzpalli.  While Xing et al. list "premaxilla, maxilla and nasal fused into a single unit", Bolet et al. (2021) note this is untrue. 
Li et al. (2021) also list "plicidentine absent at the base of marginal teeth", but this is plesiomorphic for lepidosaurs.
References- Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. 579, 245-249.
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, 2021 (online 2020b). Reanalysis of Oculudentavis shows it is a lizard. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 59(2), 95-105.
O. khaungraae Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020
Early Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous

Angbamo, Myanmar
Holotype
- (HPG-15-3) (adult) skull (17.3 mm), scerlotic plates, mandibles, hyoids, skin
Diagnosis- (after Bolet et al., 2021) premaxilla much longer than wide; short posterior process of postorbital; large braincase with long, unexpanded basipterygoid processes; medial flange of pterygoid diverges posterolaterally along entire length; interpterygoid vacuity heart-shaped; well-developed flattened surface on the dorsolateral margin of the posterior portion of the dentary; recurved anterior premaxillary teeth (unknown in O. naga).
Comments- The holotype was discovered prior to September 2019 and initially described as an avialan theropod by Xing et al. (2020).  Immediately, Mortimer (online 2020a), Cau (online 2020) and Wei et al. (online 2020) posted articles arguing for a lepidosaurian identity based on characters such as- maxillary teeth extend far posterior to anterior edge of orbit; antorbital fenestra absent; incomplete ventral bar of laterotemporal fenestra; quadrate conch; coronoid forming spike-like dorsal process; pleurodont tooth implantation; spoon-shaped scleral ossicles; small size; no indication of feathers.  Li et al. (online 2020a) posted a more detailed preprint arguing for a squamate identity, including a supposed pineal foramen (actually absent- Bolet et al., 2021) and pterygoid teeth.  O'Connor et al. (online 2020) attempted a rebuttal but this was rendered moot by the description of a second specimen by Bolet et al. (online 2020), which includes postcrania characterized by "a short neck with seven amphicoelous cervical vertebrae and atlantal arches bearing posterior zygapophyses, and a pectoral region comprising a T-shaped interclavicle, medially expanded clavicles, and a scapulocoracoid with scapular, scapulocoracoid, and primary coracoid fenestrae."  Bolet et al. state "whether the proportional differences between the skulls are fully explained by differences in size, taphonomy and sexual dimorphism, or reflect interspecific differences, is unclear", and later (2021) described the second specimen as the new species Oculudentavis naga.  Further lizard cranial characters noted by Bolet et al. include- "a streptostylic quadrate suspension, a "hockey stick"-shaped squamosal, a reduced quadrate-pterygoid contact, an enclosed vidian canal (posterior opening within the basisphenoid), a prootic with an alar process and a prominent crista prootica, and a braincase in which the metotic fissure is subdivided into a small ovoid lateral opening of the recessus scalae tympani and a posterior vagus foramen (differentiating it from archosaurs, where the metotic fissure becomes enclosed, following a totally different development)."  Xing et al. (online 2020) published a retraction of their description "to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature. Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3."  Such an action is unheard of, as phylogenetic misidentifications are common in biology and no ethical accusations have been made.  The ICZN is unconcerned with phylogenetic or anatomical accuracy as long as there is "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon" (Article 13.1.1), and the concept of article retraction is never brought up so does not apply to the ICZN.  Thus Oculudentavis khaungraae Xing et al., 2020 retains its validity regardless of what its authors or publishers subsequently state, which Bolet et al. concur with.  Li et al.'s preprint was rewritten and published in Vertebrata PalAsiatica in 2021.
Xing et al. added Oculudentavis to O'Connor's avialan analysis, recovering it closer to Aves than Archaeopteryx but outside of Pengornithidae, Confuciusornithiformes, Longipterygidae and Archaeorhynchus plus Ornithuromorpha.  Cau added it to Gauthier et al.'s squamate analysis and recovered it as a non-gekkotan gekkonomorph, while Mortimer (online 2020b) added it to Simoes et al.'s diapsid analysis and recovered it as a stem-squamate close to Huehuecuetzpalli while Archaeopteryx emerged sister to Erythrosuchus as the only archosaur in the matrix.  Bolet et al. (2021) added both Oculudentavis species as separate OTUs to Pritchard and Sues' diapsid analysis where it emerged one node closer to crown squamates than Huehuecuetzpalli, and to Gauthier et al.'s squamate analysis where it emerged sister to dibamids (the most stemward squamates) when using some ordered characters and molecular data.  O'Connor et al. (online 2020) had previously added the holotype and eight birds to Pritchard and Sues' analysis and recovered it as an enantiornithine sister to Rapaxavis, while Li et al. (2021) also used this matrix and recovered it in a trichotomy with Huehuecuetzpalli and Squamata with the difference seemingly due to using implied weighting instead of equal weighting.
References- Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020. The tiny Cretaceous stem-bird Oculudentavis revealed as a bizarre lizard. bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.09.243048
Cau, online 2020. https://theropoda.blogspot.com/2020/03/dubbi-sullo-stato-dinosauriano-e-aviano.html
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, online 2020a. Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur? bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.16.993949
Mortimer, online 2020a. https://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/03/oculudentavis-is-not-theropod.html
Mortimer, online 2020b. https://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-is-oculudentavis-if-its-not.html
O'Connor, Xing, Chiappe, Schmitz, Li and Yi, online 2020. Reply to Li et al. "Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur?" bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.12.147041
Wei, Li, Yan, Min, Yi and Jing, online 2020. The "smallest dinosaur in history" in amber may be the biggest mistake in history. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: Popular Science News.
Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, 2020. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. 579, 245-249.
Xing, O'Connor, Schmitz, Chiappe, McKellar, Yi and Li, online 2020. Retraction note: Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2553-9
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.
Li, Wang, Hu, Wang, Yi and Lu, 2021 (online 2020b). Reanalysis of Oculudentavis shows it is a lizard. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 59(2), 95-105.
O. naga Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021
Early Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous
Angbamo, Myanmar
Holotype
- (GRS-Ref-28627) (adult) skull (14.2 mm), sclerotic plates, mandibles, hyoids, atlas, axis, third-eighth cervical vertebrae, cervical intercentra, cervical ribs, few dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, scapulocoracoids, interclavicle, clavicles, anterior sternum, proximal humerus, skin (Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020)
Comments- Discovered in late 2017, this was first announced by Bolet et al. (2020 online), later modified and published as Bolet et al. (2021). 
References-
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, online 2020. The tiny Cretaceous stem-bird Oculudentavis revealed as a bizarre lizard. bioRxiv preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.09.243048
Bolet, Stanley, Daza, Arias, Čerňanský, Vidal-García, Bauer, Bevitt, Peretti and Evans, 2021. Unusual morphology in the mid-Cretaceous lizard Oculudentavis. Current Biology. 31, 3303-3314.

Squamata Oppel, 1811
Official Definition- crown(Lacerta agilis <- Sphenodon punctatus) (Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 101)
Other definitions- (Iguana iguana + Autarchoglossa) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Iguana iguana + Scleroglossa) (modified from Estes et al., 1988)
(Iguana iguana + Dibamus novaeguineae + Gekko gecko + Coluber constrictor) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Scincophidia Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Feylinia currori + Acontias meleagris + Dibamus novaeguineae) (Conrad, 2008)
Comments- The phylogeny shown here is based on Conrad (2008) when the molecular consensus topology is enforced.
References- Oppel, 1811. Die Ordnungen, Familien, und Gattungen der Reptilien, als Prodrom Einer Natur­geschichte Derselben. Joseph Lindauer. 86 pp.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.
Queiroz and Gauthier, 2020. Squamata M. Oppel 1811 [K. de Queiroz and J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1092-1101.

Alamitornis Agnolin and Martinelli, 2009
= "Alamitornis" Agnolin and Martinelli, 2008 online
A. minutus Agnolin and Martinelli, 2009
= "Alamitornis minutus" Agnolin and Martinelli, 2008 online
Campanian-Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Los Alamitos Formation, Rio Negro, Argentina

Holotype- (MACN PV RN 1108) proximal humerus (~7.5 mm)
Paratypes- ?(MACN PV RN 1109) five proximal humeri
?(MACN PV RN 1110) distal ?femur
Other diagnoses- Agnolin and Martinelli (2009) originally listed three characters in Alamitornis' diagnosis- "humeral shaft very thin mediolateraly distal to proximal end; "deltopectoral crest proximodistally abbreviated and subtriangular in contour", "inflated humeral head placed well proximally with respect to the internal tuberosity."  Of these, Asprosaurus shows all except its deltopectoral crest is rounded instead of subtriangular, but some other squamates (e.g. Dalinghosaurus) have triangular crests.  Given the lack of published humeral information for squamates, the validity of Alamitornis requires further study.
Comments- The paper describing Alamitornis was originally available online in September 2008, but the physical version wasn't published until February 2009.  Agnolin and Martinelli (2009) questionably referred the taxon to Patagopterygiformes based on several characters- no pneumatic foramina; humeral head globular in posterior view; shallow capital groove; posteriorly angled proximal humerus; deltopectoral crest at more than a 45 degree angle to humeral head.  Of the other supposed humeral similarities, the capital groove of Alamitornis is actually broad, not narrow; the development of the ventral tuber cannot be evaluated in Patagopteryx so is not necessarily "well developed and protruding"; and the anterior face of the proximal humerus is not especially "well excavated" in Alamitornis.  When added to Hartman et al.'s maniraptoromorph matrix, Alamitornis instead groups with patagonykine alvarezsaurs, which it shares the Patagopteryx-like characters with and also have broad capital grooves and well developed ventral tubers, in addition to the transverse groove below the humeral head (the final bird-like character of Alamitornis suggested by Agnlin and Martinelli).  Two steps move it to Patagopterygiformes.  More recently, Mayr (2017) suggested the humerus "appears to be non-avian and is more likely from a squamate (lizards and allies)."  Although stated without evidence, the holotype is very similar to the Late Cretaceous anguimorph Asprosaurus, which shares the above characters of Alamitornis except the posteriorly globular humeral head, angled deltopectoral crest and transverse groove.  Perhaps the best argument to favor a squamate identity is the tiny size of Alamitornis, whose humerus would be about 8 mm long if extrapolated to the usual Mesozoic bird proportions.  This is almost an order of magnitude smaller than Patagopteryx, and several times smaller than the smallest alvarezsaurs, even being half the size of the smallest juvenile Mesozoic birds like Liaoxiornis.  Unfortunately, humeral characters are almost absent from squamate phylogenetic analyses (e.g. Conrad, 2008; Gauthier et al., 2012), so any assignment to a more exclusive clade requires more research.  Teid remains are apparently known from the same formation (Albino, 2007) but remain undescribed.
Paratypes consist of "five proximal extremes of right humeri of different individuals" which were neither described nor illustrated, and a supposed "distal half of a left femur of a juvenile specimen."  The latter was "tentatively referred to Alamitornis on the basis of its small size and gracile proportions", but is clearly non-dinosaurian based on the unfused epiphysis, found in lepidosaurs and mammals but not archosaurs or turtles.  The element further differs from theropods in lacking well defined lateral and medial condyles, a distinct ectocondylar tuber, and having a proximally restricted popliteal fossa.  The only characters suggested to be similar to Patagopteryx or any theropod are the "expanded lateral supracondylar ridge of the femur, which ends in a well developed proximal tubercle."  However, Patagopteryx seems to lack much of a lateral supracondylar ridge on its femur, though this is seen in some enantiornithines (e.g. Vorona, Concornis, Neuquenornis), while a strong m. iliofibularis tubercle on the distal femur is found in Patagopteryx but also some enantiornithines (e.g. Vorona, PVL-4037).  Much like the holotype, MACN PV RN 1110 is tiny (distal transverse width 2.5 mm) and difficult to assign to a more restricted clade due to a lack of femoral characters in squamate analyses. 
References- Albino, 2007. Lepidosauromorpha. In Gasparini, Coria and Salgado (eds.). Patagonian Mesozoic Reptiles. Indiana University Press. 87-115.
Agnolin and Martinelli, 2009 (online 2008). Fossil birds from the Late Cretaceous Los Alamitos Formation, Río Negro province, Argentina. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 27, 42-49.
Mayr, 2017. Avian Evolution: The Fossil Record of Birds and its Paleobiological Significance. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 306 pp.

Scleroglossa Estes, de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1988
Definition- (Gekko gecko + Scincus scincus + Anguis fragilis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Scincogekkonomorpha Sukhanov, 1961
Definition- (Gekko gecko, Scincus scincus <- Iguana iguana) (Conrad, 2008)
= Bifurcata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
References
- Sukhanov, 1961. Some problems of the phylogeny, and systematics of Lacertilia (seu Sauria). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 40, 73-83.
Estes, de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In Estes and Pregill (ed.). Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Stanford University Press. 119-281.
Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Autarchoglossa Wagler, 1830
Definition- (Lacerta viridis + Scincus scincus + Anguis fragilis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Unidentata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
References- Wagler, 1830. Natürliches System der Amphibien: mit vorangehender Classification der Säugethiere und Vögel: ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. In der J.G. Cotta'scchen Buchhandlung. 354 pp.
Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Episquamata Vidal and Hedges, 2005
= Evansauria Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Lacerta viridis, Varanus varius <- Gekko gecko, Iguana iguana) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Toxicofera Vidal and Hedges, 2005
Reference- Vidal and Hedges, 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 328(10-11), 1000-1008.

Anguimorpha Furbringer, 1900
Definition- (Anguis fragilis, Varanus varius <- Cordylus cordylus, Iguana iguana, Scincus scincus) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Furbringer, 1900. Zur vergleichenden Anatomie Brustschulterapparates und der Schultermuskeln. Janaische Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaft. 34, 215-718.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Anguiformes Conrad, 2006
Definition- (Anguis fragilis + Varanus varius) (Conrad, 2008)
= Platynota Dumeril and Bibron, 1839
Definition- (Varanus varius, Heloderma horridum <- Anguis fragilis, Xenosaurus grandis) (Conrad, 2008)
= Varanoidea Camp, 1923
Definition- (Heloderma horridum + Lanthanotus borneensis + Varanus varius) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Dumeri and Bibron, 1839. Erpetologie generale ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles. Roret. 854 pp.
Camp, 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 48(11), 289-480.
Conrad, 2006. An Eocene shinisaurid (Reptilia, Squamata) from Wyoming, U.S.A.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(1), 113-126.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

unnamed anguiform (Grellet-Tinner, 2005)
Late Barremian, Early Cretaceous
Sao Khua Formation, Thailand
Materia
l- (SK1-1) (embryo) incomplete skull, incomplete mandibles, 57 centra, 81 neural arches, 63 ribs, 8 pectoral elements, 66 limb elements lacking hindlimbs, unidentified elements, incomplete egg (18x11 mm) (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-2) (embryo) incomplete skull, mandibles, 7 teeth, 61 centra, 53 neural arches, 65 ribs, 9 pectoral elements, 6 pelvic elements, 72 limb elements, unidentified elements, incomplete egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-3) (embryo) elements, partial egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-4) (embryo) elements, partial egg (Buffetaut et al., 2005)
(SK1-5) fragmentary egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
(SK1-6) (embryo) elements, egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
(SK1-7) egg (Fernandez et al., 2015)
Diagnosis- (after Fernandez et al., 2015) anterior inferior alveolar foramen solely formed by splenial; broad palatine-groove articulation of prefrontal; autotomy planes present posterior to transverse process.
Comments- Grellet-Tinner (2005) and Buffetaut et al. (2005) described these as being from a non-ornithothoracine avialan, but Fernandez et al. (2012) determined they were actually from a squamate. Fernandez et al. (2015) fully redescribed the material based on CT scans to show the embryos are a new taxon of anguimorph, left unnamed due to the embryonic nature of the material. They noted characters congruent with a non-varanoid platynotan, but used a morphological phylogeny which differs from the molecular phylogeny on this site. Determining where the Thai taxon falls within a molecular phylogeny will require mapping morphological characters on to the squamate genetic topology.
References- Buffetaut, Grellet-Tinner, Suteethorn, Cuny, Tong, Košir, Cavin, Chitsing, Griffiths, Tabouelle and Le Loeuff, 2005. Minute theropod eggs and embryo from the Lower Cretaceous of Thailand and the dinosaur-bird transition. Naturwissenschaften. 92, 477-482.
Grellet-Tinner, 2005. A phylogenetic analysis of oological characters: A case study of saurischian dinosaur relationships and avian evolution. PhD thesis, University of Southern California. 221 pp.
Grellet-Tinner, Chiappe, Norell and Bottjer, 2006. Dinosaur eggs and nesting behaviors: A paleobiological investigation. Palaegeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 232, 294-321.
Fernandez, Buffetaut, Maire, Adrien, Suteethorn and Tafforeau, 2012. Phase contrast synchrotron microtomography: Improving noninvasive investigations of fossil embryos in ovo. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 18(1), 179-185.
Fernandez, Buffetaut, Suteethorn, Rage, Tafforeau and Kundrát, 2015. Evidence of egg diversity in squamate evolution from Cretaceous anguimorph embryos. PLoS ONE. 10(7), e0128610.

Goannasauria Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Varanus varius <- Heloderma suspectum) (Conrad, 2008)
Reference- Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauriformes Conrad, 2008
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Varanus varius, Heloderma suspectum) (Conrad, 2008)
Reference- Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauria Marsh, 1880
Definition- (Dolichosaurus longicollis + Coniasaurus crassidens + Coniasaurus gracilodens + Adriosaurus suessi + Mosasaurus hoffmanni) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Marsh, 1880. New characters of mosasauroid reptiles. American Journal of Science. 19, 83-87.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauroidea Gervais, 1853 vide Camp, 1923
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Dolichosaurus longicollis) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Camp, 1923. Classification of the lizards. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 48(11), 289-480.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasauridae Gervais, 1853
Official Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni + Tylosaurus proriger + Halisaurus platyspondylus) (Madzia and Conrad, 2020; Registration Number 200; originally Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.
Madzia and Conrad, 2020. Mosasauridae P. Gervais 1853 [D. Madzia and J. L. Conrad], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1102-1107.

Natantia Owen, 1884
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni, Tylosaurus proriger, Plioplatecarpus marshi <- Halisaurus platyspondylus) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Owen, 1849-1884. A history of British fossil reptiles. Cassell. [pp]
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Mosasaurinae Gervais, 1853 vide Williston, 1897
Definition- (Mosasaurus hoffmanni <- Tylosaurus proriger, Plioplatecarpus marshi) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Gervais, 1853. Observations relatives aux Reptiles fossiles de France (deuxième partie). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 36, 470-474.
Williston, 1897. Brachysaurus, a new genus of mosasaurs. Kansas University Quarterly. 6, 95-98.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Kourisodon Nicholls and Meckert, 2002
K. puntledgensis Nicholls and Meckert, 2002
Late Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Pender Formation, British Columbia, Canada
Holotype-
(CDM 022) (~3.75 m, adult) incomplete skull, incomplete mandible, seven cervical vertebrae, thirty-six dorsal vertebrae, ribs, twenty-two caudal vertebrae, scapula, coracoid, humeri, radius, ulna, radiale, intermedium, ulnare, pisiform, two distal carpals, metacarpal I, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metacarpal III, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, phalanx III-4, metacarpal IV, proximal metacarpal V
Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Trent River Formation, British Columbia, Canada

Referred- (CDM coll.) tooth (~10 mm) (Ludvigsen, 1996)
Comments- Ludvigson (1996) first reported on a tooth found in the summer of 1992, stating that upon a visit to the RTMP Currie "identified it as belonging to a theropod dinosaur."  However, Reid (2016) stated "in pers. com. with Pat Trask, curator of the CM, he informed me that the tooth of a "theropod" was instead most certainly from the mosasaur Kourisodon puntledgensis", that "both taxa share vertical ridges along the teeth, lack obvious denticles, and have a similar labio-lingual compression" and thus "it seems most likely that the tooth belongs to Kourisodon, and thus is not a dinosaur."
References- Ludvigsen, 1996. Ancient saurians: Cretaceous reptiles of Vancouver Island. In Ludvigsen. Life in Stone: A Natural History of British Columbia's Fossils. UBC Press. 156-166.
Girouard, 1997. First dinosaur remains from the Pacific coast of British Columbia, of the Trent River Formation (Campanian, Late Cretaceous) of Vancouver Island. Second British Columbia Paleontological Symposium, Program and Abstracts. 15.
Nicholls and Meckert, 2002. Marine reptiles from the Nanaimo Group (Upper Cretaceous) of Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 39(1), 1591-1603.
Reid, 2016. A review of dinosaurian body fossils from British Columbia, Canada. PeerJ Preprints. 4:e1369v3.

Tylosaurinae Williston, 1897
Definition- (Tylosaurus proriger <- Mosasaurus hoffmanni, Plioplatecarpus marshi) (Conrad, 2008)
References- Williston, 1897. Range and distribution of the mosasaurs. Kansas University Quarterly. 4, 177-185.
Conrad, 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 310, 182 pp.

Taniwhasaurus Hector, 1874
= "Yezosaurus" Obata and Muramoto vide Muramoto, 1977
= Lakumasaurus Novas, Fernandez, Gasparini, Lirio, Nunez and Puerta, 2002
Comments- There are three or four species in this genus, one of which (T. mikasaensis) was originally believed to be a tyrannosaurid and called Yezosaurus.
References- Hector, 1874. On the fossil Reptilia of New Zealand. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute. 6, 333-358.
Muramoto, 1977. [Road to Dinosaurs - Discovery of Yezosaurus mikasaensis]. North Garden, Inc. 114 pp.
Novas, Fernández, Gasparini, Lirio, Nunez and Puerta, 2002. Lakumasaurus antarcticus, n. gen. et sp., a new mosasaur (Reptilia, Squamata) from the Upper Cretaceous of Antarctica. Ameghiniana. 39, 245-249.
T. oweni Hector, 1874
= Platecarpus oweni (Hector, 1874) Lydekker, 1888
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Conway Siltstone Formation, New Zealand

Comments- Although Caldwell et al. (2005) synonymized Tylosaurus haumuriensis (Hector, 1874) Welles and Gregg, 1971 with Taniwhasaurus oweni, Martin and Fernandez (2007) and Fernandez and Martin (2009) disagreed, the latter finding haumuriensis to group with other Tylosaurus in their phylogenetic analysis.
References- Hector, 1874. On the fossil Reptilia of New Zealand. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute. 6, 333-358.
Lydekker, 1888, Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum of Natural History, London. 309 pp.
Caldwell, Holmes, Bell and Wiffen, 2005. An unusual tylosaurine mosasaur from New Zealand: A new skull of Taniwhasaurus oweni (Lower Haumurian; Upper Cretaceous). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25, 393-401.
Martin and Fernández, 2007. The synonymy of the Late Cretaceous mosasaur (Squamata) genus Lakumasaurus from Antarctica with Taniwhasaurus from New Zealand and its bearing upon faunal similarity within the Weddellian Province. Geological Journal. 43, 203-211.
Fernanez and Martin, 2009. Description and phylogenetic relationships of Taniwhasaurus antarcticus (Mosasauridae, Tylosaurinae) from the upper Campanian (Cretaceous) of Antarctica. Cretaceous Research. 30(3), 717-726.
T? ivoensis (Persson, 1963) new combination
= Mosasaurus ivoensis Persson, 1963
= Tylosaurus ivoensis (Persson, 1963) Lindgren and Silverson, 2002
Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Belemnellocamax mammillatus zone of the Kristianstad Basin, Sweden

Comments- Caldwell et al. (2008) note this taxon's supposedly distinctive teeth are actually characteristic of Taniwhasaurus, though they did not formalize the nomenclature.
References- Persson, 1963. Studies on Mesozoic marine reptile faunas with particular regard to the Plesiosauria. Publications from the Institutes of Mineralogy, Paleontology, and Quaternary Geology, University of Lund, Sweden. 118, 1-15.
Lindgren and Siverson, 2002. Tylosaurus ivoensis: A giant mosasaur from the early Campanian of Sweden. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. 93, 73-93.
Caldwell, Konishi, Obata and Muramoto, 2008. New species of Taniwhasaurus (Mosasauridae, Tylosaurinae) from the Upper Santonian-Lower Campanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(2), 339-348.
T. antarcticus (Novas, Fernandez, Gasparini, Lirio, Nunez and Puerta, 2002) Martin and Fernandez, 2007
= Lakumasaurus antarcticus Novas, Fernandez, Gasparini, Lirio, Nunez and Puerta, 2002
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica

References- Novas, Fernández, Gasparini, Lirio, Nunez and Puerta, 2002. Lakumasaurus antarcticus, n. gen. et sp., a new mosasaur (Reptilia, Squamata) from the Upper Cretaceous of Antarctica. Ameghiniana. 39, 245-249.
Martin and Fernández, 2007. The synonymy of the Late Cretaceous mosasaur (Squamata) genus Lakumasaurus from Antarctica with Taniwhasaurus from New Zealand and its bearing upon faunal similarity within the Weddellian Province. Geological Journal. 43, 203-211.
Fernanez and Martin, 2009. Description and phylogenetic relationships of Taniwhasaurus antarcticus (Mosasauridae, Tylosaurinae) from the upper Campanian (Cretaceous) of Antarctica. Cretaceous Research. 30(3), 717-726.
T. mikasaensis Caldwell, Konishi, Obata and Muramoto, 2008
= "Yezosaurus mikasaensis" Obata and Muramoto vide Muramoto, 1977
Late Santonian-Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Kashima Formation of the Upper Yezo Group, Japan
Holotype-
(MCM.M0009; specimen of "Yezosaurus mikasaensis") (~10.3 m) (skull ~1.5 m) partial snout, sclerotic plates, partial mandibles
Paratypes- ?(MCM.A1008) two dorsal vertebrae, two proximal caudal vertebrae, distal caudal vertebra
?(MCM.M10) two dorsal vertebrae
Late Santonian-Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Haborogawa Formation of the Upper Yezo Group, Japan
Paratype- ?(MCM.A600) jugal, postorbitofrontal, squamosal?, parietal, quadrate, ectopterygoid, coronoid
Comments- The original partial skull of "Yezosaurus mikasaensis" (originally part of Muramoto's private collection, but later designated as MCM.M0009) was discovered in 1976 and thought to be a tyrannosaurid. It has had a confusing citation history, as the West learned about from a two page photocopy in the late 1970's to early 1980's attributing it to Obata and Muramoto, 1977. This authorship and date was used by Olshevsky (1991) and Glut (1997), though neither includes a full citation, and an extensive literature search has failed to locate any such publication. The photocopy originated from a 1977 book by Muramoto and lacks a diagnosis (hence Olshevsky listing the taxon as a nomen nudum), though it's unknown if the book contains further description which could validate the genus. Muramoto wrote a one page article the following month (1977b), which again attributes the taxon to Obata and Muramoto, refers it to Tyrannosauridae, and illustrates it without a diagnosis. Thus a citation based on these references should be Obata and Muramoto vide Muramoto, 1977. Chure and McIntosh (1989) list the authorship merely as Obata, 1977, providing a citation for a short article about Muramoto's collection. This may actually be the correct reference for the name, depending on whether it refers to the taxon and when exactly it was published. Yomiuri (1977) also wrote a book later that year about "Yezosaurus" as a dinosaur (with Osborn's Tyrannosaurus skeletal on the cover), but again the technical content remains unknown. Chure (pers. comm. in Olshevsky, 1991) identified the remains as a mosasaur, which it was later redescribed as by Caldwell et al. (2008). Those authors named it as a new species of Taniwhasaurus, T. mikasaeansis. "Yezosaurus" is not mentioned in their paper due to its unofficial status in the Muramoto article (Konishi, pers. comm. 2010). If any of the 1977 publications include a description which follows ICZN rules, the authorship for mikasaensis will have to change, though "Yezosaurus" would still be a junior synonym of Taniwhasaurus. The holotype is clearly not a theropod, as it lacks an antorbital fenestra and maxillary ascending process (instead having a large prefrontal laterally exposed in that space), and further differs from tyrannosaurids and most other large theropods in having premaxilla-frontal contact, an extremely low snout, and uncompressed fluted teeth with expanded roots and no serrations. While spinosaurines are most similar among theropods, even they lack expanded roots and premaxilla-frontal contact.
References- Muramoto, 1977a. [Road to Dinosaurs - Discovery of Yezosaurus mikasaensis]. North Garden, Inc. 114 pp.
Muramoto, 1977b. Discovery of the fossil of a large reptile skull. Kaseki no Tomo. 16, 2.
Obata, 1977. [Home country collection room of the city of Mikasa and Muramoto's collection]. Natural Science and Museum. 44(1), 40-43.
Yomiuri, 1977. [Yezomikasa-Ryu, Testimomy by Dinosaurs: 100 Million Years of Japanese Archipelago]. Green Arrow Publishing.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Caldwell, Konishi, Obata and Muramoto, 2008. New species of Taniwhasaurus (Mosasauridae, Tylosaurinae) from the Upper Santonian-Lower Campanian (Upper Cretaceous) of Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(2), 339-348.

Euryapsida Colbert, 1945
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Merck, 1997)

Ichthyosauromorpha Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Hupehsuchus nanchangensis) (Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015)

Ichthyosauriformes Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis <- Hupehsuchus nanchangensis) (Motani, Jiang, Chen, Tintori, Rieppel, Ji and Huang, 2015)
Other definitions- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Mixosaurus cornalianus) (modified after Motani, 1997)

Grippiidae sensu Maisch and Matzke, 2000
Definition- (Grippia longirostris + Chaohusaurus geishanensis)

Ichthyopterygia Owen, 1840
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Utatsusaurus hataii + Parvivenator wapitiensis) (Motani, 1999)
= Eoichthyosauria Motani, 1999
Definition- (Grippia longirostris + Ichthyosaurus communis)

Ichthyosauria Blainville, 1835
Definition- (Ichthyosaurus communis <- Grippia longirostris) (Motani, 1999)
Other definitions- (Ichthyosaurus communis + Utatsusaurus hataii + Grippia longirostris) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Thaisaurus chonglakmanii + Utatsusaurus hataii + Ophthalmosaurus icenicus) (Maisch and Matzke, 2000)

Longipinnati Huene, 1948
Definition- (Cymbospondylus petrinus + Ophthalmosaurus icenicus) (Maisch and Matzke, 2000)

Rachitrema Sauvage, 1883
R. pellati Sauvage, 1883
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
limestone at Conches-les-Mines, Autun, Saône-et-Loire, France

Lectotype (proposed)- (Pellat coll.) (~6.5 m) posterior dorsal neural arch (140 mm tall)
Paralectotypes- ?(Pellat coll.) scapula (220 mm)
(Pellat coll.) (Amniota incertae sedis) skull fragment, three dorsal rib fragments, proximal ?humerus, distal ?ilium or ?fibula, partial ?pelvic element
Comments- Sauvage (1883) described this material as a new taxon of dinosaur, though an oddly primitive one which he does not favorably compare to any other species. The specimen Sauvage based the name on is a neural arch he assigned to the caudal series, while he referred additional bones ("undoubtedly to the same animal") identified as a braincase fragment, at least three dorsal rib fragments, a scapula, proximal humerus, proximal radius and distal pubis. He notes the neural arch was unfused to the centrum, citing this as a primitive character. The structure of the prezygapophyses and ligament pits are compared to Actinodon (now recognized as a junior synonym of the temnospondyl Onchiodon), while the cranial fragment, scapula and humerus are compared to crocodilians and the latter two at least are said to differ from Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus. Boulenger (1883) attempted to respell the name Racheotrema without comment. It has also sometimes been misspelled Rhachitrema, starting with Boettger (1884). Zittel (1890) stated it was a possible zanclodontid theropod (though insufficiently characterized), though he later (1895, 1902) stated it was a megalosaurid close to Zanclodon instead. Pocta (1905) also placed it in Megalosauridae, while Simroth (1907) placed it in Zanclodontidae. Nopsca (1901) assigned it to Anchisauridae, which was thought to be a theropod family at the time. Huene (1902) identified Rachitrema's type neural arch as that of an ichthyosaur and synonymized the genus with Shastasaurus without comment. Sauvage (1903) agreed Rachitrema was an ichthyosaur and synonymized it with the contemporaneous Ichthyosaurus? rheticus, since he believed that species to be more similar to Shastasaurus than the also contemporaneous I? carinatus. He regarded the scapula to be more similar to Toretocnemus (as Leptocheirus) than Ichthyosaurus, and the reidentified distal ilium (previously thought to be a distal radius) to be like Toretocnemus and Shastasaurus. The supposed proximal humerus and distal pubis could not be compared well. Merriam (1908) kept Rachitrema as a synonym of Ichthyosaurus? rheticus and believed the type neural arch was more primitive than Jurassic plesiosaurs. Huene (1908) synonymized it with Ichthyosaurus, crediting his 1902 paper despite the fact that work had it synonymized with Shastasaurus. Huene (1922) now listed Rachitrema as a junior synonym of Leptopterygius? rheticus (Leptopterygius has since been replaced by Leptonectes), though referring to not only the type neural arch but also a "supposed ischium". He later (1951) listed Rachitrema as a possible synonym of Merriamia (now a synonym of Toretocnemus), as did Romer (1976). Bardet and Cuny (1993) accepted some of the material as possibly ichthyosaurian, but assigned the rest to Reptilia indet.. McGowan and Motani (2003) consider Rachitrema to be probably dinosaurian without justification.
When evaluating Rachitrema, it should first be noted that no neural arches have been described for rheticus, so the two taxa cannot be shown to be synonymous. Thus rheticus can be ignored in the following discussion. In addition, there is no evidence the material described as Rachitrema belongs to one individual or taxon. It was all found isolated and by two different collectors. The neural arch is here proposed to be the lectotype, as the genus name refers to it and Sauvage states "The remarkable characters present in this neural arch make us think they indicate a dinosaurian of unknown type which we will indicate under the name Rachitrema." The neural arch is not dinosaurian, as it differs from dinosaur presacrals and proximal caudals in lacking transverse processes and having reduced zygapophyses which are placed near the midline. Nor is it from a distal caudal, which have reduced neural spines. The neural arch does strongly resemble ichthyosaurs in these characters however, so Huene's identification was correct. Within Ichthyopterygia, Rachitrema is outside Neoichthyosauria based on its divided postzygapophyses (Maisch and Matzke, 2000), as expected for a Triassic taxon. This indicates it is not synonymous with Ichthyosaurus or Leptonectes, though it still may be Shastosaurus or Toretocnemus. It is probably a member of Ichthyosauria, as no more basal ichthyosaurs are known from the Late Triassic. Pending further study, Rachitrema is considered Ichthyosauria incertae sedis.
The scapula has a short contact surface for the coracoid (~23% of scapular length), as in Cymbospondylus and non-longipinnatin taxa. The moderately sized anterior blade expansion is similar to Cymbospondylus, Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus, unlike the large flange of non-longipinnatins or the parvipelvians, Besanosaurus, Californosaurus, Mikadocephalus and Callawayia. Similarly, the low posterior blade expansion is unlike non-longipinnatins and neoichthyosaurs. The referred scapula is thus from a longipinnatin ichthyosaur that seems most similar to Cymbospondylus.
The supposed distal ilium could indeed belong to an ichthyosaur like Cymbospondylus, Toretocnemus or Californosaurus, or it could be a partial long bone shaft of a non-ichthyosaur (e.g. choristodere or dinosaur distal fibula) as originally described.
The other paratype fragments deserve detailed comparison to a wide variety of Triassic taxa, though the supposed humerus is certainly not an ichthyosaur humerus based on its elongation and the supposed distal pubis (which could also be a choristodere ventral ilium for instance) resembles parvipelvian pubes in rough shape but not Triassic ichthyosaurs.
References- Boulenger, 1883. Reptilia and Batrachia. in Rye (ed.). The Zoological Record for 1883. Record of Zoological Literature. 20, 24 pp.
Sauvage, 1883. Recherches sur les reptiles trouves dans l'etage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Annales des Sciences Geologiques. 14(6, Article 3), 1-44.
Boettger, 1884. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Herpetologie während des Jahres 1883. Archiv Fur Naturgeschichte. 50(2), 379-434.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Zittel, 1895. Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie). 971 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. Synopsis und Abstammung der Dinosaurier. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 247-288.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Zittel, 1902. Text-book of palaeontology, Volume 2. 283 pp.
Sauvage, 1903. Note sur les reptiles de letage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Bulletin Societe d'Histoire Naturelle d'Autun (France). 16, 309-318.
Pocta, 1905. Rukovet Palaeozoologie. II. Cast: Vertebrata. 310 pp.
Simroth, 1907. Die Pendulationstheorie. Leipzig Konrad Grethlein's Verlag. 564 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der europäischen Triasformation mit Berücksichtiging der aussereuropäischen Vorkommnisse [The dinosaurs of the European Triassic Formation, with consideration of non-European occurrences]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen Supplement-Band. 1, 419 pp.
Merriam, 1908. Triassic Ichthyosauria: With special reference to the American forms. 196 pp.
Huene, 1922. Die Ichthyosaurier des Lias und ihre Zusammenhänge. Jahresversammlung der palaeontologischen Gesellschaft. Verlag Bornträger, Berlin. 114 pp.
Huene, 1951. Eine neue Ichthyosaurier-Gattung der mitteleren Trias. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Abhandlungen. 94, 80-92.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Bardet and Cuny, 1993. Triassic reptile faunas from France. Paleontologia Lombarda. 2, 9-17.
McGowan and Motani, 2003. Handbook of Paleoherpetology: Ichthyopterygia, Part 8. 175 pp.

Sauropterygia Owen, 1860
Definition- (Placodus gigas + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)

Placodus Agassiz, 1833
P. gigas Agassiz, 1839
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Germany
Holotype
- (BSP AS VII 1208) incomplete skull
Referred- (SMF coll.; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial interclavicle
Comments- Huene (1908) described a supposed osteoderm found (translated) "on the underside of the approx. 8 cm thick rock plate" which preserved Tanystropheus conspicuus cervical and 'Thecodontosaurus latespinatus' (= Tanystropheus conspicuus) caudal SMF R282a and R282b respectively.  He considered it possible the element belonged to latespinatus given osteoderms found with Zanclodon laevis and supposedly comparable vertebral processes, but the latter osteoderms are placodont while the vertebra is Nothosaurus (Wild, 1973).  Ironically, the specimen "turned out to be part of an interclavicle of Placodus gigas" (translated from Huene, 1931).
References- Agassiz, 1833-1845. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles, vol. II. Imprimerie de Petitpierre. 336 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.

Eosauropterygia Rieppel, 1994
Definition- (Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Corosaurus alcovensis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)
Other definitions- (Nothosaurus mirabilis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
(Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Corosaurus alcovensis + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1998)
(Pachypleurosaurus edwardsii + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified from Rieppel, 2000)

Eusauropterygia Tschanz, 1989
Definition- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Simosaurus gaillardoti + Lariosaurus balsami + Ceresiosaurus calcagnii + Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified from Rieppel, 1994)
Other definitions- (Simosaurus gaillardoti + Nothosaurus mirabilis) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Nothosaurus mirabilis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified from Rieppel, 2000)
= Pistosauroidea sensu Rieppel, 1998
Definition- (Corosaurus alcovensis + Pistosaurus longaevus) (modified)
= Pistosauria sensu Rieppel, 1998
Definition- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified)

Pistosauria Baur, 1890
Definition- (Augustasaurus hagdorni + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (modified after Rieppel et al., 2002)
Other definitions- (Cymatosaurus fridericianus + Pistosaurus longaevus + Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified after Rieppel, 1998)

Plesiosauria Gray, 1825
Definition- (Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified from O'Keefe, 2001)
Other definitions- (Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus + Peloneustes philarchus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Pliosauroidea Seeley, 1874 vide Welles, 1943
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus) (Ketchum and Benson, 2010)
Other definitions- (Thalassiodracon hawkinsi + Eurycleidus arcuatus + Attenborosaurus conybeari + Rhomaleosaurus cramptoni + Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (modified after O'Keefe, 2001)
(Rhomaleosaurus victor + Pliosaurus brachyspondylus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Pliosauridae Seeley, 1874
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Rhomaleosaurus victor, Polycotylus latipinnis, Leptocleidus superstes) (Ketchum and Benson, 2010)
Other definitions- (Macroplata tenuiceps + Brachauchenius lucasi) (modified from O'Keefe, 2001)
(Simolestes vorax + Pliosaurus brachyspondylus) (Druickenmiller and Russell, 2008)

Thalassophonea Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online
Definition- (Pliosaurus brachydeirus <- Marmornectes candrewi) (Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online)
Reference- Benson and Druckenmiller, 2014 (online 2013). Faunal turnover of marine tetrapods during the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition. Biological Reviews. 89(1), 1-23.

unnamed thalassophonean (Hahnel, 1988)
Middle Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
La Caja Formation, Mexico
Material
- (UANL-FCT-R2; The Monster of Aramberri) (~15 m) jaw fragment (lost), cranial fragments, nine cervical vertebrae, seven partial pectoral vertebrae (90-105 mm), rib fragments, gastralium?, axial material, incomplete scapula, incomplete coracoids, humerus, pelvis, femora (~1.2 m), epipodials
Comments- Hahnel (1988) initially referred this specimen to Theropoda based on the large size and carnivorous teeth. Buchy et al. (2003) reidentified it as Pliosauridae indet. based on the pectoral section and lost snout. Frey et al. (2006) announced the recovery of much of the rest of the specimen, preliminary results which are given in Buchy's (2007) thesis. Buchy retained it as Pliosauridae indet., which can be narrowed to Thalassophonea indet. given its late age. Once more of the specimen is prepared, it may be possible to assign further.
References- Hahnel, 1988. Hallazgo de restos de dinosaurio en Aramberri, N.L., Mexico. Actas de la. Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra, U.A.N.L. 3, 245-250.
Buchy, Frey, Stinnesbeck and Lopez-Oliva, 2003. First occurrence of a gigantic pliosaurid plesiosaur in the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) of Mexico. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 174(3), 271-278.
Frey, Stinnesbeck and Buchy, 2006. The Monster of Aramberri. German Research. 27(3), 4-7.
Buchy, 2007. Mesozoic marine reptiles from north-east Mexico: Description, systematics, assemblages and palaeobiogeography. PhD thesis, Universitat Karlsruhe. 89 pp.

Brachaucheninae Williston, 1925 vide Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online
Definition- (Brachauchenius lucasi <- Pliosaurus brachydeirus) (Benson and Druckenmiller, 2013 online)
Reference- Benson and Druckenmiller, 2014 (online 2013). Faunal turnover of marine tetrapods during the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition. Biological Reviews. 89(1), 1-23.

unnamed probable brachauchenine (Knoll, Collete, Dubus and Petit, 2000)
Early Albian, Early Cretaceous
Sables verts, France
Material
- (Petit coll.) posterior dorsal centrum (107 mm)
Comments- Knoll et al. (2000) originally described this as a possibly brachiosaurid sauropod proximal caudal, but it was reidentified by Buffetaut et al. (2005) as a pliosaurid dorsal. Given its age, it is probably referrable to Brachaucheninae, but is likely to be indeterminate.
References- Knoll, Collete, Dubus and Petit, 2000. On the presence of a sauropod dinosaur (Saurischia) in the Albian of Aube (France). Geodiversitas. 22, 389-394.
Buffetaut, Collete, Dubus and Petit, 2005. The "sauropod" from the Albian of Mesnil-Saint-Père (Aube, France): A pliosaur, not a dinosaur. Carnets de Géologie. 2005/01, 1-5.

Pliosaurus Owen, 1841 vide Owen, 1842
?= Spondylosaurus Fischer de Waldheim, 1845
?= "Tapinosaurus" Lennier, 1887
= Stretosaurus Tarlo, 1959
= Strongylokrotaphus Novozhilov, 1964
Comments- This was originally erected as a subgenus of Plesiosaurus, spelled Pleiosaurus (Owen, 1841). As Benson et al. (2013) state, ICZN Article 33.3.1 indicates Pliosaurus is an incorrect subsequent spelling but should be retained as it has been "in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling." Owen (1841) raised it to genus level. See Knutsen (2012) and Benson et al. (2013) for differing views on species validity.
References- Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Fischer de Waldheim, 1845. Notice sur le Spondylosaurus genre de saurien fossile de l'oolithe de Moscou. Aus dem Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 343-351.
Lennier, 1887. Études paléontologiques. Description des fossiles du Cap de la Hève. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1886(12), 17-98.
Tarlo, 1959. Stretosaurus gen. nov., a giant pliosaur from the Kimmeridge Clay. Palaeontology. 2, 39-55.
Knutsen, 2012. A taxonomic revision of the genus Pliosaurus (Owen, 1841a) Owen, 1841b. Norwegian Journal of Geology. 92, 259-276.
Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. brachydeirus (Owen, 1841) Owen, 1842
= Plesiosaurus brachydeirus Owen, 1841
?= Pliosaurus evansi Seeley, 1869
?= Plesiosaurus sterrodeirus Seeley, 1869
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England

? Late Callovian-Early Oxfordian, Middle-Late Jurassic
? Oxford Clay Formation, England

References- Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Seeley, 1869. Index to the fossil remains of Aves, Ornithosaurier and Reptilia in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. 143 pp.
P. archiaci (Deslongchamps vide Lennier, 1870) Sauvage, 1894
= Polyptychodon archiaci Deslongchamps vide Lennier, 1870
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, France
References
- Lennier, 1870. Etudes géologiques et paléontologiques sur l'embouchure de la Seine et les Falaises de la Haute-Normandie. Imprimerie Eugène Costey, Havre. 245 pp.
Sauvage, 1894. Les Reptiles du terrain jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Academie des sciences. 119, 926-927.
P. brachyspondylus (Owen, 1839) Eichwald, 1868
= Plesiosaurus brachyspondylus Owen, 1839
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England

References- Owen, 1839. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 1. Report of the Ninth Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Birmingham. 43-126.
Eichwald, 1868. Lethaea Rossica ou Paléontologie de la Russie. Stuttgart, Germany. 1304 pp.
P. carpenteri Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England

Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P? frearsi (Fischer de Waldheim, 1845) Bogoljubow, 1912
= Spondylosaurus frearsi Fischer de Waldheim, 1845
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay, Russia
References
- Fischer de Waldheim, 1845. Notice sur le Spondylosaurus genre de saurien fossile de l'oolithe de Moscou. Aus dem Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 18, 343-351.
Bogoljubow, 1912. Die russischc oberjurassische Plesiosaurierfauna. Annuaire géologique et minéralogique de la Russie. 14, 1-7.
P. funkei Knutsen, Druckenmiller and Hurum, 2012
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Slottsmøya Member of the Agardhfjellet Formation, Norway
Reference
- Knutsen, Druckenmiller and Hurum, 2012. A new species of Pliosaurus (Sauropterygia: Plesiosauria) from the Middle Volgian of central Spitsbergen, Norway. Norwegian Journal of Geology. 92, 235-258.
P? gamma Phillips, 1871
Late Callovian-Early Oxfordian, Middle-Late Jurassic
Oxford Clay Formation, England

Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P? grandis (Owen, 1839) Owen, 1841
= Plesiosaurus grandis Owen, 1839
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
References- Owen, 1839. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 1. Report of the Ninth Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Birmingham. 43-126.
Owen, 1841. Report on British fossil reptiles Part 2. Report of the Eleventh Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Plymouth. 60-204.
P. irgisensis (Novozhilov, 1948) Tarlo, 1960
= Peloneustes irgisensis Novozhilov, 1948
= Strongylokrotaphus irgisensis (Novozhilov, 1948) Novozhilov, 1964
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Savel-evsk Mine No. 1, Russia
References
- Novozhilov, 1948. Two new pliosaurs from the Lower Volga beds Povolzhe (right bank of Volga). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. 60, 115-118.
Tarlo, 1960. A review of Upper Jurassic pliosaurs. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology. 4, 145-189.
Novozhilov, 1964. Order of Sauropterygia. Osnovy Paleontologii. 12, 309-332.
P. kevani Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England

Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. macromerus Phillips, 1871 (as Pleiosaurus macromerus)
= Stretosaurus macromerus (Phillips, 1871) Tarlo, 1959
= Liopleurodon macromerus (Phillips, 1871) Halstead, 1989
Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
References- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
Tarlo, 1959. Stretosaurus gen. nov., a giant pliosaur from the Kimmeridge Clay. Palaeontology. 2, 39-55.
Halstead, 1989. Plesiosaur locomotion. Journal of the Geological Society. 146, 37-40.
P? nitidus Phillips, 1871
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P. patagonicus Gasparini and O'Gorman, 2014
Middle Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Vaca Muerta Formation of the Mendoza Group, Neuquen, Argentina

Reference- Gasparini and O'Gorman, 2014. A new species of Pliosaurus (Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the Upper Jurassic of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 51(4), 269-283.
P? planus Hulke, 1883
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Hulke, 1883. The anniversary address of the president. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 39, 38-65.
P. portentificus Noe, Smith and Walton, 2004
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Noe, Smith and Walton, 2004. A new species of Kimmeridgian pliosaur (Reptilia; Sauropterygia) and its bearing on the nomenclature of Liopleurodon macromerus. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 115, 13-24.
P. rigauxi (Sauvage, 1874) new combination
= Cetiosaurus rigauxi Sauvage, 1874
Middle Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Portel, France
Holotype
- (MHNL coll.; = MHNB 233) posterior cervical centrum (85 mm)
Comments- Sauvage (1874) initially described this as a posterior cervical centrum of a new Cetiosaurus species, notable for its short proportions. In 1895 he referred it to Pliosaurus sp. in a brief note, which would technically make it Pliosaurus rigauxi. That combination has never been used to my knowledge, however. Sauvage (1902) later referred the specimen to Pliosaurus grandis without stated justification. P? grandis is based on a scapula and three unassociated propodials from the Kimmeridgian of England which were poorly described and lost, so there's no reason to connect them to rigauxi. No more recent studies have been published, and the specimen has never been illustrated. The specimen number is taken from Fossilworks' website, though the Museum d'Histoire naturelle de Boulogne-sur-Mer (MHNB) closed in 2003 and transferred its collections to the Musée d'Histoire naturelle de Lille. Thus rigauxi presumedly has a MHNL number now instead.
Based on the original description, rigauxi differs from sauropods such as Cetiosaurus in the short centrum (52% of height, compared to no less than 154% in Cetiosaurus), with even the short-necked Brachytrachelopan having subequal proportions at best. Furthermore, all gravisaurs have strongly opisthocoelous cervicals, whereas rigauxi's is weakly amphicoelous. The parapophyses are 55% of centrum height, while they are much smaller in sauropods (e.g. 34% in cervical 12 of Cetiosaurus). All of these features are seen in pliosaur posterior cervicals however (e.g. length/width ratio of 51-58% and parapophysis/centrum height ratio 70% in P. brachydeirus' holotype). The undivided parapophysis located on the centrum indicates Sauvage had its position in the vertebral column correct despite assigning it to the wrong group. Notably, Sauvage states the ventral surface is "cut into a peak", which suggests a median keel like that which characterizes P. brachydeirus. The latter species' holotype is from the Early Kimmeridgian, but it's possible rigauxi is part of a long-lived P. brachydeirus, or that the French species will be shown to be distinct from P. brachydeirus once it is studied in more detail. rigauxi is not officially synonymized here though, pending verification of the keeled morphology and modern description of the specimen.
References- Sauvage, 1874. Mémoire sur les dinosauriens et les crocodiliens des terrains jurassiques de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, série 2. 10(2), 1-57.
Sauvage, 1895. Les dinosauriens du terrain jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 3e série. 22, 465-470.
Sauvage, 1902. Note sur quelques Reptiles du Jurassique supérieur du Boulonnais. Bulletin de la Societe Academique de l‘Arrondissement de Boulogne-sur-Mer. 6, 380-398.
Fossilworks http://fossilworks.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=65160
P. rossicus Novozhilov, 1948
= Liopleurodon rossicus (Novozhilov, 1948) Halstead, 1971
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Buinsk Mine oil shales, Russia
References
- Novozhilov, 1948. Two new pliosaurs from the Lower Volga beds Povolzhe (right bank of Volga). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. 60, 115-118.
Halstead, 1971. Liopleurodon rossicus (Novozhilov) - a pliosaur from the Lower Volgian of the Moscow basin. Palaeontology. 14, 566-570.
P? simplex Phillips, 1871
Kimmeridgian-Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Reference- Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 523 pp.
P? suprajurensis Sauvage, 1879
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Boulogne-sur-Mer, France

Reference- Sauvage, 1879. Prodrome des Plesiosauriens et des Elasmosauriens des formations Jurassiques superieures de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 6 Serie. 8(13), 1-38.
P. westburyensis Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England

Reference- Benson, Evans, Smith, Sassoon, Moore-Faye, Ketchum and Forrest, 2013. A giant pliosaurid skull from the Late Jurassic of England. PLoS ONE. 8(5), e65989.
P. wosinskii Fischer de Waldheim, 1846
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Kimmeridge Clay, Russia
Reference
- Fischer de Waldheim, 1846. Notice sur quelques sauriens fossiles du Gouvernement de Moscou. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 19, 90-107.
P? sp. (Lennier, 1887)
= "Tapinosaurus" Lennier, 1887
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
lower Argiles d'Ecqueville Member of the Argiles d'Octeville Formation, France
Material
- (Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) anterior cervical centrum (70 mm) (Lennier, 1887)
(Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) three cervical centra (80, 78, 65 mm), two cervical ribs, two partial cervical or anterior dorsal neural arches, four incomplete dorsal neural arches, six dorsal ribs (four partial, one fragmentary; 1 m) (Rabeck, 1925)
?...(Lepage coll. 15.8.31.E1) posterior cervical centrum (91 mm) (Lepage et al., 2009)
?...(Muséum du Havre IIFD358) incomplete dorsal rib (Lepage et al., 2009)
Early Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Marnes de Bleville, France

(Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre; destroyed) proximal dorsal rib (Lennier, 1887)
Comments- Lennier (1887) referred an unassociated cervical centrum and dorsal rib (both originally in the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre, but destroyed in 1944) to Tapinocephalus, then thought to be dinosaurian but now known to be a dinocephalian pan-mammal. This was seemingly due to their large size. The figure caption of Lennier's plate illustrating the centrum mistakenly said "Tapinosaurus sp?", clearly a misspelling of Tapinocephalus and not previously suggested to be a valid genus.
Rabeck (1925) described a specimen found in 1923 as the dinosaur "Tapinosaurus sp?", based on resemblence to Lennier's specimens, unaware that "Tapinosaurus" was not an accepted genus. This specimen (consisting of partial vertebrae and ribs) was also held at the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle du Havre and similarly destroyed in WWII. Stiegelmann (1925) provided measurements of the specimen.
After this, "Tapinosaurus" was seldomly mentioned. Kuhn (1939) includes Rabeck's material questionably under Omosaurus, which is treated as Saurischia indet. by Kuhn despite being stegosaurid (a replacement name for Dacentrurus). Steel (1970) realized Lennier's article was supposed to reference Tapinocephalus, but stated Rabeck's material "seemingly pertains to a large dinosaur, but is indeterminable", placing "Tapinosaurus" in Sauropoda incertae sedis. Rabeck's specimen is not a sauropod, as it has short amphicoelous cervical centra without pleurocoels, short laterally oriented cervical ribs, dorsal neural arches lacking laminae, and single-headed dorsal ribs. Buffetaut et al. (1991) first noticed the discrepency between the article and plate caption in Lennier's work, and identified both this centrum and Rebeck's "Tapinosaurus" as sauropterygians. Similarly, Molnar (pers comm. in Olshevsky, 1991) stated these specimens were probably plesiosaurian. Finally, Lepage et al. (2009) published detailed overview of "Tapinosaurus"' history (forming the basis of most of this entry), and redescribed the specimens as Pliosaurus sp. for Lennier's and Pliosaurus cf. macromerus for Rabeck's. They also described three new specimens from the lower Argiles d'Ecqueville, two of which might be referrable to the same individual as Rabeck's specimen as they are from the same layer and of similar size.
"Tapinosaurus" is Pliosaurus?- Unfortunately, the alpha level taxonomy of Pliosaurus is currently controversial, and most proposed distinguishing characters are cranial. The only axial character currently used to distinguish Pliosaurus species is the median ventral keel on cervical centra of P. brachydeirus. Rabeck's specimen lacks this, as do P. brachyspondylus (both current and proposed neotypes), P. funkei (paratype), P. macromerus (lectotype), P. rossicus (holotype) and P. westburyensis. Yet this morphology is plesiomorphic, also being found in e.g. Brachauchenius, Simolestes and "P." andrewsi. Pliosaurus archiaci is based on a mandible (MNHN 24.1) also discovered in the Kimmeridgian deposits of Le Havre, but cannot be compared to "Tapinosaurus". Another method would be to correlate the "Tapinosaurus" specimens stratigraphically with known Pliosaurus species. According to Lepage et al., at least Rabeck's specimen derives from the Aulacostephanus mutabilis zone of the Late Kimmeridgian. This corresponds to CAMSM J35990, a partial skeleton initially referred to a broad concept of P. macromerus (Pliosaurus without ventral cervical keels) but more recently found to be closest to P. kevani (in an analysis that did not include the P. macromerus lectotype or proposed neotype). CAMSM J35990 is similar Rabeck's specimen in being larger than most and lacking ventral cervical keels, so there may be a real large A. mutabilis zone species of Pliosaurus that is currently undiagnosed. This may correspond to the large P. portentificus, although that has been considered a nomen dubium and may belong to the more recent A. euxodus zone. Perhaps notable is that P. portentificus has the same number of symphyseal alveoli (8) as P. archiaci, whereas other species have more (>11 in P. brachydeirus, 9 in P. carpenteri, ~14-15 in P. kevani) or less (6 in P. rossicus and P. patagonicus). In any case, both P. macromerus' lectotype and proposed neotype are from more recently deposited sediments, so Lepage et al.'s assignment seems unlikely. Pending further studies, the "Tapinosaurus" material is best retained as Pliosaurus sp.. Lennier's dorsal rib is from a different locality, whose age corresponds to P. brachydeirus and P. kevani, though it is near certainly indeterminate.
References- Lennier, 1887. Études paléontologiques. Description des fossiles du Cap de la Hève. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1886(12), 17-98.
Rabeck, 1925. Notes sur la découverte d'ossements de dinosaurien dans les Argiles supérieures Kimméridgiennes du Cap de la Hève (Octeville-sur-Mer). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie. 1916/1923(34), 72-74
Stiegelmann, 1925. Note additionnelle [à Notes sur la découverte d'ossements de dinosaurien dans les Argiles supérieures Kimméridgiennes du Cap de la Hève (Octeville-sur-Mer) de G. Rabeck]. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de Normandie.1916/1923(34), 75.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
Buffetaut, Cuny and Le Loeuff, 1991. French dinosaurs: The best record in Europe? Modern Geology. 16, 17-42.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Lepage, Buffetaut and Lepage, 2009. Qu'est-ce que Tapinosaurus? Lennier, Rabeck et les grands Sauroptérygiens du Kimméridgien supérieur de la région havraise (Normandie, France). Bulletin de la Société géologique de Normandie et des amis du Muséum du Havre. 96(1), 27-59.

Choristodera Cope, 1876
Definition- (Pachystropheus rhaeticus + Cteniogenys antiquus + Lazarussuchus inexpectatus + Champsosaurus annectens) (modified from Merck, 1997)
Other definitions- (Cteniogenys antiquus + Lazarussuchus inexpectatus + Champsosaurus annectens) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)

Actiosaurus Sauvage, 1883
A. gaudryi Sauvage, 1883
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
limestone at Conches-les-Mines, Autun, Saône-et-Loire, France
Lectotype (proposed)
- (University of Leuven coll.) proximal humerus (~105 mm)
Paralectotypes- (University of Leuven coll.) (Amniota incertae sedis) centrum (65 mm), humerus (90 mm), proximal ?humerus
Comments- Sauvage described this as a probable dinosaur most similar to Palaeosaurus (based on Thecodontosaurus material) within the Megalosauridae (in which he placed all theropods), though differing in the more projecting femoral head, more poorly developed greater trochanter, and marked tuberosity on the proximal humerus. Sauvage based the taxon on two supposed proximal femora of different sizes, a humerus "found with them" and a more questionably referred centrum supposedly from the dorsal series. While the femoral morphology suggested something intermediate between crocodiles and lizards, Sauvage believed the vertebral centrum would indicate Actiosaurus was dinosaurian if properly referred (due to the oblique articular surfaces). The species name was misspelled A. gaudrii by Boulenger (1883). Later authors often placed it in whichever theropod family they included Paleosaurus in- Mayer (1886) in Amphisauridae, Nopcsa (1901) in Anchisaurinae within Megalosauridae, and Simroth (1907) and Zittel (1890) in Zanclodontidae. Zittel was provisional in his assignment though and stated Actiosaurus was insufficiently characterized. Huene (1902) listed it provisionally under Lycosauria (containing gorgonopsids and theriocephalans), and Werner (1906) listed it under Thecodontia. Sauvage (1903) disagreed with Huene's identification, noting that while resemblences between Actiosaurus and some "anomodonts" such as Deuterosaurus (now recognized as a dinocephalan) existed, the form was more similar to crocodiles. Note Stache's (1889) reference to Actiosaurus tommasinii is a misspelling of the ophidiomorph squamate Acteosaurus. Huene (1908) referred it to Ichthyosaurus, crediting his 1902 paper despite the fact that was not his conclusion then.
The various described elements were found by two different collectors, belonged to at least two individuals based on the two sizes of "femur" and have no record of association, so could easily belong to different taxa. The bone described as the smaller proximal femur is here taken to be the type as it is illustrated, described in most detail and first, and it is the supposed femora that are said to indicate "the presence of a reptile close to Palaeosaurus." Why Actiosaurus has been referred to Ichthyosauria is not at all apparent. The limb elements are more elongate than any ichthyosaur bone, while ichthyosaur vertebrae are famously amphicoelous unlike the weakly biconvex centrum referred to Actiosaurus. The limb elements are also more elongate with better developed articular surfaces than sauropterygians. Compared to contemporaneous dinosaurs, the humerus has a much smaller and proximally located deltopectoral crest and more greatly expanded distal end, while the supposed femur would differ in having a basically proximally projecting elongated and flattened head. However, the "femur" is extremely similar to the humerus of the choristodere Pachystropheus, which is common in Rhaetian beds of England. Points of similarity include the head structure just noted, as well as the deltopectoral crest (greater trochanter of Sauvage) which is an oval knob placed in the center of the anterior face, at the same distance from the head. It is also within the size range of Pachystropheus specimens (greatest transverse width 25 mm compared to 13-35 mm). Interestingly, Actiosaurus has priority over Pachystropheus (named by Huene in 1935). However, Pachystropheus' proximal humeri exhibit so much individual variation and are not distinct from other choristoderes (e.g. Irenosaurus). Thus Actiosaurus is best left as Choristodera indet.. Interestingly, Godefriot (pers. comm. 2012) has rediscovered Actiosaurus' remains in the University of Leuven and confirms my 2010 identification. Whether the additional proximal "femur" is also a choristodere humerus is unknown, as it is not illustrated and only stated to be larger (though with oddly different bredth vs. depth proportions given). The element described as a humerus seems to be correctly identified, but it differs from Pachystropheus in being more abruptly expanded proximally and straighter, with a more proximally placed deltopectoral crest. Its affinities require a broader look at amniote humeri. The centrum is not from a choristodere, as it is weakly biconvex to amphiplatyan, taller than long, has oblique articular faces and a longitudinal ventral groove (as in Pachystropheus caudals, but those further differ in being fused to their neural arches at a much smaller size than the Actiosaurus centrum). Among dinosaurs, only caudal vertebrae usually have ventral grooves (common in theropods at least), though only cervicals usually have oblique faces. Plateosaurus ingens does have oblique faces on its caudal centra though, making it a potential candicate for the Actiosaurus centrum. Yet with such a brief description and no illustration, further comparison to other amniotes is warranted before any judgement is made.
References- Boulenger, 1883. Reptilia and Batrachia. in Rye (ed.). The Zoological Record for 1883. Record of Zoological Literature. 20, 24 pp.
Sauvage, 1883. Recherches sur les reptiles trouves dans l'etage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Annales des Sciences Geologiques. 14(6, Article 3), 1-44.
Mayer, 1886. Herausgegeben von der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel. IV. Abtheilung: Tunicata, Vertebrata. 413 pp.
Stache, 1889. Die Liburnische Stufe und deren Grenzhorizonte, eine Studie uber die Schichtenfolgen der cretacisch-eocanen oder protocanen Landbildungs-Periode im Bereich der Küstenländer von Oesterreich-Ungarn mit einer einleitenden Uebersicht der geologischen Verhältnisse dieses Gebietes. Abhandlungen der geologischen Bundesanstalt. 13, 170 pp.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves).
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Sauvage, 1903. Note sur les reptiles de letage Rhetien des environs d'Autun. Bulletin Societe d'Histoire Naturelle d'Autun (France). 16, 309-318.
Werner, 1906. Reptilia und Amphibia fur 1903. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte. 1-70.
Simroth, 1907. Die Pendulationstheorie. Leipzig Konrad Grethlein's Verlag. 564 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der europäischen Triasformation mit Berücksichtiging der aussereuropäischen Vorkommnisse [The dinosaurs of the European Triassic Formation, with consideration of non-European occurrences]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen Supplement-Band. 1, 419 pp.
Mortimer, online 2010. http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2010/06/actiosaurus-is-choristodere-not.html

Patricosaurus Seeley, 1887
P. merocratus Seeley, 1887
Late Albian, Early Cretaceous
Gault Clay (reworked into Cambridge Greensand), England
Lectotype
- (SMC B58401) (~3 m) proximal femur (~107 mm)
Comments- Patricosaurus was based on two unassociated specimens, a sacral vertebra (SMC B58402) found before 1859 and a proximal femur discovered in the 1880's. Seeley (1887) believed both belonged to the same taxon since he thought "there was little chance of any remains of two lizards occurring" in the Cambridge Greensand, but stated the femur could remain as the type if the vertebra was found to not belong to the same taxon. Barrett and Evans (2002) redescribed the specimens and referred the vertebra to Archosauria, which makes the femur the lectotype. Although they called Patricosaurus indeterminate, they also listed several features which differed from all lepidosaurs they examined.
Seeley named the taxon as a new genus of lizard, more closely related to modern taxa than any other Cretaceous lizard known at the time, but outside the crown group. Patricosaurus was referred to Lacertilia incertae sedis without comment by most later authors as well. Barrett and Evans compared it to several modern lizard taxa, but found no characters that were phylogenetically useful in the proximal femur. Additionally, they could not distinguish it from rhynchocephalians, leaving them to classify Patricosaurus as Lepidosauria incertae sedis. Evans later (2003) listed Patricosaurus as a possible anguimorph without comment, perhaps because she and Barrett felt it was phenetically closest to terrestrial varanids. Barrett and Evans noted that the lepidosaur-like characters of Patricosaurus were symplesiomorphic for diapsids, correctly excluding it from turtles, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and archosaurs. Choristoderes share the same femoral plesiomorphies as lepidosaurs, but were said to differ from Patricosaurus in having "narrower, more elongate, internal trochanter and an absence of obvious proximal muscle scars or strong muscle ridges." Yet the near contemporaneous Khurendukhosaurus does not have a narrower internal trochanter, has a rough insertional surface for the m. pubischiofemoralis externus (the dorsal surface is worn, so cannot be judged), and the length of Patricosaurus' internal trochanter is unknown as it is broken distally (unless they mean length in proximal view away from the head, in which case Khurendukhosaurus is in the range of modern lepidosaurs). Thus a relationship with choristoderes needs to be considered further. Of the characters listed by Barrett and Evans as variable in lepidosaurs, Khurendukhosaurus is less similar to Patricosaurus than some lizards in having almost no anterior curvature of its femoral head (instead the entire head is projected anteriorly as in Xantusia and Elgaria), is similar to the examined lepidosaurs in having weaker trochanteric crests (and thus a shallower intertrochanteric fossa), is more similar than most examined lepidosaurs (except Tupinambis and Cyclura) in having a small amount of separation between the internal trochanter and head, but is more similar to Patricosaurus than any examined lepidosaur in having a teardrop-shaped head in proximal view and in having the anteroposterior width be >95% of the dorsoventral width in proximal view. Cteniogenys (perhaps the choristodere Evans compared, as she previously redescribed it) is dissimilar in the latter three ways, while Pachystropheus is quite different in the proximally flattened head, distally placed interior trochanter and other features. Pending comparison to a greater variety of lepidosaurs (including fossil taxa), Patricosaurus is provisionally considered more likely to be a choristodere, perhaps closer to neochoristoderes than Cteniogenys. Evans (pers. comm. from Barrett, 2010) believes the taxon to be a lizard regardless of the details described here.
Olshevsky (1991) stated Patricosaurus was probably an indeterminate small theropod, citing personal communication from Molnar. However, Molnar stated (pers. comm., 2001) that while he was not convinced it is a lizard, he did not think it was a theropod or even an archosaur. Thus there was a misunderstanding, and no one actually ever considered Patricosaurus to be dinosaurian based on evidence. As Barrett and Evans stated, Patricosaurus cannot be an archosaur because members of that clade have lost the intertrochanteric fossa and internal trochanter. Similarly, there is no anterior or greater trochanter, unlike theropods.
References- Seeley, 1887. On Patricosaurus merocratus, Seeley, a lizard from the Cambridge Greensand, preserved in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 43, 216-220.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Barrett and Evans, 2002. A reassessment of the Early Cretaceous reptile ‘Patricosaurus merocratus’ Seeley from the Cambridge Greensand, Cambridgeshire, UK. Cretaceous Research. 23, 231-240.
Evans, 2003. At the feet of the dinosaurs: The early history and radiation of lizards. Biological Reviews. 78(4), 513-551.

Pan-Archosauria Gauthier, 2020
Official Definition- total(Alligator mississippiensis + Compsognathus longipes) (Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 176)
= Archelosauria Crawford, Parham, Sellas, Faircloth, Glenn, Papenfuss, Henderson, Hansen and Simison, 2014
Definition- (Testudo graeca + Crocodylus niloticus) (Crawford et al., 2014)
References- Gauthier, 2020. Pan-Archosauria J. A. Gauthier, new clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1174-1177.

Pan-Testudines Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004
Official Definition- total(Chelus fimbriatus + Trionyx triunguis + Chelonia mydas + Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 272)
Other definitions- (Chelonia mydas <- Homo sapiens, Draco volans, Caiman crocodilus, Vultur gryphus) (modified from Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004)
= Anapsida Osborn, 1903
Definition- (Testudines <- Sauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
References- Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. Journal of Paleontology. 78, 989-1013.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Pan-Testudines W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, and J. A. Gauthier 2004 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1040-1043.

Testudinata Klein, 1760
Official Definition- (carapace with interlocking costals, neurals, peripherals, and a nuchal, together with the plastron comprising interlocking epi-, hyo-, meso-, hypo-, xiphiplastra and an entoplastron that are articulated with one another along a bridge as in Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 273)
Other definitions- (carapace formed from costal bones with fused ribs, neural bones with fused thoracic vertebrae, and marginal bones; plastron formed from interclavicle, clavicle, and three to five paired bones sutured together; carapace and plastron articulated at lateral margin and enclosing shoulder girdle and pelvic girdle as in Chelonia mydas) (Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004)
References- Klein, 1760. Klassification und kurze Geschichte der Vierfüßigen Thiere. Jonas Schmidt. 381 pp.
Joyce, Parham and Gauthier, 2004. Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles. Journal of Paleontology. 78, 989-1013.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Testudinata I. T. Klein 1760 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group.1044-1047.

Testudines Batsch, 1788
Official Definition- crown(Chelus fimbriatus + Trionyx triunguis + Chelonia mydas + Testudo graeca) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 274)
Other definitions- (Chelonia mydas <- Captorhinus aguti) (modified from Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Proganochelys quenstedti + crown turtles) (modified from Laurin and Reisz, 1995)
crown(Chelus fimbriatus + Chelonia mydas) (Joyce et al., 2004)
= Chelonii Latreille, 1800
Definition- (Chelus fimbriatus + Testudo hermani) (modified from Kischlat and Timm, 2006)
= Chelonia Ross and Macartney, 1802 (preoccupied Sonnini and Latreille, 1801)
References- Batsch, 1788. Versuch Einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniß und Geschichte der Thiere und Mineralien. Akademische Buchhandlung. 528 pp.
Latreille, 1800. Histoire Naturelle des Salamandres de France. Villier. 61 pp.
Ross and Macartney, 1802. Tables of classification. In Cuvier (ed.). Lectures on Comparative Anatomy. Translated by William Ross under the inspection of James Macartney. T. N. Longman and O. Rees. 542 pp.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi and Sterli, 2020. Testudines A. J. G. C. Batsch 1788 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1048-1051.

Cryptodira Cope, 1868
Official Definition- crown(Testudo graeca + Chelonia mydas + Trionyx triunguis + Kinosternon scorpioides + Chelydra serpentina) (Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi, and Sterli, 2020; Registration Number 278)
References- Cope, 1868. On the origin of genera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1868, 242-300.
Joyce, Parham, Anquetin, Claude, Danilov, Iverson, Kear, Lyson, Rabi, and Sterli, 2020. Cryptodira E. D. Cope 1868 [W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, J. Anquetin, J. Claude, I. G. Danilov, J. B. Iverson, B. Kear, T. R. Lyson, M. Rabi, and J. Sterli], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1060-1063.

Trionychia Hummel, 1929
Definition- crown(Trionyx triunguis + Carettochelys insculpta) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Trionychidae Gray, 1825
Definition- crown(Trionyx triunguis + Cyclanorbis senegalensis) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Trionychinae Gray, 1825 vide Lydekker, 1889

Axestemys Hay, 1899
= Axestus Cope, 1872 (preoccupied Dejean, 1835)
= Temnotrionyx Hay, 1908
= Paleotrionyx Schmidt, 1945
Definition- (Axestemys byssina <- Aspideretoides foveatus, Apalone spinifera, Aspideretes gangeticus, Rafetus euphraticus, Trionyx triunguis, Cyclanorbis senegalensis, Plastomenus thomasii, Chitra indica, Pelodiscus sinensis) (Vitek, 2012)
Comments- Axestus was originally used for a curculionid beetle (Dejean, 1835).
References- Dejean, 1835. Catalogue des Coléoptères de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. [Livraison 4]. Méquignon-Marvis. 257-360.
Cope, 1872. Descriptions of some new Vertebrata from the Bridger Group of the Eocene. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 460-465.
Hay, 1899. On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates. The American Geologist. 24, 345-349.
Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Schmidt, 1945. A new turtle from the Paleocene of Colorado. Fieldiana: Geology. 10, 1-4.
Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. splendida (Hay, 1908) Vitek, 2012
= Aspideretes splendidus Hay, 1908
= Trionyx splendidus (Hay, 1908) Hummel, 1932
= Aspideretes granifer Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Aspideretes planus Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Aspideretoides splendidus (Hay, 1908) Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995
= Eugenichelys splendida (Hay, 1908) Chkhikvadze, 2000
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Judith River Formation, Montana

Holotype- (AMNH 3952) incomplete carapace
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota, US

Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Hell Creek Formation, South Dakota, US

Referred- (KUVP 152429; paratype of Dakotaraptor steini) entoplastron
(NCSM 13170; paratype of Dakotaraptor steini) entoplastron
(PBMNH.P.10.113.T; holotype of Dakotaraptor steini in part) partial entoplastron
Diagnosis- (after Vitek, 2015) dorsomedian carapacial sculpture of larger individuals consists of high, narrow ridges bordering wavy, flat-bottomed, reticulate lacunae or troughs; unsutured median contact between xiphiplastra; epiplastral projections approximately one-fourth maximum hypoplastral width; anterior projections of epiplastra wider and not tapered; gracile entoplastron; sculptured, unfused hyo-hypoplastral callosities.
References- Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Hummel, 1932. Pars 52: Trionychia fossilia. In Quenstedt (ed.). Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. W. Junk. 106 pp.
Gardiner, Russell and Brinkman, 1995. Systematics and taxonomy of soft-shelled turtles (family Trionychidae) from the Judith River Group (Mid-Campanian) of North America. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 32(5), 631-643.
Ckhikvadze, 2000. O sistematicheskom polozheniye nekotorikh vimershikh trekhkogotnikh cherepakh Severnoi Ameriki i Azii. Trudy Tbilisskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 7, 199-213.
Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
Arbour, Zanno, Larson, Evans and Sues, 2015. The furculae of the dromaeosaurid dinosaur Dakotaraptor steini are trionychid turtle entoplastra. PeerJ PrePrints. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1570v1
DePalma, Burnham, Martin, Larson and Bakker, 2015. The first giant raptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Hell Creek Formation. Paleontological Contributions. 14, 16 pp.
A. montinsana Vitek, 2012
Selandian-Thanetian, Middle-Late Paleocene
Melville Formation, Montana, US

Danian, Early Paleocene
Fort Union Formation, North Dakota, US
Danian, Early Paleocene
Denver Formation, Colorado, US

Reference- Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. cerevisia Vitek, 2012
Ypresian-Lutetian, Early Eocene
Bridger Formation, Wyoming, US

Reference- Vitek, 2012. Giant fossil soft-shelled turtles of North America. Palaeontologia Electronica. 15(1), 13A.
A. quinni (Schmidt, 1945) Hutchison and Holroyd, 2003
= Paleotrionyx quinni Schmidt, 1945
Thanetian-Ypresian, Late Plaeocene-Early Eocene
Plateau Valley beds, Colorado, US

References- Schmidt, 1945. A new turtle from the Paleocene of Colorado. Fieldiana: Geology. 10, 1-4.
Hutchison and Holroyd, 2003. Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene turtles of the Denver Basin. Rocky Mountain Geology. 38, 121-142.
A. byssinus (Cope, 1872) Hay, 1899
= Axestus byssinus Cope, 1872
= Temnotrionyx manducans Hay, 1908
= Eugenichelys robertemryi Chkhikvadze, 2008
Ypresian-Lutetian, Early Eocene
Bridger Formation, Wyoming, US
Ypresian, Early Eocene
Wasatch Formation, Wyoming, US

References- Cope, 1872. Descriptions of some new Vertebrata from the Bridger Group of the Eocene. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 460-465.
Hay, 1899. On the nomenclature of certain American fossil vertebrates. The American Geologist. 24, 345-349.
Hay, 1908. The fossil turtles of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 75, 568 pp.
Chkhikvadze, 2008. Trekhkogotniye cherepakhi (Trionychidae) Azii i Severnoi Ameriki: Morfologiya, filogeniya, sistematika, terminologiya elementov karapaksa. Problemy paleobiologii, Tbilisi. 3, 85-95.

Chelonioidea Gray, 1825 vide Agassiz, 1857
Definition- (Chelonia mydas + Dermochelys coriacea) (Joyce et al., 2004)

Protostegidae Cope, 1889

Pneumatoarthrus Cope, 1870
P. peloreus Cope, 1870
Early Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Mount Laurel Formation, New Jersey, US
Holotype
- (ANSP 9225) (~2.8 m) fifth dorsal centrum (~128 mm), sixth dorsal centrum (~129 mm), seventh dorsal centrum (~127 mm), eighth dorsal centrum (~112 mm) (Leidy, 1865)
Comments- This specimen was originally described as a juvenile Hadrosaurus sacrum by Leidy (1865) before Cope (1870) named it as a new taxon. Cope believed it to be "more Megalosaurian than Iguanodontine", comparing it favorably to Anchisaurus (his Megadactylus), Efraasia (his Palaeosaurus) and Clepsysaurus (a phytosaur), and less closely to Ornithopsis and Dryptosaurus (his Laelaps). He also stated it may belong to Ornithotarsus or a turtle, and in his 1872 description of the sea turtle Protostega considered Pneumatoarthrus quite likely to be a turtle as well. Cope (1875) later listed it under Testudinata with sea turtles. However, most authors were unaware of Cope's reassignment and continued to refer it to a dinosaur, either a hadrosaurid (Hay, 1903 [his Trachodontidae], 1930; Russell, 1930; Kuhn, 1964; Chapman and Brett-Surman, 1990) or theropod (Huene, 1932; Lull and Wright, 1942; Miller, 1955; Romer, 1956, 1976; Steel, 1970; White, 1973). Of the latter, Huene illustrated it as a Dryptosaurus aquilunguis sacral, Lull and Wright stated it resembled Anchisaurus, while White placed it as Megalosauridae indet.. The sacrals of Anchisaurus are roughly similar, but it and other dinosaurs have much smaller intervertebral foramina (so-called pneumatic foramina of Cope). The seemingly large foramina on Anchisaurus' caudals are spaces where transverse processes have broken. The similarity to Efraasia and Clepsysaurus noted by Cope involves the alternating expansion and contraction of the neural canal, which is common in reptiles including Archelon. Baird independantly recognized Pneumatoarthrus as a protostegid turtle a century after Cope's identification, which was first noted in personal communication in Gillette (1978), and later described in detail by Baird (1979, 1984) as a protostegine. He considered it extremely similar to Protostega and indistinguishable from Archelon, though he thought it to be generically undiagnostic and thus not a senior synonym of the latter genus. No rationale for referring it to Protosteginae instead of (the paraphyletic) Chelospharginae was given, and today we know of several more basal protostegids as well. It was listed as a protostegid by Spamer et al. (1995) and as a possible synonym of Archelon by Glut (1997). Another possibility is that Pneumatoarthrus is a junior synonym of the protostegid Atlantochelys mortoni, which is also known from Late Cretaceous New Jersey. Unfortunately, protostegid dorsals have not been closely studied for systematic variation so Pneumatoarthrus is retained here as Protostegidae indet..
References- Leidy, 1865. Memoir on the extinct reptiles of the Cretaceous formations of the United States. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. 14(6), 135 pp.
Cope, 1870. Observations on the Reptilia of the Triassic formations of the Atlantic region of the United States. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 11, 444-446.
Cope, 1872. A description of the genus Protostega, a form of extinct Testudinata. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 12, 422-433.
Cope, 1875. The Vertebrata of the Cretaceous formations of the West. Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories. 2, 303 pp.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United States Geological Survey Bulletin. 179, 868 pp.
Gilmore, 1924. A new species of hadrosaurian dinosaur from the Edmonton Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey Bulletin. 38, 13-26.
Hay, 1930. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 390(2), 1074 pp.
Russell, 1930. Upper Cretaceous dinosaur faunas of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 69(4), 133-159.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Lull and Wright, 1942. Hadrosaurian dinosaurs of North America. Geological Society of America Special Papers. 40, 242 pp.
Miller, 1955. A check-list of the Cretaceous and Tertiary vertebrates of New Jersey. Journal of Paleontology. 29(5), 903-914.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Kuhn, 1964. Pars 105. Ornithischia (Supplementum I). in Westphal (ed.). Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. 80 pp.
White, 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Annals of Carnegie Museum. 44(9), 117-155.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Gillette, 1978. Catalogue of type specimens of fossil vertebrates Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Part IV: Reptilia, Amphibia, and tracks. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 129, 101-111.
Baird, 1979. Pneumatoarthrus Cope, 1870, not a dinosaur but a sea-turtle. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 129, 71-81.
Baird, 1984. Evidence of giant protostegid sea-turtles in the Cretaceous of New Jersey. The Mosasaur. 2, 135-140.
Chapman and Brett-Surman, 1990. Morphometric observations on hadrosaurid ornithopods. in Carpenter and Currie (eds.). Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 163-177.
Spamer, Daeschler and Vostreys-Shapiro, 1995. A study of fossil vertebrate types in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Taxonomic, systematic and historical perspectives. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publication 16, 435 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.

Archosauromorpha Huene, 1946
Official Definition- (Gallus gallus + Alligator mississippiensis + Mesosuchus browni + Trilophosaurus buettneri + Prolacerta broomi + Protorosaurus speneri) (Gauthier, 2020)
Other definitions- (Archosauria <- Lepidosauria) (Gauthier et al., 1988)
(Protorosaurus speneri <- Lepidosauria) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
(Rhynchosaurus articeps + Protorosaurus speneri + Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
= Thecodontia Owen, 1859
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri + Thecodontosaurus diagnosticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Protorosauria sensu Merck, 1997
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified)
References- Huene, 1946. Die Grossen Stämme der Tetrapoden in den geologischen. Biologisches Zentralblatt. 65, 268-275.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Gauthier, 2020. Archosauromorpha F. von Huene 1946 [J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1178-1181.

"Thecodontosaurus" primus Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus "primus" Huene, 1905
= Tanystropheus primus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932 in Galton and Cluver, 1976
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Syntypes-
(MGUWr 3899s; was University of Breslau coll.) (adult) incomplete anterior dorsal vertebra (48 mm)
?...(University of Breslau coll.; lost) anterior dorsal centrum (~38 mm)
Comments- Huene (1905) first merely announced "Thecodontosaurus primus n. sp. Rückenwirbel, Oberschlesien" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908. Placed in Thecodontosauridae along with Anchisaurus and Massospondylus, Huene assigned this and other 'prosauropod' families in Theropoda.  Upon Peyer's 1931 discovery that Tanystropheus was based on non-dinosaurian cervical vertebrae, Huene (1931) reidentified the dorsals as belonging to Tanystropheus, stating (translated) "T. antiquus skeletal parts other than cervical vertebrae are present in the collections. I now consider it probable that the vertebrae I described earlier as "Thecodontosaurus primus" (7, Pl. 92, 8-9) belong here."  He noted they were unlike saurischians in lacking hyposphenes, but similar to Tanystropheus longobardicus and unlike other taxa in the Gogolin Formation, and that it was suspicious that only cervicals of Tanystropheus antiquus were known but only dorsals and caudals of Thecodontosaurus primus and T. latespinatus.  In 1932 Huene stated (translated) "I also count "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus" and "primus" (only dorsal and tail vertebrae) with a high degree of probability as Tanystropheus."  While Galton and Cluver (1976) thought this implied the new combination Tanystropheus primus, which they listed, Huene's 1931 wording and logic makes more sense as attributing primus and latespinatus to different vertebral sections of Tanystropheus antiquusColbert (1970) reexamined the vertebrae and found "they may be dinosaurian, but they can perfectly well be pseudosuchian vertebrae, and most probably are."  Kuhn (1971) assigned the species to Protorosauridae indet..  Wild (1973) wrote (translated) "Another very probable fifth thoracic vertebra of Tanystropheus conspicuus is that of F. v. Huene (1907/08: 217f .; Pl. 92, Fig. 9) described and illustrated as dorsal vertebrae of Thecodontosaurus primus F. v. Huene (= Tanystropheus antiquus F. v. Huene) (p. 151 f.). It is said to come from the Lower Muschelkalk of Gogolin, but doubts arise about Huene's stratigraphic data. The vertebra corresponds in its dimensions and proportions to the fifth vertebra described above. The vertebra would be much too large for the smaller, related species of Tanystropheus occurring in the Lower Muschelkalk. The original was probably lost during the war with the collection of the Geological Institute in Wroclaw."  This cemented a view of primus in the literature for decades despite the absence of evidence Huene was wrong about it being from the same beds as T. antiquus (Protanystropheus here).  Its supposedly lost status no doubt discouraged further work on the taxon until Skawinski et al. (2017) relocated one type vertebra and redescribed it as Archosauromorpha indet..  They refer to this more complete vertebra as the holotype and the smaller still lost centrum as referred, but Huene never designated one vertebra as the type, so any subsequent designation would be proposing a lectotype.  As after 1999, "To be valid, a lectotype designation made after 1999 must ... employ the term "lectotype" or an exact translation" (ICZN Article 74.7.1), Skawinski et al.'s paper does not validly designate a lectotype and both vertebrae remain syntypes of Thecodontosaurus primus.  According to Skawinski et al., "both specimens were found at the same site and the same stratigraphic position which suggests that they represent the same species, maybe even the same individual."  While primus does strongly resemble Tanystropheus and thus may be Protanystropheus antiquus, Skawinski et al. are correct in that it is also highly similar to Arizonasaurus.  It's likely that incomplete dorsal vertebrae are largely indeterminate among basal archosauromorphs.
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Kuhn. 1971. Die Saurier der deutschen Trias. [pub?]. 105 pp.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae (Reptilia, Saurischia). Annals of the South African Museum. 69, 121-159.
Galton, 1984. An early prosauropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of Nordwürttemberg, West Germany. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 106, 1-25.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Zanclodon? "antiquus" Huene, 1927 vide Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Material
- (MGUWr 3894s) incomplete femur
Comments
- Skawinski et al. (2017) noted "this specimen was never formally described or illustrated" but that it was "identified by von Huene (1927) as Zanclodon antiquus (information from label)."  It was originally labeled Tanystropheus antiquus "and probably later the name Zanclodon misleadingly was entered on the specimen by collection curator."  The authors conclude that "Probably it is a tanystropheid femur and, given place of its discovery, may represent Tanystropheus antiquus" (Protanystropheus antiquus here), but "elongation and size of the bone suggest that it may belong to large predatory archosaur or basal archosauriform."  While elongation doesn't seem very different from Tanystropheus, the size (~190 mm) is larger than expected for Protanystropheus and the specimen is assigned to Archosauromorpha indet. here as in Skawiński et al..
Reference-
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

undescribed Archosauromorpha (Colbert, 1989)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Agate Bridge N PFV 161, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (PEFO uncatalogued; = NMMNH coll.; = MNA coll.) dorsal centrum, distal caudal centrum, ungual, fragments
Comments- Colbert (1989) said of Coelophysis "In 1986, some fragmentary bones were found at a locality known as "Lot's Wife," also in the Petrified Forest National Park."  Hunt et al. (1996) wrote "these elongate centra represent the aberrant reptile Trilophosaurus", and Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "these specimens (elongate centra) represent the aberrant reptile Trilophosaurus (Long, pers. comm. 1989)."  Indeed, Long and Murry (1995) listed them as Trilophosaurus sp. "Agate Bridge North (UCMP V82239) ... NMMNH, two caudal vertebrae."  Parker and Irmis (2005) state "Colbert (1989) referred caudal centra from the Agate Bridge N locality (PFV 161) to Coelophysis, however these elements are also not dinosaurian" and "these vertebrae represent caudals from an indeterminate archosaur and cannot be assigned with certainty to Trilophosaurus (RBI pers. obs.)."  Marsh (pers. comm., 2021) confirmed Colbert collected the material at the MNA, and it was later transferred to the NMMNH before being sent to the PEFO a few years ago, where it remains uncatalogued.  He also stated it wasn't obviously dinosaurian or Trilophosaurus, echoing Irmis' opinion.  Parker and Martz (2010) write "An archosauromorph similar to Trilophosaurus or Malerisaurus (PEFO 31174) also occurs at PFV 161 (B. Mueller pers. comm. 2004)", which should be compared once these are described.  Note while Hunt et al. (1996, 1998) refer to this as in the Blue Mesa Member, more recent papers such as Parker and Nesbitt (2013) place these beds in the Sonsela Member.
References- Colbert, 1989. The Triassic dinosaur Coelophysis. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 57, 1-174.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Parker and Martz, 2010. 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(3-4), 231-260.
Parker and Nesbitt, 2013. Cranial remains of Poposaurus gracilis (Pseudosuchia: Poposauroidea) from the Upper Triassic, the distribution of the taxon, and its implications for poposauroid evolution. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379, 503-523.

undescribed Archosauromorpha (Gregory, 1972)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus site 1 TMM 31213, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Materiial
- (TMM 31213-coll.) material
Comments
- Gregory (1972) lists Coelophysis as present in Borden County, Texas and stated "The University of Texas (Works Progress Administration) parties also collected from a site in southern Borden County, Texas, about 1940."  The only Dockum TMM locality in Borden County seems to be TMM 31213, and as with other Colorado City Formation reports of Coelophysis, it is likely this is actually referrable to Trilophosaurus, which has been recorded from the locality.
Reference
- Gregory, 1972. Vertebrate faunas of the Dockum Group, Triassic, eastern New Mexico and Texas. In Kelley and Trauger (eds.). Guidebook of East-Central New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society. 120-124.

unnamed Archosauromorpha (Case, 1927)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material
- (UMMP 7277) three incomplete distal caudal vertebrae
(UMMP 9805) incomplete distal caudal vertebra (23.5 mm)
Comments- Case (1922) mentioned UMMP 7277, "three incomplete vertebrae of very elongate form and much reduced neural arches and zygopophyses" he stated may well belong to Coelophysis.  He also figured UMMP 9805, "a single very slender, elongate caudal from near the posterior end of the series (Fig. 8). The zygapophyses are lost, but the neural canal is still open and of relatively good diameter."  Huene (1932) incorrectly used 7277 for femur UMMP 3396, but stated the attribution of the caudals to his new supposed podokesaurid Spinosuchus (more recently assigned to Trilophosauridae) was likely.  Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "The theropod-like caudal vertebrae exhibit no synapomorphies of dinosaurian taxa", while Murry and Long (1997) said "Caudal vertebrae (UMMP 7277 and UMMP 9805) ... identified as theropod by Case (1927), cannot be referred with confidence to the Theropoda."  The elongation (Elongation Index 6.03 in UMMP 9805) is greater than most archosaurs, but in addition to neotheropods is also comparable to e.g. Lagosuchus and Trilophosaurus.  Thus it is possible Case and/or Huene were correct.
In probable reference to these and other Dockum UMMP specimens, Case (1932) later stated "There are in the collection of the Museum of Paleontology many small, elongate, posterior caudal centra which have all been regarded as probably belonging to the same form of small dinosaur, but they are clearly separable into two groups by the presence of a definitely marked antero-posterior groove on the lower face of the centra in some and its total absence in others."  He retained the ungrooved centra in Dinosauria based on UMMP 13670 which has since been referred to Postosuchus, while claiming UMMP 13950 "shows that the caudal centra with a groove on the lower surface and well-developed chevron facets belong to the phytosaurs and not to some dinosaur", although this has since been made the type of the aetosaur Calyptosuchus wellesi.  In any case, it is now known that many caudals of most basal neotheropods and shuvosaurids have median grooves while herrerasaurids and Trilophosaurus do not, so this state alone cannot distinguish dinosaurs or saurischians.
References- Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Murry and Long, 1997. Dockum Group. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 191-193.

unnamed Archosauromorpha (Huene, 1940)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material
- (ISI K 33/606b) partial anterior-mid dorsal vertebra (30 mm) (Huene, 1940)
(ISI R 306 in part) cervical vertebra (~27 mm) (Chatterjee, 1987)
Comments- Huene (1940) described ISI K 33/606b as having "the relatively greatest similarity with Coelophysis longicollis", concluding it is "a Coelurosaurian, and would probably best fit into the family Podokesauridae."  Colbert (1958) concurred, stating it "is in size and form much like a vertebra from about the middle portion of the presacral series in Coelophysis" and obviously a podokesaurid.  Ezcurra (2012) more recently found that it "does not exhibit any synapomorphy of Dinosauria, but the presence of well-developed neural arch laminae is a feature only recognized in basal archosauromorphs among Triassic tetrapods." Huene believed the this "could well go together" with saurischian distal femur ISI K 33/608a from the same locality and supposedly similar in size, but Ezcurra (2012) calculated the femur was too large to belong to the same individual as the vertebra.
ISI R 306 is part of the Alwalkeria holotype as described by Chatterjee (1987), but Rauhut and Remes (2005) found it was similar to Malerisaurus and Pamelaria. Some of the dorsal vertebrae may belong to this taxon also.
References- Huene, 1940. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic Maleri beds. Palaeontologica Indica, new series. 1, 1-42.
Colbert, 1958. Relationships of the Triassic Maleri fauna. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 3, 68-81.
Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: A chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos. 18.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.

Protorosauria Huxley, 1871
Definition- (Protorosaurus speneri <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Protorosaurus speneri + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Parathecodontia Gow, 1975
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi + Tanystropheus conspicuus) (modified from Merck, 1997)
?= Tapinoplatia Peters, 2000
Definition- (Macrocnemus bassanii + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)
?= Characiopoda Peters, 2000
Definition- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)
?= Fenestrasauria Peters, 2000
Definition- (Cosesaurus aviceps + Preondactylus buffarinii) (modified from Peters, 2000)

Prolacertidae Parrington, 1935
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi <- Protorosaurus speneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Euparkeria capensis) (Ezcurra, 2016)
= Prolacertiformes Camp, 1945
Definition- (Prolacerta broomi <- Crocodylus miloticus) (modified from Senter, 2004)

Dinocephalosauridae Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021
Definition- (Dinocephalosaurus orientalis + Pectodens zhenyuensis) (Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021)
Reference- Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021. A new phylogenetic hypothesis of Tanystropheidae (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) and other "protorosaurs", and its implications for the early evolution of stem archosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e11143.

Protanystropheus Sennikov, 2011
P. antiquus (Huene, 1908) Sennikov, 2011
= Tanystropheus "antiquus" Huene, 1905
= Tanystropheus antiquus Huene, 1908
= "Macroscelosaurus" antiquus (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1937
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Lectotype-
(SMNS 10110; Huene's No. 7) cervical vertebra (63.1 mm)
Paralectotypes- (MGUWr 3872s; Huene's No. 9) cervical vertebra (61 mm)
(MGUWr 3888s; Huene's No. 1) cervical vertebra (93 mm)
(MGUWr 3895s; Huene's No. 4) cervical vertebra (76 mm)
(MGUWr 3902s; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebra (Skawinski et al., 2017)
(MGUWr coll.; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebrae
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 2; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (83 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 3; lost) cervical vertebra (74 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 5; lost) cervical vertebra (~75 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 6; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (37 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 8; lost) cervical vertebra (62 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 11; lost) cervical centrum (40 mm)
(University of Breslau coll.; Huene's No. 12; lost) incomplete cervical vertebra (42 mm)
(University of Technology at Gliwice coll.; = Huene's No. X not lost) cervical vertebra
(Vienna Natural History Museum coll.; Huene's No. 10) cervical vertebra (47 mm)
Referred- (MB.R M.13.1970.42.5) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(MB.R M.13.1970.42.6) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(MB.R M.13.1970.42.9) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
(SMNS 16687; = SMNS 16256; lost; "lectotype" of Protanystropheus antiquus) cervical vertebra (67.2 mm) (Peyer, 1931)
?(SMNS 50831) cervical vertebra (68.7 mm) (Wild, 1980)
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Vossenveld Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Netherlands
?(Oosterink coll. No. A 638) mid cervical vertebra (58 mm) (Wild and Oosterink, 1984)
?(RGM coll.) cervical vertebrae (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Schaumkalk Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Germany

?(Institute of Geosciences, University of Jena coll.) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.1) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.3) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.4) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.7) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.8) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(MB.R M 13.1970.42.10) cervical vertebra (Huene, 1931)
?(SMNS 56836) cervical vertebra (66.5 mm) (Fraser and Rieppel, 2006)
Comments- This taxon was initially based on ten cervical vertebrae described by Huene (1908) as Numbers 1-10, of which 7 was in the SMNS, 10 in the Vienna Natural History Museum and the rest at the University of Breslau.  Wild (1973; and Fraser and Rieppel, 2006) believed those in Breslau were destroyed in World War II, so proposed to make No. 7 the lectotype.  However, Wild mistook SMNS 16687 described by Peyer (1931) with SMNS 10110 which was Huene's No. 7 (Fraser and Rieppel, 2006).  As the lectotype must be one of the syntypes, SMNS 16687 is not elligible and SMNS 10110 is the lectotype.  Skawinski et al. (2017) later revealed some of the University of Breslau (now the Geological Museum, Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Wrocław- MGUWr) survived the bombing, including figured Numbers 1, 4 and 9, as well as unfigured MGUWr 3902s which corresponds to another number, and a "few uncatalogued specimens."  Furthermore, one of the syntypes is now an uncatalogued specimen at the University of Technology at Gliwice.  This leaves at most four lost syntype vertebrae.
Huene (1905) first merely announced "Tanystrophaeus antiquus n. sp. Oberschlesien" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908.  It was described as a coelurid, and like T. conspicuus was thought to be represented by caudal vertebrae which were in actuality cervical vertebrae. Fraser and Rieppel state T. antiquus vertebrae can only be distinguished from T. conspicuus/longobardicus by their elongation and stratigraphy. Sennikov (2011) proposed the genus Protanystropheus for T. antiquus, following Wild's misidentification of SMNS 16687 as the lectotype.  Unlike the case of Longosaurus longicollis however, since SMNS 16687 was never a syntype of Tanystropheus antiquus, it cannot be a lectotype of a new taxon- "If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype" (ICZN Article74.2).  While some new specimens have been described as T. antiquus (e.g. Huene, 1931; Wild, 1980; Wild and Oosterink, 1984), the species remains poorly known and needs redescription.  Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) state the "original material is currently under study, and, therefore, we refrain from assessing this taxon in detail and consider all material later assigned to this taxon preliminarily to Tanystropheus cf. T. antiquus."  Skawinski et al. (2017) state "a redescription of all Tanystropheus fossils from the Polish Triassic is in preparation (Surmik et al. in prep.), which will discuss historical and new material of tanystropheids from the Middle and Upper Triassic of Silesia and Holy Cross Mountains. Preliminary observations of the holotype (MGUWr) suggest that T. antiquus is a valid species."  Spiekman et al. (2021) recovered antiquus in a trichotomy with Pectodens and Dinocephalosaurus in Dinocephalosauridae, far from Tanystropheus species nested in Tanystropheidae, so that a new genus seems appropriate.  Protanystropheus is used as Sennikov did specify T. antiquus of Huene was the type species even if he used the wrong lectotype for that species, and the ICZN only requires explicit fixation of type material for species-group names (Article 16.4.1), not genus-group names.
The femur assigned to Tanystropheus antiquus by Huene (1931) (MGUWr 3894s) was reassigned to Archosauromorpha indet. by Skawinski et al. (2017).  Ortlam (1967) described material from the Upper Buntsandstein of Germany as T. longobardicus and Macrocnemus, but this was reinterpreted as T. antiquus by Wild (1980) who redescribed it. Wild (1987) claimed T. antiquus was no longer considered to belong to Tanystropheus based on these specimens, but the material was later described as Amotosaurus rotfeldensis by Fraser and Rieppel (2006). Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) exclude several other specimens previously referred to T. antiquus- a cervical rib fragment from the Jena Formation of Germany housed at the MHI (= Tanystropheus sp.); a vertebra described by Huene (1931; fig. 17) possibly at the MB.R from Podloer Beach, Poland (= ?Archosauromorpha indet.); and two proximal femora from the Lower Muschelkalk of Germany (Konig coll.) described by Huene (1914: figs. 1 and 2) (= ?Archosauromorpha indet.).
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie. 67, 65-86.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Ortlam, 1967. Fossile Böden als Leithorizonte für die Gliederung des Höheren Buntsandsteins im nördlichen Scwarzwald und südlichen Odenwald. Geologisches Jahrbuch. 84, 485-590.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1980. Tanystropheus (Reptilia: Squamata) and its importance for stratigraphy. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France. 139, 201-206.
Wild and Oosterink, 1984. Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata) aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk von Winterswijk, Holland. Grondboor en Hamer. 5(1984), 142-148.
Wild, 1987. An example of biological reasons for extinction: Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 150, 37-44.
Fraser and Rieppel, 2006. A new protorosaur from the Upper Buntsandstein of the Black Forest, Germany. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(4), 866-871.
Sennikov, 2011. New tanystropheids (Reptilia: Archosauromorpha) from the Triassic of Europe. Paleontological Journal. 45(1), 90-104.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
Spiekman, Fraser and Scheyer, 2021. A new phylogenetic hypothesis of Tanystropheidae (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) and other "protorosaurs", and its implications for the early evolution of stem archosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e11143.

Tanystropheidae Gervais, 1859
= Tribelesodontidae Nopcsa, 1922
= Tribelesodontoidea Nopcsa, 1922 vide Nopcsa, 1928
= Tribelesodontia Nopcsa, 1923
= Macroscelosauridae Kuhn, 1935
Definition- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Macrocnemus bassanii + Langobardisaurus pandolfii) (modified from Dilkes, 1998)
Other definitions- (Tanystropheus conspicuus + Tanytrachelos ahynis) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- Tribelesodontidae was named by Nopcsa (1922) as a basal family of pterosaurs including Tribelesodon and Rhabdopelix.  Tribelesodontia was proposed by Nopcsa (1923) as a suborder of pterosaurs along with rhamphorhynchoids and pterodactylods.
Spiekman et al. (202X) noted "Gervais (1858) has widely been cited as first mentioning the family-group Tanystropheidae. However, this text contains no reference to either Tanystropheidae or Tanystropheus."  However, they erred when they claimed that because "Tanystropheus remains are referred to as "Les Tanystrophes" in Gervais (1859)", "this does not constitute a valid family-group name. Instead, Camp (1945) first published the family-group name Tanystrophaeidae, ... Therefore, the corrected name should be Tanystropheidae Camp, 1945 following article 35.4.1 of the ICZN."  As Kammerer (DML, 2020) explained, "Les Tanystrophes" is specifically stated to be a family by Gervais and "if a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form" (ICZN Article 11.7.2).  Thus Gervais (1859) can be the the accepted author and date if later authors latinized it and accepted it as the valid reference, which they overwealmingly have until Spiekman et al.. 
Kuhn's (1935) Macroscelosauridae is invalid as its eponym "Macroscelosaurus" is placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Melville, 1981).
References- Gervais, 1858. Description de l'Aphelosaurus latevensis, saurien fossile des schistes Permiens de Lodeve. Annales de Sciences Naturelles. 10, 233-235.
Gervais, 1859. Zoologie et paléontologie françaises: Nouvelles recherches sur les animaux vertébrés dont on trouve les ossements enfouis dans le sol de la France et sur leur comparaison avec les espèces propres aux autres régions du globe. Bertrand. 544 pp.
Nopcsa, 1922. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(2), 161-181.
Nopcsa, 1923. Die Familien der Reptilien. Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie. 210 pp.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Kuhn, 1935. Rhynchocephalia (Eosuchia). Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 71, 1-38.
Camp, 1945. Prolacerta and the protorosaurian reptiles. Part II. American Journal of Science. 243, 84-101.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Kammerer, DML 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201020224142/http://dml.cmnh.org/2020Aug/msg00149.html
Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 202X (online 2020). Aquatic habits and niche partitioning in the extraordinarily long-necked Triassic reptile Tanystropheus. Current Biology. 30(X). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.07.025

Gwyneddosaurus Bock, 1945
= Tanytrachelos Olsen, 1979
G. erici Bock, 1945
= Tanytrachelos ahynis Olsen, 1979
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Gwynedd or North Wales Member of Lockatong Formation, Pennsylvania, US
Holotype
- (ANSP 15072) braincase or palatal element?, axis (8 mm), two anterior cervical neural arches (~8 mm), three posterior cervicals (7.5 mm), cervical vertebra, cervical ribs, dorsal vertebra, at least 11 dorsal ribs, gastralia, distal caudal vertebra (4 mm), three chevrons, heterotopic bone?, neural arch, scapulocoracoids, clavicles, interclavicle, radius (9 mm), proximal ulna (~9 mm), incomplete ilium (10 mm), pubis?, ischium?, femur (23 mm), proximal fibula, three phalanges (2.5, 4 mm), fragments, coelacanth fragments?
Paratype- ?(ANSP coll.) femur (36.5 mm), tibia (30 mm)
Comments- Gwyneddosaurus erici was described by Bock (1945) based on a disarticulated specimen, in which he labeled the bones he identified with numbers 1-51. Bock provisionally placed the reptile in Theropoda and furthermore in Podokesauridae within Coelurosauria. This was based on the supposedly short forelimbs and gracile (perhaps hollow) postcrania, with the Triassic age probably responsible for the familial identification. The procoelous vertebrae, distally expanded presacral neural spines, and differently shaped pectoral girdle were all seen as different from Podokesaurus though. Bock also referred to "several leg bones, similar to those of our specimen" from the same locality though he did not describe these. Huene (1948) examined photographs of the material from before it was prepared by Bock, leading him to reidentify almost every element. The supposed pterygoid (16), and two other cranial elements were reidentified as a possible squamosal, basisphenoid or parasphenoid (15), and cervical vertebra (13) respectively. The supposed dorsal vertebrae (3 and 4) were reidentified as posterior cervicals, the cervical ribs (39) as chevrons, and one of the dorsal ribs (45) as an ulna. The scapula (18) and coracoid (17) were each actually a complete scapulocoracoid, and the bone Bock identified as a fused radius and ulna (22) was not mentioned but is far too short to be such. One of the ilia is actualy a probable ischium (2), and a supposed tarsal (25, perhaps meant as metatarsal) is a radius. Huene also described and figured a femur and tibia larger than the holotype which is seemingly the additional specimen noted by Bock. He felt these were possibly referrable to Gwyneddosaurus, as the femur "may be structurally identical." Huene assigned the taxon to Protorosauria based on cervicals similar to Macrocnemus and Microcnemus, holocephalous dorsal ribs, elongate and only slightly curved gastralia as in Macrocnemus and Tanystropheus, extremely short scapula with one broad and one rounded corner as in Adelosaurus, clavicle similar to Macrocnemus, ilium with small preacetabular and large postacetabular process as in Protorosaurus, and distally narrowing paratype femur as in Macrocnemus. This was followed by Camp et al. (1953) and Romer (1966), who placed it in Protorosauridae and ?Prolacertidae respectively. However, the cervical and clavicle similarities were never specified, the ilial proportions are plesiomorphic for amniotes, Adelosaurus has been more recently recognized as being of Youngina-grade, holocephalous dorsals are found in numerous taxa, gastralial morphology has not been shown to be diagnostic for tanystropheids, and the holotype femur seems not to distally narrow. Huene later (1956) placed Gwyneddosaurus in Askeptosauridae, but Askeptosaurus has shorter amphicoelous presacrals, a shorter scapula, rod-like interclavicle, no preactabular process, a longer postacetabular process, and much more robust limb elements with poorly developed features. Perhaps it was a typo.
Steel (1970) followed Bock in placing Gwyneddosaurus in Theropoda, Romer (1976) listed it as a podokesaurid coelurosaur, and Welles (1984) placed it in Theropoda incertae sedis (though stating "it certainly is not even remotely related to Dilophosaurus"). While Huene never explicitly stated reasons to exclude the taxon from Theropoda, they include- procoelous cervical centra, no cervical pleurocoels, holocephalous dorsal ribs, short scapular blade, unfused clavicles, ossified interclavicle, short preacetabular process, femoral head not inturned, internal trochanter and intertrochanteric fossa present. Furthermore, the supposedly short forelimb elements were incorrectly identified, and numerous reptiles have gracile postcrania which can appear hollowed.
Olsen first (1979) stated that Gwyneddosaurus had an emargnate scapulocoracoid (though this is untrue), so could be a lizard, but was not closely related to his new 'tanystropheid' Tanytrachelos. He did state it was nearly identical to some elements of Rhabdopelix though, and would be redescribed in the future. Olsen later (1980) thought it and Rhabdopelix could be senior synonyms of Tanytrachelos, as some elements could not be distinguished from it. As other elements differ between the taxa, Olsen thought Gwyneddosaurus should be a nomen dubium. Yet chimaerical status does not make a taxon a nomen dubium. Olsen and Baird (1986) considered Gwyneddosaurus to be a chimaera of coelacanth and possible Tanytrachelos bones. Similarly, Olsen and Flynn (1989) thought it to be a chimaera of Tanytrachelos and possible coelacanth fragments. Specifically, they stated "the large, quadranglular and keeled interclavicle characteristic of Tanytrachelos is present as are procoelous vertebrae." Instead of sinking Tanytrachelos into Gwyneddosaurus, Olsen and Flynn incorrectly consider the latter a nomen dubium because "there is significant room for doubt- certainly at the species level it is indeterminate." This statement is meaningless though as Tanytrachelos only has one recognized species, and the historical recognization of genus- and species-level characters for monospecific taxa is outdated. Indeed, when "at least part of Gwyneddosaurus more assuredly is Tanytrachelos", the former cannot be a nomen dubium. An ICZN petition would be necessary to sink Gwyneddosaurus, and since this has not been made yet it is more proper to make Gwyneddosaurus a senior synonym of Tanytrachelos. The identity of Rhabdopelix deserves further scrutiny, though it does include procoelous vertebrae. Whether the referred hindlimb is correctly referred is uncertain, as there are no proposed hindlimb apomorphies of Gwyneddosaurus, but is does seem to be tanystropheid based on the distal narrowing and is similar in size to large Tanytrachelos specimens. Spamer et al. (1995) placed Gwyneddosaurus in Tanystropheidae.
Unfortunately, comparison between the two taxa is difficult, as the pre-preparation photos of Gwyneddosaurus remain unpublished (though they are archived at the ANSP), while Tanytrachelos has only received a preliminary description. Bone 2 is not mentioned by either Bock or Huene but may be another posterior cervical. I think Huene switched bones 5 and 6 in his description, with 5 being the axis and 6 being a neural arch in dorsal view. Element 14 was believed to be an atlas or cranial bone by Bock, but is certainly too large for the former. Olsen and Baird's description of the interclavicle and comparison with Tanytrachelos suggests it is element 15, identified as a cranial bone by Bock and a para- or basisphenoid by Huene. Element 16 was identified as a possible squamosal by Huene, but does not match that element in Tanytrachelos and may be from the braincase or palate instead. Bock's supposed fused radius and ulna (22), may be an anterior dorsal rib if element 22 refers to the elongate curved bone and not the posterior cervical(?) the distal end lies over. Elements 23 and 24, identified as ischia by Bock, seem to be posterior dorsal ribs. Based on the identification as congeneric with Tanytrachelos, the two metatarsals or phalanges identified by Huene (31 and another unlabeled) are definitely the latter. The radius (25) and perhaps the ulna (45) as identified by Huene may actually be metatarsals then. A supposed (meta?)tarsal identified by Bock (27) seems more likely to be a posterior dorsal rib. Interestingly, curved triangular element 29 (called a rib by Bock), may be a heterotopic bone as found in some Tanytrachelos individuals. All of the "foot bones (32-38) which probably are toes" are anterior cervical ribs or gastralia as is at least one of the supposed manus bones (41). The other proposed manual elements (40 and 42) are very small and could be distal gastralia or fish bones. Notably, despite Olsen's statements Gwyneddosaurus contains coelacanth material (presumably of the common and contemporaneous Osteopleurus newarki), which material this refers to has never been specified nor has the referral been justified.
References- Bock, 1945. A new small reptile from the Triassic of Pennsylvania. Notulae Naturae of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 154, 1-8.
Huene, 1948. Notes on Gwyneddosaurus. American Journal of Science. 246, 208-213.
Camp, Welles and Green, 1953. Bibliography of Fossil Vertebrates 1934-1938. The Geological Society of America, GSA Special Paper 42.
Huene, 1956. Palaeontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. Jena. 716 pp.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago University Press. 468 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 1-87.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Olsen, 1979. New aquatic eosuchian from the Newark Supergroup (Late Triassic-Early Jurassic) of North Carolina and Virginia. Postilla. 176, 14 pp.
Olsen, 1980. Comparison of the vertebrate assemblages from the Newark and Hartford basins (Early Mesozoic, Newark Supergroup) of eastern North America. in Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona Press. 35-53.
Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.
Olsen and Baird, 1986. The ichnogenus Atreipus and its significance for Triassic biostratigraphy. in Padian (ed.). In the Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs: Faunal Change Across the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61-87.
Olsen and Flynn, 1989. Field guide to the vertebrate paleontology of Late Triassic rocks in the southwestern Newark Basin (Newark Supergroup, New Jersey and Pennsylvania). The Mosasaur. 4, 1-35.
Spamer, Daeschler and Vostreys-Shapiro, 1995. A study of fossil vertebrate types in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Taxonomic, systematic and historical perspectives. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publication 16, 435 pp.

Cosesaurus

Tanystropheus Meyer, 1852
= "Macroscelosaurus" Münster vide Meyer, 1852 (nomen rejectum)
= Tribelesodon Bassani, 1886
?= Chelyzoon Huene, 1902
= Procerosaurus Huene, 1902
Comments- The misspelling Tanystrophaeus was very common in early works, perhaps originating with Owen (1860) and being used consistantly by Cope and Huene.
The first Tanystropheus remains were illustrated by Plieninger (1847a: pl. 3 fig. 4, 6) as part of his new taxon Smilodon laevis, consisting of two Tanystropheus cervicals, a Nothosaurus vertebra, placodont osteoderms and the namesake partial maxilla (Wild, 1973).  Plieninger (1847b) quickly renamed this genus Zanclodon as Smilodon was preoccupied by a mammal.  Wild (1973) reported that except for the maxilla, (translated) "all skeletal remains described as Z. laevis have been lost (own research at the Staatl. Mus. Für Naturk. Stuttgart)."  "In order to protect Tanystropheus from being declared a junior synonym of Zanclodon simply because two vertebrae may belong to Tanystropheus," Wild (1975) petitioned the ICZN "that an endorsement be placed against Tanystropheus on the Official List to the effect that any zoologist who thinks that Tanystropheus and Zanclodon are congeneric shall give the former precedence over the latter."  After discussion with the ICZN, Wild (1976) solved the problem by unambiguously designating the maxilla (SMNS 6045) the lectotype of Zanclodon laevis.  Interestingly, Zanclodon comes from the Erfurt Formation (Lower Keuper), stratigraphically higher (Late Ladinian) than most Tanystropheus conspicuus or other named species.  Note numerous other remains are known from other countries which would not be assigned to named species here (usually published as T. sp. or T. cf. longobardicus).
Tanystropheus a theropod? Tanystropheus conspicuus was named for cervical vertebrae originally identified as caudals. Owen (1860) thought they might belong to the tail of a contemporaneous sauropterygian such as Nothosaurus, Simosaurus or Placodus. Cope (1887b) referred the genus to Theropoda (his Goniopoda) based on coelophysid remains he had previously described as new Coelurus species, but which he moved to Tanystropheus (T. bauri, T. longicollis and the new T. willistoni) that year. This was followed by Lydekker (1889), Zittel (1890) and Haeckel (1895) who both placed it in Coeluridae. Even after Cope's species were made the types of his new genus Coelophysis in 1889, Tanystropheus remained in Coeluridae (e.g. Huene 1902, 1908). Huene later (1914, 1926) moved it to Podokesauridae once he separated the Triassic coelurosaurs into that family. Nopcsa (1928) listed it as a podokesaurine podokesaurid. The comparisons to Coelurus and coelophysid distal caudal vertebrae were due to all three being elongate, amphicoelous, thin-walled, with low neural spines and no transverse processes. Of course articulated Tanystropheus material now shows these are cervicals, and Huene (1908) even identified parapophyses but thought the majority of evidence indicated they were caudals. Unlike theropods, they lack pleurocoels, angled articular facets, and laminae. Once Tanystropheus was reinterpreted by Peyer (1930, 1931) based on more complete material of T. longobardicus, Huene (1931) agreed in removing it from Dinosauria.
Not Tanystropheus- Cope (1887a) described Coelurus bauri and C. longicollis from the Petrified Forest Formation of New Mexico, and later that year (1887b) moved them to Tanystropheus along with his new species T. willistoni from the same locality. This was due to the elongate amphicoelous caudal centra, as Tanystropheus conspicuus cervicals were thought to be caudals at the time. Cope later (1889) erected the genus Coelophysis for the three species, because he incorrectly thought Tanystropheus' vertebrae lacked neural canals. Coelophysis bauri has since received a more complete neotype and is a coelophysid theropod, but Cope's material and other species have proven harder to diagnose within Coelophysidae. Huene (1908) named Tanystropheus posthumus, which was later renamed Tanystrosuchus and seems to be an archosaur caudal vertebra.  Huene (1931) proposed a humerus (U-MO coll.; lost; fig. 4) belonged to Tanystropheus, but Wild (1973) considered it more likely a placodont femur.  Huene (1958) proposed an element was a Tanystropheus ilium, but Wild (1973) reidentified it as a nothosaur scapula.  Wild (1980) described partial cervical series MCSNB 4035 from the Norian of Italy as Tanystropheus fossai, but Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) separated this as Sclerostropheus fossai based on differences from Tanystropheus, some shared with Dinocephalosaurus and Pectodens.
References- Plieninger, 1847a. Über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in Eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 148-154.
Plieninger, 1847b. Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu dem Vortrage über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 247-254.
Meyer, 1852. Die saurier des Muschelkalkes mit ruecksicht auf die saurier aus Buntem Sanstein und Keuper. in Zur fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abteilung 42. 167 pp.
Owen, 1860. Palaeontology, or a Systematic Summary of Extinct Animals and their Geological Relations. Second Edition. Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. 463 pp.
Bassani, 1886. Sui Fossili e sull’ età degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali. 19, 15-72.
Cope, 1887a. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. American Naturalist. 21, 367-369.
Cope, 1887b. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 24(126), 209-228.
Cope, 1889. On a new genus of Triassic Dinosauria. American Naturalist. 23, 626.
Lydekker, 1889. On a coelurid dinosaur from the Wealden. Geological Magazine. 6, 119-121.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Haeckel, 1895. Systematische Phylogenie der Wirbelthiere: (Vertebrata). 660 pp.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914a. Das natürliche System der Saurischia [The systematics of the Saurischia]. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Edinger, 1923. Eine Bemerkung über Tanystropheus. Senckenbergiana. 5, 143-144.
Edinger, 1924. Rückenmark im Wirbelkörper. Anatomischer Anzeiger. 57, 515-519.
Huene, 1926. The carnivorous Saurischia in the Jura and Cretaceous formations, principally in Europe. Revista del Museo de La Plata. 29, 1-167.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Peyer, 1930. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass. sp. Centralblatt für Mineralogie Abteilung B. 1930, 336-337.
Edinger, 1931. Tanystropheus aufgeklärt. Naturwissenschaften, 19, 846-847.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1958. Neue Vertebratenfunde aus dem Muschelkalk Württembergs. Jahreshefte des Vereins für Vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 113, 316-319.
Wild, 1971. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). PhD thesis. Universitat Zurich.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1975. Tanystropheus H. v. Meyer, 1855 (Reptilia): Request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 32(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1976. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia): Revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Wild, 1985. Tanystropheus and its importance for stratigraphy. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 139, 201-206.
Wild, 1987. An example of biological reasons for exctinction: Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Mémoires de la Société géologique de France. 150, 37-44.
Vickers-Rich, Rich, Rieppel, Thulborn and McClure, 1999. A Middle Triassic vertebrate fauna from the Jilh Formation, Saudi Arabia. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie. 213(2), 201-232.
Dalla Vecchia, 2000. Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Prolacertiformes) remains from the Triassic of Northern Friuli (NE Italy). Revista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 106(2), 135-140.
Li, 2007. A juvenile Tanystropheus sp. (Protorosauria, Tanystropheidae) from the Middle Triassic of Guizhou, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 45, 37-42.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. conspicuus Meyer, 1852
= "Macroscelosaurus" Münster vide Meyer, 1852 (nomen rejectum)
?= Chelyzoon blezingeri Huene, 1902
?= Chelyzoon latum Huene, 1902
= Procerosaurus cruralis Huene, 1902
= Thecodontosaurus "latespinatus" Huene, 1905
= Thecodontosaurus latespinatus Huene, 1908
= "Macroscelosaurus" conspicuus (Meyer, 1852) Kuhn, 1937
= Tanystropheus latespinatus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932 in Galton and Cluver, 1976
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Germany

Lectotype- (U-MO BT 740; material of "Macroscelosaurus") tenth cervical vertebra (253 mm)
Paralectotypes- (U-MO BT 732; material of "Macroscelosaurus") third cervical vertebra (190 mm)
(U-MO BT 733; material of "Macroscelosaurus") incomplete fourth cervical vertebra (~220 mm)
(U-MO BT 734; material of "Macroscelosaurus") partial cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 736; material of "Macroscelosaurus") tenth cervical vertebra (288 mm)
(U-MO BT 737; material of "Macroscelosaurus") incomplete tenth cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 738; material of "Macroscelosaurus") partial cervical vertebra
(U-MO BT 739; material of "Macroscelosaurus") ninth cervical vertebra (265 mm)
Referred- (Blezinger coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete middle dorsal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 5)
(Blezinger coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) middle dorsal centrum (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 6)
(Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete fifth dorsal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 7)
(Blezinger coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 3)
(Blezinger coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 4)
(Blezinger coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 5)
(Blezinger coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 6)
(Blezinger coll.; lost) posterior seventh cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 7)
(BSP coll.) incomplete fifth cervical vertebra (207 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) mid dorsal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 4)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete ~eighth caudal vertebra (30 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 2)
(BSP coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) ~third caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 4)
?(BSP coll.; destroyed; holotype of Chelyzoon latum) partial ?first sacral vertebra (58 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(GPIT/RE/00651) fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/00652) fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03190)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03191)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT/RE/03193)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(GPIT coll.) partial second sacral vertebra (35 mm) (Huene, 1902: pl. 6 fig. 6)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial first caudal vertebra (31 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 8)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~twelfth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 3)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~twelfth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 6)
(GPIT coll.; was Blezinger coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~eighth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 7)
(GPIT coll.) posterior tenth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 2)
(GPIT coll.; holotype of Procerosaurus cruralis) (~6 m) incomplete femur (305 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(Martin coll.) seventh cervical vertebra (208 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(Mascke coll.; lost?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) partial ~third caudal vertebra (35 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 1)
(MB.R M. 13.1970.42.2)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MB.R coll.) twelfth cervical centrum (85 mm) (Huene, 1931: fig. 2)
(MB.R coll; was PaläontoIogisches Heimatmuseum Bedheim coll.) cervical spine (Lang and Huene, 1952)
(MHI 1) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 67, MHI coll.) partial mid cervical vertebra, caudal vertebra, pelvic fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 788) ?rib fragment (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1104) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1142) dorsal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1172) proximal caudal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1339) posterior cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 1966) femur (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI 2136) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI coll.) about ten teeth (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(MHI coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R69)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R282a; was Strunz coll.; lectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) proximal caudal vertebra (~31 mm) (Huene, 1908: fig. 237)
(SMF R282b; was Strunz coll.) posterior eighth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: fig. 250)
(SMF R283; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) ~eighth caudal vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 92 fig. 5)
(SMF R285; was Strunz coll.) eleventh cervical vertebra (135 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 8)
(SMF R286; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) incomplete ~eighth caudal vertebra (45 mm) (Huene, 1908: fig. 238)
(SMF R287; was Strunz coll.; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) distal caudal vertebra (38 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 1)
(SMF R820) ~sixth or seventh dorsal vertebra (36 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R998) posterior eleventh cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R999a-c)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1059)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SML R1061)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1063)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R1076)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R2022)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4034) humerus (196 mm) (Huene, 1920: fig. 1)
(SMF R4092) ~eighth caudal vertebra (45 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(SMF R4182)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4183)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMF R4748)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
?(SMNS 8728; holotype of Chelyzoon blezingeri) incomplete twelfth cervical vertebra (85 mm) (Huene, 1902)
(SMNS 9863) posterior eighth cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 10)
(SMNS 14731) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 15891)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16364) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16643) proximal caudal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 16737c) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 50226) axis (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 52063) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 52479) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54620)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54621)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54623)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54624)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54625)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54626)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54627)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54628)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54629)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54630)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54631)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54632)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54633)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54639)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54640)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54641)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54642)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54643)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54644)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54648)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54652)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54653)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54654) posterior cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 54690) mid dorsal vertebra (Diedrich, 2012)
(SMNS 55002) ischium (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 55341) dorsal vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 56289) dentary (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59362)* vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59380) femur (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 59411) partial mid cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 81583) incomplete seventh cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 1)
(SMNS 81721)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 84816)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 84817)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS 91473)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS coll.) fragmentary eleventh cervical vertebra (Peyer, 1931)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) eleventh cervical vertebra (188 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 49)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973: fig. 51)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild 86) incomplete first sacral vertebra (47 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 55)
(SMNS coll.; was Wild coll.) femur (183 mm) (Wild, 1973: fig. 73)
(SMNS coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(SMNS coll.)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(U-MO 26) incomplete second caudal vertebra (36 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(U-MO 775) ~eighth to tenth dorsal vertebra (41 mm) (Huene, 1931: fig. 1)
(U-MO Bayr-65) anterior tooth (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO Bayr-66) humerus (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO BT 735)*
(Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(U-MO BT 741) anterior dorsal vertebra (Diedrich, 2012)
(U-MO BT 2171; = U-MO 30) ~third caudal vertebra (37 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(U-MO coll.; lost; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) distal caudal vertebra (43 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 2)
(U-MO coll.) fragmentary cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 6)
(U-MO coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 7)
(U-MO coll.) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 94 fig. 9)
(U-MO coll.) fragmentary
cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 9)
(U-MO coll.)* (Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019)
(Wild 691) incomplete first sacral vertebra (40 mm) (Wild, 1973)
(Wild coll.) anterior third cervical vertebra (Wild, 1973)
(Wild coll.) incomplete ?second dorsal vertebra (60 mm) (Wild, 1973)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, France

(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.; destroyed?; paralectotype of Thecodontosaurus latespinatus) mid dorsal vertebra (~40 mm) (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 3)
(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.; destroyed) partial cervical vertebra (Huene, 1908: pl. 96 fig. 8)
(Strasbourg Geological Institute coll.) femur, tibia, fibula (Corroy, 1928)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Upper Muschelkalk, Spain
(GIM L53 Vert.11) incomplete coracoid (Wild, 1980)
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found that Tanystropheus conspicuus could not be distinguished from T. langobardicus, which itself has now been split to recognize the larger T. "hydroides."  It is retained here pending discovery and description of cranial material (e.g. the undescribed dentary SMNS 56289), but only specimens from the Upper Muschelkalk are assigned to it.  This means several specimens from the Ladinian Lettenkeuper placed in T. conspicuus by Spiekman and Scheyer aren't listed here.
Huene (1908) thought Zanclodon schuetzii (based on a tooth) might belong to T. conspicuus, but Tanystropheus differs in having conical, unserrated teeth with longitudinal crests.  Wild (1973) referred a second sacral (GPIT coll.) described by Huene (1902) as a primitive plesiosaur to Tanystropheus conspicuus.  The specimens with an asterisk above are listed in Spiekman and Scheyer's (2019) supplementary table but may correspond to other unnumbered specimens listed here, as no exact preserved element identity or figure correspondance with e.g. Huene or Wild was provided.  The SMNS material from Germany is notable in preserving two ischia and a distal femur however.
"Macroscelosaurus"- In the original desciption of Tanystropheus, Meyer (1852; sometimes cited as 1847 to/or 1855) stated that Münster thought the type cervical vertebrae were reptilian limb bones and had named them Macroscelosaurus. No species name was given, and references to "Macroscelosaurus janseni" are misspellings of the therapsid Macroscelesaurus janseni (inappropriately renamed Haughtoniscus by Kuhn, who thought the name was too similar to "Macroscelosaurus").  Huene (e.g. 1902, 1908) and Nopcsa (1901) listed "Macroscelosaurus" as a junior synonym of Tanystropheus in Coeluridae.  Kuhn (1934) used "Macroscelosaurus" as a senior synonym of Tanystropheus, citing a "Münster, 1834" reference which subsequent authors have not been able to verify (Münster's 1834 "Vorläufige Nachricht über einige neue Reptilien im Muschelkalke von Baiern" being about Nothosaurus mirabilis instead). 1830 is another year that has often been cited, though Wild (1976) stated that a search of all known works of Münster had proved fruitless. Piveteau (1955) used "Macroscelosaurus" as a valid genus of tanystropheid non-synonymous with Tanystropheus, which is not possible as they are based on the same material.  Wild (1975) petitioned the ICZN to "suppress the generic name Macroscelosaurus G. zu Münster in H. V. Meyer, 1855 and in any previous publication for the purposes of the Law of Priority" so that it would not have priority over Tanystropheus.  After consulting the ICZN, Wild (1976) revised his petition to state that "Macroscelosaurus" was "first published as a synonym of Tanystropheus and must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 11d."  This was approved by the ICZN in 1981 (Melville, 1981), who ruled "(1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy" and "(4) The generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2118."  The genus and species Tanystropheus conspicuus were correspondingly placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2129, and the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2756, respectively.
Procerosaurus- Procerosaurus cruralis was described by Huene (1902) as a eusuchian most similar to gavials, though in a rather confusing paragraph which also states the lack of a fourth trochanter seems to prove it is dinosaurian. He ironically stated some similarity could exist with Tanystropheus longicollis (now recognized as coelophysid material, in this case AMNH 2704) based on Cope's description, but examination of the specimen itself showed they weren't similar after all. In 1910, Huene stated it was similar to Saltopus and that he never regarded it as crocodilian (though he did not synonymize it with Tanystropheus yet, contra Olshevsky, 1991). Huene later (1914a) placed Procerosaurus in parentheses under Tanystropheus, perhaps indicating he had synonymized them by this time, and included both as a central coelurosaur lineage within Podokesauridae. In the same year (1914b), he described additional supposed coelurosaur femora from the slightly younger Lower Muschelkalk as being most similar to Procerosaurus (Konig coll.; since excluded from Tanystropheus as Archosauromorpha indet. by Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019). However, Huene still had Procerosaurus listed as a valid genus of podokesaurid in 1920, as did Nopcsa in 1928 (in the subfamily Podokesaurinae). With the discovery of articulated Tanystropheus longobardicus skeletons, Huene (1931) now noted the synonymy with Procerosaurus (translated) "is now almost a certainty for me", given the similar morphology and the same length ratio compared to T. conspicuus cervicals.  Kuhn (1939) listed it as an indeterminate coelurosaur, and stated it was a possible pan-mammal ("theromorphe"). General reference works such as Zittel (1927), Romer (1956) and Kuhn (1969) used it as a synonym of Tanystropheus, which Wild's (1973) osteology of the latter genus concurred with as well. It was synonymized with T. conspicuus by Wild, probably due to provenence. Notably, Huene's favorable comparisons to theropods used taxa which are no longer thought to be dinosaurian (Saltopus, the Lower Muschelkalk archosauromorph femora), while his initial comparison to Tanystropheus was based on a theropod femur as no appendicular elements were yet referred to that genus. The femur of Procerosaurus differs from Triassic theropods in lacking a fourth trochanter and an ectocondylar tuber, and is here accepted as a junior synonym of Tanystropheus conspicuus. While Olshevsky stated it has sometimes been classified as an ornithischian, this seems to only be true of Procerosaurus Fritsch, 1905. This was a new genus for Iguanodon exogirarum, a Cretaceous taxon named by Fritsch in 1878 for a possible tibia. Because Fritsch's genus was preoccupied by Huene's, Olshevsky renamed it Ponerosteus in 2000.
Thecodontosaurus latespinatus- Huene (1905) first merely announced "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus n. sp. Rücken und Schwanzwirbel. Bayreuth, Crailsheim, Lüneville, Thüringen" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908.  Placed in Thecodontosauridae along with Anchisaurus and Massospondylus, Huene assigned this and other 'prosauropod' families in Theropoda.  Upon Peyer's 1931 discovery that Tanystropheus was based on non-dinosaurian cervical vertebrae, Huene (1931) reidentified the latespinatus dorsals and caudals as belonging to Tanystropheus, as they closely resemble articulated Tanystropheus longobardicus in the long proximal caudal transverse processes, and in the dorsal vertebrae (translated) "a relatively elongated centrum, weakly braced, low-lying transverse process, without a paraphophysis, i.e. simple rib articulation" and "a high neural spine that widens above."  Huene also notes it would be coincidental to only discover cervicals of Tanystropheus and only dorsals and caudals of latespinatus, and that the two had even been found in the same piece of rock (SMF R282).  Huene (1932) said "I also count "Thecodontosaurus latespinatus" and "primus" (only dorsal and tail vertebrae) with a high degree of probability as Tanystropheus", which Galton and Cluver (1976) thought implied the new combination Tanystropheus latespinus which they listed.  However Huene's wording and logic make more sense as attributing primus and latespinatus to different vertebral sections of "Tanystropheus (only cervical vertebrae)" conspicuus.  Kuhn (1965) stated (translated) "it is probably identical with Tanystropheus conspicuus" and Westphal (pers. comm. to Colbert, 1970) confirmed the close resemblance. Colbert stated only the mid dorsals (Huene's 1908 plate 91 figs. 3, 4, 7) "might show any possible indication of being saurischian", "but at best their identification is open to question."  Wild (1973) made the specimen shown in figure 237 of Huene (1908) the type, which makes it the lectotype while other material described by Huene become paralectotypes.  Wild reidentified the supposed axes (Huene, 1908: pl. 91 fig. 1 and 2) as distal caudal vertebrae.  A supposed osteoderm (Strunz coll.) associated with SMF R282a and b was tentatively referred to Thecodontosaurus latespinatus by Huene (1908), but "turned out to be part of an interclavicle of Placodus gigas" (translated from Huene, 1931).
References- Meyer, 1852. Die saurier des Muschelkalkes mit ruecksicht auf die saurier aus Buntem Sanstein und Keuper. In Zur fauna der Vorwelt, zweite Abteilung 42. 167 pp.
Fritsch, 1878. Die Reptilien und Fische der böhmischen Kreideformation. Prague. 46 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. Synopsis und Abstammung der Dinosaurier. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 247-288.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Fritsch, 1905. Synopsis der Saurier der böhm. Kreideformation. Sitzungsberichte der königlich-böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, II Classe. 1905(8), 1-7.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1910. Ein primitiver Dinosaurier aus der mittleren Trias von Elgin. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen, 8, 315-322.
Huene, 1914a. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1914, 154-158.
Huene, 1914b. Coelurosaurier Reste aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie. 1914, 670-672.
Broili, 1915. Beobachtungen über Tanystropheus conspicuus. Neues Jahrbuch für Minerologie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 2, 51-62.
Huene, 1920. Stammesgeschichtliche Ergebnisse einiger Untersuchungen an Trias-Reptilien. Zeitschrift für Induktive Abstammungsund Vererbungslehre. 24, 159-163.
Zittel, 1927. Textbook of Paleontology. Macmillan Co. Limited. Vol. I, 839 pp.
Corroy, 1928. Les Vertébrés du Trias de Lorraine et le Trias Lorrain. Annales de Paléontologie, 17, 81-136.
Nopcsa, 1928. The genera of reptiles. Palaeobiologica. 1, 163-188.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Huene, 1931. Über Tanystropheus und verwandte Formen. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Beilageband 67 Abteilung B. 65-86.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1934. Sauropterygia. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 69, 127 pp.
Kuhn, 1935. Rhynchocephalia (Eosuchia). Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia. 71, 38 pp.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Lang and Huene, 1952 (eds.). Die Saurier Thüringens nach Erhebungen ihres centralen Betreuters Dr. med. u. Dr. rer. nat. h. c. Hugo Rühle von Lilienstern†. Fischer. 42 pp.
Piveteau, 1955. Traite de paleontologie. V. Amphibiens, reptiles, oiseaux. Masson, Paris. 1113 pp.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia. Supplementum 1. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, 109, 94 pp.
Kuhn, 1969. Proganosauria, Bolosauria, Placodontia, Araeoscelidia, Trilophosauria, Weigeltisauria, Millerosauria, Rhynchocephalia, Protorosauria. Handbuch der Palahoerpetologie. 9, 74 pp.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1975. Tanystropheus H. v. Meyer, 1855 (Reptilia): Request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 32(2), 124-126.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae (Reptilia, Saurischia). Annals of the South African Museum. 69, 121-159.
Wild, 1976. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia): Revised request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2084. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33(2), 124-126.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Melville, 1981. Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 38(3), 188-190.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An Annotated Checklist of Dinosaur Species by Continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 157 pp.
Diedrich, 2012. The Middle Triassic marine reptile biodiversity in the Germanic Basin, in the centre of the Pangaean world. Central European Journal of Geosciences. 4(1), 9-46.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. longobardicus (Bassani, 1886) Peyer, 1930
= Tribelesodon longobardicus Bassani, 1886
= "Macroscelosaurus" longobardicus (Bassani, 1886) Kuhn, 1937
= Tanystropheus meridensis Wild, 1980
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Italy
Holotype-
(Milan Museum coll.; holotype of Tribelesodon longobardicus; destroyed) partial skull, mandible (31.5 mm), eight cervical vertebrae, cervical ribs, four dorsal vertebrae (6 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, sacral vertebra, sacral rib, three proximal caudal vertebrae (5 mm), sternum, pelvic elements, femur (43.5 mm), tibiae (one distal; 37 mm), fibulae (one distal), tarsals, metatarsi, pedal phalanges
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Switzerland
Neotype
- (PIMUZ T 2791; exemplar a of Wild) skull (46 mm), mandibles, hyoid, axis (9.5 mm), third cervical vertebra (25 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (30 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (31 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (30 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (32 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (41 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (51 mm), tenth cervical vertebra (45 mm), eleventh cervical vertebra (26.5 mm), twelfth cervical vertebra (12 mm), cervical ribs, dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, proximal caudal vertebrae, chevrons, scapula, humeri (45 mm), radii, ulnae (29 mm), incomplete manus, ilium, pubis, ischium, femora (57 mm), tibiae (49 mm), fibulae, metatarsals, pedal phalanges (Peyer, 1930)
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Meride Limestone, Switzerland
Referred-
(PIMUZ T 3901; holotype of Tanystropheus meridensis) skull, mandible, scleral plates, axis (9.3 mm), third cervical vertebra (25.2 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (38 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (39 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (38 mm), anterior seveneth cervical vertebra, cervical ribs (Wild, 1980)
Comments- Tribelesodon longobardicus was described by Bessani (1886) as a possible pterosaur, the doubt being caused by the tricusped posterior teeth which were seen as more similar to some ornithischians, mammals and lizards. Subsequent authors followed this assignment or felt Tribelesodon's placement was too uncertain owing to the short original description, until Nopcsa (1922, 1923) redescribed it in detail and assigned it to his new basal pterosaurian family Tribelesodontidae. While Olshevsky (2000) claims Tribelesodon has sometimes been called a theropod, I'm unaware of any such instances in the literature. The holotype was destroyed in World War II (Pinna pers. comm. to Wild, 1973).  Peyer discovered complete skeleton PIMUZ T 2791 in September 1929, which was announced in 1930 and described in detail in 1931. He referred this specimen to longobardicus but recognized it was also Tanystropheus, with the supposed elongate manual digit IV phalanges of Tribelesodon being cervical vertebrae instead. Thus Peyer synonymized the genera and placed Tanystropheus in Protorosauridae. Wild (1973) made Peyer's main specimen (PIMUZ T 2791, exemplar a in Wild's paper) the neotype of Tanystropheus longobardicus since the holotype was destroyed.
See Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) for a complete specimen list.
References- Bassani, 1886. Sui Fossili e sull’ età degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali. 19, 15-72.
Nopcsa, 1922. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(2), 161-181.
Nopcsa, 1923. Neubeschreibung des Trias-Pterosauriers Tribelesodon. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 5(3), 161-181.
Peyer, 1930. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass. sp. Centralblatt für Mineralogie Abteilung B. 1930, 336-337.
Peyer, 1931. Tanystropheus longobardicus Bass sp. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Abhandlungen Schweizerische Paläontologie Gesellschaft. 50, 5-110.
Kuhn, 1937. Die fossilen Reptilien. Berlin: Gebrueder Borntrager. 121 pp.
Wild, 1971. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). PhD thesis. Universitat Zurich.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Wild, 1980. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIV. Neue Funde von Tanystropheus (Reptilia, Squamata). Abhandlungen der schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 102, 1-31.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. hydroides Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 2020
Late Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Besano Formation, Switzerland
Holotype
- (PIMUZ T 2790) skull, mandibles, atlas to eighth cervical vertebrae
References- Spiekman, Neenan, Fraser, Fernandez, Rieppel, Nosotti and Scheyer, 2020. Aquatic habits and niche partitioning in the extraordinarily long-necked Triassic reptile Tanystropheus. Current Biology. 30(19), 3889-3895.e2.
T. haasi Rieppel, 2001
Anisian-Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Makhtesh Ramon, Isreal
Holotype-
(HUJ-Pal. TR 1) posterior end of eighth cervical vertebra
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found this to be indeterminate relative to T. conspicuus and T. "hydroides" (their large longobardicus).
References
- Rieppel, 2001. A new species of Tanystropheus (Reptilia: Protorosauria) from the Middle Triassic of Makhtesh Ramon, Israel. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 221(2), 271-287.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.
T. biharicus Jurcsak, 1975
Mid-Late Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lugaşu de Sus, Bihor, Romania
Holotype
- (MTCO 8988) sixth cervical vertebra (~111 mm)
Comments- Spiekman and Scheyer (2019) found this to be indeterminate relative to T. conspicuus and T. "hydroides" (their large longobardicus).
Reference
- Jurcsak, 1975. Tanystropheus biharicus n.sp. (Reptilia, Squamata), o nouva specie pentru fauna Triasica a României. Nymphaea. 3, 45-52.
Spiekman and Scheyer, 2019. A taxonomic revision of the genus Tanystropheus (Archosauromorpha, Tanystropheidae). Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.80.

Crocopoda Ezcurra, 2016
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis, Trilophosaurus buettneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps, Proterosuchus fergusi <- Protorosaurus speneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus) (Ezcurra, 2016)
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Allokotosauria Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis, Trilophosaurus buettneri <- Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Protorosaurus speneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps) (Nesbitt et al., 2015)
Reference- Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Azendohsauridae Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015
Definition- (Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis <- Trilophosaurus buettneri, Tanystropheus longobardicus, Proterosuchus fergusi, Protorosaurus speneri, Rhynchosaurus articeps, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt et al., 2015)
Reference- Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Azendohsaurus

Trilophosauridae Gregory, 1945
= Trilophosauria Romer, 1956

Trilophosaurus Case, 1928
=
Spinosuchus Huene, 1932
= Chinleogomphius Sues and Olsen, 1993
T. buettneri Case, 1928
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 1 NMMNH L-860 TMM 31025 YPM 5830, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Referred
- (TMM 31025-coll.) (Gregory, 1945)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TMM 31100-coll.) (Elder, 1978)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3A TMM 31185, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TMM 31185-coll.) (Elder, 1978)
Comments- Gregory (1945) first listed Coelophysis sp. material from Quarry 1 or 2, followed by Elder (1987) stating "the saurischian dinosaur Coelophysis" was preserved in the Howard County quarries.  He indicated a minimum number of one individual from Trilophosaurus Quarries 1, 3 and 3A, with none preserved in Trilophosaurus Quarry 2.  For Trilophosaurus Quarry 3, he states "The material of Coelophysis, Trilophosaurus, and the aetosaur indicates possible adults of these taxa."  While this information was originally from Elder's (1978) thesis where preserved specimens of each taxon in the quarry are discussed, confusingly Coelophysis and coelurosaurs are not otherwise mentioned in the thesis.  All of this material was collected between August 1939 and April 1941.  Hunt et al. (1998) wrote "most of these specimens pertain to Trilophosaurus buettneri" with "The only possible dinosaur specimen" being proximal femur TMM 31100-523 from Quarry 3 that has been identified as Chindesaurus.  However, preparation has since identified shuvosaurid, Dromomeron gregorii, silesaur and saurischian material (femur and tibia TMM 31100-545 and 1324) from Quarry 3 and D. gregorii specimens from Quarry 3A that may have been confused for Coelophysis, and most collected fossils have yet to be prepared (Stocker, 2013).
References- Gregory, 1945. Osteology and relationships of Trilophosaurus. University of Texas Publication. 4401, 273-359.
Elder, 1978. Paleontology and paleoecology of the Dockum Group, Upper Triassic, Howard County, Texas. Masters thesis, University of Texas. 206 pp.
Elder, 1987. Taphonomy and paleoecology of the Dockum Group, Howard County, Texas. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 22, 85-94.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Stocker, 2013. Contextualizing vertebrate faunal dynamics: New perspectives from the Triassic and Eocene of western North America. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 297 pp.
T. dornorum Mueller and Parker, 2006
T. phasmalophos Kligman, Marsh, Nesbitt, Parker and Stocker, 2020
T. caseanus
(Huene, 1932) new combination
= Spinosuchus caseanus Huene, 1932
= Trilophosaurus jacobsi Murry, 1987
= Chinleogomphius jacobsi Sues and Olsen, 1993
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Holotype
- (UMMP 7507) incomplete third cervical vertebra (45.5 mm), incomplete fourth cervical vertebra (48.2 mm), incomplete fifth cervical vertebra (54.8 mm), incomplete sixth cervical vertebra (51.9 mm), first transitional vertebra (32.9 mm), second transitional vertebra (31.5 mm), third transitional vertebra (29.1 mm), first dorsal vertebra (30.4 mm), incomplete second dorsal vertebra (33 mm), third dorsal vertebra (32.5 mm), incomplete fourth dorsal vertebra (35.6 mm), incomplete fifth dorsal vertebra (37 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (36.6 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (44.3 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (39 mm), incomplete ninth dorsal vertebra (37 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (49.2 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (43.7 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (38.4 mm), incomplete thirteenth dorsal vertebra (41.5 mm), incomplete fourteenth dorsal vertebra (41.2 mm), fifteenth dorsal vertebra (39.6 mm), dorsal rib fragments, intercentrum
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Los Esteros Member of the Santa Rosa Formation, New Mexico, US
Referred- (private coll.) dorsal vertebrae (Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Kahle Trilophosaurus Quarry NMMNH L-3775, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(NMMNH P-57852) proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57853) mid dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57854) transitional vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57855) transitional vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57856) transitionalvertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57857) incomplete caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57858) incomplete mid dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57859) incomplete fifteenth dorsal vertebra, first sacral vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-5760) second sacral vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57861) incomplete posterior dorsal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57862) incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57863) incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-57864) distal caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
(NMMNH P-5765) mid caudal vertebra (Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009)
[for other referred material see Spielmann et al., 2009 (as Trilophosaurus jacobsi) and 2009]
Comments
- Discovered in Summer 1921, this was described by Case (1922) as Coelophysis sp. based on similarities in the cervical diapophyses and parapophyses.  Case (1927) described it in more detail, this time noting the specimen "was identified by comparison with Huene's figure of the cervical vertebrae of C. longicollis and will be referred to as C. aff. longicollis", also referring other specimens to the genus (UMMP 2680, 7277, 7473, 8870, 9805).  Huene (1932) felt it was unlikely the vertebral series belonged to Coelophysis based on the high neural spines, and named it Spinosuchus caseanus.  Huene believed (translated) "Spinosuchus belongs to the coelurosaurs and is probably not closely related to Coelophysis", although he did asign both to Podokesauridae, and also assigned braincase UMMP 7473 to his new genus (it has since been referred to Postosuchus kirkpatricki- Chatterjee, 1985).  Padian (1986) wrote that "probably none of this material belongs to Coelophysis or to any dinosaur", while Long and Murry (1995) referred it to Neodiapsida incertae sedis.  Hunt et al. (1998) "tentatively assign Spinosuchus to cf. Theropoda incertae sedis on the basis of hollow centra" and also noted "A possible synapomorphy that Spinosuchus shares with Herrerasauridae is the presence of spine tables on the posterior dorsal vertebrae", but concluded "Further preparation of the specimen is necessary before the taxonomic affinities of this specimen can be adequately evaluated."  They also referred "dorsal vertebrae with elongate neural spines (private collection)" from the Los Esteros Member of New Mexico to the taxon, first reported as cf. Spinosuchus sp. in an abstract by Hunt et al. (1995).  Heckert et al. (2001) reported "vertebrae possessing extremely tall neural spines from NMMNH locality 3775" that they associated with "apparently hollow bones from this locality that appear to have been subsequently filled with matrix and/or calcite (e.g., NMMNH P-34123-34127" as evidence of "the presence of a small theropod dinosaur, probably Spinosuchus."  The appendicular fragments are catalogued as Archosauria indet. here as various other ornithodirans and crurotarsans can also have hollow limb elements, while Spielmann et al. (2009) later described the vertebrae.  Richards (1999) referred Spinosuchus to Trilophosauria in his unpublished thesis based on numerous shared characters with Trilophosaurus, but Nesbitt et al. (2007) suggested they are also found in other pan-archosaurs, though they confusingly listed it as Archosauriformes indet. instead of Archosauromorpha indet..  Nesbitt et al. also ignored the complexity of vertebral morphology in such three-dimensional specimens when they wrote "There are no other vertebral character states that distinguish Spinosuchus from other archosauriforms other than the autapomorphic neural spines."  Spielmann et al. (2007, 2009) have more recently demonstrated its trilophosaurid identity convincingly and redescribed the taxon, while Nesbitt et al. (2015) argued effectively it is synonymous with Trilophosaurus jacobsi.  Because jacobsi was named 55 years latyer, this would make the correct combination Trilophosaurus caseanus unless T. dornorum and/or phasmalophos are assigned to other genera or found to be closer to T. buettneri.  Specimens referred to Spinosuchus or Trilophosaurus jacobsi after a non-dinosaurian identity was established are not listed here.
References
- Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309, 395-460.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Hunt, Heckert and Lucas, 1995. Vertebrate paleontology and biochronology of the Santa Rosa Formation, Santa Fe County, north-central New Mexico. 1995 New Mexico Geological Society Annual Spring Meeting. 32.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Richards, 1999. Osteology and relationships of Spinosuchus caseanus HUENE, 1932 from Texas (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic): A new interpretation. Masters thesis, Fort Hays State University. 157 pp.
Heckert, Lucas, Kahle and Zeigler, 2001. New occurrence of Trilophosaurus (Reptilia: Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of west Texas and its biochronological significance. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook. 52, 115-122.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Spielmann, Lucas, Hunt and Heckert, 2007. A revision of the Trilophosauridae (Archosauromorpha) from the Late Triassic of western North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27(3), 151A.
Spielmann, Lucas, Heckert, Rinehart and Richards, 2009. Redescription of Spinosuchus caseanus (Archosauromorpha: Trilophosauridae) from the Upper Triassic of North America. Palaeodiversity. 2, 283-313.
Nesbitt, Flynn, Pritchard, Parrish, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2015. Postcranial osteology of Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis (?Middle to Upper Triassic, Isalo Group, Madagascar) and its systematic position among stem archosaur reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 398, 126 pp.

Rhynchosauria Parker, 1879
Definition- (Mesosuchus browni + Rhynchosaurus articeps) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Mesosuchus browni + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
(Mesosuchus browni + Howesia browni) (modified after Dilkes, 1998)
Comments- The authorship is often given as "Osborn, 1903 (Gervais, 1859)", but Gervais used "Rhynchosaures" which is merely French for "rhynchosaurs." Rhynchosauria goes back at least to Parker (1879), though Osborn (1903) did establish it more officially.

Rhynchosauroidea Huxley, 1887 vide Nopcsa, 1928
Other definitions- (Howesia browni + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- According to the ICZN any superfamily must include its eponymous family, in this case Rhynchosauridae. If the latter were defined to exclude Hyperodapedon, Rhynchosauroidea could exist to include both Rhynchosauridae and Hyperodapedontidae.

Rhynchosauridae Huxley, 1887
Other definitions- (Rhynchosaurus articeps + Scaphonyx fischeri + Stenaulorhynchus stockleyi + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Dilkes, 1998)
(Stenaulorhynchus stockleyi + Hyperodapedon gordoni) (modified after Merck, 1997)
Comments- While Rhynchosauridae was defined prior to Hyperodapedontidae, according to the ICZN a family including both Rhynchosaurus and Hyperodapedon must be named after the latter since its family level taxon was named two years earlier. Rhynchosauridae remains available for a sister taxon to Hyperodapedontidae.

Hyperodapedontidae Lydekker, 1885
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Rhynchosaurus articeps) (modified after Langer and Schultz, 2000)
= Scaphonychidae Huene, 1928

Hyperodapedontinae Lydekker, 1885 vide Chatterjee, 1969
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Fodonyx spenceri) (Langer and Schultz, 2000)

Hyperodapedon Huxley vide Murchison, 1858
= Stenometopon Boulenger, 1904
= Scaphonyx Woodward, 1907
= Cephalastron Huene, 1926
= Cephalonia Huene, 1926
= Cephalostronius Huene, 1926
= Scaphonychimus Huene, 1926
= Macrocephalosaurus Tupi-Caldas, 1933
= Paradapedon Huene, 1938
= Supradapedon Chatterjee, 1980
= Teyumbaita Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010
Definition- (Hyperodapedon gordoni <- Teyumbaita sulcognathus) (Langer and Schultz, 2000)
Comments- Huene's (1926) new taxa (Cephalastron brasiliense, Cephalastron gondwanicum, Cephalonia lotziana, Cephalostronius angustispinatus, Scaphonyx australis and Scaphonychimus eurychors) are all near certainly referrable to Hyperodapedon (H. sanjuanensis, H. huenei or H. mariensis), but currently viewed as indeterminate (Langer, 1996). These species are not given their own entries here, as I lack both Langer's thesis and Huene's original description and none have been formally made new combinations with Hyperodapedon.
References- Murchison, 1858. On the sandstones of Morayshire (Elgin, &c.) containing reptilian remains; and on their relations to the Old Red Sandstone of that country. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 15, 419-439.
Boulenger, 1904. On reptilian remains from the Triass of Elgin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 196, 175-189.
Woodward, 1907. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista. 7, 46-57.
Huene, 1926. Gondwana-Reptilien in Südamerika. Palaeontologia Hungarica. 2, 1-108.
Tupi-Caldas, 1933. Contribuição ao estudo do fossil da Alemoa, Município de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. In Tupi-Caldas (ed.). Curso Geral de Mineralogia e Geologia, aplicada ao Brasil. Edições da Livraria do Globo. 333-339.
Huene, 1938. Stenaulorhynchus, ein Rhynchosauridae der ostafrikanischen Obertrias. Nova Acta Leopoldina. 1938, 83-121.
Chatterjee, 1980. The evolution of rhynchosaurs. Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France, Nouvelle Serie. 139, 57-65.
Langer, 1996. Rincossauros sul-brasileiros: Historico e filogenia. Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 361 pp.
Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010. Cranial anatomy of a new genus of hyperodapedontine rhynchosaur (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Earth and Environmental Sciences Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 27-52.
H. fischeri (Woodward, 1907) Whatley, 2005
= "Scaphonyx fischeri" White, 1906
= Scaphonyx fischeri Woodward, 1907
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Holotype- (BM R-5033) two cervical centra, dorsal centrum, central fragment, phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, manual ungual III, pedal ungual I
Comments- The holotype was discovered in 1902, and initially announced by Woodward in 1903 before being described and named by him in 1907. White (1906) first published the name in a note in Science, but did not provide a description or definition (ICZN Article 12.1), making the name a nomen nudum. Woodward (1907) identified Scaphonyx as a Euskelosaurus-like dinosaur based on several characters. First, the dorsal centrum lacks a parapophysis, supposedly unlike 'anomodonts' (under which he included pareiasaurs, procolophonids and therapsids), but rhynchosaurs (which Woodward classified as rhynchocephalians) possess the same state as Scaphonyx. Second, the cervical supposedly resembled Euskelosaurus, but this was based on a specimen (NHMUK R2791) now referred to Erythrosuchus (as foreseen in Woodward's postscript). The large pedal ungual I with obliquely curved unguals was compared favorably to sauropods, but is also present in derived hyperodapedontines. Finally, a pedal digit with four phalanges was considered similar to dinosaurs and unlike 'anomodonts', but rhynchosaurs have three pedal digits with this many phalanges as well, and the digit closely matches manual digit III of Alemoa Hyperodapedon. Woodward's 1907 paper was actually written in 1904, and when reprinted in 1908 he included a postscript which recognized NHMUK R2791 as non-dinosaurian. As he compared it favorably to Erythrosuchus (considered by Woodward to resemble both 'anomodonts' and 'belodonts'- the latter containing phytosaurs and aetosaurs), Woodward now considered Scaphonyx an 'anomodont'.
Huene (1908) noted Scaphonyx was unlike dinosaurs in the presence of postaxial intercentra, cervical diapophyses and parapophyses which are placed high on the vertebra, and dissimilar unguals. He suggested it might be a therapsid or phytosaur. In 1911, Huene proposed Scaphonyx and Erythrosuchus were members of his new 'thecodont' group Pelycosimia, which continued through 1926 when he gave Scaphonyx its own family. In 1929, Huene finally recognized the similarity between Scaphonyx and rhynchosaurs, assigning the genus to the group. While long considered a valid genus of rhynchosaur, Langer (1996; published in Langer and Schultz, 2000a) proposed Scaphonyx fischeri's holotype is indeterminate, as multiple species are known from the Alemoa member (mariensis, sanjuanensis, and what would be named huenei) which have only been distinguished using cranial characters. Although huenei is not known from postcrania (so can't be compared to fischeri), mariensis and sanjuanensis have not had their vertebral or pedal anatomy compared in detail in the published literature. Indeed, Alemoa rhynchosaurs have not had their postcrania well described in over seventy years. Given these facts and that I lack access to both Langer's thesis and mariensis' original and only published description, I only consider it provisionally indeterminate here. Additional specimens assigned to S. fischeri by Huene (1926, 1942) have been considered indeterminate or referrable to S. sanjuanensis (Langer and Schultz, 2000b; Montefeltro, 2008; Langer, pers. comm. 2015).
References- Woodward, 1903. On some dinosaurian bones from south Brazil. Geological Magazine. 10(11), 512.
White, 1906. Geology of south Brazil. Science. 24(612), 377-379.
Woodward, 1907. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Revista do Museu Paulista. 7, 46-57.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Woodward, 1908. On some fossil reptilian bones from the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Geological Magazine. 5(6), 251-255.
Huene, 1911. Über Erythrosuchus, Vertreter der neuen Reptil-Ordnung Pelycosimia. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 10(1), 1-60.
Huene, 1926. Gondwana-Reptilien in Südamerika. Palaeontologia Hungarica. 2, 1-108.
Huene, 1929. Über Rhynchosaurier und andere Reptilien aus den Gondwana-Ablagerungen Südamerikas. Geologie und Palaeontogie Abhandlungen. 17, 1-61.
Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes. C. H. Beck, Munich. 342 pp.
Langer, 1996. Rincossauros sul-brasileiros: Historico e filogenia. Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 361 pp.
Langer and Schultz, 2000a. Rincossauros-herbivoros cosmopolitas do Triassico. In Holz and de Ros (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre. Ediitora da Universidade, CIGO/UFRGS, Brazil. 246-272.
Langer and Schultz, 2000b. A new species of the Late Triassic rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon from the Santa Maria Formation of south Brazil. Palaeontology. 43, 633-652.
Whatley, 2005. Phylogenetic relationships of Isalorhynchus genovefae, the rhynchosaur (Reptilia, Archosauromorpha) from Madagascar. PhD thesis, University of California. 276 pp.
Montefeltro, 2008. Inter-relações filogenéticas dos rincossauros (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha). Masters thesis, Universidade de Sao Paulo. 203 pp.
H. gordoni Huxley vide Murchison, 1858
?= Hyperodapedon minor Burckhardt, 1900b
= Stenometopon taylori Boulenger, 1904
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lossiemouth Sandstone Formation, Scotland
Comments
- The citation for Murchison (1858) is often listed incorrectly, misspelled 'Murchinson', cited as 1859, with an erroneous title, and pagination from Huxley's 1869 paper.
Hyperodapedon minor- While Hyperodapedon minor has never been associated with saurischians, its details are not widely known so are discussed here. This species was established by Burckhardt (1900b; page 492) for two small maxillae and a mandible from Warwickshire which were mentioned in a footnote by Huxley (1869) as H. gordoni. Only a few statements were made about H. minor in Burckhardt's work, with the only proposed distinguishing character being a more posteriorly extensive dentary tooth row than H. gordoni. The taxon has been virtually ignored in the literature since, though Huene (1942) did say its distinctiveness from H. gordoni is unfounded and that it should probably be rejected. Discussion with Benton (pers. comm 2015) indicates Burckhardt only visited the NHMUK, though no specimens there were indicated as belonging to this species. Based on Benton's unpublished thesis notes, I believe NHMUK R3150 (listed as "Partial skull 18 pieces, some fitting: palate views of mx, pal etc - small animal") is the best possibility for being H. minor's holotype, though it's possible the holotype has remained unnoticed or become lost. Regardless, the fact all diagnostic Lossiemouth Sandstone rhynchosaurs have been referred to H. gordoni suggests H. minor is similarly referrable.
References- Murchison, 1858. On the sandstones of Morayshire (Elgin, &c.) containing reptilian remains; and on their relations to the Old Red Sandstone of that country. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 15, 419-439.
Huxley, 1869. On Hyperodapedon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 25, 138-152.
Burckhardt, 1900a. On Hyperodapedon gordoni. Geological Magazine. 7(12), 529-535.
Burckhardt, 1900b. On Hyperodapedon gordoni. Geological Magazine. 7(37), 486-492.
Boulenger, 1904. On reptilian remains from the Triass of Elgin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 196, 175-189.
Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes. C. H. Beck, Munich. 342 pp.
Benton, 1981. The Triassic reptile Hyperodapedon from Elgin, functional morphology and relationships. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. [? pp].
H. sanjuanensis (Sill, 1970) Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000
= Scaphonyx sanjuanensis Sill, 1970
Middle-Late Carnian, Late Triassic
La Pena and Cancha de Bochas Members of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

References- Sill, 1970. Scaphonyx sanjuanensis, nuevo rincosaurio (Reptilia) de la formacion Ischigualasto, Triasico de San Juan, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 7, 341-354.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
H. huxleyi Lydekker, 1881
= Paradapedon huxleyi (Lydekker, 1881) Huene, 1938
Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
References
- Lydekker, 1881. Note on some Gondwana vertebrates. Records of the Geological Survey of India. 15, 174-178.
Huene, 1938. Stenaulorhynchus, ein Rhynchosauridae der ostafrikanischen Obertrias. Nova Acta Leopoldina. 1938, 83-121.
H. mariensis (Tupi-Caldas, 1933) Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000
= Macrocephalosaurus mariensis Tupi-Caldas, 1933
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

References- Tupi-Caldas, 1933. Contribuição ao estudo do fossil da Alemoa, Município de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul. In Tupi-Caldas (ed.). Curso Geral de Mineralogia e Geologia, aplicada ao Brasil. Edições da Livraria do Globo. 333-339.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
H. tikiensis Mukherjee and Ray, 2014
Carnian, Late Triassic
Tiki Formation, India
Reference
- Mukherjee and Ray, 2014. A new Hyperodapedon (Archosauromorpha, Rhynchosauria) from the Upper Triassic of India: Implications for rhynchosaur phylogeny. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1241-1276.
H. stockleyi (Boonstra, 1953) Mukherjee and Ray, 2014
= Scaphonyx stockleyi Boonstra, 1953
= Supradapedon stockleyi (Boonstra, 1953) Chatterjee, 1980
Carnian?, Late Triassic
Tunduru District, Tanzania
Comments
- While the combination Hyperodapedon stockleyi is usually credited to Langer et al. (2000), they merely listed Scaphonyx stockleyi under "Described rhynchosaurs attributable to Hyperodapedon" without claiming the species was valid or using the new combination.
References- Boonstra, 1953. A note on some rhynchosaurian remains from Tanganyika territory. Annals of the South African Museum. 42, 1-4.
Chatterjee, 1980. The evolution of rhynchosaurs. Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France, Nouvelle Serie. 139, 57-65.
Langer, Boniface, Cuny and Barbieri, 2000. The phylogenetic position of Isalorhynchus genovefae, a Late Triassic rhynchosaur from Madagascar. Annales de Paléontologie. 86(2), 101-127.
Mukherjee and Ray, 2014. A new Hyperodapedon (Archosauromorpha, Rhynchosauria) from the Upper Triassic of India: Implications for rhynchosaur phylogeny. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1241-1276.
H. sulcognathus (Azevedo and Schultz, 1987) Elsler, 2018
= Scaphonyx "sulcognathus" Azevedo, 1982
= Scaphonyx sulcognathus Azevedo and Schultz, 1987
= Teyumbaita sulcognathus (Azevedo and Schultz, 1987) Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010
References- Azevedo, 1982. Scaphonyx sulcognathus (sp. nov.) um novo rincossaurıdeo do Neotriassico do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Masters Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 86 pp.
Azevedo and Schultz, 1987. Scaphonyx sulcognathus (sp. nov.), um novo rincossaurideo do Neotriassico do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Proceedings of X Congresso Brasileiro de Paleontologia. 99-113.
Montefeltro, Langer and Schultz, 2010. Cranial anatomy of a new genus of hyperodapedontine rhynchosaur (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Earth and Environmental Sciences Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 27-52.
Elsler, 2018. Macroevolution of early tetrapods. PhD thesis, University of Bristol. 497 pp.
H. huenei Langer and Schultz, 2000
Carnian, Late Triassic
Alemoa Member of the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Reference
- Langer and Schultz, 2000. A new species of the Late Triassic rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon from the Santa Maria Formation of south Brazil. Palaeontology. 43, 633-652.

unnamed taxon (Teyujagua paradoxa + Alligator mississippiensis)
Comments- This clade is notable here for being the only archosauromorphs to have finely serrated teeth, which is slightly more inclusive than Archosauriformes as shown recently by taxa like Teyujagua and Tasmaniosaurus.  Thus isolated teeth from before the Late Triassic that would classically be assigned to Archosauriformes are placed at this level instead.

Ankistrodon Huxley, 1865
= Epicampodon Lydekker, 1885
A. indicus Huxley, 1865
= Epicampodon indicus (Huxley, 1865) Lydekker, 1885
= Thecodontosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) Huene, 1908
= Chasmatosaurus indicus (Huxley, 1865) Huene, 1942
Induan, Early Triassic
Deoli, Panchet Formation, India
Holotype
- (GSI 2259) maxillary fragment, two teeth
Referred- ?(GSI coll.) cervical vertebrae, anterior dorsal vertebrae, sacral vertebrae, proximal caudal vertebrae (Huene, 1942)
Comments- Huxley named and described the holotype, believing it to be a thecodont most similar to the phytosaur Clepsysaurus based on the presence of only distal serrations. He later (1870) referred Thecodontia to Dinosauria, leading him to refer Ankistrodon to the latter clade. Seeley (1880) mentioned the genus as a dinosaur related to Megalosaurus. He later (1885) created the genus Epicampodon for the taxon, since he incorrectly thought Ankistrodon was preoccupied by the recent viperid genus Agkistrodon Palisot de Beauvois, 1799 (or its own unjustified emmendation Ancistrodon Wagler, 1830; or the pycnodontiform fish Ancistrodon Roemer, 1849, which was renamed Ankistrodus then Grypodon). Seeley (1888) illustrated Epicampodon as an anchisaurid theropod, Nicholson and Lydekker (1889) included it in Megalosauridae, while Nopcsa (1901) listed it as an anchisaurine megalosaurid. It was listed as a zanclodontid theropod by Zittel (1890) and Huene (1902), who incorrectly believed it to be from the Late Triassic Maleri beds. Huene (1906) stated that the species was probably referrable to Thecodontosaurus, though he did not explicitly list the new combination until 1908. In that work he called it Thecodontosaurus(?) indicus, believing it to be most similar to Paleosaurus (his Thecodontosaurus cylindrodon). Das-Gupta (1931) thought the species was similar to his new theropod Orthogoniosaurus in having only distal serrations and having a straight distal edge (actually caused by apical breakage in indicus), placing both in Anchisauridae within Theropoda. Huene still referred Epicampodon to Saurischia in 1940, but in 1942 recognized it was a more basal archosauriform and made it a species of Chasmatosaurus. This was followed by Tatarinov (1961) and Hughes (1963; who nonetheless considered the holotype generically indeterminate), but Charig et al. (1976) correctly noted Ankistrodon has priority over Chasmatosaurus (and its senior synonym Proterosuchus). Charig and Reig (1970) and Reig (1970) considered it an indeterminate proterosuchian. Romer (1972) considered the material to be Proterosuchus without explicitly naming the new combination, though he later (1976) questionably synonymized it with Chasmatosaurus. Most recently, Charig et al. (1976) considered Ankistrodon a seemingly valid genus of proterosuchid, which was followed by Olshevsky (1991). While the presence of serrations does indicate an archosauriform, the Early Triassic age excludes phytosaurs and theropods, and the recurved crowns exclude a relationship to sauropodomorphs like Thecodontosaurus or Anchisaurus, evidence supporting a close relationship with Proterosuchus was perhaps only given by Huene (1942), prior to the discovery of a large amount of 'proterosuchian' diversity. Most recently, Ezcurra (2016) recovers Ankistrodon in several potential positions at least as derived as Tasmaniosaurus but outside Eucrocopoda, including sister to Eorasaurus or anywhere within Proterosuchia (see his Figure 60).
Huxley (1865) also described vertebrae as belonging to Dicynodon orientalis (now Lystrosaurus murrayi), which were recognized by Huene (1942) as being archosauriform and referred to his Chasmatosaurus indicus. As the vertebrae cannot be compared to the type jaw fragment, Charig and Reig (1970) merely called them cf. Chasmatosaurus sp..
References- Huxley, 1865. On a collection of vertebrate fossils from the Panchet Rocks, Ranigunu, Bengal. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India; Paleontologia Indica, Series IV. Indian Pretertiary Vertebrata. i, 3-24.
Huxley, 1870. Triassic Dinosauria. Nature. 1, 23-24.
Lydekker, 1880. A sketch of the history of the fossil Vertebrata of India. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 69(2), 8-40.
Lydekker, 1885. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Maleria and Denwa Groups. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. Palaeontologia Indica, Series IV. Indian Pretertiary Vertebrata. 1(5), 1-38.
Seeley, 1888. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum of Natural History, London. 309 pp.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889. A manual of palaeontology for the use of students: with a general introduction on the principles of palæontology, Volume 2. 1624 pp.
Zittel, 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. Volume III. Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). 900 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Das-Gupta, 1931. On a new theropod dinosaur (Orthogoniosaurus matleyi, n. gen. et n. sp.) from the Lameta beds of Jubbulpore. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 26, 367-369.
Huene, 1940. Die Saurier der Karroo-, Gondwana-, und verwandten Ablagerungen in faunistischer, biologischer und phylogenetischer Hinsicht [Saurians of the Karroo, Gondwana, and other deposits in faunistic, biological, and phylogenetic regard]. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 83, 246-347.
Huene, 1942. Die Fauna der Panchet-Schichten in Bengalen [The fauna of the Panchet beds in Bengal]. Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 1941(11), 354-360.
Tatarinov, 1961. Pseudosuchians of the USSR. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1961(1), 117-132.
Hughes, 1963. The earliest archosaurian reptiles. South African Journal of Science. 59, 221-240.
Charig and Reig, 1970. The classification of the Proterosuchia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2, 125-171.
Reig, 1970. The Proterosuchia and the early evolution of the archosaurs; an essay about the origin of a major taxon. Bulletin of The Museum of Comparative Zoology. 139, 229-292.
Romer, 1972. The Chaneres (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XVI. Thecodont classification. Breviora. 395, 24 pp.
Charig, Krebs, Sues and Westphal, 1976. Thecodontia. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. 13, 137 pp.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Cladeiodon Owen, 1841
C. lloydi Owen, 1841
= Teratosaurus lloydii (Owen, 1841) Huene, 1908
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation, England
Holotype
- (lost) tooth
Referred- (NHMUK R2645) tooth (Huene, 1908)
(NHMUK R4847) tooth (Benton and Gower, 1997)
(NHMUK R4848) tooth (Benton and Gower, 1997)
(CAMSM G352) tooth (Huene, 1908)
(WARMS G.7) tooth (Murchison and Strickland, 1840)
(WARMS G.8) tooth (Murchison and Strickland, 1840)
(WARMS G.954) tooth (18 x 10 x ? mm)
(WARMS G.956.1) tooth (Walker, 1969)
(WARMS G.956.2) tooth (47 mm)
(WARMS G.957) tooth (Walker, 1969)
(WARMS G.969) tooth (18 mm) (Walker, 1969)
Comments- The entry for this taxon is in progress, though the opinions of several authors are liasted below.
Owen, 1841- 'thecodont' intermediate between Thecodontosaurus and "Paleosaurus" platyodon in Lacertilia.
Owen, 1842b- same as above, states "one of the teeth of Cladyodon" is WARMS G.7.
Pictet, 1845- Lacertiformes.
Geinitz, 1846- Lacertia.
Owen, 1860- Thecodontia related to Paleosaurus, not distinguishable from Belodon, states original specimen is WARMS G.7.
Owen, 1868- Crocodilia.
Huxley, 1870- dinosaur, not similar to Thecodontosaurus or "Paleosaurus" platyodon, two teeth referrable to Paleosaurus cylindrodon, another possibly Teratosaurus (lost; contra Benton and Gower, 1997 this is not WARMS G.956.2, as it is less elongate).
Phillips, 1871- dinosaur.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889- megalosaurid, possibly synonym of Paleosaurus.
Woodward and Sherborn, 1890- =Belodon?, type in the Geol. Soc. London.
Zittel, 1902- megalosaurid close to Zanclodon.
Huene, 1908- in Teratosaurus.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941- theropod.
Walker, 1969- belongs to poposaurid (later named Bromsgroveia).
Kuhn, 1970- ornithosuchid.
Charig et al., 1976- saurischian dinosaur.
Romer, 1976- teratosaurid carnosaur.
Welles, 1984- probably theropod, indeterminate, nomen nudum.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989- teratosaurid theropod.
Olshevsky, 1991- synonym of Teratosaurus suevicus.
Benton et al., 1994- Archosauria indet., maybe Bromsgroveia or "large thecodont" (= Bromsgroveia- Benton and Gower, 1997).
Benton and Gower, 1997- provisional synonym of Bromsgroveia, within range of shape of Postosuchus but higher serration density, WARMS G.954 may be the holotype (though this is not true, as it is too short and lacks recurvature).
Often misspelled as- Cladyodon Owen, 1842b; Kladyodon and Kladeisteriodon Plieninger, 1846;Claderodon Agassiz, 1846; Claydyodon Mantell, 1848.
References- Murchison and Strickland, 1840. On the upper formations of the New Red Sandstone
Owen, 1841. Odontography; or a treatise on the comparative anatomy of the teeth, I Part 11. Dental system of reptiles. Hippolyte Bailliere, London. 179-295.
Owen, 1842a. Second rapport sur le reptiles fossiles de le Grande Bretagne. L'Institut. 11-14.
Owen, 1842b. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part II. Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 60-204.
Pictet, 1845. Traité élémentaire de paléontologie: ou, Histoire naturelle des animaux fossiles considérés dans leurs rapports zoologiques et géologiques, Volume 2. 407 pp.
Geinitz, 1846. Grundriss der Versteinerungskunde. 813 pp.
Plieninger, 1846a.
Mantell, 1848. The wonders of geology: or A familiar exposition of geological phenomena. Volume 2. 938 pp.
Owen, 1860. Palaeontology, or a systematic summary of extinct animals and their geological relations. 420 pp.
Owen, 1868. On the Anatomy of Vertebrates. Volume III. Mammals. 915 pp.
Huxley, 1870. On the classification of the Dinosauria, with observations on the Dinosauria of the Trias. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 26, 32-51.
Phillips, 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames: Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 523pp.
Nicholson and Lydekker, 1889. A manual of palaeontology for the use of students: with a general introduction on the principles of palæontology, Volume 2. 1624 pp.
Woodward and Sherborn, 1890. A catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. 396 pp.
Zittel, 1902. Text-book of palaeontology, Volume 2. 283 pp.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941. The type of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus
Walker, 1969. The reptile fauna of the "Lower Keuper" Sandstone. Geological Magazine. 106, 470-476.
Kuhn, 1970.
Charig, Krebs, Sues and Westphal, 1976. Thecodontia. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. 13, 137 pp.
Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.
Benton,Warrington, Newell and Spencer, 1994. A review of the British Middle Triassic tetrapod assemblages. in Fraser and Sues (eds). In the shadow of the dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic tetrapods. 131-160.
Galton and Walker, 1996a. Bromsgroveia from the Middle Triassic of England
Galton and Walker, 1996b. Supposed prosauropod dinosaurs from Middle Triassic
Benton and Gower, 1997. Richard Owen's giant Triassic frogs:

Teratosaurus? bengalensis Das-Gupta, 1929
= Teratosaurus "bengalensis" Das-Gupta, 1927
Early Scythian, Early Triassic
Panchet Formation, India

Holotype- tooth
Comments- This species was first reported by Das-Gupta in 1927 without a description, making that mention a nomen nudum. In 1927 it was explicitly called a theropod, while in 1929 it was referred to as a carnivorous dinosaur. The description does not include any explicit rationale for referring bengalensis to Teratosaurus, which was done because it was similar to teeth illustrated by Huene. Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as incorrectly referred to Teratosaurus, while Olshevsky (1991) retains it questionably in that genus. It is probably indeterminate based on the description and is here referred to Archosaauriformes due to its serrations.
References- Das-Gupta, 1927. Batrachian and reptilian remains found in the Panchet Beds at Deoli, Bengal. Proceedings of the Indian Science Congress. 14, 240.
Das-Gupta, 1929. Batrachian and reptilian remains found in the Panchet Beds at Deoli, Bengal. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 24(4), 473-479.
Rozhdestvensky, 1977. The study of dinosaurs in Asia. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 20, 102-119.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.

Zanclodon? crenatus


Zanclodon? schuetzii Fraas, 1900 emmend. Olshevsky, 2000
= Zanclodon schützii Fraas, 1900
= Teratosaurus schützii (Fraas, 1900) Huene, 1932
Middle Triassic
Muschelkalk, Germany

Holotype- (SMNS coll.) tooth
Comments- Huene (1908) thought this tooth might be referrable to Tanystropheus conspicuus, which he placed in Coeluridae.
References- Fraas, 1900. Zanclodon schützii n. sp. aus dem Trigonodusdolomit von Hall [Zanclodon schützii n. sp. from the Trigonodus-dolomite of Halle]. Jahreshefte des Vereins für Vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 56, 510-513.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.

"Zanclodon" silesiacus Jaekel, 1910
= Megalosaurus silesiacus (Jaekel, 1910) Kuhn, 1965
Early Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lower Gogolin Formation, Lower Muschelkalk, Poland
Holotype
- (University of Griefswalden/Göttinger coll.; lost?) tooth (24x12x5 mm)
Referred- ?(Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute-National Research Institute coll.) tooth (Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017)
?(Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Mining and Geology coll.) tooth (37 mm) (Surmik and Brachaniec, 2013)
Comments
- Jaekel (1910) noted (translated) "a dinosaur tooth from the lower shell limestone of Upper Silesia, which would probably be the oldest known dinosaur tooth to date. It comes from the Chorzov strata of the lower shell limestone of Gogolin, Upper Silesia, and came to me through the kindness of engineer Fedder in Opole. The crown shown is 24 mm high, 12 mm wide and 5 mm thick, so it is quite strongly compressed and slightly curved backwards. Its edge is extremely finely serrated (Fig. 16 A). I call the form, which for the time being cannot be specified generically, Zanclodon silesiacus. The only difference between [phytosaur Mesorhinosuchus] and this tooth form lies in the fact that the former is somewhat thicker, somewhat less bent back, and that no notch can be detected on the edge."  He referred it to Megalosauridae, and Kuhn (1965) later referred it to the genus Megalosaurus.  Carrano et al. (2012) correctly noted "could be considered as Theropoda indet., but we cannot rule out the possibility that it represents a 'rauisuchian' archosaur."  Surmik and Brachaniec (2013) describe a tooth from Gogolin Quarry in which "a poor state of preservation makes it impossible to identification of the presence of edge serration, however it still shows a slightly curvature and specific both sides flattening" and identify it as seemingly archosaurian.  Skawiński et al. (2017) listed this and another tooth labeled as Megalosaurus silesiacus as other material of Zanclodon silesiacus.  The latter tooth is stated to be serrated mesially and distally with a density of 12 per 5 mm.  They describe the holotype tooth as "Probably lost" and "lost", and place all three teeth as Archosauromorpha indet..  They are more specifically referred to the Teyujagua plus archosauriform clade here given the recurvature and small serrations, as authors from Kuhn onward have noted plesiomorphic theropod teeth are difficult to distinguish from several clades of archosauriforms (e.g. erythrosuchids, euparkeriids) known from the Anisian.  The age is far too early for Megalosaurus or another neotheropod, and the presence of serrations is unlike Zanclodon, so neither genus is appropriate.  It should also be noted the three Gogolin teeth differ in shape with the Silesian University specimen less recurved and less tapered than the other two, while the Polish Geological Institute specimen is shorter than the holotype and less concave distally.  This could be positional variation, but given the lack of proposed synapomorphies could easily represent multiple taxa.
References
- Jaekel, 1910. Ueber einen neuen Belodonten aus dem Buntsandstein von Bernburg. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin. 5, 197-229.
Kuhn, 1965. Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia. Pars 109: Saurischia. Ysel Press. 94 pp.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.
Surmik and Brachaniec, 2013. The large superpredators' teeth from Middle Triassic of Poland. Contemporary Trends in Geoscience. 2, 91-94.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Archosauriformes Gauthier, 1994
Official Definition- (Gallus gallus + Alligator mississippiensis + Proterosuchus fergusi) (Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 174)
Other definitions- (Proterosuchus fergusi + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Proterosuchus fergusi + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
References- Gauthier, 1994. The diversification of the amniotes. In Prothero (ed.). Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution: Short Courses in Paleontology. Paleontological Society. 129-159.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Gauthier, 2020. Archosauriformes J. A. Gauthier 1994 [J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1182-1185.

Proterosuchia Broom, 1906
Definition- (Proterosuchus fergusi <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Proterosuchidae Hunen, 1908
Definition- (Proterosuchus fergusi <- Erythrosuchus africanus, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Ezcurra, Butler and Gower, 2013)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Ezcurra, Butler and Gower, 2013. 'Proterosuchia': The origin and early history of Archosauriformes. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and
Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, Special Publication. 379, 9-33.

unnamed clade (Cuyosuchus huenei + Crocodylus niloticus)
Comments- This clade is notable here because it currently contains all taxa with finely serrated teeth that are of Late Triassic age or younger in Ezcurra's (2016) archosauromorph phylogeny, thanks to Late Carnian-Early Norian Cuyosuchus.  While no teeth are known from Cuyosuchus itself, its position between proterosuchians and erythrosuchians suggests they would be serrated.  Similarly, this clade contains all known Late Triassic archosauriforms.
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

unnamed archosauriform (Huene, 1932)
Late Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
'Woźniki Limestone', Poland
Material- (University of Wroclaw coll.; lost) tooth (5.6x2.0x? mm)
Comments- Discovered in 1867, Huene (1932) figures this and describes it as having no mesial carina, and 8 serrations per mm on the distal edge.  Stated to probably be a coelurosaur, this included coelophysoid-grade taxa in Huene's conception.  Skawiński et al. (2017) note it is now lost (perhaps during WWII) and refer it too broadly to Archosauromorpha indet., as the small serrations on recurved teeth are only present in taxa as close to archosaurs as Teyujagua while Late Triassic age is only present in Cuyosuchus plus Archosauria.  Its anatomy and age are thus consistent with coelophysoids, but also with many other carnivorous archosauriforms.
References- Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

Avalonianus Kuhn, 1961
= Avalonia Seeley, 1898 (preoccupied Walcott, 1890)
A. sanfordi (Seeley, 1898) Kuhn, 1961
= Avalonia sanfordi Seeley, 1898
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Westbury Formation, England
Holotype
- (NHMUK R2869) tooth (33 x 15 x 7 mm)
Comments- The holotype was found in 1894 along with Picrodon herveyi's holotype and various postcrania (NHMUK R2870-2874, 2676-2878), all described by Sanford (1894) as a dinosaur similar to Megalosaurus. Seeley (1898) later more fully described and named the remains, associating the tooth NHMUK R2869 with NHMUK R2870-2873 (two posterior dorsal vertebrae, femur, proximal tibia, two pedal phalanges, pedal ungual) to form Avalonia sanfordi. Seeley referred most of the other remains to Picrodon and referred to both as zanclodont dinosaurs. Newton (1899) believed Avalonia was not sufficiently distinguished from Zanclodon and that Picrodon and its associated postcrania probably belonged to the same individual. He thought the Avalonia holotype closely resembled his new taxon "Zanclodon" cambrensis but differed in having more strongly curved teeth. Seeley (in Newton, 1899) also thought cambrensis was most similar to Avalonia, but felt the latter was generically diagnostic compared to Zanclodon. Nopcsa (1901) listed Avalonia as an anchisaurine megalosaurid, with Picrodon listed as Avalonia? herveyi. Huene (1902) listed both Avalonia and Picrodon as synonyms of Gressylosaurus, which he believed was a zanclodontid theropod. He later (1905) listed them as synonyms of Gresslyosaurus cf. ingens in the precursor to his 1908 study which more firmly accepted their synonymy with G. ingens, which he placed as a plateosaurid theropod. In that paper, Huene stated the synonymy was based on the postcrania and believed it and the two teeth came from one individual. The slight differences in serration morphology and density, tooth size and serration extent were seen as due to different positions in the jaw, with Avalonia being more anterior than Picrodon. Huene (1932) continued to list Avalonia and Picrodon as synonyms of Gresslyosaurus ingens, which he had moved to Teratosauridae within Carnosauria. In 1956, Huene still followed that synonymy. Romer (1976) and Chure and McIntosh (1989) both listed Avalonia as a teratosaurid theropod as well, with the former believing it to be a junior synonym of Teratosaurus within Carnosauria. Kuhn (1961) noted that Avalonia was preoccupied by an ?atopid trilobite genus named in 1890, so proposed the replacement name Avalonianus. Charig et al. (1965) referred the Avalonianus postcrania to Melanorosauridae, which was followed by Steel (1970), White (1973) and Cooper (1980, 1981). While Cooper seemed to accept the referral of carnivorous teeth to Melanorosauridae, Charig et al. correctly noted such teeth did not belong to sauropodomorphs, so presumably thought the same of the Avalonianus holotype. Van Heerden (1979) followed Charig et al.'s thought on this matter, making Avalonianus an indeterminate archosaur(-iform) but noting the associated femur resembles Riojasaurus. The issue was finally resolved in 1985, when Galton made the postcrania the type material of a new melanorosaurid sauropodomorph- Camelotia borealis, though he did not comment further on the identity of Avalonianus. Further references to Camelotia are not given here, but it is now placed as a basal sauropod or very closely related to that group, more derived than Gresslyosaurus but perhaps a melanorosaurid. Storrs (1993) also declared Avalonianus to be a nomen dubium, Glut (1997) merely called it a "thecodontian", and Naish and Martill (2007) referred it to Archosauria indet.. Olshevsky (1991) listed it as an ornithosuchid, with Picrodon herveyi as a junior synonym of the species. The most recent extensive review has been Galton's (1998) paper, where he agreed with past authors that the teeth are not sauropodomorph, are nomina dubia, and are similar enough to each other to belong to the same taxon. Galton also agreed with Newton and Seeley that the teeth were similar to cambrensis, so that he provisionally referred them to "?Megalosaurus cambrensis (Newton) of the suborder Theropoda (and possibly Infraorder Carnosauria)."
When determining the affinities of Avalonianus sanfordi, we can exclude a close relationship to Gresslyosaurus, melanorosaurids or other sauropodomorphs, as these have lanceolate teeth with enlarged apically oriented serrations. However, despite an apparent consensus the tooth is conspecific with Picrodon herveyi and both are most similar to those of "Newtonsaurus" cambrensis (which is neither Zanclodon nor Megalosaurus), this has never been supported by explicit characters. Indeed, the teeth of "Newtonsaurus" have not been shown to be diagnostic compared to the large variety of Late Triassic and Early Jurassic theropods now known. If Avalonianus did happen to be synonymous with "Newtonsaurus" (and thus its correct genus name), sanfordi has priority over cambrensis by one year, so the former cannot be a junior synonym of the latter (contra Galton). An additional issue is that while Avalonia has priority over Picrodon (thanks to Nopcsa, 1901 being the first revisor), Avalonianus does not. Thus if the genera were synonymous, Picrodon would be the correct name (contra Nopcsa and Olshevsky). Confounding matters is that sanfordi has priority over herveyi, making the correct name the unpublished new combination Picrodon sanfordi. None of this matters though, as Avalonianus and Picrodon have not been shown to be more similar to each other than they are to other archosauriforms, and indeed both have been called indeterminate by several authors. If this is true, they cannot be synonyms of each other or any other taxon (contra Galton). Thus Avalonianus, Picrodon and "Newtonsaurus" have no established relationship to each other, and placing the former two more precisely within Archosauriformes will require further study. The presence of serrations does suggest they are archosauriform, and the Late Triassic age suggests they are at least as derived as Cuyosuchus. It can also be noted that the presence of serrations is different from Zanclodon, suggesting no close relationship with that genus.
References- Walcott, 1890. Descriptive notes of new genera and species from the Lower Cambrian or Olenellus zone of North America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 12(763), 33-46.
Sanford, 1894. On the bones of an animal resembling the megalosaur, found in the Rhaetic Formation at Wedmore. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological Society. 40, 227-235.
Seeley, 1898. On large terrestrial saurians from the Rhaetic beds of Wedmore Hill, described as Avalonia sanfordi and Picrodon herveyi. Geological Magazine. 5(1), 1-6.
Newton, 1899. On a megalosauroid jaw from Rhaetic beds near Bridgend (Glamorganshire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 55, 89-96.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias [Review of the Reptilia of the Triassic]. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 6, 1-84.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Huene, 1956. Palaontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. 716 pp.
Kuhn, 1961. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, Reptila. supplementum 1(2), 1-163.
Charig, Attridge and Crompton, 1965. On the origin of the sauropods and the classification of the Saurischia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 176, 197-221.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 87 pp.
White, 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Annals of Carnegie Museum. 44(9), 117-155.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1980. The first record of the prosauropod dinosaur Euskelosaurus from Zimbabwe. Arnoldia. 9(3), 1-17.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Galton, 1985. Notes on the Melanorosauridae, a family of large prosauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha). Géobios. 18(5), 671-676.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Storrs, 1993. Terrestrial components of the Rhaetian (uppermost Triassic) Westbury Formation of southwestern Britain. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 447-451.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Galton, 1998. Saurischian dinosaurs from the Upper Triassic of England: Camelotia (Prosauropoda, Melanorosauridae) and Avalonianus (Theropoda, ?Carnosauria). Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 250, 155-172.
Naish and Martill, 2007. Dinosaurs of Great Britain and the role of the Geological Society of London in their discovery: Basal Dinosauria and Saurischia. Journal of the Geological Society, London. 164, 493-510.

Basutodon Huene, 1932
B. ferox
Huene, 1932
Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Elliot Formation, Lesotho

Holotype- (NMB R.610) tooth
References- Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Charig, Attridge and Crompton, 1965. On the origin of the sauropods and the classification of the Saurischia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 176, 197-221.
Kuhn, 1970.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1980. The first record of the prosauropod dinosaur Euskelosaurus from Zimbabwe. Arnoldia Zimbabwe. 9, 1-17.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Hopson, 1984. Late Triassic traversodont cynodonts from Nova Scotia and Southern Africa. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 181-201.
Kitching and Raath, 1984. Fossils from the Elliot and Clarens Formations (Karoo Sequence) of the Northeastern Cape, Orange Free State and Lesotho, and a suggested biozonation based on tetrapods. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 111-125.
Anderson, Anderson and Cruikshank, 1998. Late Triassic ecosystems of the Molteno/Lower Elliot biome of southern Africa. Palaeontology. 41(3), 387-421.
Olsen and Galton, 1984. A review of the reptile and amphibian assemblages from the Stormberg of Southern Africa with special emphasis on the footprints and the age of the Stormberg. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 87-110.
Galton and van Heerden, 1998. Anatomy of the prosauropod dinosaur Blikanasaurus cromptoni (Upper Triassic, South Africa) with notes on the other tetrapods from the Lower Elliot Formation. Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 72, 163-177.
Ray and Chinsamy, 2002. A theropod tooth from the Late Triassic of southern Africa. Journal of Biosciences. 27(3), 295-298.
Knoll, 2004. Review of the tetrapod fauna of the "Lower Stormberg Group" of the main Karoo Basin (southern Africa): Implication for the age of the Lower Elliot Formation. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 175(1), 73-83.

"Cinizasaurus" Heckert, 1997a vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
"C. hunti" Heckert, 1997a vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-18400) dorsal centra, caudal centra, distal humerus, metacarpals, proximal tibia, proximal fibula, metatarsals, phalanges, fragments
Comments- Originally described as a new genus of theropod in Heckert's (1997a) unpublished thesis, the specimen was later claimed to be indeterminate when published without a name by Heckert et al. (2000). Nesbitt et al. (2007) noted the vertebrae could not be distinguished from non-theropods, while the tibia lacks a cnemial crest and lateral and medial condyles, unlike dinosauriforms and theropods respectively. They assigned it to Archosauriformes indet..
Although the name "Cinizasaurus hunti" was originally used in thesis, and thus not available for use in this website, it was later published by Nesbitt et al. (2007).
References- Heckert, Lucas and Hunt,1994. New Mexico's oldest dinosaur. New Mexico Geology. 17, 16.
Heckert, 1997b. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic lower Chinle Group (Adamanian: Latest Carnian), of the Zuni Mountains, west-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 11, 29-39.
Heckert, 1997a. Litho- and biostratigraphy of the Lower Chinle Group, east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico, with a description of a new theropod (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Bluewater Creek Formation. Masters Thesis, University of New Mexico. 278 pp.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

"Likhoelesaurus" Ellenberger, 1970
"L. ingens" Ellenberger, 1970
= "Likhoelesaurus ferox" Ellenberger, 1972
Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Elliot Formation, Lesotho

Material- (?LES coll.) five teeth (70 mm)
Comments- Ellenberger and Ginsberg (1966) mentioned carnivorous dinosaur teeth from the Lower Elliot Formation, which were later called "Likhoelesaurus ingens" by Ellenberger (1970) and referred to Ornithosuchidae. These were not described properly though, making the name a nomen nudum. Ellenberger (1972) referred to "Likhoelesaurus ferox" as a "giant carnosaur" from zone A/5 of his lower red beds, illustrating five associated recurved teeth in a plate. This was another nomen nudum, with no explanation of the different species name (it may involve Basutodon ferox, but even if "Likhoelesaurus" were officially named, Basutodon would have priority). Kitching and Raath (1984) suggested it may be a junior synonym of Basutodon ferox. It was listed as a teratosaurid theropod by Chure and McIntosh (1989) and a melanorosaurid by Olshevsky (1991). Glut (1997) listed it as ?Theropoda incertae sedis, listed "?bones" among the remains and stated the teeth were 70 mm long. Knoll (2004) discusses the material under Rauisuchia, but notes it could be theropod as well. If the material is not lost, it is presumably held with the rest of Ellenberger's material in the "Collection Paul Ellenberger - Pistes du Stormberg", stored in the Laboratoire de Paleontologie, Institut de Sciences de l’Evolution, Universite Montpellier II.
With no published description, and only one undetailed photograph, the phylogenetic position of "Likhoelesaurus" remains uncertain. While their recurved morphology excludes referral to Melanorosauridae or any other sauropodomorph clade, differences between the teeth of carnivorous dinosaurs, crutotarsans (including ornithosuchids and teratosaurs) and other carnivorous archosauriforms have yet to be studied. Indeed, they are only assumed to be archosauriform here due to past identifications, since the presence of serrations has not been confirmed. Synonymy with Basutodon is possible, but no shared derived characters have been suggested, Basutodon itself is probably undiagnostic and multiple archosauriform taxa are known from other Late Triassic localities.
References- Ellenberger and Ginsberg, 1966. Le gisement de Dinosauriens triasiques de Maphutseng (Basutoland) et l'origine des Sauropodes [The Triassic dinosaur locality of Maphutseng (Basutoland) and the origin of sauropods]. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris, Série D. 262, 444-447.
Ellenberger, 1970. Les niveaux paléontologiques de première apparition des mammifères primoridaux en Afrique du Sud et leur ichnologie. Establissement de zones stratigraphiques detaillees dans le Stormberg du Lesotho (Afrique du Sud) (Trias Supérieur à Jurassique) [The paleontological levels of the first appearance of primordial mammals in southern Africa and their ichnology. Establishment of detailed stratigraphic zones in the Stormberg of Lesotho (southern Africa) (Upper Triassic to Jurassic). in Haughton (ed.). Second Symposium on Gondwana Stratigraphy and Paleontology, International Union of Geological Sciences. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria. 343-370.
Ellenberger, 1972. Contribution à la classification des Pistes de Vertébrés du Trias: Les types du Stormberg d'Afrique du Sud (I). Palaeovertebrata. 104, 152 pp.
Kitching and Raath, 1984. Fossils from the Elliot and Clarens Formations (Karoo Sequence) of the Northeastern Cape, Orange Free State and Lesotho, and a suggested biozonation based on tetrapods. Palaeontologia Africana. 25, 111-125.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Knoll, 2004. Review of the tetrapod fauna of the "Lower Stormberg Group" of the main Karoo Basin (southern Africa): Implication for the age of the Lower Elliot Formation. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France. 175(1), 73-83.

"Massospondylus" hislopi

"Megalosaurus" cloacinus Quenstedt, 1858
= Plateosaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1905
= Gresslyosaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1932
= Pachysaurus cloacinus (Quenstedt, 1858) Huene, 1932
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Exter Formation, Germany
Syntypes
- (lost) two teeth
Referred- ?(GPIT and SMNS coll.) many teeth (Huene, 1905)
?(SMNS 52457) tooth (~25x11x? mm) (Huene, 1905)
?(SMNS coll.) teeth (Roemer, 1870)
? seven teeth (Miller Endlich, 1870)
Norian-Rhaetian?, Late Triassic
'Lisów Breccia', Poland
?(University of Wroclaw coll.; lost) two teeth (Roemer, 1870)
Comments- Quenstedt (1858) originally described (translated) "barb-shaped teeth, which are sharp and finely serrated on the concave side, but rounded and smooth on the convex side" with a large mesioapically placed wear facet that makes that edge look straight in side view.  He also figures a smaller tooth which has mesial serrations apically that transition to a rounded edge basally.  These teeth do not share any obvious synapomorphies and differ in elongation (height/FABL ~300% vs. 138%) and transverse thickness (42% vs. 75% of FABL), so may not belong to the same taxon.  Miller Endlich (1870) figured seven teeth from the type locality, stating (translated) they "are mostly flat teeth, slightly curved on one side, with fine serrations on the sharp inner edge. The convex side, the back, does not seem to be serrated, but it is not certain."  The figured teeth show a wide range of variation, with figure 13 in particular being stout and unrecurved with large serrations, similar to the Lucianosaurus paratype and similarly referrable to Archosauromorpha incertae sedis.  The other teeth have small serrations, with 14 and 18 being straight and 15-17 and 19 being recurved, with 14, 18 and 15 being progressively more transversely compressed.  As with the syntypes, these exhibit variation which could be positional or interspecific, and share no obvious characters that connect them to each other or the syntypes.  Roemer (1870) wrote (translated) "In the Stuttgart Museum I saw teeth from the bone breccia of Bebenhausen near Tubingen, which show the same fine serration of the side edges as the teeth described by Quenstedt, but are not curved in a sickle shape, but are straight. It is very likely that these latter teeth belong to the same dinosaur as the crooked teeth. With these straight teeth from Bebenhausen, the tooth shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 from the Lisów Breccia from Lubsza near Woźniki completely coincides. The double-edged tooth, which is very delicately and regularly notched at the edges, shows a more strongly curved (outer) and a less curved (inner) surface, both of which are smooth except for a very fine, irregular wrinkle. There is also a much smaller tooth of the same type from the same location."  The straight Bebenhausen teeth sound similar to Miller Endlich's figures 14 and 18, although the illustrated straight tooth from Lubsza differs from these in having an increased amount of mesiodistal expansion basally.  The Lubsza tooth also has this marked basal expansion labiolingually, and both types of root expansion are atypical of dinosaurs, suggesting this is some other type of vertebrate.  Dzik and Sulej (2007) suggested it "may have belonged to a phytosaur" without evidence but Skawiński et al. (2017) stated "phytosaur fossils have not been found in the upper Keuper strata in Silesia" and instead placed it in Archosauromorpha indet..  While this could merely mean phytosaurs were rare in that strata, phytosaur teeth don't seem to have expanded roots either (e.g. Nicrosaurus), and it could even be a fish tooth which often have these types of root expansion.  Huene (1905) listed the species as "Plateosaurus" cloacinus within Theropoda, stating it includes Rhaetian dentary "Zanclodon cambrensis".  In 1908 he places it in Plateosauridae within Theropoda and states (translated) "The originals can no longer be found. The Tübingen collection still has several teeth from Bebenhausen and Schloßlesmuehle, which can be reconciled well with [Quenstedt's] fig. 12 (l. c.), but are larger. The serrations are coarse and short, the mesial carina does not extend all the way to the base."  He illustrated a tooth in figure  274 as "From the Rhaetian Bonebed of Bebenhausen near Tübingen. Tooth in nat. Size. The tip is missing. Original in the natural history cabinet in Stuttgart."  Regarding cambrensis, Huene states "The teeth have the greatest resemblance to Plateosaurus cloacinus both in the whole shape and in the serrations. Whether it is really the same or just a very similar species, of course, cannot be decided with certainty given the scanty material", which is not explicit enough to evaluate given published details.  Huene later (1932) assigns cloacinus to Teratosauridae within Carnosauria, listed as both Pachysaurus cloacinus (pg. 6) and Gresslyosaurus cloacinus (pg. 72, 114).  Steel (1970) calls it Gresslyosaurus cloacinus within Plateosauridae.  Buffetaut et al. (1991) mentions "A tooth referred to Megalosaurus cloacinus Quenstedt, from the Lower Hettangian of the Calcaire de Valognes at Valognes (Manche), [which] has been mentioned by Rioult (1978a) as having been destroyed by an air raid on the University of Caen in 1944."  Without additional details, it can only be said that the timing suggests a neotheropod.  Carrano et al. (2012) incorrectly claimed SMNS 52457, apparently the tooth in Huene's (1908) figure 274, is "the holotype and only specimen" of cloacinus, when Huene stated it was only one of "Many teeth ... in the stone quarries of the Schoenbuch (e.g. Bebenhausen, Schloesslesmuehle), Wuerttemberg; in the university collection in Tubingen and in the natural history cabinet in Stuttgart", and that Quenstedt's originals were lost.  SMNS 52457 could be made into a neotype, but this must be done explicitly (ICZN Article 75.3) and so has not been accomplished yet.  Carrano et al. say the specimen "is a serrated, recurved tooth of the form typical for theropods. It is mesiodistally slender but does not show any diagnostic features and is therefore Theropoda indet", but other taxa with similar teeth lived in the Rhaetian (e.g. crocodylomorphs, Daemonosaurus), so is here placed in Archosauriformes indet..  Note Huene (1905, 1908) used "Plateosaurus" as a placeholder genus because until 1911 Plateosaurus was thought to have carnivorous teeth, and used "Pachysaurus" and "Gressylosaurus" in 1932 because until the 1980s more robust 'prosauropod' postcrania were still associated with carnivorous cranial elements, while Huene viewed megalosaurids as Jurassic carnosaurs.  Our modern consensus suggests a Rhaetian theropod is more likely to be coelophysoid or dilophosaur-grade than megalosaurian, but the genus is still used here as a placeholder as Megalosaurus teeth are more similar to cloacinus' syntypes and SMNS 52457 than prosauropod teeth.
References- Quenstedt, 1858. Der Jura. H. Laupp'schen. 842 pp.
Miller Endlich, 1870. Das Bonebed Württembergs. Druck Von Ludwig Friedrich Fues. 30 pp.
Roemer, 1870. Geologie von Oberschlesien. Robert Nischkowsky. 587 pp.
Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1-87.
Rioult, 1978. Inventaire des dinosauriens mésozoïques de Normandie. Ecosystèmes continentaux mésozoiques de Normandie (Livret-guide). Université de Caen. 26-29.
Buffetaut, Cuny and le Loeuff, 1991. French dinosaurs: The best record in Europe? Modern Geology. 16, 17-42.
Dzik and Sulej, 2007. A review of the early Late Triassic Krasiejów biota from Silesia, Poland. Palaeontologia Polonica. 64, 1-27.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.
Skawiński, Ziegler, Czepiński, Szermański, Tałanda, Surmik and Niedźwiedzki, 2017 (online 2016). A re-evaluation of the historical 'dinosaur' remains from the Middle-Upper Triassic of Poland. Historical Biology. 29(4), 442-472.

"Megalosaurus" obtusus

Palaeosauria Romer, 1956
Palaeosauridae Huene, 1926
Paleosaurus Riley and Stutchbury, 1840
= "Palaeosaurus" Riley and Stutchbury, 1836 (preoccupied Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1833)
= "Paleosaurus" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= Palaeosauriscus Kuhn, 1959
Comments- This genus has an extremely complicated history due to several nomina nuda and homonyms. Geoffroy Sant-Hillaire named Palaeosaurus in 1836, which is currently a junior synonym of the teleosaurid Steneosaurus priscus. Riley and Stutchbury (1836) used the names "Palaeosaurus cylindricum" and "P. platyodon" in an abstract, but these are nomina nuda. Those same authors wrote another short paper in 1837 in which the genus for those speciesw was spelled both "Palaeosaurus" and "Paleosaurus", though these were also nomina nuda. The taxa were finally validly published in 1840 under the genus Paleosaurus, though this was misspelled Palaeosaurus by many later authors. Another Palaeosaurus was named by Sternberg (1940), though this was renamed Sphenosaurus by Meyer (1847) and is currently classified as a procolophonid. Kuhn noticed Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire's Palaeosaurus and thought this caused Riley and Stutchbury's genus to be preoccupied, so proposed the replacement name Palaeosauriscus. Yet as Paleosaurus is spelled differently than Palaeosaurus and is not the valid name for any other genus, it does not need to be replaced. Though originally based on archosaurian teeth, the genus and its spelling variants were widely used until the 1970s for basal sauropodomorphs based on the specimen later named Efraasia.
References- Riley and Stutchbury, 1836. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Proc. Geol. Soc. London 2, 397-399.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1837. On an additional species of the newly-discovered saurian animals in the Magnesian Conglomerate of Durdham Down, near Bristol. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections. 1836, 90-94.
Fitzinger, 1840. Ãber Palaeosaurus sternbergii, eine neue Gattung vorweltlicher Reptilien und die Stellung dieser Thiere im Systeme Ãberhaupt. Wiener Mus. Annalen II, 175-187.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1840. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Trans. Geol. Soc. London 5(2), 349-357.
Kuhn, 1959. Ein neuer Microsaurier aus dem deutschen Rotliegenden. N. Jb. Geol. Palaeontol. Mh. 1959: 424-426.
P. cylindrodon Riley and Stutchbury, 1840
= "Palaeosaurus cylindricum" Riley and Stutchbury, 1836
= "Palaeosaurus cylindrodon" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= "Paleosaurus cylindrodon" Riley and Stutchbury, 1837
= Thecodontosaurus cylindrodon (Riley and Stutchbury, 1840) Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus "cylindricum" (Riley and Stutchbury, 1836) Huene, 1914
= Palaeosauriscus cylindrodon (Riley and Stutchbury, 1840) Kuhn, 1959
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Durdham Down, England

Holotype- (destroyed) tooth
References- Riley and Stutchbury, 1836. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Proc. Geol. Soc. London 2, 397-399.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1837. On an additional species of the newly-discovered saurian animals in the Magnesian Conglomerate of Durdham Down, near Bristol. Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections. 1836, 90-94.
Riley and Stutchbury, 1840. A description of various fossil remains of three distinct saurian animals discovered in the authumn of 1834, in the Magnesian conglomerates of Diirdham Down, near Bristol. Trans. Geol. Soc. London 5(2), 349-357.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1914. Nachtrige zu meinen fruheren Beschreibungen triassischer Saurischia. Geol. Palaeontol. Abhandl. 13: 69-82.
Huene, 1926. Vollstandige Osteologie eines Plateosauriden aus dem schwabischen Trias. Geol. Palaeontol. Abhandl. 15:129-179.
Romer, 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kuhn, 1959. Ein neuer Microsaurier aus dem deutschen Rotliegenden. N. Jb. Geol. Palaeontol. Mh. 1959: 424-426.
Benton, Juul, Storrs and Galton, 2000. Anatomy and systematics of the prosauropod dinosaur Thecodontosaurus antiquus from the Upper Triassic of southern England. J. Vertebr. Palaeontol. 20, 77-108.

Paleosaurus? subcylindrodon (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932
= Zanclodon "subcylindrodon" Huene, 1905
= Thecodontosaurus subcylindrodon Huene, 1908
= Palaeosauriscus subcylindrodon (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1965
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Schilfsandstein, Germany

Holotype- (SMNS 52456) tooth (14x4.2x? mm)
Comments- Huene (1905) first merely announced ""Zanclodon" subcylindrodon n. sp. 1 Zahn, Feuerbacher Haide" without being "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1), making it a nomen nudum until the official description in 1908.  Note this shows Olshevsky (2000) was incorrect in listing Huene's 1905 nomen nudum as Thecodontosaurus subcylindrodon, a combination which did not get used until 1908.  Indeed, even in 1908 Huene put the genus Thecodontosaurus in quotation marks because (translated) "the generic name used here is only intended to express the probability of belonging to the theropods."  Olshevsky (2000) stated "This species may be a herrerasaurian dinosaur (cf. Galton, 1984)", but Galton only wrote "it is probably from a carnivorous archosaur; it is certainly not from a prosauropod." 
References- Huene, 1905. Uber die Trias-Dinosaurier Europas. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft. 57, 345-349.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1965.
Galton, 1984. An early prosauropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of Nordwürttemberg, West Germany. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B: Geologie und Paläontologie. 106, 1-25.
Olshevsky, 2000. An Annotated Checklist of Dinosaur Species by Continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 157 pp.

Picrodon Seeley, 1898
P. herveyi Seeley, 1898
= Avalonia herveyi (Seeley, 1898) Nopcsa, 1901
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Westbury Formation, England
Holotype
- (NHMUK R2875) fragmented dentaries , tooth (23 x 9.5 x ? mm)
Comments- This taxon shares much of its history with Avalonianus sanfordi. Kuhn (1970) listed it as an ornithosuchid
References- Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Kuhn, 1970.
Romer, 1976. Osteology of the Reptiles. University of Chicago Press. 772 pp.

"Thecodontosaurus" elizae

Zanclodon? bavaricus

Zanclodon Plieninger, 1847b
= Smilodon Plieninger, 1847a (preoccupied)
Z. laevis (Plieninger, 1847a) Plieninger, 1847b
= Smilodon laevis Plieninger, 1847a
= Zanclodon plieningeri Fraas, 1896
Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Erfurt Formation, Germany
Lectotype-
(SMNS 6045) partial maxilla
Comments- This is like erythrosuchians and eucrocopods in having thecodont tooth implantation, but unlike Archosauriformes in lacking interdental plates and unlike Teyujagua plus Archosauriformes in lacking dental serrations.
References- Plieninger, 1847a. Über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in Eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 148-154.
Plieninger, 1847b. Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu dem Vortrage über ein neues Sauriergenus und die Einreihung der Saurier mit flachen, schneidenden Zähnen in eine Familie. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg. 2, 247-254.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.

Zatomus

Protopyknosia Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021
Definition- (Triopticus primus <- Passer domesticus, Triceratops horridus, Alligator mississippiensis, Sphenodon punctatus, Heloderma suspectum, Chrysemys picta) (Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021)
Reference- Nesbitt, Stocker, Chatterjee, Horner and Goodwin, 2021. A remarkable group of thick‐headed Triassic Period archosauromorphs with a wide, possibly Pangean distribution. Journal of Anatomy. 239(1), 184-206.

Archosauriformes indet. (Welles, 1972)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Downs Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (MNA coll.) teeth (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (MNA.V.3689) five teeth (4.0-18.0 mm) (Kaye and Padian, 1994)
(MNA coll.) teeth (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Comments- Jacobs and Murry (1980) report that "Isolated teeth and vertebrae probably belonging to the small theropod dinosaur Coelophysis" were found at the Downs and Placerias Quarries, and that "Welles (1972) mentions the presence of Coelophysis at the Placerias Quarry."  Murry and Long (1989) noted "cf. Coelophysis teeth (probably some variety of thecodont or primitive saurischian)" from the Placerias Quarry.  Kaye and Padian (1994) figured some of the Placerias Quarry teeth (MNA.V.3689) as Archosauria incertae sedis Type E.  Hunt et al. (1998) stated "these teeth are indeterminate", and they are reassigned to Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Welles, 1972. Fossil-hunting for tetrapods in the Chinle Formation: A brief pictorial history. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 47, 13-18.
Jacobs and Murry, 1980. The vertebrate community of the Triassic Chinle Formation near St. Johns, Arizona. In Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona. 55-73.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Kaye and Padian, 1994. Microvertebrates from the Placerias quarry: A window on Late Triassic vertebrate diversity in the American southwest. In Fraser and Sues (eds.). In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge University Press. 171-196.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Kirby, 1989)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 360, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material
- (MNA.V.7233) incomplete tooth (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 791, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(MNA.V.7234) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7235) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7236) tooth (Kirby, 1991)
(MNA.V.7238) incomplete pedal ungual (Kirby, 1989)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MNA.V.7239) proximal pedal ungual (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Upper Tohashi Wash, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA coll.) (Kirby, 1991)
Comments- Kirby (1989) initially reported "A recurved ungual, and astragalus, and several laterally compressed, recurved teeth with serrated edges from locality 791 are similar to those of theropod dinosaurs."  Kirby (1991) described the ungual MNA.V.7238 from 791 as ?Ceratosauria indet., saying "The Owl Rock unguals are compatible with the condition in C. bauri as evidenced by the articulated pes of a specimen from the Ghost Ranch Quarry (MNA V3318), but are approximately twice as large."  The astragalus (MNA.V.7237) was also described as ?Ceratosauria indet. by Kirby (1991) and has since been referred to Dromomeron romeri (Marsh, 2018).  Kirby (1991) described and figured MNA.V.7233, a ?Ceratosauria indet. tooth from locality 360, describing it as "compatible with maxillary and dentary morphotypes exhibited by AMNH skull specimens (7240-7242) of Coelophysis bauri."  Three other ?ceratosaur dental specimens merely stated to be "identical tooth morphotypes" were said to be from locality 360 in Kirby's (1991) thesis, but are actually from 791 (Gillette, pers. comm. 2021) so may be those referred to in 1989.  These are all probably Archosauria indet. considering the current state of Triassic archosaur tooth knowledge.   Kirby (1991) also described an ungual from locality 853 as "a posterior fragment lacking the flexor tubercle but identical in shape and proportion to MNA.V.7238", also referring it to ?Ceratosauria indet..  Notably, although Kirby refers all supposed theropod specimens to ?Ceratosauria, he also states "The Owl Rock astragalus exhibits evidence of the astragalocalcaneal fusion characteristic of ceratosauroids but the remaining elements are non-diagnostic below a subordinal level [Theropoda]."  Kirby's Figure 96 indicates an uncertain occurence of Ceratosauria from the Upper Tohashi Wash, which was otherwise unnoted in the thesis.  None of the specimens are mentioned in Spielmann et al.'s (2007) latest review of Kirby's material.
References- Kirby, 1989. Late Triassic vertebrate localities of the Owl Rock Member (Chinle Formation) in the Ward Terrace area of northern Arizona. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 12-28.
Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). The Global Triassic, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.
Marsh, 2018. A new record of Dromomeron romeri Irmis et al., 2007 (Lagerpetidae) from the Chinle Formation of Arizona, U.S.A. PaleoBios. 35, 1-8.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Sixmile Spring NMMNH L-2739, Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-34450) tooth
Comments- NMMNH P-34468 was discovered in 1994, it was suggested by Heckert (2001, 2004) to closely resemble Gojirasaurus in that "the anterior carina bears somewhat finer (15-20+/mm) serrations than the posterior (12-18/mm) carina, and the denticles comprising the serrations are offset slightly from the perpendicular."  Yet not only has there been no study on variation in DSDI and serration orientation in Triassic archosaurs, the tooth associated with Gojirasaurus has not been shown to belong to that individual due to the mixed nature of its locality.  So instead of placing it in Theropoda indet. as Heckert did, it is classified as Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Spielmann, Hunt, Lucas and Heckert, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Gregory's Quarry NMMNH L-485, Duke Ranch Member, Redonda Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-7113) proximal metapodial or phalanx (Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006)
(NMMNH P-7114) twenty-two tooth fragments (Spielmann and Lucas, 2012)
(NMMNH P-25672) partial ungual (Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006)
Comments- Spielmann et al. (2005) first reported "Theropod material from the Redonda consists of isolated teeth and fragmentary limb material."  Spielmann et al. (2006) later described this material, figuring NMMNH P-7113, an element collected June 1 1998 consisting of "the proximal end, which is elliptical in proximal view, and likely represents a metapodial or proximal phalanx."  They also figured ungual NMMNH P-25672, discovered on March 16 1995, and referred only to Saurischia in the online catalogue.  This was "identified as belonging to a theropod because it is recurved and laterally compressed."  Spielmann et al. noted the teeth "cannot definitively be identified as belonging to a theropod and could also pertain to a sphenosuchian or rauisuchian", and only figured teeth as Rauisuchidae? indet. and Sphenosuchian? indet..  However, the NMMNH online catalogue does include NMMNH P-7114, discovered June 1 1998, as Theropoda?.  Nesbitt and Stocker (2008) stated Spielmann et al. "were not able to assign NMMNH P-7113 to a specific element and the authors failed to illustrate exclusive synapomorphies shared among NMMNH [P-25672] with theropods, dinosaurs, or even archosaurs. Therefore, NMMNH P-7113 and NMMNH [P-25672] cannot be assigned to Theropoda."  Spielmann and Lucas (2012) later listed them all as Archosauria indet., but they are placed more generally as Archosauriformes here.
References- Spielmann, Hunt, Lucas and Heckert, 2005. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic (Rhaetian) Redonda Formation. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 117A.
Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006. The vertebrate macrofauna of the Upper Triassic (Apachean) Redonda Formation, east-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin. 37, 502-509.
Nesbitt and Stocker, 2008. The vertebrate assemblage of the Late Triassic Canjilon Quarry (northern New Mexico, USA), and the importance of apomorphy-based assemblage comparisons. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(4), 1063-1072.
Spielmann and Lucas, 2012. Tetrapod Fauna of the Redonda Formation. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin. 55, 119 pp.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 1 NMMNH L-860, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-34011) four teeth (8.3x3.2x2.6 mm; 2.8x1.8x0.9 mm; ?x4.5x3.0 mm)
(NMMNH P-34012) tooth (2.5x3.0x2.1 mm)
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) referred these teeth collected in 1988 to Theropoda because they "are tall, laterally compressed, recurved, and serrated", but noted these characters are common in other archosaurs as well.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Kalgary NMMNH L-1312, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-30804; Morphotype L) tooth
(NMMNH P-34204) tooth (24x4.3x2.5 mm)
(NMMNH P-34205) tooth
(NMMNH P-34206) tooth
(NMMNH P-34207) tooth
(NMMNH P-34250) tooth
(NMMNH P-34358; Morphotype K) tooth
(NMMNH P-34359; Morphotype L) tooth
(NMMNH P-34491; Morphotype K) two teeth
(NMMNH P-34492; Morphotype L) tooth
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) describes several transversely compressed, recurved and serrated teeth from the Lower Kalgary as possible theropods, although he correctly notes they "could also represent dinosaurian precursors, rauisuchians sensu lato, or other archosauriforms."  The only specimen with proposed similarities to theropods specifically is NMMNH P-34204, discovered in 1998, with mesial serrations only present apically and 6 serrations per mm distally.  Heckert says "It is more laterally compressed than most rauisuchian teeth I have observed, and may represent the tooth of a ceratosaurian theropod, as it closely resembles large teeth of Liliensternus or Coelophysis."  Yet transverse compression has not been shown to be greater in theropods than pseudosuchians.  Other noted characters of teeth Heckert questionably refers to Theropoda are a thin distal carina on NMMNH P-34206, a high DSDI on NMMNH P-34207, and very fine mesial and distal serrations (~20/mm) in Morphotype K and L teeth.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauriformes indet. (Case, 1927)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material
- (UMMP 2680) tooth
(UMMP coll.) twenty-one teeth (11x3.7x? - 70x28.6x? mm)
Comments- Case (1922) stated "There are twenty-two teeth of dinosaurs in the collection" with "the same form, a nearly symmetrical, slender oval cross-section, a slight recurvature, and serrate cutting edges."  He referred these to Coelophysis and figured one in side view and section.  Huene (1932) stated it was likely they belonged to his new podokesaurid Spinosuchus, noting they did not look like parasuchian teeth.  Hunt et al. (1998) suggested these teeth "could represent theropods, rauisuchians or the "canine" teeth of a heterodont phytosaur." 
References- Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Case, 1932)
Middle Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material
- (UMMP 13765) tooth
(UMMP 13766) tooth
(UMMP coll.) teeth (<10-65 mm)
Comments- Case (1932) stated "There are numerous dinosaur teeth in the collection, gathered from all the localities investigated in Texas", figuring and describing two.  These have typical archosauriform morphology, although the smaller teeth are said to have "no serrations on the anterior face, or else they are very imperfect ones", better developed enamel wrinkles and in UMMP 13766 at least, distal serrations that "are oblique to the axis of the tooth, and are of unequal size."  Hunt et al. (1998) suggested these teeth "could represent theropods, rauisuchians or the "canine" teeth of a heterodont phytosaur." 
References- Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.

Archosauriformes indet. (Warrener, 1983)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Pant-y-ffynnon Quarry, Wales

Material- (field number P65/23; lost) metapodial
?...(field number P65/30; lost) phalanx
?...(field number P65/45; lost) ungual
?...(field number P65/49; lost) phalanx
Comments- Warrener (1983) provisionally referred these to her coelurosaur taxon, later named Pendraig by Spiekman et al. (2021).  The latter felt they "cannot be confidently attributed to any other known taxa known from Pant-y-ffynnon and were likely recovered from the same block as the partial left ischium of P. milnerae (field number P65/66b) as indicated by the shared number 65 in their field number", but also noted "The location of these elements is currently unknown and there is no record of them in the NHMUK collections."  Because they "do not exhibit diagnostic theropod features, there is currently insufficient support for an unequivocal attribution of this material to P. milnerae."
References- Warrener, 1983. An archosaurian fauna from a Welsh locality. PhD thesis, University College London. 384 pp.
Spiekman, Ezcurra, Butler, Fraser and Maidment, 2021. Pendraig milnerae, a new small-sized coelophysoid theropod from the Late Triassic of Wales. Royal Society Open Science. 8: 210915.

Archosauriformes indet. (Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012)
Mid-Late Norian, Late Triassic
Poręba, Zbaszynek Beds, Poland
Material
- (ZPAL V.39/36a-c) three pedal unguals
(ZPAL V.39/37a-b) two teeth
(ZPAL V.39/38a-b) two ?distal caudal vertebrae
Comments- Discovered from 2008-2012, Sulej et al. (2012) first assigned teeth ZPAL V.39/37, caudal vertebrae ZPAL V.39/38 and pedal unguals ZPAL V.39/36 to Coelophysoidea indet., but Niedzwiedzki et al. reported they "do not preserve any clear neotheropod (or dinosaur or dinosauriform) character states; this material is not described in this article and will be the subject of future study."  Niedzwiedzki et al. state they "were collected from three horizons (b-d) and include bones of animals of different sizes" and that the caudals are elongated, suggesting they are from the distal portion of the tail.  They are placed in Archosauriformes indet. here.
References- Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012. A new Late Triassic vertebrate fauna from Poland with turtles, aetosaurs, and coelophysoid dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32(5), 1033-1041.
Niedzwiedzki, Brusatte, Sulej and Butler, 2014. Basal dinosauriform and theropod dinosaurs from the Mid-Late Norian (Late Triassic) of Poland: Implications for Triassic dinosaur evolution and distribution. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1121-1142.

Archosauriformes indet. (Lapparent, Claracq and Nougarède, 1958)
Late Triassic
Lower Sandstone Member of Lower Zarzaitine Formation, Algeria
Material
- (MNNHM coll.) tooth (43x16x? mm)
(MNNHM coll.) tooth (22x9x? mm)
Comments- These ware described by Lapparent et al. (1958) as a teratosaurid theropod, and later (1960) as Teratosaurus sp.. Both are recurved and serrated on both carinae, typical of basal pseudosuchians like Teratosaurus as well as basal theropods. They are of similar shape and from the same locality, but have no described diagnostic characters and may belong to different taxa.
References- Lapparent, Claracq and Nougarède, 1958. Nouvelles découvertes de Vertébrés dans les séries continentales au Nord d'Edjeleh (Sahara central). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 247, 2399-2402.
Lapparent, 1960. Les dinosauriens du "Continental intercalaire" du Sahara central. Memoirs of the Geological Society of France. 88A, 1-57.

Erythrosuchia Watson, 1957
Definition- (Erythrosuchus africanus <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Erythrosuchidae Watson, 1917
Definition- (Erythrosuchus africanus <- Proterosuchus fergusi, Passer domesticus) (Ezcurra, Lecuona and Martinelli, 2010)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Ezcurra, Lecuona and Martinelli, 2010. A new basal archosauriform diapsid from the Lower Triassic of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 30(5), 1433-1450.

Eucrocopoda Ezcurra, 2016
Definition- (Euparkeria capensis, Proterochampsa barrionuevoi, Doswellia kaltenbachi, Parasuchus hislopi, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus <- Proterosuchus fergusi, Erythrosuchus africanus)
Reference- Ezcurra, 2016. The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ. 4:e1778.

Euparkeriidae Huene, 1920
Definition- (Euparkeria capensis <- Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Sookias and Butler, 2013)
Reference- Sookias and Butler, 2013. Euparkeriidae. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, Special Publication. 379, 35-48.

Proterochampsia Bonaparte, 1971
Definition- (Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Euparkeria capensis, Erythrosuchus africanus, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Doswelliidae Weems, 1980
Definition- (Doswellia kaltenbachi <- Proterochampsa barrionuevoi, Erythrosuchus africanus, Caiman latirostris, Passer domesticus) (Desojo, Ezcurra and Schultz, 2011)
Reference- Desojo, Ezcurra and Schultz, 2011. An unusual new archosauriform from the Middle-Late Triassic of southern Brazil and the monophyly of Doswelliidae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 161, 839-871.

Proterochampsidae Sill, 1967
Definition- (Chanaresuchus bonapartei, Proterochampsa barrionuevoi <- Euparkeria capensis, Doswellia kaltenbachi, Passer domesticus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Trotteyn, 2011)
= Rhadinosuchidae Hofstetter, 1955
Reference- Trotteyn, 2011. The phylogenetic relationships and monophyly of Proterochampsidae. IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados, 224.

Proterochampsidae indet. (Romer, 1972)
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Material- (PULR 01; in part; = MLP 1964-XI-14-14; in part) astragalus, metatarsal II (30 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (31 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III
Comments- Originally described as part of the holotype of Lewisuchus admixtus (Romer, 1972), this pes is the source of Paul's (1988) claim "The second toe is unusually long and robust (the opposite of Lagerpeton); it was probably a defensive weapon."  Arcucci (1998) found that this pedal material and a previously unpublished astragalus "can be identified as belonging to a much smaller proterochampsid."  Bittencourt et al. (2015) concurred and also assigned the dentary of the Lewisuchus holotype to Proterochampsidae, but this was rejected by Agnolin (2017) and Ezcurra et al. (2020) based on a new Lewisuchus specimen preserving a smiliar dentary.  Taxonomy of Chañares proterosuchids is currently in flux, with Tropidosuchus, Gualosuchus and Chaneresuchus all reported, but at least some differences potentially attributable to individual and/or ontogenetic variation (Ezcurra et al., 2019).
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIV. Lewisuchus admixtus, gen. et sp. nov., a further thecodont from the Chañares beds. Breviora. 390, 1-13.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Arcucci, 1998. New information about dinosaur precursors from the Triassic Los Chanares fauna, La Rioja, Argentina. Gopndwana 10: Event Stratigraphy of Gondwana. 9-10.
Bittencourt, Arcucci, Marsicano and Langer, 2015 (online 2014). Osteology of the Middle Triassic archosaur Lewisuchus admixtus Romer (Chañares Formation, Argentina), its inclusivity, and relationships amongst early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 13(3), 189-219.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Ezcurra, Von Baczko, Trotteyn and Desojo, 2019. New proterochampsid specimens expand the morphological diversity of the rhadinosuchines of the Chañares Formation (Lower Carnian, northwestern Argentina). Ameghiniana. 56, 79-115.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Fiorelli and Desojo, 2020 (online 2019). New specimen sheds light on the anatomy and taxonomy of the early Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Chañares Formation, NW Argentina. The Anatomical Record. 303(5), 1393-1438.

Rhadinosuchinae Hofstetter, 1955 vide Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015
Definition- (Rhadinosuchus gracilis, Chanaresuchus bonapartei <- Cerritosaurus binsfeldi, Tropidosuchus romeri, Doswellia kaltenbachi) (Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015)
Reference- Ezcurra, DeSojo and Rauhut, 2015. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of the proterochampsid Rhadinosuchus gracilis (Diapsida: Archosauriformes) from the early Late Triassic of southern Brazil. Ameghiniana. 52, 391-417.

Archosauria Cope, 1869
Official Definition- crown(Alligator mississippiensis + Compsognathus longipes) (Gauthier and Padian, 2020; Registration Number 173)
Other definitions- (Crocodylus niloticus + Passer domesticus) (Sereno, 2004; modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
(Crocodylus niloticus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
crown(Caiman crocodilus + Compsognathus longipes + Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
= Hyperosauria Jaekel, 1911
= Proquadrata Walker, 1977
= Nidosuchia Whetstone and Whybrow, 1983
= Neoarchosauria Benton, 1985
= Avesuchia Benton, 1985
Definition- (Crurotarsi + Avemetatarsalia) (Benton, 1985)
References- Cope, 1869. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America, Part I.  Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 14, 1-235.
Benton, 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 84(2), 97-164.
Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham, Rowe and Clarke, 2004. A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on non-avian Reptilia Laurentus 1768. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, abstracts. 24.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Gauthier and Padian, 2020. Archosauria E. D. Cope 1869 [J. A. Gauthier and K. Padian], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1186-1193.

unnamed Archosauria (Parrish, 1999)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Four Aces Mine, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Utah, US

Material- ?(UCM 76198) several caudal centra
Comments- Discovered between 1983 and 1988, Parrish (1999) figured and commented on "Several caudal vertebrae (UCM 76198) [which] may be referable to the Theropoda as well, on the basis of the distinctive, subhexagonal cross section that they share with Coelophysis."  Jenkin's et al. (2017) disagreed, stating "From examination of C. bauri specimens at MNA, GRMP, and NMMNHS we do not agree that C. bauri can be diagnosed from a subhexagonal cross section of the caudal vertebrae (personal observation of Robert Gay) as the morphology exhibited in undisputed C. bauri specimens tends to be more box-like, a plesiomorphic condition within Archosauria."  The figured specimens exhibit both rounded and more quadrangular articular surfaces and are placed as Archosauria indet. here as most sources agree Triassic archosaur caudal centra are undiagnostic.
References- Parrish, 1999. Small fossil vertebrates from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of southern Utah. In Gillette (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication. 99-1, 45-50.
Jenkins, Foster and Gay, 2017. First unambiguous dinosaur specimen from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West. 4, 231-242.

undescribed archosaur (Nesbitt, 2001)
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Holbrook Member of the Moenkopi Formation, Arizona, US

Material- distal pubis
Comments- Nesbitt mentions this as a possible herrerasaurid, which would be notable as dinosaurs are otherwise unknown from Middle Triassic strata. Nesbitt (pers. comm, 2010) now believes the morphology is equivocal between poposauroids and basal theropods, suggesting it should be referred to Archosauria incertae sedis.
Reference- Nesbitt, 2001. New fossil vertebrate material from the Holbrook Member, Moenkopi Formation (Middle Triassic) from Northern Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 83A.

Archosauria indet. (Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Krzyzanowski bonebed NMMNH L-3764, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material
- ?(NMMNH P-34620) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34621) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34622) ten centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34623) dorsal vertebra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34624) eighteen centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34625) twelve fragmentary centra (Heckert, 2001)
?(NMMNH P-34626) twelve centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34628) proximal metapodial (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34629) vertebral fragment (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34630) two centrum fragments (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34631) five centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34632) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34633) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34634) caudal centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34635) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34636) three centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34637) two centra (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34638) centrum (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34639) centrum fragment (Heckert, 2001)
(NMMNH P-34640) limb element fragment (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Dinosaur Ridge PFV 211, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MDM or PEFO coll.) jaw fragments, dentary fragments, teeth, centra, phalanges (Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996)
Comments- Hunt et al. (1996) note specimens found at Dinosaur Ridge that year, including "vertebrae, podials, teeth, cranial and dentary fragments."  Hunt (1998) later states "A smaller species [than PEFO 43909] is represented by several specimens including phalanges, vertebrae and tooth-bearing cranial and dentary fragments."  Hunt et al. (1998) similarly noted "vertebrae and dentulous jaw fragments (uncatalogued PEFO specimens)", while Hunt and Wright (1999) mentioned "postcranial and cranial fragments of a small theropod" at the MDM.  While the specimens have never been described, Parker and Irmis (2005) write the current consensus- "with the exception of a partial dentary (Hunt et al., 1996) the majority of these specimens consist of isolated vertebral centra.  Unfortunately, isolated theropod vertebrae cannot be distinguished from those of chatterjeeids, so these records cannot be confirmed (S. Nesbitt, pers. comm., 2004)."  Note this may instead be from Dinosaur Ridge N PFV 212 (Parker, 2006).
The Krzyzanowski specimens were collected on June 15 1998.  Heckert et al. (1999) announced the material in an abstract, stating that of the at least eight archosauromorph vertebral morphotypes in the yet unnamed locality, "At least two vertebral types appear to have been hollow, a theropod synapomorphy."  Heckert first described the material as Theropoda indet. in his 2001 thesis, then published that in 2004.  He states "The original Krzyzanowski collection included as many as nine morphotypes and no fewer than 20 hollow centra (NMMNH P-34620-639), as well as a proximal metapodial (NMMNH P-34628) and another indeterminate hollow limb bone (NMMNH P-34640)."  His introduction indicates these were referred to Theropoda (in which he includes herrerasaurids and Eoraptor) based on hollow vertebral centra and thin-walled long bones, but these are also both present in some pseudosuchians like poposaurs, so pending more information they should all be Archosauria indet. (as Parker, 2005 noted for the centra).  NMMNH P-34620 through 34626 are already classified more broadly as Reptilia indet. in their online catalogue.  Note while Heckert's specimen range also includes NMMNH P-34627, that is actually a Dinosauromorpha indet. (based on the large cnemial crest) proximal tibia.
References- Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Hunt, 1998. Preliminary results of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs Project Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Santucci and McClelland (eds.). National Park Service Paleontological Research. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/1. 135-137.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Heckert, Lucas, Krzyzanowski and Estep, 1999. Additions to the vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Blue Mesa Member (Adamanian-latest Carnian) of the Petrified Forest Formation in the Blue Hills, Apache County, Arizona. Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 1999. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 6, 19.
Hunt and Wright, 1999. New discoveries of Late Triassic dinosaurs from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. in Santucci and McClelland (eds.). National Park Service Paleontological Research Volume 4. Geologic Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-99/03. 96-100.
Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.
Parker, 2005. Faunal review of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of Arizona. In McCord (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology of Arizona. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 11, 34-54.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Parker, 2006. The stratigraphic distribution of major fossil localities in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 62, 46-61.

Archosauria indet. (Murry and Long, 1989)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Downs Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (MNA coll.) vertebrae (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (MNA.V.3091; = MNA.V.2777 of Long and Murry, 1995; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
(MNA coll.) vertebrae (Jacobs and Murry, 1980)
(UCMP 138591; field number UCMP A269/CG2; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) partial synsacrum (Lucas, Hunt and Long, 1992)
(UCMP 177314; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis?) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 177317) dorsal centrum (Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007)
(UCMP 177318; field number UCMP A269/CK2-1) proximal pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP '178045') partial dorsal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178047; field number UCMP A269/CF2-7; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) two fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178048; field number UCMP A269C; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) two fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 178049; field number UCMP A269 C 63 M; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) three fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- Jacobs and Murry (1980) report that "Isolated teeth and vertebrae probably belonging to the small theropod dinosaur Coelophysis" were found at the Downs and Placerias Quarries based on MNA specimens recovered since 1978, which might include MNA.V.3091.  Tannenbaum (1983) mentions "several worn caudal vertebrae that at least superficially resemble the alleged Coelophysis caudal vertebrae" from at least one of the quarries.  Some of the UCMP material was first published by Murry and Long (1989), who said "Theropod bones (tarsi, sacral and distal vertebrae) are present in the University of California Museum of Paleontology collections from the Placerias Quarry."
UCMP 138591 was first incorrectly figured as part of UCMP 34498 (the type of Camposaurus) by Lucas et al. (1992) as a probable ceratosaurian (sensu lato) "sacrum made up of at least four vertebral centra."  This was later figured as Ceratosauria indet. and described as Theropoda indet. by Long and Murry (1995; who give the field number as both C63M and CG2; the latter is used here as it was also used by Hunt et al., 1998).  Hunt et al. made it a paratype of Camposaurus, believing the presence of at least four sacrals supported a ceratosaurian (sensu lato) identity, but this also matches shuvosaurids.  While not explicitly stated, Nesbitt et al. (2007) probably had this in mind when relegating this and other Camposaurus vertebral paratypes to Archosauria indet. when they stated "they are equally comparable to many dinosauriforms as well as Shuvosaurus." 
Long and Murry (1995) figured a Ceratosauria indet. dorsal centrum (fig. 192Q-U) as UCMP A 269, which is just the UCMP locality number for the Placerias Quarry.  Hunt et al. (1998) listed this (as UCMP uncatalogued) as a paratype of Camposaurus.  Angielczyk (2002) in a review of unnumbered UCMP specimens in Long and Murry's paper stated "Specimen is UCMP 177314. Labeled as Chatterjeea elegans on a hand-written tag in the box."  However, Irmis (2005) wrote "The vertebra (UCMP 177314) that Long and Murry (1995) referred to "Chatterjeea" from the Placerias Quarry is undiagnostic; it is identical to similar vertebrae in "Chatterjeea", but cannon [sic] be assigned to this taxon using synapomorphies as it is also identical to vertebrae of Poposaurus, Chindesaurus, and Coelophysis."  Angielczyk says that the Placerias Quarry 'Chatterjeea' vertebra, which was called an unnumbered sacral by Long and Murry, "could not be found."  Confusing the matter is that Nesbitt et al. (2007) list a UCMP 177317 as a future Camposaurus dorsal figured by Long and Murry along with the MNA specimen of figure 192M-P, which corresponds to what Angielczyk thought was UCMP 177314.  While there is the slight importance of which specimen number corresponds to the Camposaurus paratype, both are probably Archosauria indet. in the end.
Long and Murry (1995) listed three sacral specimens less complete than the figured UCMP 138591 as Theropoda indet. Hunt et al. (1998) made these paratypes of Camposaurus, which contradicts their proposal there is "no duplication of elements" as this would lead to a sacrum with seven vertebrae, and in turn falsifies one of their reasons for referring the paratype specimens.  Angielczyk (2002) revealed the numbers of these specimens.  While these have never been described or illustrated, Nesbitt et al. (2007) made them Archosauria indet. when they stated they "are equally comparable to many dinosauriforms as well as Shuvosaurus."
Long and Murry (1995) figured dorsal centrum MNA.V.2777 as Ceratosauria indet., which they stated is "identical to a mid-dorsal centrum of AMNH 7224 (Colbert et al., 1992, "neotype" of C. bauri), [and so] is believed to represent a theropod dinosaur."  Hunt et al. (1998) made this a paratype of Camposaurus, but Nesbitt et al. (2007) noted its actual number is MNA.V.3091 and that like earlier discussed axial material it can only be referred to Archosauria indet..
Long and Murry (1995) figured a proximal pubis as Ceratosauria indet., mentioned "the proximal extremity of a left pubis (UCMP A269/ck2-1; Fig. 192 K-L) which may also represent a small theropod."  Hunt et al. (1998) tentatively referred this specimen to Camposaurus, saying it was a smaller individual that "cannot be unequivocably assigned to" the genus.  Angielczyk (2002) found the specimen number is UCMP 177318.  While it is similar to basal dinosauromorphs like coelophysoids, it also closely resembles some pseudosuchians like Terrestrisuchus, so is placed as Archosauria indet. here pending further study.
Long and Murry (1995) figured a dorsal vertebra (fig. 192V-X) as Ceratosauria indet., which Angielczyk (2002) stated was UCMP 178045.  However, the UCMP online catalogue records UCMP 178045 as a Cantius molar, with no obvious similar number that could have been mistyped (e.g. UCMP 178044 is a taller Postosuchus vertebra figured as the fourth one in Long and Murry's Figure 130L).
References- Jacobs and Murry, 1980. The vertebrate community of the Triassic Chinle Formation near St. Johns, Arizona. In Jacobs (ed.). Aspects of Vertebrate History. Museum of Northern Arizona. 55-73.
Tannenbaum, 1983. The microvertebrate fauna of the Placerias and Downs' quarries, Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) near St. Johns, Arizona. Masters thesis, University of California. 111 pp.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Lucas, Hunt and Long, 1992. The oldest dinosaurs. Naturwissenschaften. 79(4), 171-172.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material-
(MNA.V.7241) dorsal centrum
?(MNA.V.7311) fragmentary calcaneum
Comments- Kirby (1991) described a centrum from 853 that is "consistent with the thoracic condition of Coelophysis" as ?Ceratosauria indet..  Kirby further states it has "a constricted median region, yielding an "hourglass" shape in articular view" and that "The articular faces are at right angles to the median axis of the centrum", but coelophysoid and shuvosaurid centra are generally agreed to be indistinguishable so that it is referred to Archosauria indet. here.  He later mentions a "fragmentary calcaenum [sic] (MNA V7311) [which] may be referable to a theropod dinosaur" noted under Diapsida indet. with no locality given, but which Gillette (pers. comm., 2021) verifies is 853. Given how distinct ornithodiran calcanea are from pseudosuchians, this may be diagnostic to a more specific group once described.
Reference- Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.

unnamed Archosauria (Gay, 2001)
Sinemurian-Pliensbachian, Early Jurassic
Rock Head (Bowl Area) MNA 219-0, Silty Facies Member of the Kayenta Formation, Arizona, US

Referred- (MNA.V.102) distal ?fibula
(MNA.V.111) dentary fragments
(MNA.V.122) ?ischial fragment
(MNA.V.138) caudal centrum (45 mm)
(MNA.V.247) rib fragment
Comments- Discovered in 1978, these were described by Gay (2001) as Dilophosaurus but stated to be "incongruent in size with the Dilophosaurus remains and attributable to Archosauria" by Marsh and Rowe (2020).  The dentary fragments MNA.V.111 are said by Gay to include alveoli with the same cross section as referred tooth MNA.V.97.  Gay stated MNA.V.247 was "a partial rib head" that "conform[s] well to what is known of the ribs in D. wetherilli."  MNA.V.138 is an amphicoelous or platycoelous centrum 2.25 times longer than tall with an open neurocentral suture, considered juvenile by Gay.  MNA.V.102 was described by Gay as "broken on both ends, and weathered on one end, making diagnosis somewhat difficult. However, it would appear that this is a fragment of the pelvis, and is too wide and flat to be a portion of the pubis."  The distal fibula MNA.V.102 was assigned to a juvenile by Gay and said to have "the same shape as the fibula illustrated by Welles (1984), and also conforms to the other two distal fibulae referred herein."
References- Gay, 2001. New specimens of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 8, 19-23.
Marsh and Rowe, 2020. A comprehensive anatomical and phylogenetic evaluation of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda) with descriptions of new specimens from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Journal of Paleontology. 94(Memoir 78), 103 pp.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Santa Rosa Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-13006) two fused sacral centra
(NMMNH P-25749) pubis, fragmentary femur(?)
(NMMNH P-25750) metatarsals
Comments- Heckert et al. (2000) considered these specimens to be theropod and probably coelophysoid, in part based on the hollow sacral centra. Nesbitt et al. (2007) notes that the latter are found in shuvosaurids too, and that the pubis lacks an acetabular rim, so may be from a more basal archosaur. They assign them to Archosauria indet..
References- Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17–26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 1997)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Sixmile Spring NMMNH L-2739, Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-18401) (~1.1-1.2 m; juvenile to subadult) dorsal centrum (25 mm), eight distal caudal centra (Heckert, 1997)
(NMMNH P-34468) distal manual phalanx (Heckert, 2001)
Comments- Collected on Febrary 20 1997, Heckert (1997) described NMMNH P-18401 as Theropoda incertae sedis, and figured the dorsal in cross sectional view.  Heckert et al. (2000) later stated it was generically indeterminate but appeared more derived than herrerasaurids, and "similar to theropod centra recently discovered in the Blue Mesa Member of the Petrified Forest Formation (NMMNH L-3764) in the Blue Hills of eastern Arizona by Stan Krzyzanowski" (NMMNH P-34620-34626, 34628-34639). Nesbitt et al. (2007) concluded "The centra have no characteristics they share with Coelophysis and other theropods to the exclusion of all other archosaurs. Furthermore, a ventral keel on dorsal vertebrae is found in Postosuchus (Long & Murry 1995) and basal crocodylomorphs such as Hesperosuchus (Parrish 1991). Therefore, a ventral keel is not unique to theropods. Accordingly, both of these specimens should be considered Archosauriformes indet."  However, because the centra are hollow as in poposaurs and ornithodirans, the vertebrae are referred to Archosauria indet. here, which is also true of the Krzyzanowski bonebed centra.
NMMNH P-34468 was discovered on December 31, 1994, and was said by Heckert (2001, 2004) to have "a thin ring of bone surrounding a comparatively large calcite infilling. There is an extensor pit, so this is probably a theropod phalanx."   However, both thin-walled limb bones and extensor pits are also present in poposaurs and pterosauromorphs, so this is more conservatively Archosauria indet.. 
References- Heckert, 1997. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic lower Chinle Group (Adamanian: Latest Carnian), of the Zuni Mountains, west-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 11, 29-39.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000)
Norian, Late Triassic
Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, New Mexico
Material
- (NMMNH P-29996) distal caudal vertebra
(NMMNH P-33691) dorsal vertebra
Comments- Heckert et al. (2000) assigned the dorsal vertebra to Eucoelophysis sp., but it is not identifiable past Archosauria (Nesbitt et al., 2007). The distal caudal vertebra is indistinguishable from Coelophysis and catalogued as Theropoda, but is also not identifiable past Archosauria (Nesbitt et al., 2007).
References- Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000. Preliminary description of coelophysoids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian: early-mid Norian) Snyder quarry, north-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 27–32.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas and Rinehart, 2003. Coelophysids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Snyder quarry. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 24, 127–132.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Archosauria indet. (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-176, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-16656; paratype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli; intended paratype of "Revueltoraptor lucasi") anterior dorsal centra, posterior dorsal centra, caudal centra (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-177, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US

(NMMNH P-4882) partial sacral vertebra (Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revuelto Creek NMMNH L-463, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-16844) partial dorsal vertebra (Hunt, 1994)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-4126) proximal femur (Heckert et al., 2000)
(NMMNH P4375) vertebral fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4380) vertebral fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4440) central fragment (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4547) phalanx (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P4666) two pubic fragments (Hunt, 1994)
?(NMMNH P16607) tooth fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P16946) two centrum fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17134) dorsal vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, pelvic fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17154) three centra (Hunt, 1994)
(NMMNH P17258) vertebrae, scapula, fragments (Hunt, 1994)
(UCM 47221; in part; holotype of Gojirasaurus quayi) tooth, proximal cervical rib, mid dorsal rib, mid dorsal rib shaft, proximal posterior dorsal rib, two partial gastralia, proximal chevron, scapula (314 mm), partial metatarsal (Hunt, 1994)
(UMMP 7274) two dorsal centra (Hunt, 1994)
Comments- NMMNH P4666, P16607, P16946, P17134, P17258, UCM 47221 and UMMP 7274 were originally referred to Hunt's (1994) new taxon of herrerasaurid "Revueltoraptor lucasi", called herrerasaurid A by Hunt et al. (1998). UCM 47221 (which also includes dorsal material, a pubis and a tibia) was made the holotype of the coelophysoid Gojirasaurus quayi by Carpenter (1997) after being described by Parrish and Carpenter (1986). NMMNH P16656 was referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995). Nesbitt et al. (2007) found that the referred specimens noted by Hunt could not be assigned to a particular taxon, nor could the Gojirasaurus material except for the dorsal vertebrae (Shuvosaurus) and the pubis and tibia (a possibly indeterminate coelophysoid). The remaining parts of the Gojirasaurus/'Revueltoraptor" holotype and the referred "Revueltoraptor" material are possibly shuvosaurid or theropod, and are listed here.
NMMNH P4375, P4380, P4440 and P4547 were originally referred to Hunt's (1994) new taxon of herrerasaurid "Comanchesaurus kuesi", called herrerasaurid B by Hunt et al. (1998). Nesbitt et al. (2007) found they could not be assigned to a particular archosaurian taxon. Heckert et al. (2000) described and illustrated NMMNH P-4126 as hererrasaurid B, noted to be similar to Chindesaurus in their medially angled and squared-off femoral heads, but these characters are also seen in shuvosaurids and other basal dinosaurs.
NMMNH P-16656 consists of dorsal and caudal centra from Revuelto Creek collected in 1987 which were probably among those referred to "staurikosaurid (?"Chindesaurus")" by Hunt and Lucas (1989), and later officially referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995).  Hunt (1994) referred them to his supposed herrerasaurid "Revultoraptor lucasi" (whose holotype became Gojirasaurus), but later only called the specimen "a ?theropod", which Heckert et al. (2000) agreed with.   Nesbitt et al. (2007) cosnidered this among the material which cannot "be distinguished from those of Shuvosaurus or other archosaurs" and so placed it in Archosauria indet..  It has never been figured or described.
Discovered in 1987, Heckert et al. (2000) figured partial sacral vertebra NMMNH P-4882 (labeled as a dorsal in the figure) from Revuelto Creek locality NMMNH L-177 as possibly being Chindesaurus.  However, comparison with dorsals and sacrals of Chindesaurus show the latter has transversely broader centra in both ventral and articular views so it is here assigned to Archosauria indet.. 
Discovered in 1987, Hunt (1994) listed partial dorsal NMMNH P-16844 from Revuelto Creek locality NMMNH L-463 as 'Herrerasauridae indet.', by which he meant "a distinct herrarasaurid taxon of the size of "Chindesaurus bryansmalli"" and which was later called "A third, smaller herrerasaurid (C)" by Hunt et al. (1998).  Heckert et al. (2000) figured it as a herrerasaur which "generally conforms to the holotype vertebrae of Chindesaurus bryansmalli", but it is even more transversely compressed than NMMNH P-4882 so is referred to Archosauria indet. here as well.
References- Parrish and Carpenter, 1986. A new vertebrate fauna from the Dockum Formation (Late Triassic) of eastern New Mexico. In: Padian, K. (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge Univ. Press, NewYork. Pp.151-160.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Albuquerque, Univerrsity of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Carpenter, 1997. A Giant Coelophysoid (Ceratosauria) Theropod from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie, Abhandlungen 205(2): 189-208.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531. 
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. In Lucas and Heckert (eds). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

undescribed? archosaur (Anonymous, 1988)
Middle Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Guadalupe or Quay county, Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Comments- This is listed under Lagerpetonidae by Olshevsky (1991) as "Genus: [To be described from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico: a new kind of "thecodont similar to a small dinosaur"; cf. New Mexico Museum of Natural History publication Timetracks 8(4): p.4]".
References- Anonymous, 1988. Curator's Corner. Timetracks. 8(4), 4.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry NMMNH L-860, Colorado City Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-34057) partial ?caudal centrum
(NMMNH P-34058) two incomplete ?distal caudal centra
(NMMNH P-34069) partial metapodial
(NMMNH P-41435) partial ?caudal centrum
(NMMNH P-41436) partial metapodial
(NMMNH P-41439; lost) partial ?caudal centrum
Comments- Heckert (2001, 2004) referred this material to Theropoda because of its hollow nature, but this is also true in pterosauromorphs and poposaurs, and indeed the small size and age suggests lagerpetids as a possibility.  The vertebrae "bear dual ventral keels, and thus are almost certainly caudals."  All of this material was collected in 1988, and the NMMNH online catalogue reports that P-41439 is missing.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauria indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lower Kalgary NMMNH L-1312, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-34325) proximal metapodial
(NMMNH P-34326) partial cervical or anterior dorsal centrum
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Upper Kalgary NMMNH L-1430, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(NMMNH P-34154) distal phalanx
?(NMMNH P-26340) proximal ?femur
(NMMNH P-26341) proximal ?metapodial
Comments- The metapodial and centrum from Lower Kalgary are both hollow, which led Heckert (2001, 2004) to refer them to theropods, but is also true of pterosauromorphs and poposaurs.  While he suggests "its small size would indicate that it is from little more than a hatchling", its length (~5 mm when complete) is comparable to lagerpetids and Lagosuchus.
Discovered in 1988 (P-34154) and February 21, 1997 (P-26340, P-26341), Heckert (2001, 2004) referred the Upper Kalgary specimens to Theropoda indet. based on their hollow shafts, but that's true in pterosauromorphs and poposaurs as well.  While Heckert describes NMMNH P-26341 as "elongate distal limb element, possibly a femoral shaft", the NMMNH online catalogue classifies it as a proximal metapodial of Reptilia indet.. Heckert states "Although it appears hollow in cross-sectional view, this may well just be the marrow cavity", so it may be another kind of amniote.  Similarly, while he describes NMMNH V26340 as "an elongate distal phalanx with several extensor pits lateral(?) to a deeper dorsal pit", it's a proximal femur of Reptilia indet. in the catalogue.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

Archosauria indet. (Chatterjee, 1993)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material- (TTU-P11045; = TTU-P9281 in part; paratype of Shuvosaurus inexpectatus) proximal scapula
Comments- Chatterjee (1993) referred a scapula (then part of TTU-P9281; since separated as TTU-P11045) to his new supposed ornithomimosaur Shuvosaurus, but the latter ended up being a pseudosuchian. The element doesn't resemble shuvosaurid scapulae (Long and Murry, 1995), and is too small to belong to any Shuvosaurus individuals preserved in the quarry (Lehane, 2005). Lehane ascribed it to Theropoda indet., and indeed there is a small coelophysoid femur in the quarry, but it also resembles other small taxa from the quarry such as silesaurids. While Martz et al. (2012) retained its referral to Shuvosaurus, they didn't comment further and this seems unlikely based on the slender shaft which is more like ornithodirans.
References- Chatterjee, 1993. Shuvosaurus, a new theropod. National Geographic Research and Exploration. 9(3), 274-285.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Martz, Mueller, Nesbitt, Stocker, Parker, Atanassov, Fraser, Weinbaum and Lehane, 2012. A taxonomic and biostratigraphic re-evaluation of the Post Quarry vertebrate assemblage from the Cooper Canyon Formation (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic) of southern Garza County, western Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26.

unnamed archosaur (Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Downs, Clemmenssen, Bonde, Davidson and Osbaeck, 1993)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Orsted Dal Member of the Fleming Fjord Formation, Greenland, Denmark
Material
- (MCZ coll.) vertebrae including dorsal centra, ribs, partial pelvis, partial hindlimb including femur (330 mm), phalanges and pedal unguals
Comments- Jenkins et al. (1993) reported theropods from this formation, but the eventual more detailed version of Jenkins et al. (1994) reported only a single specimen. This was referred to Theropoda based on- constricted dorsal vertebral centra; slender and hollow limb elements; mediolaterally compressed and curved pedal unguals. Clammensen et al. (2015) reported "classification of the remains attributed to theropods is not supported by any clear diagnostic theropodan feature and might alternatively be phytosaurian in origin."
References- Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Downs, Clemmenssen, Bonde, Davidson and Osbaeck, 1993. A Late Triassic continental vertebrate fauna from the Fleming Fjord Formation, Jameson Land, east Greenland. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 74.
Jenkins, Shubin, Amaral, Gatesy, Schaff, Clemmensen, Rowns, Davidson, Bonde and Osbaeck, 1994. Late Triassic continental vertebrates and depositional environments of the Fleming Fjord Formation, Jameson Land, east Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Geoscience. 32, 1-25.
Clemmensen, Milàn, Adolfssen, Estrup, Frobøse, Klein, Mateusand Wings, 2015. The vertebrate-bearing Late Triassic Fleming Fjord Formation of central east Greenland revisited: Stratigraphy, palaeoclimate and new palaeontological data. Geological Society Special Publications. 434. doi: 10.1144/SP434.3

Archosauria indet. (Seeley, 1887)
Late Albian, Early Cretaceous
Gault Clay (reworked into Cambridge Greensand), England
Lectotype
- (SMC B58402) incomplete sacral vertebra (11 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Barrett and Evans, 2002) femoral head strongly curved anteriorly; very strong trochanteric crest and intertrochanteric fossa.
Comments- Patricosaurus merocratus was based on two unassociated specimens, a sacral vertebra found before 1859 and a proximal femur (SMC B58401) discovered in the 1880's. Seeley (1887) believed both belonged to the same taxon since he thought "there was little chance of any remains of two lizards occurring" in the Cambridge Greensand, but stated the femur could remain as the type if the vertebra was found to not belong to the same taxon. Barrett and Evans (2002) redescribed the specimens and removed the vertebra from Patricosaurus, believing it to be either a crocodylian or an ornithischian. They thus referred it to Archosauria indet..
References- Seeley, 1887. On Patricosaurus merocratus, Seeley, a lizard from the Cambridge Greensand, preserved in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 43, 216-220.
Barrett and Evans, 2002. A reassessment of the Early Cretaceous reptile 'Patricosaurus merocratus' Seeley from the Cambridge Greensand, Cambridgeshire, UK. Cretaceous Research. 23, 231-240.

Archosauria indet. (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984)
Late Berriasian-Early Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Cornet bauxite, Bihor, Romania

Material- (MTCO 14422; = MTCO-P 1503) incomplete long bone
(MTCO 17956; = MTCO-P 6966; paratype of Limnornis corneti) long bone shaft
Comments- MTCO 14422 was discovered in 1978 and described by Kessler and Jurcsak (1984 and subsequent publications) as a humerus of Archaeopteryx sp.. Benton et al. (1997) noted it could equally well be from a non-bird theropod. Indeed, the missing proximal end, deltopectoral crest and distal end leave very little anatomical detail. Dyke et al. (2011) redescribed it, noting it cannot even be definitively identified as a humerus and could only refer it to Archosauria indet. as a long bone.
MTCO 17956 was originally (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984) decribed as an ulnar shaft and paratype of Limnornis corneti (later renamed Palaeocursornis corneti), and later (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986) a paratype of Eurolimnornis corneti. Hope (2002) noted it couldn't be referred definitively to either species, and Dyke et al. (2011) couldn't identify it past Archosauria indet., as the shaft of a long bone. The supposed nodes for secondary feathers are largely taphonomic.
References- Kessler and Jurcsák, 1984. Fossil birds remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Pa¢durea Craiului Mountains, Romania). 75 years of the Laboratory of Paleontology, University of Bucharest, Romania, Special Volume. 129-134.
Kessler and Jurcsák, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Bihor county, Romania), Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. Grigore Antipa, Bucharest. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1986. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea I: Introducere (Evolution of the avifauna in the territory of Romania. Part I: Introduction). Crisia. 16, 577-615.
Kessler and Jurcsák, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania), Bucharest, Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. Grigore Antipa. 28, 290-295.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1987. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea II: Morfologia speciilor fosile (Evolution of the avifaune in the territory of Romania. Part II: Morphology of fossil species). Crisia. 17, 583-609.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1988. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romanei. Partea III: Filogenie si sistematice (Evolution of the avifauna in the territory of Romania. Part III: Phylogeny and systematics). Crisia. 18, 647-688.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1991. The Lower Cretaceous paleofauna from Cornet, Bihor County, Romania and its importance. Nymphaea. 21, 5-32.
Benton, Cook, Grigorescu, Popa and Tallodi, 1997. Dinosaurs and other tetrapods in an Early Cretaceous bauxite-filled fissure, northwestern Romania. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 130(1-4), 275-292.
Hope, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In Chiappe and Witmer (eds). Mesozoic birds: Above the heads of dinosaurs. Berkeley: University of California Press. 339-388.
Dyke, Benton, Posmosanu and Naish, 2011. Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) birds and pterosaurs from the Cornet bauxite mine, Romania. Palaeontology. 54(1), 79-95.

Archosauria indet. (Huene, 1942)
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Excavation site 44, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone,  Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Material
- (GPIT 479/0249; paratype of Spondylosoma absconditum) partial mid caudal vertebra (33.4 mm)
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Excavation site 45, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
(GPIT 479/0256a; paratype of Spondylosoma absconditum) proximal radius
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Find site 1045, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
(GPIT 479/0256b) partial cervical vertebra
(GPIT 479/30/14) proximal tibia
Comments- Huene (1942) described GPIT 479/0249 as an anterior dorsal vertebra of a larger individual of Spondylosoma than the type, but Galton (2000) reidentified it as caudal and noted "The maximum height and length of the centrum are subequal, somewhat in contrast to the relatively low and elongate centra of the dorsal and sacral vertebrae of Spondylosoma, so it is unlikely that this caudal vertebra is referable to Spondylosoma."  Huene described GPIT 479/0256a as a distal radius probably referrable to Spondylosoma, but Galton noted "the articular end surface is not convex, as it should be for a distal end, but is sinuous, being partly concave and partly convex as is the case for the proximal surface of a radius."  He referred both of these specimens to Archosauria incertae sedis.  Huene described GPIT 479/0256b as a saurischian, probably a coelurosaur, but it was "provisionally regarded as Archosauria incertae sedis" by Galton, who stated "it indicates the existence of a form with an extremely specialized neck" as the anterior centrum surface is angled dorsally.  Huene stated tibia GPIT 479/30/14 was most similar to saurischians and especially coelurosaurs but was much smaller  than Spondylosoma.  Galton reidentified it as Archosauria incertae sedis due to "the absence of a cnemial crest, one of the synapomorphies supporting monophyly of the Dinosauriformes." 
References- Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes: Ergebnisse der Sauriergrabungen in Sudbrasilien 1928/29. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 332 pp.
Galton, 2000. Are Spondylosoma and Staurikosaurus (Santa Maria Formation, Middle-Upper Triassic, Brazil) the oldest saurischian dinosaurs? Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 74, 393-423.

Archosauria indet. (Malkani, 2006)
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan

Material- (GSP/MSM-780-2) ?vertebral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-984-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1027-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1041-2) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1044-2) ?humeral fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-1054-2) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1076-2) proximal ?ulna (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-43-4) ?metatarsal III fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-1042-4) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-282-15) ?caudal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-41-16) ?metatarsal II fragment (Malkani, 2020)
?(GSP/MSM-42-16) ?metatarsal II fragment (Malkani, 2020)
(GSP/MSM-1040-16) ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1043-16) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1044-16) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
(GSP/MSM-1048-16) partial ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-61-19; intended syntype of "Vitakridrinda sulaimani") ?cranial and/or ?axial elements (Malkani, 2006)
(GSP/MSM-706-19) partial ?dorsal centrum (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-765-19) partial ?dorsal vertebra (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1039-19) ?limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-unnumbered-19) ?cranial material, teeth? (Malkani, 2020)
(GSP/MSM-1057-K) limb bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1059-K) long bone fragment (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1050) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1051) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1052) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
?(GSP/MSM-1053) coprolite (Malkani, 2009)
Comments- A supposed holotype (actually syntype) specimen of Malkani's proposed abelisaurid "Vitakridrinda" is block GSP/MSM-61-19 (mislabeled GSP/MSM-62-19 in early papers), initially reported as including the triangular coronal section of a tooth (e.g. Malkani, 2006).  Malkani (2020) later included a drawing showing at least thirteen additional much smaller structures labeled as teeth and another two labeled as cranial bones.  Malkani compares it to abelisaurids, but while the first premaxillary tooth of Majungasaurus is roughly similar in shape with a flat lingual side, it differs greatly in having enamel of roughly equal thickness around the entire tooth.  The structure in GSP/MSM-61-19 instead has "walls" that steadily decrease in thickness to tapered points "mesially" and "distally" from a maximum thickness at the "labial" corner.  This is unlike any theropod tooth sections, so the Vitakri structure is something else.  The additional supposed teeth are at most a third the size of the main supposed tooth and are of varying shapes, while the only visible supposed cranial element (described as "eye peripheral bone/lacrimal and other trirays star like bones") is equal in size to some of these larger supposed teeth.  Thus if the major structure were a tooth, these would be far too small to be additional teeth or circumorbital elements like a lacrimal or postorbital.  Given the preservation style in Vitakri taxa like Induszalim and Vitakrisaurus, it is likely this block shows cross sections of often hollow cranial and/or axial elements.  It is tentatively referred to Archosauria indet. here.
GSP/MSM-780-2, 984-2 and 1027-2 were referred to the abelisaur "Vitakridrinda" by Malkani (2009), then to supposed abelisauroid Vitakrisaurus by Malkani (2019) along with GSP/MSM-1044-2 and 1076-2.  None of these specimens can be confirmed anatomically or taxonomically besides being large enough to be archosaurs in a Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystem.
Several additional specimens were referred to "Vitakririnda" by Malkani (2009).  GSP/MSM-1082-15 is a subcircular and concave central articular surface, while 1040-16 is concave but 1.4 times taller than wide and 1048-16 is taller than wide as well.  GSP/MSM-706-19 may be tall or with a dorsally displaced articular surface, and may be camellate interiorly in which case it would be saurischian.  GSP/MSM-765-19 is presented as a dorsal centrum with "central hollow cavity", but the latter instead seems to be the centrum itself with attached ventral portion of the neural arch including the neural canal.  Malkani's supposed centrum would then be the sediment nodule around the bone.  GSP/MSM-1057-K is a shaft fragment ~71x63 mm with a bone thickness ratio of ~0.22.  GSP/MSM-1041-2, 1042-4, 1043-16, 1044-16 and 1039-19 are either unillustrated or illustrated/preserved too poorly for comment.  GSP/MSM-1050, 1051, 1052, 1053 and 1054-2 are all supposedly pieces of coprolites.  All of this material is tentatively referred to Archosauria indet. here.
Finally, some elements were referred by Malkani (2020).  GSP/MSM-43-4, 41-16 and 42-16 are supposed metatarsal fragments.  "MSM-un-number-19" is labeled "teeth and cranial materials" and is represented by a low resolution photo containing two elongate subparalell structures that could be teeth with other bony material proximal(?) to them.  If these are teeth, they could just as easily be theropod, sauropod or crocodylian among other options.
References- Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2019. Vitakrisaurus saraiki theropod from south Asia. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 643-645.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.

"Cryptoraptor" Hunt, 1994 vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
"C. lockleyi" Hunt, 1994 vide Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007
Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-17375; theropod D) (small) vertebral centra, pubis, proximal femora
Comments- Discovered on July 1 1989.  Originally named by Hunt (1994) in his unpublished thesis, it was identified as a theropod there, by Hunt et al. (1998) and by Hunt (2001). Nesbitt et al. (2007) later found the femora are too fragmentary for identification, the vertebrae are identical to Shuvosaurus, and that the pubis resembles Shuvosaurus more than dinosaurs. Specifically the acetabulum is closed as in non-dinosaurian taxa and the symphysis extends far proximally as in shuvosaurids. They assigned it to Archosauria indet., but it seems possible this is a shuvosaurid or even a specimen of Shuvosaurus itself.
Although the name "Cryptoraptor lockleyi" was originally used in thesis, and thus not available for use in this website, it was later published by Nesbitt et al. (2007).
References- Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Albuquerque, Univerrsity of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Hunt, 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, 123-151.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Lametasaurus

Lukousaurus

"Plateosaurus" ornatus

Tanystrosuchus Kuhn, 1963
T. posthumus (Huene, 1908) Kuhn, 1963
= Tanystropheus posthumus Huene, 1908
= Thecodontosaurus posthumus (Huene, 1908) Fraas, 1913
= Halticosaurus posthumus (Huene, 1908) Huene, 1932
= Coelophysis posthumus (Huene, 1908) Olshevsky, 1991
Norian, Late Triassic
Middle Stubensandstein, Germany

Holotype- (SMNS 4385) distal caudal vertebra (39 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Huene, 1908) no notch between distal caudal prezygapophysis and centrum.
Other diagnoses- Huene (1908) also distinguished posthumus from Tanystropheus conspicuus and T. antiquus based on its supposedly enlarged and elongated postzygapophyses, while the prezygapophyses were said to be rudimentary. Yet he had the vertebra oriented backwards, as it is actually the prezygapophyses which are elongate (65% of central length). Comparably elongate prezygapophyses are known in other taxa such as Effigia, herrerasaurids and many averostrans. Additionally, the neural spine was said to be more reduced than other Tanystropheus species, and the ventral surface has a median groove instead of being flat and/or keeled. The former is typical of theropod distal caudals while the latter is also found in Effigia and most neotheropods.
Huene (1932) states a unique character is the lack of elongation, but this varies continuously in most archosaur caudal series.
Comments- Collected in the 1860's, this was first described and figured by Meyer (1865) as the caudal vertebra of an unknown reptile. Huene (1908) named it Tanystropheus (consistantly misspelled Tanystrophaeus) posthumus, as the elongate cervicals of Tanystropheus were thought to be theropod caudals at the time. SMNS 4385 was noted to be similar to Tanystropheus cervicals in being elongate, lacking transverse processes and having a reduced neural spine. These characters led Huene to refer Tanystropheus to Coeluridae, though they are now recognized as typical features for theropod caudal vertebrae. Today, coelurids and other related basal coelurosaurs are known to be restricted to the Jurassic and Cretaceous and have shorter prezygapophyses than Tanystrosuchus. Both Meyer and Huene had the vertebra backwards, interpreting its elongate prezygapophyses as postzygapophyses. Fraas (1913) thought much of the Pfaffenhofen quarry material was probably referrable to a small thecodontosaur, which he provisionally used the combination Thecodontosaurus (misspelled Thekodontosaurus) posthumus for. However, posthumus is from the Heslach quarry, not Pfaffenhofen. Fraas did not provide evidence for his reassignment, and Tanystrosuchus differs supposed Thecodontosaurus distal caudals (e.g. YPM 56736) in having a ventral groove, smaller more medially placed postzygapophyses, and larger, longer prezygapophyses. By 1932, Huene had oriented the vertebra correctly and removed posthumus from Tanystropheus, since new remains of the latter had shown it was a nondinosaurian reptile whose elongated vertebrae were cervicals. He instead called it "Tanystropheus" (gen. indet.) posthumus and assigned it to Coelurosauria, although in one table it is listed as Halticosaurus posthumus. This may have been mistakenly retained from an earlier version of the paper, since he does say posthumus could belong to Halticosaurus or Dolichosuchus. Steel (1970) also suggested posthumus might be referrable to Halticosaurus, while Olshevsky (1991) listed it as possibly being Halticosaurus or Liliensternus (which was placed in Halticosaurus until 1984). While Halticosaurus and Dolichosuchus are known from the same formation (but different quarries), they do not preserve distal caudal vertebrae so cannot be compared. Liliensternus loses its transverse processes on caudal 22 and its neural spines at about caudal 30. This fits with Tanystrosuchus' holotype being most similar in proportions to caudal 32 of those illustrated for Liliensternus. It differs from Liliensternus in having longer prezygapophyses (65% of central length compared to 17-22%), less dorsally projected zygapophyses, and lacking a notch between the prezygapophysis and centrum. These seem to be true in all illustrated caudals similar in position to Tanystrosuchus' (20, 24, 32, 38), so probably indicate it is not synonymous. Kuhn (1963) created the new genus Tanystrosuchus for posthumus, as he also decided it was not referrable to Tanystropheus. Wild (1973) also rejected the synonymy of posthumus with Tanystropheus conspicuus. Tanystrosuchus differs from Tanystropheus in having longer prezygapophyses and lacks Tanystropheus' tall bladelike neural spine. In 1965, Kuhn stated Tanystrosuchus might be protorosaurid instead of dinosaurian. Yet Protorosaurus distal caudals differ in having short prezygapophyses, longer postzygapophyses, knob-like transverse processes and a tall bifurcated neural spine. Norman (1990) noted the long prezygapophyses were suggestive of theropod relationship, but considered it a nomen dubium. Olshevsky (1991) placed Tanystrosuchus in Halticosauridae and listed the combination Coelophysis posthumus as a prior synonym, though I have yet to locate this in an earlier published work. Glut (1997) merely listed the genus as a nondinosaurian reptile. Most recently, Rauhut and Hungerbuhler (2000) briefly redescribed and illustrated the material, listing it as Tanystrophaeus posthumus. Their conclusions match Norman's- that it is an indeterminate theropod based on the prezygapophyseal length.
Tanystrosuchus is similar to coelophysoids in general form- elongate amphicoelous centrum (3.25 times longer than tall) with median ventral groove, neural spine reduced to a slight ridge over the postzygapophyses, transverse process reduced to a longitudinal ridge, elongate prezygopophysis and short postzygapophysis. However, the prezygapophysis is actually longer than in coelophysids, 65% of central length compared to 35% in Coelophysis rhodesiensis, 25% in Coelophysis bauri, 22% in Liliensternus and 37% in Dilophosaurus. In this respect Tanystrosuchus is more similar to herrerasaurids and averostrans (e.g. Elaphrosaurus). It differs from herrerasaurids in having the ventral groove and from known averostrans in being Triassic in age, though if coelophysoids are monophyletic we would expect Norian averostrans. Another perhaps more plausible identification is as a shuvosaurid, which are common in the Late Triassic. Effigia has distal caudals which exhibit the same characters noted above for coelophysoids (including the ventral groove), except its prezygapophyses are longer (at least 58% of central length). The preserved caudals have neural spines, albeit low ones, but these are all proximal to the thirtieth caudal and it is probable that more distal ones lacked neural spines as in theropods and Tanystrosuchus. It differs from all examined theropods and Effigia in lacking a notch between the prezygapophysis and centrum. While the anatomy favors a shuvosaurid or averostran identification, stratigraphy favors the former only to the extent that Triassic shuvosaurids are certainly known while Triassic averostrans are unknown but possible depending on theropod topology. Also a factor is that variation along the tail is poorly described for most taxa discussed here, so while the published evidence suggests coelophysoid prezygapophyses never exceed half of centrum length and herrerasaurids lack ventral grooves, this is not as well established as it could be. For now, I recommend Tanystrosuchus posthumus be referred to Archosauria incertae sedis.
References- Meyer, 1865. Reptilien aus dem Stubensandstein des oberen Keupers (Dritte Folge). Palaeontographica. 14, 99-124.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europäischen Triasformation mit berücksichtigung der Ausseuropäischen vorkommnisse. Geologische und Palaeontologische Abhandlungen. Supplement 1(1), 1-419.
Fraas, 1913. Die neuesten Dinosaurierfunde in der schwäbischen Trias [The newest dinosaur finds in the Swabian Trias]. Naturwissenschaften. 1(45), 1097-1100.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Kuhn, 1963. Sauria (Supplementum I). In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 104. 87 pp.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia (Supplementum 1). In Fossilium Catalogus 1. Animalia. 109, 94 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1-87.
Wild, 1973. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. XXIII. Tanystropheus longobardicus (Bassani) (Neue Ergebnisse). Schweizerische Palaontologische Abhandlungen. 95, 1-162.
Norman, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Coelurosaurs". in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds). The Dinosauria. University of California Press: Berkeley. 280-305.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Rauhut and Hungerbuhler, 2000. A review of European Triassic theropods. Gaia. 15, 75-88.

Vitakrisauria Malkani, 2010c
Vitakrisauridae Malkani, 2010c
= "Vitakrisauridae" Malkani, 2010a
Vitakrisaurinae Malkani, 2010c
= "Vitakrisaurinae" Malkani, 2010a
Comments- Malkani (2010c) proposed the theropod taxon Vitakrisauria for his new genus Vitakrisaurus (and presumably other taxa he referred to Vitakrisauridae- "Vitakridrinda" and Rajasaurus), but never states its diagnosis or relation to established theropod taxa like Abelisauria or Ceratosauria. It is probable he intended it as an inapprioriate replacement name for Abelisauria, similar to his use of "Pakisauridae" and "Balochisauridae" for Titanosauridae and Saltasauridae respectively. Unfortunately, as Vitakrisaurus is here viewed as an indeterminate archosaur, any higher taxon associated with it is useless.
Malkani (2010a) first proposed Vitakrisauridae for Vitakridrinda, Rajasaurus "and its close relative" within abelisaurs. As he did not name Vitakrisaurus itself until six months later, this was a nomen nudum (ICZN Article 13.2). It is further invalid in lacking a diagnosis (13.1.1; Malkani merely says it's due to "complex characters of Vitakridrinda sulaimani", "very far locations from South America", and "an endemic character of its associated Balochisauridae and Pakisauridae"). The same issues invalidate his proposed subfamily Vitakrisaurinae, for "Vitakridrinda" only. Malkani (2010b) later used Vitakrisauridae in the title of a paper on "Vitakridrinda", but Vitakrisaurus was still unnamed. In 2010c, Malkani officially named Vitakrisaurus and used both Vitakrisauridae and Vitakrisaurinae. These again lack diagnoses, but since Vitakrisaurus itself was given one and both family and subfamily are noted as being new, they are valid as of that publication. Vitakrisaurus and "Vitakridrinda" do not share any preserved elements, and contra Malkani, cannot be assumed to be related due to geography alone. Indeed, Vitakrisaurus is here reinterpreted as archosaur vertebral sections while "Vitakridrinda" is currently based on probably abelisaurid proximal femora.  Rajasaurus does not preserve proximal femora and its vertebrae are difficult to compare to Vitakrisaurus but are about three times as large.  Both Virakrisauridae and Vitakrisaurinae are unfortunately not useful without a more precise identification of Vitakrisaurus itself.
References- Malkani, 2010a. New Pakisaurus (Pakisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) remains, and Cretaceous Tertiary (K-T) boundary from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(1), 39-64.
Malkani, 2010b. Vitakridrinda (Vitakrisauridae, Theropoda) from the Latest Cretaceous of Pakistan. Journal of Earth Science. 21(Special Issue 3), 204-212.
Malkani, 2010c. Stratigraphy and mineral potential of Sulaiman (Middle Indus) basin, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(2), 39-66.
Vitakrisaurus Malkani, 2010
V. saraiki Malkani, 2010
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan

Holotype- (GSP/MSM-303-2) posterior centrum fragment, partial vertebra (~24 mm), partial vertebra (~24 mm), partial vertebra (~24 mm), anterior centrum fragment?, element
Other diagnoses- Originally Malkani (2010) diagnosed Vitakrisaurus versus his titanosaur "Pakisaurus" with "the length and width ratio is 3 in this theropod while in Pakisaurus (Pakisauridae, Sauropoda) is 1.5."  The supposed pedal ungual is here identified as a vertebral centrum fragment, making the diagnosis obsolete.
Malkni (2019) provided an extensive diagnosis, of which the following refers to the holotype (identified as a manus at the time)- "thick bones of manus/hand; Metacarpal I is short and thick, metacarpal II and metacarpal III are thick, long and subequal; manual phalanges are thick; and manual ungual/claw I is thick and slightly recurved downward."  While these are obsolete under my interpretation of the specimen as vertebrae, the manual elements as interpreted by Malkani aren't particularly thick, metacarpal I is illustrated as slender and ~60% of metacarpal II length, metacarpal II is also illustrated as slender, and metacarpal III is illustrated as unpreserved.  Additional supposed diagnostic characters are based on referred specimens placed in Titanosauria below- "circular elongated cylinder type dorsal centrum jointed on all dorsal length with neural arch (while dorsal centra of Vitakridrinda is rectangular and elongated while the dorsal centrum of Rajasaurus is tall); Vitakrisaurus has transverse process on upper part of caudal centrum and extends into neural arch like Rajasaurus while Vitakridrinda has oval shaped transverse process which did not contact with neural arch and located on upper part of posterior articular ring on anterior caudal centrum. Neural arch on anterior caudal is forwardly inserted while in Rajasaurus the neural arch covers all along the dorsal surface of centrum [note this is a titanosaurian character]. Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel in dorsal and caudal centra while Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus had ventral keel. Vitakrisaurus neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed while Rajasaurus it is circular shaped; Vitakrisaurus has well developed chevron facets in anterior/mid caudals while Rajasaurus has no chevron facets. Vitakrisaurus anterior and midcaudal vertebrae have posterior yard on posterior uncover part of dorsal aspect of centrum surrounded by laterally and posteriorly thin boundary wall while this yard is not found in Rajasaurus".
Comments- Malkani's GSP specimen numbers are designed so that the last number is the locality and the first is the specimen-specific number from that locality, so are listed in order of locality first.  Malkani proposed the name Vitakrisaurus saraiki in 2010 for a supposed pes he had previously referred to juvenile "Vitakridrinda" in 2009. Malkani only explicitly diagnoses it relative to the sauropod "Pakisaurus" and assigns it to Vitakrisauridae within Abelisauroidea along with "Vitakridrinda", which was not assigned pedal material until 2020. Thus it is uncertain how Vitakrisaurus is supposed to differ from other theropods. The photo differs markedly from the illustration, with three segments obvious that Malkani interprets as distal metatarsal II (mislabeled 'metacarpal'), a too-short phalanx II-1 and phalanx II-2.  The "medial" view interprets these same segments as phalanges II-1, II-2 and pedal ungual II.  However, the side edges of these segments do not resemble pedal elements except that "lateral" metatarsal II and "ventral" phalanx II-2 are concave, with "lateral" edges of both phalanges being convex and other "ventral" and "dorsal" edges broken.  There is a continuous strip of bone where digit III should be, but with an irregular outline completely unlike the three phalanges and ungual drawn by Malkani.  There is a structure "lateral" to metatarsal II which would correspond to metatarsal III, but it is not represented in Malkani's drawing.  Of the supposed four phalanges plus ungual from digit IV, only one structure is obvious, "lateral" to the joint bwtween phalanges II-1 and II-2.  The "medial" view adds structures "distal" and "ventral" to phalanx II-2, neither claw shaped, plus some irregularities further "ventral" in the matrix.  A supposed structure labeled 'scale' is shown far "dorsal" to where the matrix ends in the illustration, though whether this is supposed to derive from Vitakrisaurus or something else like a fish is never stated.  By 2019, Malkani had reinterpreted the specimen as a manus, and while his drawing is more accurate the same criticisms largely apply.  The three obvious segments are reinterpreted as metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, and manual ungual I (in both "dorsal" and "medial" views this time), the continuous strip of bone is manual digit II (this time with what would be distal metacarpal II represented in Malkani's drawing) and of digit III only one structure is obvious (this time a phalanx between drawn phalanges III-1 and III-2).  The distal and ventral structures in "medial" view are now interpreted as "Phalange II & III of digit III", while the irregularities are labeled "Armor Spike or tooth", "Claw/ungual" and "Carpal". 
After reviewing the available photos, I don't believe the holotype is a manus or pes.  Instead, aware of Vitakri specimens that are cross sections (e.g. the proposed type of "Induszalim"), this is interpreted as a sagittal section of three main consecutive vertebrae.  The "dorsal" view becomes a right lateral view, with the medialmost digit being the dorsal sections of each centrum.  The irregular middle digit is then the neural arches in section, with the gap between supposed digits being the neural canal in section.  The single obvious structure of the lateral digit is then a neural spine of the middle vertebra, placed at its posterior margin.  The "medial" view becomes ventral view, with the left half of each centrum in coronal section and potential pieces of the previous and next centra preserved in place.  Only one additional element is definitely present in this view, which has a section with a constricted middle, positioned to the left of the posterior vertebra.  While its outline might suggest a sacral rib, as a cross section it might be a distal humerus or femur instead, among other possibilities. 
Given this new interpretation, the vertebrae are ~24 mm long, which is too small for adult abelisaurids but could match noasaurids or baurusuchids among recognized Late Cretaceous Indo-Pakastani terrestrial vertebrates.  Theropod centra have thin walls even when not pneumatic, so are unlikely to correspond to the apparently solid centra of Vitakrisaurus.  Baurusuchid cervicals and posterior dorsals have the approximate dimensions of neural arch height versus centrum length with a posteriorly limited neural spine, so are a possibility.  Yet with no obvious crocodyliform characters and the likely presence of ornithischians in the fauna, Vitakrisaurus is left as Archosauria indet. here.
Referred material- Malkani (2019) referred additional material to Vitakrisaurus, incorrectly calling other elements from the type locality lectotypes (a lectotype is actually a specimen subsequently chosen from a series of syntypes, whereas Vitakrisaurus only had a holotype originally instead of syntypes), and incorrectly calling them holotypes in 2020.  Most of these were originally intended paratypes (GSP/MSM53-2, 54-2, 55-2) or referred material (GSP/MSM-780-2, 984-2, 1027-2) of supposed abelisaur "Vitakridrinda" and seemingly referred based solely on the locality and Malkani's new interpretation of Vitakrisaurus as large after reidentifying its pes as a manus.  Given my interpretation of the holotype as ~24 mm long vertebrae, the "Vitakridrinda" paratypes are over three times too large and appear more likely to be titanosaur vertebrae based on the anteriorly restricted caudal neural arch.  Another intended "Vitakridrinda" paratype from a different locality (GSP/MSM-57-3) was referred to Vitakrisaurus in 2019 and is similarly three times too large and referred to Titanosauria here.  The other referred material from locality 2 (including GSP/MSM-1044-2 and 1076-2 of Malkani, 2020) consists of fragments preserved in section which cannot be identified given the available photos and should be Archosauria indet..   A proximal femur (GSP/MSM-1049-K) originally listed as a referred "Vitakridrinda" specimen (Malkani, 2009) was referred to Vitakrisaurus in 2019.  It is approximately two-thirds as large as "Vitakridrinda" and differs in having a greater trochanter extend proximally past the head as in several coelurosaur and ornithischian groups.  It is placed in Dinosauria indet. here, as the inturned head is unlike crocodyliforms.  Finally, Malkani (2019) referred a caudal vertebra and two chevron fragments (GSI K20/316, 318) described by Huene and Matley (1933) as referrable to Titanosaurus indicus.  Malkani may have decided this based on the amphicoelous centrum of GSI K20/316 unlike the usual procoelous titanosaur caudals, but Huene and Matley noted it was found with procoelous GSI K20/315 and "are, therefore, almost certainly adjoining vertebrae", and indeed several articulated examples of mixed coely in titanosaur tails have been described since.  The large size and anteriorly placed neural arch further confirm titanosaur affinities.
References- Huene and Matley, 1933. The Cretaceous Saurischia and Ornithischia of the central provinces of India. Palaeontologica Indica. 21, 1-74.
Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2010. Stratigraphy and mineral potential of Sulaiman (Middle Indus) basin, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(2), 39-66.
Malkani, 2011. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus of Vitakrisauridae Theropoda from Pakistan. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of IGCP 507 on Paleoclimates of the Cretaceous in Asia and their global correlation. Beijing, China. 59-66.
Malkani, 2015. Dinosaurs, mesoeucrocodiles, pterosaurs, new fauna and flora from Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-32.
Malkani, 2019. Vitakrisaurus saraiki theropod from south Asia. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 643-645.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.

Pseudosuchia Zittel, 1887
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
= Crocodylotarsi Benton and Clark, 1988
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Vultur gryphus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci, 1990
Definition- (Parasuchus hislopi + Ornithosuchus longidens + Prestosuchus chiniquensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
Other definitions- (Belodon plieningeri + Ornithosuchus longidens + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Phytosaurus cylindricodon + Ornithosuchus longidens + Prestosuchus chiniquensis+ Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Benton, 2004)
(fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal crurotarsal articulation as in Caiman crocodilus) (Gauthier et al., 2004)
(Rutiodon carolinensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Dasygnathoides

Phytosauria Baur, 1889
Definition- (Rutiodon carolinensis, Phytosaurus cylindricodon <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocodylus niloticus) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Paleorhinus bransoni + Phytosaurus cylindricodon) (modified from Doyle and Sues, 1995)
(Rutiodon carolinensis <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Parasuchia Huxley, 1875
= Belodontia Marsh, 1895
Definition- (Belodon plieningeri <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
= Phytosauriformes Hay, 1830
= Phytosauromorphi Hay, 1930
Comments- Phytosauria is often credited to Jaeger (1828), the original publication of Phytosaurus.  However, Jaeger never uses this term and the practice is based on a comment by Doyle and Sues (1995), who used the ICZN to argue "Phytosauren" counts as establishing Phytosauridae (itself questionable, see Mystrosuchinae comments).  Given this conclusion, they then claim Phytosauria should also be credited to Jaeger, 1828 based on the Principle of Coordination (then Article 36a, now Article 36.1- "A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group").  But the principle of coordination does not apply between group ranks, only within group ranks (family-group is Article 36; genus-group is Article 43; species-group is Article 46).  Otherwise, the author of a genus would be the author of the coordinated family, which is not the case.  Furthermore, taxa higher than family rank are not even governed by the ICZN, so its rules couldn't apply anyway.  Thus the correct author of Phytosauria is Baur, 1889.
Regarding its phylogenetic definition, that of Nesbitt (2011) is accepted with the addition of the eponymous species Phytosaurus cylindricodon (ICPN Article 11.10- "when a clade name is converted from a preexisting name that is typified under a rank-based code or is a new or converted name derived from the stem of a typified name, the definition of the clade name must use the type species of that preexisting typified name or of the genus name from which it is derived (or the type specimen of that species) as an internal specifier.").
References- Jaeger, 1828. Uber die fossilen Reptilien, welche in Wurtemberg aufgefunden worden sind. Metzler. 48 pp.
Baur, 1889. Mr. E. T. Newton on Pterosauria. The Geological Magazine. New Series. Decade III. 6(6), 171-174.
Doyle and Sues, 1995. Phytosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic New Oxford Formation of York County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15, 545-553.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

"Zanclodon" arenaceus
Comments- This is closer to parasuchids than Diandongosuchus based on the splenial symphysis.

Parasuchidae Lydekker, 1885
Definition- (Parasuchus hislopi + Wannia scurriensis + Mystriosuchus planirostris) (Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015)
= Belodontidae Cope, 1871
References- Lydekker, 1885. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Maleri and Denwa groups. Palaeontologia Indica, Series 1. 1(1), 1-38.
Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015. Relationships of the Indian phytosaur Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(1), 1-23.

Belodon

Centemodon

Clepsysaurus
C. pennsylvanicus
Clepsysaurus? fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Hay, 1930
= Paleosaurus fraserianus Cope, 1878a (as Palaeosaurus fraserianus)
= Thecodontosaurus fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Hay, 1902
= Palaeosauriscus fraserianus (Cope, 1878a) Kuhn, 1965
Norian, Late Triassic
New Oxford Formation, Pennsylvania, US
Holotype
- (AMNH 1861) tooth (20x6.5x? mm)
Comments- Cope (1878a) described this tooth (which was first presented the year prior) as a new species of Palaeosaurus, at the time a common misspelling of Paleosaurus. Olshevsky (2000) was the first to correct the genus' spelling in this binomial. Note there is a valid genus Palaeosaurus (Geoffroy Sant-Hillaire, 1836; which is currently a junior synonym of the teleosaurid Steneosaurus) however, which caused Kuhn (1965) to incorrectly think Paleosaurus was preoccupied since its spelling is so similar. Thus he referred all Paleosaurus species to his new genus Palaeosauriscus, but this is unnecessary according to the ICZN. Paleosaurus itself is based on P. cylindrodon, an archosauriform tooth of uncertain affinities from the Norian of England which differs from fraserianus in having elongate and oblique serrations, being less recurved, and having a more tapered distal edge in section.
fraserianus a dinosaur? Nopsca (1901) was the first to assign the species explicitly to Dinosauria or Theropoda, assigning it to a subfamily Anchisauridae [sic] within Megalosauridae, but his anchisaurids consisted largely of basal sauropodomorphs and Triassic carnivorous archosauriform teeth. Hay (1902) had a similar concept for Anchisauridae within his Theropoda, similarly placing fraserianus there though assigning it to Thecodontosaurus, as he synonymized the genus with Paleosaurus. Note Colbert and Chaffee (1941) wrongly cited Cope (1878b) as using the combination Thecodontosaurus fraserianus, but that work only uses Thecodontosaurus for T. gibbidens. Hay (1930) retained fraserianus in Anchisauridae and Theropoda, but now placed it in the genus Clepsysaurus (a phytosaur), perhaps based on the similarity noted by Huene (see below). Steel (1970) referred it to his theropodan Ornithosuchidae, which besides Ornithosuchus contained Teratosaurus, Triassic carnivorous archosauriform teeth, and basal sauropodomorph remains incorrectly associated with the latter. The most confusing generic assignment has been that of Olshevsky (1991, 2000), who made fraserianus a junior synonym of Anchisaurus polyzelus, which is from the much later (Pliensbachian) Portland Formation of Connecticut. fraserianus is quite unlike sauropodomorph teeth (including Thecodontosaurus and Anchisaurus) in being highly recurved, with an unconstricted base, little labiolingual compression, and small serrations which are perpendicular to the tooth axis. The connection was maintained through history largely via ignorance of fraserianus' actual morphology in addition to continued confusion of Paleosaurus with Thecodontosaurus and Efraasia.
fraserianus a phytosaur? Lesley (1889) may be the first author to suggest fraserianus is phytosaur, albeit without evidence. Huene (1921) has been the only author to illustrate fraserianus, and briefly described the specimen as well. Huene convincingly illustrated the similarity with other New Oxford phytosaur teeth. He suggested fraserianus was synonymous with Clepsysaurus? veatleianus and/or Rutiodon carolinensis from the same formation. Colbert and Chaffee (1941) made fraserianus a junior synonym of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus, based on geography. Of Norian archosauriforms which have recurved teeth with small serrations, only some proterochampsids and parasuchid phytosaurs are reported to have reduced labiolingual compression as in fraserianus (80% of FABL). While proterochampsid teeth remain largely undescribed, they are exclusively South American, so are an unlikely identification for fraserianus. Indeed, parasuchid material is common in the New Oxford Formation, with Rutiodon carolinensis the only currently recognized valid taxon. It's therefore possible Huene was correct and that fraserianus is synonymous with Rutiodon, but the most recent review also suggested the presence of a larger, poorly characterized form (e.g. SMP VP-36; YPM-PU 11544). The tooth of fraserianus is much smaller than these latter elements, but could be ontogenetically young as well. Unfortunately, heterodonty is so great among parasuchid dentitions, few of which have been described in detail, that it is not currently possible to assign isolated teeth to particular genera or species. Thus fraserianus remains Parasuchidae indet., and is here placed questionably in Clepsysaurus as that is the only parasuchid genus prior authors have referred the species to.
References- Cope, 1878a. On some saurians found in the Triassic of Pennsylvania, by C. M. Wheatley. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 17(100), 231-232.
Cope, 1878b. Triassic saurians from Pennsylvania. The American Naturalist. 12, 58.
Lesley, 1889. A Dictionary of the Fossils of Pennsylvania and Neighboring States Named in the Reports and Catalogues of the Survey. Volume 2. The Board of Commissioners for the Geological Survey, Harrisburg. 914 pp.
Nopcsa, 1901. A dinosaurusok atnezete es szarmazasa. Földtani Közlöny. 31, 193-224.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United States Geological Survey Bulletin. 179, 868 pp.
Huene, 1921. Reptilian and stegocephalian remains from the Triassic of Pennsylvania in the Cope collection. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. 44(19), 561-574.
Hay, 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington. 390(II), 1-1074.
Colbert and Chaffee, 1941. The type of Clepsysaurus pennsylvanicus and its bearing upon the genus Rutiodon.
Kuhn, 1965. Saurischia (Supplementum 1). In Fossilium Catalogus 1. Animalia. 109, 94 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, Excluding the Advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.
C? veatleianus

"Megalosaurus" terquemi
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
France
Comments
- Quenstedt (1858) states (translated) "Mr. Terquem also mentions a big tooth from the Grès von Hettingen", referring to this.
References
- Quenstedt, 1858. Der Jura. H. Laupp'schen. 842 pp.

Palaeoctanus
P. appalachianus
P? aulacodus
P? dumblianus
P? orthodon

"Paleosaurus" platyodon

"Paleosaurus" stricklandi

Rileyasuchus
R. bristolensis
R? stutchburyi

Rutiodon? leaii

Suchoprion
S. cephodon
S? sulcidens


Mystriosuchinae Huene, 1915 vide Chatterjee, 1978
Definition- (Mystriosuchus planirostris + Angistorhinus grandis) (Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015)
= Phytosauridae Lydekker, 1888
Definitions- (Angistorhinus grandis + Rutiodon carolinensis + Mystriosuchus planirostris + Nicrosaurus kapffi + Pseudopalatus pristinus) (modified from Doyle and Sues, 1995)
(Angistorhinus grandis + Leptosuchus studeri + Mystriosuchus westphali) (modified from Stocker and Butler, 2013)
Comments- Phytosauridae is often credited to Jaeger (1828), the original publication of Phytosaurus.  However, Jaeger never uses this term and the practice is based on a comment by Doyle and Sues (1995), who used the ICZN to argue "Phytosauren" counts as establishing Phytosauridae.  This is based on Article 11.7.2- "if a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form."  The problem with this is that unlike Gervais' "Les Tanystrophes" example (see Tanystropheidae comments above), Jaeger's "Phytosauren" (not 'Phytosauriers' as claimed by Doyle and Sues) is never claimed to be a family.  In any case Kammerer et al. (2015) have successfully argued defining a Phytosauridae within Phytosauria would be difficult, as Phytosaurus itself is indeterminate.  I would argue that if Phytosaurus could be demonstrated to be nested within a Phytosauridae it could be used as an internal specifier (like Ceratops in Ceratopsia or Troodon in Troodontidae), but since it seems only to be confirmed as closer to Wannia and more derived taxa than Diandongosuchus and "Zanclodon" arenaceus (based on the circular alveoli), it cannot be used to define any smaller clade.  Instead, Kammerer et al. defined the derived family within Phytosauria as Parasuchidae, which correctly has three years of priority over Phytosauridae and has been adopted by most workers.
References- Jaeger, 1828. Uber die fossilen Reptilien, welche in Wurtemberg aufgefunden worden sind. Metzler. 48 pp.
Lydekker, 1888. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamta, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum of Natural History. 309 pp.
Huene, 1915. On reptiles of the New Mexican Trias in the Cope Collection. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 34, 485-507.
Chatterjee, 1978. A primitive parasuchid (phytosaur) reptile from the Upper Triassic Maleri Formation of India. Palaeontology. 21(1), 83-127.
Doyle and Sues, 1995. Phytosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic New Oxford Formation of York County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15, 545-553.
Stocker and Butler, 2013. Phytosauria. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379(1), 91-117.
Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015. Relationships of the Indian phytosaur Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(1), 1-23.

Leptosuchomorpha Stocker, 2010
Definition- (Leptosuchus studeri + Machaeroprosopus pristinus) (Stocker, 2010)
Other definition- (Leptosuchus studeri + Machaeroprosopus pristinus + Smilosuchus lithodendrorum) (Jones and Butler, 2018)
= Pseudopalatinae Long and Murry, 1995
Definition- (Nicrosaurus kapffi + Mystriosuchus planirostris + Pseudopalatus pristinus + Redondasaurus gregorii) (modified from Parker and Irmis, 2006)
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Parker and Irmis, 2006. A new species of the Late Triassic phytosaur Pseudopalatus (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 62, 126–143.
Stocker, 2010. A new taxon of phytosaur (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) from the Late Triassic (Norian) Sonsela Member (Chinle Formation) in Arizona, and a critical reevaluation of Leptosuchus Case, 1922. Palaeontology. 53(5), 997-1022.
Jones and Butler, 2018. A new phylogenetic analysis of Phytosauria (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) with the application of continuous and geometric morphometric character coding. PeerJ. 6:e5901.

Mystriosuchini Huene, 1915 vide Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015
Definition- (Mystriosuchus planirostris + Machaeroprosopus jablonskiae + Machaeroprosopus buceros) (Jones and Butler, 2018)
Other definition- (Nicrosaurus kapffi + Mystriosuchus planirostris + Machaeroprosopus buceros) (Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015)
References- Huene, 1915. On reptiles of the New Mexican Trias in the Cope Collection. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 34, 485-507.
Kammerer, Butler, Bandyopadhyay and Stocker, 2015. Relationships of the Indian phytosaur Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(1), 1-23.
Jones and Butler, 2018. A new phylogenetic analysis of Phytosauria (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia) with the application of continuous and geometric morphometric character coding. PeerJ. 6:e5901.

Suchia Krebs, 1974
Definition- (Aetosaurus ferratus + Poposaurus gracilis + Rauisuchus tiradentes + Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
Other definitions- (Aetosaurus ferratus + Rauisuchus tiradentes + Prestosuchus chiniquensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Rauisuchiformes Parrish, 1993
Definition- (Aetosaurus ferratus + Rauisuchus tiradentes) (modified from Parrish, 1993)
= Dromaeosuchia Juul, 1994
Definition- (Ornithosuchus longidens + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000; modified from Juul, 1994)
References- Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Parrish, 1993. Phylogeny of the Crocodylotarsi, with reference to archosaurian and crurotarsan monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(3), 287-308.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Suchia indet. (Reig, 1963)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Material- (PVL 2559b; paratype of Triassolestes romeri in part) mid cervical vertebra (47 mm; lost), partial posterior dorsal vertebra, second sacral vertebra (~51 mm; lost), pubis (~280 mm; lost), proximal tibia, proximal fibula
Comments- Discovered in May 1961, PVL 2559 was initially described as a paratype of Trassolestes romeri by Reig (1963) despite sharing no reported elements in common and being discovered about 700 meters away.  Bonaparte (1982) quickly rejected the referral, stating Trialestesis "presently known by two specimens" which would be the holotype and PVL 3889.  Besides the astragalus and pes, Reig only lists "centrum of a posterior trunk vertebra, proximal portion of the fibula and other fragments" as being preserved, but provides measurements in Table 1 for a mid cervical, second sacral and pubis.  While it is possible these elements were meant to be the holotype PVL 2561 that was reported to preserve cervicals and later revealed to preserve incomplete pubes, the latter pieces are much shorter (103.8 mm) and don't preserve the distal end which is measured by Reig.  Clark et al. (2000) reported "JMC could not locate these elements [cervical, sacral, pubis] in the collections of the Instituto Miguel Lillo in 1985."  Novas (1989)  describes as Herrerasauridae indet. "PVL 2559a: specimen represented by left astragalus (Figure 2.5-2.10), large portion of left foot" and notes "The remaining associated material cited by Reig pertains to a larger individual which lacks synapomorphies of Herrerasauridae, and now constitutes specimen PVL 2559b."  Novas (1993) later cites as Archosauria indet. "PVL 2559b, vertebral centrum and portion of neural arch of a posterior dorsal, proximal portions of left tibia and fibula of an individual larger than specimen PVL 2559a."  Ezcurra et al. (2008) state they reexamined PVL2559 and find besides the dinosaurian portion "some larger bones can be re-assigned to an indeterminate suchian."  Note none of this material has ever been described or figured, although Reig did say "The anterior end of the pubis also matches that of Coelophysis (see Colbert & Baird, 1958)", apparently based on the lost pubis of PVL 2559b, which is being compared to a Newark ?Podokesaurus specimen (BSNH 13656) that I think is more likely to include an ischium than a pubis.
References- Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estrados de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (Republica Argentina). Ameghiniana 3, 3-20.
Bonaparte, 1982. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Clark, Sues and Berman, 2000. A new specimen of Hesperosuchus agilis from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico and the interrelationships of basal crocodylomorph archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(4), 683-704.
Ezcurra, Lecuona and Irmis, 2008. A review of the archosaur Trialestes romeri (Suchia, Crocodylomorpha) from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina. III Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados. 88.

Ornithosuchia Huene, 1908
Definition- (Ornithosuchus longidens <- Crocodylus niloticus, Vultur gryphus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Vultur gryphus <- Caiman crocodilus) (modified from Gauthier and Padian, 1985)
References- Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Ornithosuchidae Huene, 1908
Definition- (Ornithosuchus longidens + Riojasuchus tenuisceps + Venaticosuchus rusconii) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
Other definitions- (Ornithosuchus longidens <- Rutiodon carolinensis, Aetosaurus ferratus, Rauisuchus tiradentes, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Ornithosuchus

Riojasuchus

Venaticosuchus

Erpetosuchidae Watson, 1917
Definition- (Erpetosuchus granti <- Passer domesticus, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt and Butler, 2012 online)
References- Watson, 1917. A sketch-classification of the pre-Jurassic tetrapod vertebrates. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London. 1917, 167-186.
Nesbitt and Butler, 2013 (online 2012). Redescription of the archosaur Parringtonia gracilis from the Middle Triassic Manda beds of Tanzania, and the antiquity of Erpetosuchidae. Geological Magazine. 150(2), 225-238.

Aetosauria Marsh, 1884
Definition- (Aetosaurus ferratus, Desmatosuchus haplocerus <- Leptosuchus crosbiensis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Sphenosuchus acutus, Alligator mississippiensis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Revueltosaurus callenderi) (modified from Parker, 2007)
Other definitions- (Aetosaurus ferratus <- Belodon plieningeri, Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Aetosaurus ferratus + Desmatosuchus haplocerus <- Rutiodon carolinensis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Crocodylus niloticus, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Revueltosaurus callenderi) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Stegonolepididae Lydekker, 1887
Other definitions- (Aetosaurus ferratus + Desmatosuchus spurensis) (modified from Heckert and Lucas, 2000)
(Aetosaurus ferratus + Stegonolepis robertsoni <- Mystriosuchus planirostris, Ornithosuchus longidens, Crocoylus niloticus) (modified from Benton, 2004)
References- Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.

Desmatosuchus Case, 1920
D. spurensis Case, 1920
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Referred
- ?(UMMP 3396) femur (421.6 mm) (Case, 1922)
Comments- Case (1922) described femur UMMP 3396 which he claimed "has a very dinosaurian aspect, resembling in many details the figures of the femora of Plateosaurus and Gressylosaurus from the Triassic of Europe, and, so far as can be determined, the femur of Anchisaurus from the Triassic of North America."  Unlike the braincase (UMMP 7473) and presacral column (UMMP 7507) described in that work, Camp stated this was too large to refer to Coelophysis.  He repeated this in 1927, but suggested "it may well be associated with some of the large teeth mentioned below", referring to a portion of twenty-two teeth from carnivorous archosauriforms (e.g. UMMP 13765).  Huene (1932) suggested (translated) "it is also much too clumsy for a coelurosaur. But it agrees perfectly with Typothorax. Typothorax is not a dinosaur, but a parasuchian. This femur will not belong to the otherwise known species because of its different size and different horizon."  This proved to be prescient, as Hunt et al. (1998) wrote it "obviously pertains to an aetosaur, possibly Desmatosuchus", and Murry and Long (1997) said "represents a robust aetosaurian, probably Desmatosuchus."  Thus it was an aetosaur like Typothorax, but while Case had described Desmatosuchus from the same beds as UMMP 3396, it didn't include limb material.
References- Case, 1920. Preliminary description of a new suborder of phytosaurian reptiles with a description of a new species of Phytosaurus. Journal of Geology. 28, 524-535.
Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Murry and Long, 1997. Dockum Group. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 191-193.

Gracilisuchidae Butler, Sullivan, Ezcurra, Liu, Lecuona and Sookias, 2014
= "Gracilisuchidae" Anderson and Anderson, 1993
Definition- (Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum <- Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus, Poposaurus gracilis, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Rutiodon carolinensis, Erpetosuchus granti, Revueltosaurus callenderi, Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus)
Comments- Gracilisuchidae was first used in Figure 4 and Table 6 of Anderson and Anderson (1993), but was a nomen nudum due to not following ICZN Article 13.1.1- "be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon." 
References- Anderson and Anderson, 1993. Terrestral flora and fauna of the Gondwana Triassic: Part 2- Co-evolution. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 13-25.
Butler, Sullivan, Ezcurra, Liu, Lecuona and Sookias, 2014. New clade of enigmatic early archosaurs yields insights into early pseudosuchian phylogeny and the biogeography of the archosaur radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 14:128.

Gracilisuchus

Ticinosuchidae Sennikov, 1995

Paracrocodylomorpha Parrish, 1993
Definition- (Poposaurus gracilis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011; modified from Parrish, 1993)
References- Parrish, 1993. Phylogeny of the Crocodylotarsi, with reference to archosaurian and crurotarsan monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(3), 287-308.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Poposauroidea Nopcsa, 1928
Definition- (Poposaurus gracilis <- Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Poposauria Olshevsky, 1991
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Ctenosauriscidae Kuhn, 1964
Definition- (Ctenosauriscus koeneni <- Poposaurus gracilis, Effigia okeeffeae, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Butler, Brusatte, Reich, Nesbitt, Schoch and Hornung, 2011)
Reference- Butler, Brusatte, Reich, Nesbitt, Schoch and Hornung, 2011. The sail-backed reptile Ctenosauriscus from the latest Early Triassic of Germany and the timing and biogeography of the early archosaur radiation. PLoS ONE. 6(10), e25693.

Arizonasaurus

Hypselorhachis

Poposauridae Nopcsa, 1928
Poposaurus Mehl, 1915
P. gracilis
Mehl, 1915
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Referred
- (UCMP 25968) incomplete ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25971) proximal pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25978) partial ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25982) ilial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25990) fragmentary ischium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25994) proximal ischium (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 27982) ilial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- This material was collected in 1934 and is referred to Coelophysis on the UCMP collections website, but is Poposaurus (Long and Murry, 1995; Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007).
[Entry incomplete]
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007. A revision of Poposaurus gracilis (Archosauria: Suchia) based on two new specimens from the Late Triassic of the southwestern U.S.A. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 81(2), 131-145.
P. langstoni

Shuvosauridae Chatterjee, 1993
Definition- (Shuvosaurus inexpectatus + Sillosuchus longicervix) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Shuvosaurinae Chatterjee, 1993
= Chatterjeeidae Long and Murry, 1995
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Effigia Nesbitt and Norell, 2006
E. okeeffeae Nesbitt and Norell, 2006
Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Coelophysis Quarry NMMNH L-3115, 'Siltstone Member' of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Holotype
- (AMNH 30587) (~2 m, juvenile) skull, sclerotic plates, mandibles, atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neural arches, anterior cervical vertebra, mid-posterior cervical vertebra, two cervicodorsal vertebrae, several anterior dorsal vertebrae, four mid dorsal vertebrae, last two dorsal vertebrae, dorsal rib fragments, gastralia, synsacrum, first caudal vertebra, second caudal vertebra, scapulae (one partial; 180 mm), coracoids, clavicle fragment, proximal and distal humerus (~150 mm), radius (~140 mm), ulna (~140 mm), two carpals, metacarpal I (~12 mm), metacarpal III (20 mm), phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV (18 mm), metacarpal V (12 mm), phalanx V-1 (5 mm), incomplete ilia, incomplete pubis, pubic boot fragment, ischia, proximal femur, distal femora, tibiae (one incomplete, one partial), fibulae (one incomplete, one partial), astragalus, calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (74 mm), pedal ungual I, metatarsal II (90 mm), metatarsal III (89 mm), metatarsal IV (73 mm), metatarsal V (47 mm), six pedal phalanges
Paratypes- (AMNH 30588) synsacrum, first to twenty-ninth caudal vertebrae, partial chevrons, incomplete ilia, proximal pubes, ischia, proximal femur
(AMNH 30589) partial skull, sclerotic plates, three anterior-mid cervical vertebrae
(AMNH 30590) proximal femur
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 360, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Referred
- ?(MNA.V.5615) incomplete femur (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 853, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA.V.5602) proximal tibia (Kirby, 1991)
?(MNA.V.5603) proximal tibia (Kirby, 1991)
?(MNA coll.) incomplete cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, femora, metatarsal fragments (Nesbitt, 2007)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Zuni Well North 2 PFV 003 UCMP V82247, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(UCMP coll.; lost) dorsal centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Dinosaur Hollow PFV 020, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(lost) partial pelvis including anterior ilia and proximal ischia, hindlimb including femur (Miller, 1985)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Paulcell Shell Bed PFV 056 UCMP V93136, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(UCMP coll.; lost) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

?(PEFO 33953) partial skeleton (Irmis, 2005)
?(PEFO 34038) proximal femur (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
?(PEFO  coll.) several limb elements (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Revueltosaurus Quarry PFV 297, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 33919) cervical centrum fragments (Nesbitt, 2009)
?(PEFO 33920) astragalus (Nesbitt, 2009)
?(PEFO coll.) vertebrae, limb fragments (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
PFV 300, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO coll.) proximal femur (Parker and Irmis, 2005)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Rabbit Foot Hills PFV 302, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 34924) (Parker and Martz, 2010)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Arroyo Seco, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

?(AMNH 2725; = AMNH 2702 before 1973; paralectotype of Coelurus bauri) distal femur (Cope, 1887)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Dry Creek Tank SE1 PFV 055, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(PEFO 4859) (Atchley et al., 2013)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(MNA.V.3743) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(UCMP coll.; lost) sacral vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Comments- Note all Chinle Formation shuvosaurids are listed here for convenience, but as no postcranial characters have been suggested to distinguish Effigia and Shuvosaurus (besides coracoid foramen size) all except the holotype and AMNH 30589 would be more technically considered Shuvosauridae indet..
AMNH 2725 is a syntype of Coelophysis bauri and was collected with the lectotypes of C. bauri, C. longicollis, C. willistoni and the holotype of Longosaurus (Cope, 1887, 1887; Padian, 1986). Most recently, it was viewed as generically indeterminate (along with the types of the above species), and Coelophysis was assigned a neotype from a different locality (Hunt and Lucas, 1991; ICZN, 1996). Sullivan and Lucas (1999) erected a new species of coelophysid from the Coelophysis lectotype locality, Eucoelophysis baldwini, and felt AMNH 2725 was probably referrable to Eucoelophysis, but could not definitively assign it due to its undiagnostic nature. Nesbitt et al. (2005, 2007) determined Eucoelophysis was not a theropod, however, and that AMNH 2725 is not either. While Eucoelophysis is a basal dinosauriform, AMNH 2725 is a shuvosaurid based on the small distal sulcus and absent fourth trochanter (Nesbitt et al., 2007). Additional material originally assigned to Coelophysis by Cope may also turn out to belong to shuvosaurids, although some is coelophysoid (e.g. AMNH 2705, 2706, 2708, 2722).
In an article announcing the discovery of the then-unnamed Chindesaurus holotype, Miller (1985) reported "The number of thigh bones found indicate that the site actually contains more than one skeleton of the species."  Long and Murry (1995) later stated this was "a partial skeleton of Chatterjeea elegens", while Parker (2006) reports "unpublished field notes from Long also document a partial skeleton of Shuvosaurus (=Chatterjeea) from this locality, although this specimen is lost."  Marsh et al. (2019) note "a smaller partial pelvis and hind limb ... probably belong to a shuvosaurid, but those bones have been missing since the preparation of the block (T. Rowe, pers. comm., 2017; Rob Long field notes, 1985..."
Parker and Irmis (2005) comment on "the partial skeletons of three coelophysoids" discovered at the Giving Site in 2004.  "These specimens have not yet been completely prepared, though preliminary research has shown them to be identical to UCMP 129618."  Two of these ended up being catalogued as PEFO 33981 and 33983 and generally called Coelophysis sp., while the third partial skeleton turned out to be shuvosaurid PEFO 33953 (Parker, pers. comm.  2021).  The specimen number was first reported by Irmis (2005).
Not Effigia- Discovered in 1982, Long and Murry (1995) referred UCMP 126751 from Flattops W in the Petrified Forest Member to Chatterjeea (= Shuvosaurus) without comment, but it has since been identified as Saurischia indet. (e.g. Marsh and Parker, 2020).  Nesbitt (2007) listed femur PEFO 33956 as belonging to his Group Y, later called shuvosaurids.  Marsh and Parker (2020) figured it and assigned it to Saurischia.
References- Cope, 1887. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. Amer. Naturalist xxi pp. 367-369.
Cope, 1887. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. xxiv pp. 209-228, pls. i, ii.
Miller, 1985. Ghost from the dawn of the dinosaurs - Oldest dinosaur skeleton found in Arizona. Science News. 127(21), 325.
Hunt and Lucas, 1991. Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a Late Triassic dinosaur from New Mexico (USA). Paläontol. Z. 65 p. 191-198.
Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.
International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature, 1996. Opinion 1842. Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, Saurischia): lectotype replaced by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53, 142-144.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Sullivan and Lucas, 1999. Eucoelophysis baldwini, a new theropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, and the status of the original types of Coelophysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(1): 81-90.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Nesbitt and Norell, 2006. Extreme convergence in the body plans of an early suchian (Archosauria) and ornithomimid dinosaurs (Theropoda). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 273, 1045-1048.
Parker, 2006. The stratigraphic distribution of major fossil localities in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Parker, Ash and Irmis (eds.). A Century of Research at Petrified Forest National Park. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin. 62. 46-61.
Nesbitt, 2007. The anatomy of Effigia okeeffeae (Archosauria, Suchia), theropod-like convergence, and the distribution of related taxa. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 302, 84 pp.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.
Parker and Martz, 2010. 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(3-4), 231-260.
Atchley, Nordt, Dworkin, Ramezani, Parker, Ash and Bowring, 2013. A linkage among Pangean tectonism, cyclic alluviation, climate change, and biologic turnover in the Late Triassic: The record from the Chinle Formation, southwestern United States. Journal of Sedimentary Research. 83(12), 1147-1161.
Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

Shuvosaurus Chatterjee, 1993
= "Chatterjeea" Murry and Long, 1989
= Chatterjeea Long and Murry, 1995
S. inexpectatus Chatterjee, 1993
= "Chatterjeea elegans" Murry and Long, 1989
= Chatterjeea elegans Long and Murry, 1995
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Holotype- (TTU-P9280) incomplete skull (~189 mm), partial mandible
Paratypes- (TTU-P9281) maxillary fragment, frontal, squamosal (may belong to 9282), quadrate, anterior dentaries, dorsal vertebra
(TTU-P9282) premaxillae, frontals, quadrate, braincase, atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neural arch
Referred- (TTU-P9001; holotype of Chatterjeea elegans; paratype of Postosuchus kirkpatricki) three cervical vertebrae, partial dorsal vertebra, twenty presacral centra, four fused incomplete sacral centra, partial proximal caudal vertebra, two proximal caudal centra, two incomplete distal caudal vertebrae, scapulae (one incomplete; one partial), coracoids, humerus (152 mm), incomplete ilium, partial pubis (200 mm), incomplete ischium (150 mm), femur (231 mm), tibia (198 mm), fibula (201 mm), astragalus (33 mm wide), calcaneum, metatarsal I (66 mm), phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II (83 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III (85 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV (61 mm), phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, pedal ungual IV, metatarsal V (41 mm) (Chatterjee, 1985)
(TTU-P9003-9011; paratypes of Postosuchus kirkpatricki) nine incomplete postcranial skeletons (Chatterjee, 1985)
(TTU-P9021 in part; paralectotype of Technosaurus smalli) posterior mandible (Chatterjee, 1984)
(TTU-P9235) vertebrae (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
(TTU-P9419) vertebrae(?), femur (Martz et al., 2013)
(TTU-P10969) quadrate (Lehane, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Patricia Quarry MOTT 3870, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P10783) femur, partial tibia, phalanx (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Lot Hill MOTT 3878, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11601) calcaneum (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters Site MOTT 3892, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11865) centra (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters South MOTT 3898, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P11414) proximal femur (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Boren (=Neyland) Quarry MOTT 3869, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TTU-P10555) partial centrum (Kokes in prep. in Martz, 2008)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
OS Ranch Flat Road MOTT 3872, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

?(TTU-P9605) (skull ~257 mm) maxilla (Lehane, 2005)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
DMNH 1160, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

?(DMNH 9887) several cervical vertebral fragments, vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9888) partial posterior cervical vertebra, two fragmentary mid dorsal vertebrae, partial mid caudal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9901) four fragmentary dorsal centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9905) two distal caudal vertebrae, incomplete distal caudal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9907) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9924) caudal centrum fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9925) three partial cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(DMNH 9926) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
TMM Site 2 TMM 31173, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TMM 31173-106) two mid dorsal vertebrae, posterior dorsal vertebra, caudal vertebra, many vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Davidson Creek, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(UMMP 7445) astragalus (Case, 1929)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
West of Walker's Tank, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(UMMP 11746) sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(UMMP 45593) incomplete ilium (Long and Murry, 1995)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of Dockum Group, Texas, US
?(TMM 31100-210) femur (115 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-353) incomplete ischia (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-408) femur (233 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-414) pubis (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-495) sacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-496) posterior cervical vertebra, dorsal vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-497) anterior-mid cervical vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-509) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(TMM 31100-512) ischia (~250 mm) (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US

?(NMMNH P4160) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4380) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4440) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4601) ischial fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4687) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4693) astragalus (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4695) femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4856) partial dorsal centrum, central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4859) ischia (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4891) partial cervical vertebra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4893) cervical vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4913) eight fragmentary cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4920) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4927) (several individuals) five dorsal centra, sacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P4948) partial centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P16643) partial dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P16654) partial cervical centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17134) dorsal centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17247) cervical vertebra, vertebral fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17262) cervical centrum, several incomplete presacral centrum (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17469) six cervical centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17470) nine dorsal central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17271) two dorsal central fragments (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17281) dorsal central fragment (Long and Murry, 1995)
?(NMMNH P17881) proximal femur (Nesbitt, 2007)
(UCM 47221; in part; holotype of Gojirasaurus quayi) (immature) four mid or posterior dorsal centra (66, 68, 74 mm), partial mid dorsal neural arch (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?...(UCM 52080) partial ilium, pubic fragment (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?...(UCM 52081) premaxilla (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
?(UMMP 7438) three fused sacral centra (Long and Murry, 1995)
Other diagnoses- Chatterjee (1993) listed several characters of the taxon. The concave medial quadrate cotyle and medial dentary shelf are shared with Effigia. A deep and pointed premaxilla, and posteriorly placed external naris are shared with at least Effigia. The premaxilla is not hooked. The external naris is not necessarily smaller than ornithomimosaurs, as the anterior nasal is unpreserved (Lehane, 2005). The maxilla is not especially short, as the posterior portion is merely missing. Similarly, the nasal cannot be shown to be shorter than the frontal due to these unpreserved portions. Rauhut and Lehane have agreed no maxillary fenestra is present, so the nasal cannot participate.
Comments- Several elements have changed identifications and numbers between Chatterjee's (1993) original description and Lehane's (2005) thesis. The dorsal vertebra in TTU-P9281 was originally listed under P9280. Similarly, the scapula originally part of TTU-P9281 was separated as TTU-P11045. Originally, a left atlantal neural arch was listed under TTU-P9281, which may have been reidentified as the maxillary fragment, frontal, squamosal or quadrate. A left squamosal was listed under P9282 by Chatterjee, figured as such by Lehane, but listed under P2981 by Lehane in his text and table 1. An additional frontal was identified in TTU-P9282.  Nesbitt (2007) noted based on Effigia, "The bone originally described as the palatine by Chatterjee (1993) is actually the ectopterygoid, and the bone described by Chatterjee (1993) and Rauhut (1997) as the ectopterygoid is actually portions of the pterygoid."
Shuvosaurus' holotype skull was discovered in 1984, and originally described as an ornithomimosaur by Chatterjee (1993). Rauhut (1997) rejected this based on the lack of an expanded cultriform process, long elongate basipterygoid processes, small endocranial cavity, lack of (pro)maxillary fenestrae, and ventral ectopterygoid groove (instead of an expanded fossa). This is unsurprising given the lack of any known Triassic tetanurines, let alone coelurosaurs. He proposed it was a non-tetanurine, though still a theropod. Rauhut (2000; published in 2003) later found Shuvosaurus to fall out in Coelophysoidea based on the elongate basispenoid and posteriorly forked premaxilla, shared with Coelophysis rhodesiensis. Lehane (2005) also found Shuvosaurus to be a coelophysoid sister to rhodesiensis, while Tykoski (2005) recovered it as the basalmost theropod. Lehman and Chatterjee (2005) agreed Shuvosaurus was likely not ornithomimosaurian, but did state "additional cranial and postcranial material suggests that Shuvosaurus is more derived than ceratosaurs."
Long and Murry (1995) on the other hand proposed Shuvosaurus was synonymous with their new pseudosuchian Chatterjeea, with both holotypes discovered in the same quarry and even potentially belonging to the same individual. They referred a premaxilla originally described by Parrish and Carpenter (1986) as Reptilia indet. to Shuvosaurus, and noted a Chatterjeea ilium was found with it (described by Parrish and Carpenter as Poposaurus). Nesbitt et al. (2007) referred the dorsal vertebrae of the Gojirasaurus holotype from this same quarry to Shuvosaurus. While the pubis and tibia are coelophysoid, some of the other elements of the specimen may belong to Shuvosaurus as well. Rauhut (1997) and Lehane both raised objections to the pseudosuchian identification, noting it possesses dinosaurian, saurischian and theropod characters. The issue was decided by the description of Effigia (Nesbitt and Norell, 2006), which has a Shuvosaurus-like skull on a pseudosuchian body. Both taxa do share numerous theropod synapomorphies, but these are seen as convergences. Note both the non-shuvosaurid scapula and neotheropod tibia which Long and Murry stated raised questions about their proposed synonymy have since been removed from the genus (see below).
Chatterjeea's holotype was originally identified as a juvenile Postosuchus (Chatterjee, 1985), along with nine other specimens. None have been described in detail.  Note all Dockum Group shuvosaurids are listed here for convenience, but as no postcranial characters have been suggested to distinguish Effigia and Shuvosaurus (besides coracoid foramen size) all except the holotype and whichever paratype the squamosal belongs to would be more technically considered Shuvosauridae indet..
Not Shuvosaurus- Chatterjee (1993) originally included a proximal scapula in the paratype TTU-P9281, but this was separated as TTU-P11045 by Lehane (2005). Chatterjee also stated as correspondence at the end of his description "we have just found a diagnostic leg bone (tibia) from the Post quarry which confirms the presence of an ostrich dinosaur", though this was not technically referred to Shuvosaurus. The tibia was later assigned the number TTU-P11044, as revealed in Lehane's thesis. Lehane noted both elements are too small to belong to Shuvosaurus individuals known from that quarry. The scapula is here placed as Archosauria indet. pending further study, while the tibia has been reidentified as a probable coelophysoid (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012).
Lehane listed several other postcranial specimens referred to Shuvosaurus. TTU-P10071 is an incomplete ilium identified as Coelophysis by Lehman and Chatterjee (2005) and agreed to be coelophysoid-grade by later authors (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012). TTU-P10072 is a fragmentary skeleton (containing dorsal vertebrae and pelvic fragments which Lehane doesn't mention) which was also identified as Coelophysis by Lehman and Chjatterjee, but reidentified as a poorly supported sister to Neotheropoda by Nesbitt and Chatterjee. Based on my own analysis, it may be a sauropodomorph instead so is here placed as Saurischia incertae sedis. Finally, TTU-P10082 is a partial pelvis yet again referred to Coelophysis by Lehman and Chatterjee, but which was reidentified as herrerasaurid by later authors (Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008; Martz et al., 2012) and may belong to Chindesaurus.
References- Case, 1929. Description of the skull of a new form of phytosaur, with notes on the characters of described North American phytosaurs. Michigan State University, Paleontological Memoir. 2, 56 pp.
Chatterjee, 1984. A new ornithischian dinosaur from the Triassic of North America. Naturwissenschaften. 71, 630-631.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309(1139), 395-460.
Parrish and Carpenter, 1986. A new vertebrate fauna from the Dockum Formation (Late Triassic) of eastern New Mexico. In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press, NewYork. 151-160.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Chatterjee, 1993. Shuvosaurus, a new theropod. National Geographic Research and Exploration. 9(3), 274-285.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Rauhut, 1997. Zur Schädelanatomie von Shuvosaurus inexpectatus (Dinosauria, Theropoda). In Sachs, Rauhut and Weigert (eds.). Erstes Treffen der deutschsprachigen Paläoherpetologen, Extended Abstracts. Terra Nostra. 9, 17-21.
Rauhut, 2000. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropods (Dinosauria, Saurischia). PhD thesis, University of Bristol. 440 pp.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 96 pp.
Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005. Depositional setting and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Journal of Earth System Science. 114(3), 325-351.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2005. Critical review of the Late Triassic dinosaur record, part 3: Saurischians of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 96A.
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.
Nesbitt and Norell, 2006. Extreme convergence in the body plans of an early suchian (Archosauria) and ornithomimid dinosaurs (Theropoda). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 273, 1045-1048.
Nesbitt, 2007. The anatomy of Effigia okeeffeae (Archosauria, Suchia), theropod-like convergence, and the distribution of related taxa. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 302, 84 pp.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Martz, 2008. Lithostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of southern Garza County, west Texas. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University. 504 pp.
Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008. Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Post Quarry and surrounding areas, west Texas, U.S.A. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Abhandlungen. 249(2), 143-156.
Martz, Mueller, Nesbitt, Stocker, Parker, Atanassov, Fraser, Weinbaum and Lehane, 2012. A taxonomic and biostratigraphic re-evaluation of the Post Quarry vertebrate assemblage from the Cooper Canyon Formation (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic) of southern Garza County, western Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26.

Loricata Merrem, 1820 preoccupied Vicq d'Azyr, 1792 and Schumacher, 1817
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis, Ornithosuchus longidens, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Paracrocodyliformes Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007
Definition- (Batrachotomus wildi, Postosuchus kirkpatricki, Saurosuchus galilei, Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis) (Weinbaum and Hungerbuhler, 2007)
Comments- Though Nesbitt (2011) ressurected Merrem's (1820) name Loricata for this clade, Merrem used the term only for living crocodilians (he did not comment on fossils). Vicq d'Azyr (1792) used Loricata earlier for armadillos, Schumacher (1817) used it for chitons, and Ehrenberg (1830) later used it for a polyphyletic group of rotifers.
References- Vicq d'Azyr, 1792. Systeme anatomique des quadrupedes. Encyclopedic methodique. Volume 2. Paris.
Schumacher, 1817. Essai d'un Nouveau Systeme des Habitations des Vers Testaces. Copenhagen. 287 pp.
Merrem, 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Marburg. 191 pp.
Ehrenberg, 1830. Sur l'organisation des Infusoires. Isis. 2, 168. 8, 758.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Prestosuchidae Romer, 1966
= Prestosuchia Parrish, 1994

Apatosuchus
A.
orbitoangulatus
References- Knoll, 2010. What is "Halticosaurus" orbitoangulatus? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2010, 116A.

unnamed loricatan (Ellenberger and Ellenberger, 1954)
Hettangian-Sinemurian, Early Jurassic
Upper Elliot Formation, South Africa
Material
- (SAM 383) maxillary fragment, teeth
Comments- Ellenberger and Ellenberger (1954) mentioned a carnosaur maxilla, which Smith believes is SAM 383, as reported by Nesbitt (2009). The latter described it and identified the material as a paracrocodylomorph similar to Fasolasuchus.
References- Ellenberger and Ellenberger, 1954. Le gisement de Dinosauriens de Maphutseng (Basutoland, Afrique du Sud). Compte Rendus de la Société Géologique de France. 241, 99-101.
Nesbitt, 2009. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. PhD thesis, Columbia University. 665 pp.

Teratosauroidea Cope, 1871
= Rauisuchoidea Huene, 1942
= Teratosauria Colbert, 1970
= Rauisuchia Bonaparte, 1975

Teratosauridae Cope, 1871
= Rauisuchidae Huene, 1942
Definition- (Rauisuchus tiradentes <- Aetosaurus ferratus, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Poposaurus gracilis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

Postosuchus Chatterjee, 1985
P. kirkpatricki Chatterjee, 1985
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Referred
- (UMMP 7473) (adult) braincase (Case, 1922)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Rotten Hill, Potter County, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Referred
- (UMMP 13670) dorsal rib, two partial dorsal ribs, thirty-one incomplete-complete caudal vertebrae, three partial caudal vertebrae (Case, 1932)
Comments- Case (1922) described braincase UMMP 7473 which he claimed "corresponds so well with the figures and descriptions, so far as they have been given, of the same region in the primitive Theropodous Dinosaurs, that there can be very little doubt of its subordinal position", and along with axial column UMMP 7507 provisionally placed it in or near Coelophysis based on stratigraphy.  This opinion had strengthened by 1927, where he wrote "it is very probable that this is the skull of the genus Coelophysis."  Huene (1932) named UMMP 7507 Spinosuchus caseanus and figured and described the braincase as a coelurosaur, stating (translated) "Whether the occiput belongs to the same genus, perhaps of the same species, as the vertebral series cannot be decided with certainty now, but the possibility does exist."  Padian suggested it "may be rauisuchian", while Chatterjee (1985) concluded it "shows very little resemblance to Coelophysis, but corresponds so well with Postosuchus kirkpatricki that there is little doubt of its taxonomic affinity."  Gower (2002) rejected this, claiming "the one important difference between this specimen and the known braincases of P. kirkpatricki lies in the position of the external foramen for the hypoglossal nerve" which instead was supposed to be more similar to aetosaurs and crocodylomorphs.   However, Weinbaum (2011) concluded "the same configuration of the foramen is present in the holotype braincase, and the UMMP specimen is otherwise identical to the type specimens except for the more extensive fusion between elements."
On July 15 1931 caudal series UMMP 13670 was discovered, then described by Case (1932) as Coelophysis sp. based on the thin-walled centra supposed to be characteristic of coelurosaurs sensu Huene.  Murry (1989) noted "Postosuchus kirkpatricki is represented at the locality by ... caudal vertebrae (UMMP 13670)" and Long and Murry (1995) later stated "The vertebrae are UMMP 13670, referrable to Postosuchus kirkpatricki."  This referral has been followed by Peyer et al. (2008), but has yet to be justified.
References- Case, 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 321, 1-84.
Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Case, 1932. On the caudal region of Coelophysis sp. and on some new or little known forms from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 4(3), 81-91.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Chatterjee, 1985. Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 309, 395-460.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Murry, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Dockum Formation (Upper Triassic), west Texas and eastern New Mexico. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 102-144.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Gower, 2002. Braincase evolution in suchian archosaurs (Reptilia: Diapsida): Evidence from the rauisuchian Batrachotomus kupferzellensis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 136, 49-76.
Peyer, Carter, Sues, Novak and Olsen, 2008. A new suchian archosaur from the Upper Triassic of North Carolina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28(2), 363-381.
Weinbaum, 2011. The skull of Postosuchus kirkpatricki (Archosauria: Paracrocodyliformes) from the Upper Triassic of the United States. PaleoBios. 30, 18-44.

Teratosaurus

Crocodylomorpha Walker, 1968
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Postosuchus kirkpatricki) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
Other definitions- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Poposaurus gracilis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
(Crocodylus niloticus <- Rauisuchus tiradentes, Poposaurus gracilis, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Prestosuchus chiniquensis, Aetosaurus ferratus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= Crocodylomorphi Hay, 1930
= Pedeticosauria Walker, 1968
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.

unnamed crocodylomorph (Chatterjee, 1987)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material
- (ISI R 306 in part) (juvenile) partial premaxilla, maxilla, partial dentary, teeth (to 5 mm), dorsal vertebrae?
Comments- This material is part of the Alwalkeria holotype as described by Chatterjee (1987), but Rauhut and Remes (2005) found it belonged to a pseudosuchian, perhaps an ornithosuchid. This agrees with Rauhut's (2003) comments that the long mandibular symphysis is present in members of Crurotarsi. Some of the dorsal vertebrae may belong to this taxon also.
References- Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos.Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.

Crocodylomorpha indet. (Bonaparte, 1975)
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Material- (PVL 3871 in part; holotype of Marasuchus lilloensis in part) incomplete scapulocoracoid (25.0 mm), humerus (38.6 mm), incomplete radius (~31.0 mm), incomplete ulna (~36.0 mm)
Comments- Bonaparte (1975) described specimens of Lagosuchus talampayensis, including a pectoral girdle assigned to PVL 3871, a specimen only described by Romer (1972) as including "a complete right limb (Fig. 5), the left limb complete except for phalanges, a series of vertebrae including the sacral region and the proximal part of the tail (Fig. 6), and much of the pelvis."  Sereno and Arcucci (1994) believed the Lagosuchus talampayensis holotype differs from PVL 3871 in having a more slender scapula, a shorter radiohumeral ratio (65% vs. >72%) and an unexpanded distal ulna, which led them to create the new taxon Marasuchus for it.  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) show the type has an expanded dorsal neural spine which was a proposed autapomorphy of Marasuchus and also shares a globose femoral head with 'Marasuchus' specimens MCZ 4137, PVL 3870, and PVL 3871, so synonymized the taxa.  They further note the scapula of PVL 4672 is also slender, and that Coelophysis bauri radiohumeral ratios vary between 54-68%.  Remes (2008) described the differences between the pectoral girdle and forelimb of PVL 3871 and that of PVL 4672, Lewisuchus and dinosauriform PVL 9483.  Based on this, the fact Romer never mentioned the elements in his descriptions and that Bonaparte never reported an association with the rest of the specimen, Remes instead uses similarities with 'sphenosuchian' crocodylomorphs to suggest they belong to a member of that group and were incorrectly added to the lilloensis holotype.  Besides the differences in scapular shape and slightly longer deltopectoral crest (29% vs.26% in the holotype), the ulnar morphology is so different that I agree they are unlikely to be conspecific.  The ulna of PVL 3871 is not merely relatively longer than Lagosuchus, it also has an elongate olecranon while the holotype lacks one at all, and a much thinner (<5% of non-olecranon length vs. 10%) tapering shaft.  This also makes sense with the slender PVL 4672 scapulocoracoid assigned to Lagosuchus.  I therefore follow Remes in assigning the scapulocoracoid and forelimb of PVL 3871 to Crocodylomorpha indet..
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus. Breviora. 394, 1-7.
Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1994. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis gen. nov.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14(1), 53-73.
Remes, 2008. Evolution of the pectoral girdle and forelimb in Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia): Osteology, myology, and function. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 355 pp.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2019. The validity of Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer, 1971 (Archosauria, Dinosauriformes), from the Late Triassic of Argentina. Breviora. 565, 1-21.

Clarencea

Trialestia Carroll, 1988
= Triassolestia Crush, 1984
Trialestidae Bonaparte, 1982
= Triassolestidae Bonaparte, 1970 (preoccupied Tillyard, 1918)
= Trialestinae Bonaparte, 1982 vide Kalandadze and Rautian, 1991
Comments- Eponymous suprageneric taxa of Trialestes (and its preoccupied original name Triassolestes) have only been used by those who place it outside Dinosauria, with Triassolestia and Trialestia being suborders of Crocodylia (senso lato, equivalent to modern Crocodylomorpha), and Triassolestidae initially being a family of Pseudosuchia and Trialestidae a family of Sphenosuchia or Trialestia.  No other genus has been included in either eponymous suborder or family, with Pseudohesperosuchus included here based on the analysis of Leardi et al. (2017).  Yet with no phylogenetic definition suggested yet, this is entirely subjective.
References- Tillyard, 1918. Mesozoic insects from Queensland. 3. Odonata and Protodonata. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 43, 417-435.
Bonaparte, 1970. Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods. In Haughton (ed.). Second Gondwana Symposium, South Africa, Proceedings and Papers. 665-682.
Bonaparte, 1982a. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Crush, 1984. A Late Upper Triassic sphenosuchid crocodilian from Wales. Palaeontology. 27, 131-157.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Kalandadze and Rautian, 1991. Late Triassic zoogeography and reconstruction of the terrestrial tetrapod fauna of North Africa. Paleontological Journal. 1, 1-12.
Leardi, Pol and Clark, 2017. Detailed anatomy of the braincase of Macelognathus vagans Marsh, 1884 (Archosauria, Crocodylomorpha) using high resolution tomography and new insights on basal crocodylomorph phylogeny. PeerJ. 5:e2801.

Trialestes Bonaparte, 1982a
= Triassolestes Reig, 1963 (preoccupied Tillyard, 1918)
T. romeri (Reig, 1963) Bonaparte, 1982a
= Triassolestes romeri Reig, 1963
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Holotype- (PVL 2561) incomplete maxillae, incomplete jugal, incomplete lacrimal, incomplete mandibles (214, 211 mm), four incomplete cervical vertebrae (lost?), cervical centrum (lost?), twelve or sixteen caudal centra (lost?), incomplete scapula, humerus (160 mm), radii (one incomplete; 179 mm), ulnae (185, 185 mm), radiales (36.8, 35.0 mm), ulnares (one partial; 27.2 mm), distal carpal, proximal metacarpal I, proximal metacarpal II, proximal metacarpal III, proximal metacarpal IV, incomplete pubes
Early Norian(?), Late Triassic
Valle de la Luna Member(?) of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Referred- ?(PVL 3889) partial ~third cervical centrum, ~fourth cervical vertebra (47.7 mm), ~fifth cervical vertebra (44.2 mm), partial ~sixth cervical vertebra, five cervical ribs, cervicodorsal vertebra, incomplete cervicodorsal vertebra, three anterior dorsal vertebrae (30.4 mm), five mid-posterior dorsal vertebrae (22.1, 25.1, 25.7, 21.4 mm), two partial ?dorsal vertebrae, four incomplete dorsal ribs, two gastralia, synsacrum, two proximal caudal vertebrae, incomplete scapulocoracoids (132.4 mm), humerus (160 mm), incomplete radius, incomplete ulna, ilia (87.4 mm), incomplete pubes, incomplete ischia, femora (one incomplete; 204 mm), tibiae (202, 197 mm), fibulae (one incomplete; 199 mm), astragalus (16.1 mm trans), calcaneum, metatarsal I (62.2 mm), metatarsal II (72.6 mm), metatarsal III (78.9 mm), metatarsal IV (79.8 mm), metatarsal V (73.4 mm) (Bonaparte, 1978)
Comments- The holotype was collected in May 1961 and initially described by Reig (1963) as a podokesaurid, with paratype PVL 2559 consisting of a pes and other fragments.  Bonaparte (1978) first noticed (translated) "Triassolestidae and Triassolestes are names that are synonymous with the same names used by Tillyard (1918) for a genus and subfamily of insects from Australia" and later (1982a) stated "Trialestes is here proposed to replace "Triassolestes" (Reig, 1963), resulting in the species name Trialestes romeri..."  Indeed, Triassolestes is currently recognized as a triassolestid odonatan. 
Initially Reig stated the following axial material was preserved in the holotype- (translated) "four fairly complete cervical vertebrae, the centrum of another cervical and a collection of twelve vertebral centra, apparently all caudal vertebrae", but by the time of Clark et al. (2000) this was down to "several cervical and 16 caudal vertebrae."  Ezcurra et al. (2008) and Lecuona et al. (2016) didn't report any axial material, so it may be lost.  Reig noted pectoral and forelimb material was closely associated, and stated "Before its cleaning, we supposed that these last remains pertained to the same individual; however afterwards we noticed that the forelimb pertained to a typical crocodile, with the carpal structure characteristic of the order.  These remains, associated with the skull and vertebrae of Triassolestes, confirm the presence of crocodiles in the Ischigualasto locality, advanced by me through the assignment of the genus Proterochampsa to this order (Reig, 1959).  It is very probable that the forelimb could be referable to this same crocodile."  Later discoveries revealed Proterochampsa was not a crocodylomorph and Bonaparte (1970) first referred the forelimb to the holotype and assigned the taxon to its own family Triassolestidae within Pseudosuchia (which he also referred Sphenosuchiade to).  In his 1978 publication, Bonaparte  illustrated a forelimb and stated "T. romeri is a pseudosuchian thecodont that we attribute to the infraorder Sphenosuchia, with forelimbs with crocodilian carpus."  Bonaparte (1997) figures the entire specimen except the left cranial elements, including portions of the other forelimb and pubes not originally noted by Reig.  The holotype was redescribed in depth by Lecuona et al. (2016).
Referred specimens- The paratype PVL 2559 shares no reported elements in common with the holotype, was discovered about 700 meters away, and the rationale for its referral was never explained.  Fittingly, Bonaparte never mentions it and states (1982a) Trialestes is "presently known by two specimens" which would be the holotype and PVL 3889, while Benton and Clark (1988) say "There is some uncertainty as to whether specimens referred to this taxon that have a mesotarsal ankle indeed belong to Trialestes."  Novas (1989) referred the astragalus and pes to Herrerasauridae indet. as PVL 2559a, and stated "The remaining associated material cited by Reig pertains to a larger individual which lacks synapomorphies of Herrerasauridae, and now constitutes specimen PVL 2559b."  Most recently, PVL 2559a has been referred to Saurischia indet. (Lecuona et al., 2016) and PVL 2559b to Suchia indet. (Ezcurra et al., 2008).
Bonaparte (1975) first mentions (translated) "a practically complete undescribed skeleton exists, produced from the same beds. The pelvis of Triassolestidae has a long and robust ischium, very distinct from that of Lagosuchus, the femur does not possess an aliform 4th trochanter and is longer than the tibia, and the cervical vertebrae are very elongate."  In 1978, he describes more details- (translated) "The relatively small size of the dorsal vertebrae and ribs in comparison with the length of the bones of the extremities is striking in this species. ... both the ischium and the pubis are long; the ilium, in addition to a brief anterior projection of the iliac blade, presents an incipient opening of the acetabular cavity."  Later, Bonaparte (1982b) figures the proximal tarsals as Figure 3F and mentions a modest posteroventral coracoid process, short preacetabular process, and long and striaght ischium, which would all be from the new specimen although this is unstated.  Oddly, he states "the tarsus of the Trialestidae is of the mesotarsal type, with marked size disparity between the astragalus and calcaneum" despite figuring the crurotarsal tarsus of the new specimen with the opposite size disparity.  While one might think this description was based on the paratype astragalus, Bonaparte (1997) and Clark et al. (2000) explicitly describe the tarsus of the new specimen as mesotarsal.  Thus it seems the astragalus and calcaneum were initially misidentified as each other and articulated incorrectly, which makes sense as Lecuona et al. (2016) state they are "difficult to interpret as they do not articulate perfectly with one another and suffer from poor preservation, overpreparation and possibly some degree of post-mortem distortion."  Parrish (1987) suggested "the single specimen Bonaparte based this conclusion on may well be a composite (J.M. Clark, pers. comm. Gauthier 1984)", but this has never been supported by published evidence and seems simply untrue given the full description three decades later.  Again it was Bonaparte (1997) who first figured most of the specimen, with that paper, Clark et al. and Lecuona and Desojo (2011) providing additional comments.  Clark et al. first published the specimen number (PVL 3889), but were incorrect in claiming it has an inturned femoral head and functionally tridactyl pes.  Lecuona et al. (2016) described the specimen in depth.  While Reig's specimens were from the "lower third" of the Ischigualasto Formation (Cancha de Bochas Member), PVL 3889 was said to be from the middle, so may be from the later Valle de la Luna Member although it was found in the north area of exposures where stratigraphic correlation is still uncertain.
Is PVL 3889 Trialestes romeri? Clark et al. (2000) were the first authors to attempt to justify the referral of PVL 3889 to Trialestes based on synapomorphies.  They argued "The radius and ulna are significantly longer than the humerus in both specimens (1.15 times in PVL 2559). In no other basal archosaur known to us are the radius and ulna significantly longer than the humerus", with 2559 an obvious typo for 2561.  While this does differ from Pedeticosaurus (~99%), Terrestrisuchus (~99%), Hesperosuchus (106%), cf. Hesperosuchus CM 29894 (92%), Dibothrosuchus (98%), Hallopus (~104%) and Junggarsuchus (~86%), it is similar to Dromicosuchus (115%).  Perhaps more importantly, the radius and ulna of PVL 3889 are incomplete so can only be said to be >100% of humeral length.
Ezcurra et al. (2008) disagreed, stating "Though elements shared by PVL 2561 and in PVL 3889 (scapulae, humeri, ulnae, and radi) are similarly shaped, they do not share any apomorphies to the exclusion of other basal crocodylomorphs. Thus, on the basis of the available bones, there is no evidence that PVL 3889 can be referred to Trialestes, and we prefer to be cautious in considering PVL 3889 an indeterminate crocodylomorph."  Yet one of their Trialestes apomorphies is shared with PVL 3889- "scapular blade with rounded posterodistal corner", differing from Terrestrisuchus, Saltoposuchus, Hesperosuchus, cf. Hesperosuchus and Junggarsuchus, but shared with Sphenosuchus
Lecuona et al. (2016) in their detailed description of both specimens found "strong similarity of the elements preserved in both" so that they "have the same states for all characters for which is is possible to score for both in the data matrix."  They state "Among the character-states shared between both specimens, the most notable is a strongly laterally developed acromial ridge on the scapula, which to our knowledge is not present in any other early archosaurs."  Such a ridge is present in Dibothrosuchus and seemingly Hallopus, while the ridge in Terrestrisuchus, Hesperosuchus and Dromicosuchus follows the dorsal edge of the acromion.  Pseudohesperosuchus' ridge is in an intermediate position.  Note Sphenosuchus was restored as having the ridge on the dorsal edge in Walker's Figure 42, but the lateral surface of the proximal scapula is unexposed in the actual specimen.  Lecuona et al. found that when scored into Nesbitt's archosauriform matrix PVL 3889 and the holotype grouped together, but that "a negative topological constraint required only one additional step for the non-monophyly of both specimens of Trialestes" so that support for either hypothesis was very low. 
Finally, Leardi et al. (2020) provided preliminary descriptions of new Ischigualasto basal crocodylomorphs, of which PVSJ 1090 has both the rounded posterodorsal scapular corner and Trialestes-like acromial ridge, while PVSJ 846 has at least the ridge.  The authors state "The scapula of PVSJ 1090 and PVSJ 846 are practically indistinguishable from one another and are almost the same size, rendering this element as a taxonomic link between both specimens and a potentially diagnostic feature of this taxon" (which would also include PVSJ 890, 1078, 1088 and 1089).  The Trialestes holotype and PVL 3889 can be distinguished from both scapulae by lacking a supraglenoid tuber on their scapula and from at least PVSJ 1090 by the lower angle between the posterior blade margin and supraglenoid process, but there is no single combination of characters that characterizes both Trialestes specimens to the exclusion of e.g. Sphenosuchus or Dibothrosuchus, although each specimen itself clearly differs from any other taxon including Leardi et al.'s.  For example, the Trialestes holotype differs from the new taxon in the long and low deltopectoral crest and longitudinally ridged distal carpals, while PVL 3889 differs in having shallower cervical fossae, a much wider subglenoid notch on the coracoid, and various calcanear characters.  Thus rather than recognize three diagnostic Ischigualasto sphenosuchians, PVL 3889 is provisionally retained in Trialestes based on the lack of differences between the few shared elements and results of Lecuona et al.'s phylogenetic analysis, with the recognition future specimens could support or reject this hypothesis.
Is Trialestes a dinosaur? Reig (1963) referred Trialestes to Podokesauridae, roughly equivalent to the modern Coelophysoidea, but this was in part due to the dinosaurian paratype astragalus and pes PVL 2559a.  The only evidence cited for the holotype is "The general morphology of the skull, with a large orbit and a very elongate antorbital fossa; the elongation of the maxilla underneath the level of the orbit", which are all also present in e.g. Pseudohesperosuchus and Litargosuchus.  Reig also states "The anterior end of the pubis also matches that of Coelophysis (see Colbert & Baird, 1958)", apparently based on the lost pubis of suchian PVL 2559b, which is being compared to a Newark ?Podokesaurus specimen (BSNH 13656) that I think is more likely to include an ischium than a pubis.  Characters excluding the holotype from Dinosauria include the robust scapula, elongate radius and ulna, elongated radiale and ulnare and unreduced metacarpal IV.  Colbert (1970) stated Triassolestes "certainly appears to be a podokesaurid, as maintained by [Reig]", but without further evidence.  Padian (1986) went further and listed it among taxa "possessing the basal theropod synapomorphies listed above but lacking any of their own [which] are potentially referrable [to Coelophysis]."  Despite these statements, the skull is not that similar to coelophysoids, differing the shorter snout, much deeper anterior maxillary ramus, deep external surface below the antorbital fossa, jugal contact with the antorbital fenestra, deeper and shorter jugal beneath the orbit, lacrimal without ventral expansion, more robust dentary with upcurved and expanded distal end, larger and fewer teeth, short and triangular deltopectoral crest, absent olcranon process, thick block-like distal carpal, and metacarpal III thicker than II. 
Referred specimen PVL 3889 was first explicitly connected to dinosaurs by Bonaparte (1997), who claimed the supposed mesotarsal ankle with reduced calcaneum recalled early sarischians and thus (translated) "Trialestes romeri is a mixture of pre-crocodilian and predinosauroid forms."  However it was Clark et al. (2000) who seriously proposed dinosaurian affinities.  They claimed "The pelvis and hindlimb have features considered diagnostic for dinosaurs, including a perforated acetabulum with a well-developed supraacetabular crest, an inturned femoral head that is more distinct than that in sphenosuchians, a mesotarsal ankle joint and a functionally tridactyl pes. The vertebral centra have excavated lateral surfaces."  As noted above, PVL 3889 lacks both an inturned femoral head as "The proximal end of the femora are strongly damaged, with much of the femoral head missing" (Lecuona et al., 2016) and the pes has subequally long metatarsals I-V so could even be functionally pentadacyl depending on phalangeal morphology.  As also noted above, the ankle is crurotarsal despite being misinterpreted as mesotarsal for decades.  A well developed supracetabular crest is typical of basal crocodylomorphs (e.g. Terrestrisuchus, Dromicosuchus, Kayentasuchus, Dibothrosuchus, NMMNH P-17346) and a perforated acetabulum is found in some as well (e.g. Terrestrisuchus, Kayentasuchus, Macelognathus, Dibothrosuchus).  Dorsal central fossae are also present in Pseudohesperosuchus and Macelognathus.  Therefore none of these characters are unexpected in a 'sphenosuchian' and there is no evidence favoring placing PVL 3889 in Dinosauria, agreeing with Lecuona et al. who constrained it to be ornithodiran and discovered "this topology required 12 extra steps (1706 steps) and the specimen was found as the sister taxon to Dinosauriformes."  This is no doubt due to characters like the short and robust cervical ribs, mound-like fourth trtochanter and crurotarsal ankle with enlarged calcanear heel.  Thus it is simply untrue that "The only apparent crocodylomorph feature [of any Trialestes specimen] is the elongation of the radiale and ulnare, whereas at least four different dinosaur-like features are present in the hind-limb and vertebrae" or that "The simplest solution would be to refer [both specimens of] this taxon to the Dinosauria and to interpret the elongate radiate [sic] and ulnare as the result of convergent evolution", contra Clark et al..
Phylogenetic relationships within Crocodylomorpha- Crush (1984) included Trialestes (as Triassolestes) in his new order Triassolestia within Crocodylia (sensu lato, equivalent to modern Crocodylomorpha), stating it "differs from the other crocodiles in having a coracoid without a dorsoventral or postero-ventral projection and a non-crocodilian tarsus" as examples of primitive characters.  This suggests a sister group relationship with other crocodylomorphs (including Dibothrosuchus, Hallopus, Hesperosuchus, Pedeticosaurus, Pseudohesperosuchus, Saltoposuchus, Sphenosuchus and Terrestrisuchus).  Benton and Clark (1988) presented a cladogram with Trialestes questionably basal to Crocodylomorpha (although it would be included given current definitions), with Pseudohesperosuchus and Saltoposuchus, Dibothrosuchus and Sphenosuchus, and the then-unnamed Kayentasuchus progressivly closer to Crocodyliformes.  Trialestes has only been included in two phylogenetic analyses so far, the first by Leucona et al. (2016) for its first extensive description, who used Nesbitt's archosauriform analysis.  They found it to be a crocodylomorph closer to Crocodyliformes than Carnufex, Pseudohesperosuchus, Dromicosuchus, Hesperosuchus and Sphenosuchus, but further than Terrestrisuchus, Dibothrosuchus, Litargosuchus and Kayentasuchus.  However, placing it sister to other crocodylomorphs or sister to Crocodyliformes is only five steps longer each, so its position among 'sphenosuchians' is not strongly resolved.  The topology used on this site is from Leardi et al. (2017) who used Clark's 'sphenosuchian' analysis, which is preferred as it uses more 'sphenosuchians' and mesoeucrocodylians.
References- Tillyard, 1918. Mesozoic insects from Queensland. 3. Odonata and Protodonata. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 43, 417-435.
Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estrados de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (Republica Argentina). Ameghiniana 3, 3-20.
Bonaparte, 1970. Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods. In Haughton (ed.). Second Gondwana Symposium, South Africa, Proceedings and Papers. 665-682.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Bonaparte, 1978. El Mesozoico de America del Sur y sus Tetrapodos. Opera Lilloana. 596 pp.
Bonaparte, 1982a. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Bonaparte, 1982b. Classification of the Thecodontia. Geobios, Memoire Special. 6, 99-112.
Parrish, 1987. The origin of crocodilian locomotion. Paleobiology. 13(4), 396-414.
Benton and Clark, 1988. Archosaur phylogeny and the relationships of the Crocodylia. In Benton (ed.). The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press. 295-338.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Bonaparte, 1997. El Triasico de San Juan - La Rioja Argentina y sus Dinosaurios. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. 190 pp.
Clark, Sues and Berman, 2000. A new specimen of Hesperosuchus agilis from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico and the interrelationships of basal crocodylomorph archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(4), 683-704.
Ezcurra, Lecuona and Irmis, 2008. A review of the archosaur Trialestes romeri (Suchia, Crocodylomorpha) from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina. III Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados. 88.
Lecuona and Desojo, 2011. Hind limb osteology of Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum (Archosauria: Pseudosuchia). Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 102, 105-128.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.
Leardi, Pol and Clark, 2017. Detailed anatomy of the braincase of Macelognathus vagans Marsh, 1884 (Archosauria, Crocodylomorpha) using high resolution tomography and new insights on basal crocodylomorph phylogeny. PeerJ. 5:e2801.
Leardi, Yanez and Pol, 2020. South American crocodylomorphs (Archosauria; Crocodylomorpha): A review of the early fossil record in the continent and its relevance on understanding the origins of the clade. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 104, 102780.

Sphenosuchia Bonaparte, 1971
Definition- (Sphenosuchus acutus, Terrestrisuchus gracilis <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, in prep.)
Other definitions- (Terrestrisuchus gracilis <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)

Hallopoda Marsh, 1881
Definition- (Hallopus victor <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Hallopus

Macelognathus

Thalattosuchia Fraas, 1902
Definition- (Teleosaurus cadomensis, Metriorhynchus geoffroyii <- Pholidosaurus schaumburgensis, Dyrosaurus phosphaticus, Goniopholis crassidens) (Young and Andrade, 2009)
Other definitions- (Geosaurus giganteus <- Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis, Goniopholis crassidens, Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Teleosaurii Geoffroy, 1831
= Teleosaurina Bonaparte, 1840
= Teleosauri Owen, 1842
= Metriorhynchi Fitzinger, 1843
= Teleosauria Giebel, 1847

Teleosauroidea Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1831 vide Buchy, Frey, Stinnesbeck and Guadalupe, 2006
Definition-
(Teleosaurus cadomensis <- Metriorhynchus geoffroyii) (Young and Andrade, 2009)
References- Buchy, Frey, Stinnesbeck and Guadalupe, 2006. An annotated catalogue of the Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian and Tithonian) marine reptiles in the collections of the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra, Linares, Mexico. Oryctos. 6, 1-18.

Cystosaurus

"Megalosaurus" mersensis Lapparent, 1955
Early Bathonian, Middle Jurassic
Tizi n'Jullierh, El Mers Formation, Morocco
Syntypes- (MNHN ELM coll.) atlantal intercentrum (~26 mm), axis (~98 mm), five postaxial cervical vertebrae (60-70 mm), five anterior dorsal vertebrae (70-80 mm), three mid dorsal vertebrae, two synsacral fragments, posterior sacral centrum, two proximal caudal vertebrae (75 mm), two mid caudal vertebrae (60 mm), distal caudal fragment
Early Bathonian, Middle Jurassic
"vicinity of El Mers", El Mers Formation, Morocco
?(MNHN coll?) dorsal vertebra (105 mm)
Comments- Excavated in 1939 and 1940, this was first reported by Termier et al. (1940) as (translated) "probably a carnivorous theropod represented by twenty vertebrae from the same locality."  Lapparent (1955) described this as the main specimen of his new theropod species Megalosaurus mersensis, along with two teeth from Botane and (translated) "a dorsal vertebra (length: 10.5 cm), recovered isolated in 1929 in the vicinity of El Mers, [which] shows the same characters, in particular the ventral hollowing, but belongs to an individual of slightly larger size."  The teeth are here provisionally retained as Averostra indet..  The specimen numbers are assumed to be MNHN ELM based on "Cetiosaurus" mogrebiensis material described by Lapparent in the same publication and redescribed by Lang (2008).  No anatomical characters of the vertebrae were explicitly compared to other theropods although unnamed large Late Jurassic American and European theropods were said to "differ notably from the El Mers animal. In contrast, it seems rather close to the two species of Megalosaurus known in the Bathonian", Megalosaurus bucklandii and Poekilopleuron (as Megalosaurus poekilopleuron), "however, the teeth and vertebrae of these animals are constantly of larger size. We think that the Moroccan animal belongs to a third species of dinosaurian carnivore, 5 to 6 m long, for which we propose the name Megalosaurus mersensis nov. sp."  Thus mersensis was only explicitly diagnosed by small size, and while the teeth were stated to generally resemble M. bucklandii (in their "flattened form, in the slightly arched blade of a saber" with "enamel ... ornamented with fine, regular longitudinal striations"), this should not be combined with apparent differences in the unassociated vertebrae to then name a new species of Megalosaurus.
Chabli (1986) "re-studied part of the material reported by M. de Lapparent to the M.N.H.N. of Paris and in particular the bones attributed to M. mersensis."  While he claimed the atlas and axis (translated) "were compared by the Abbé de Lapparent to those described by Gilmore in 1920 for Antrodemus [= Allosaurus]", this was only to the extent that the atlas "is reduced to an incomplete ring, closed toward the top and widened in the inferior part" and "it is joined ventrally the axis", both of which were said to be "comparable to that of crocodilians."  Chabli stated "many characters differentiate them quite clearly, such as the orientation of the diapophysis of the axis, which in Antrodemus starts from the neural arch and curves to overlap the body of the vertebra; its counterpart in the El Mers reptile is located between the neural arch and the vertebral body."  Furthermore he noted the cervicals of mersensis are amphicoelous instead of opisthocoelous as in Allosaurus.  Based on these facts, he suggested they "more likely indicate the belonging of these parts to a teleosaurid (crocodilian mesosuchian) and of which Lapparent had collected, recognized and referred to the genus Steneosaurus Geoffroy 1825 from remains found at other fossiliferous points in the same region."  Of the latter, Chabli indicates "a series of dorsal and caudal vertebrae identical to those attributed to M. mersensis", which would be the Oued Tamemecht specimen found in 1939.  He stated the characters of all of this material "indicate a mesosuchian crocodilian of the teleosaurid family. Further determination is practically impossible, given the number of genera and species described in this family and of often doubtful validity."
Carrano et al. (2012) made the most recent comments based solely on Lapparent's paper, noting "the axis lacks pneumatic foramina and bears only a small diapophysis ... the cervical centra appear to have only weakly offset faces and are amphicoelous ... the anterior dorsal (Lapparent 1955, pl. 3, fig. 6) has a horizontally oriented transverse process and a neural spine at least as tall as the height of the centrum. The centra of two succeeding dorsals (Lapparent 1955, pl. 3, fig. 8) are slightly longer than tall and have a shallow ventral arch" and concluding "The vertebrae are quite different from those of most megalosauroids (e.g. Baryonyx, Eustreptospondylus, Piatnitzkysaurus) in one or more of these features."  While this is largely true, most of the characters are found in other Middle Jurassic theropods.  Axial pleurocoels are absent in Limusaurus, piatnitzkysaurids, Afrovenator, Eustreptospondylus and Shidaisaurus, and most of these taxa (except Afrovenator?) have reduced axial diapophyses as well.  Amphicoelous cervicals are present in Jurassic ceratosaurs, piatnitzkysaurids and most maniraptoromorphs, while elongated dorsal centra with shallow ventral arches are common in most small theropods.  That being said, most small theropods have elongated cervical vertebrae unlike mersensis and almost all theropods have offset cervical centrum faces.  The slender, decurved and distally expanded anterior dorsal diapophysis is also unlike theropods, as is the low axial neural spine and unprojected axial postzygapophysis, assuming the latter two are real and not caused by breakage.  Carrano et al. "agree that it does not belong within the genus Megalosaurus and instead seems likely to represent a teleosaurid mesosuchian", citing Chabli, but it is problematic that no published study has suggested characters that are shared with teleosaurs and not .e.g. other crocodyliforms or ornithischians. 
The most recent and extensive revision of teleosaurs is that of Johnson et al. (2020), whose conclusions I agree with except Neosteneosaurus edwardsi is here considered a junior synonym of Steneosaurus rostromajor.  One change from historical usage is that the Teleosauridae of Lapparent and Chabli is now called Teleosauroidea, so this is the new minimum clade mersensis can be assigned to based on Chabli's opinion.  Of taxa considered valid by Johnson, only fourteen include axial material that is potentially comparable to mersensis (Aeolodon priscus, Charitomenosuchus leedsi, Lemmysuchus obtusidens, Macrospondylus bollensis, Machimosaurus buffetauti, Machimosaurus mosae, Machimosaurus rex, Mycterosuchus nasutus, Platysuchus multiscrobiculatus, Proexochokefalos? bouchardi and Steneosaurus rostromajor are not Bathonian while Deslongchampsina larteti, Seldsienean megistorhynchus and Teleosaurus cadomensis are contemporaneous with mersensis), and it is poorly described for most and often articulated in slab specimens and thus difficult to compare.  Due in part to this the vast number of characters used to distinguish teleosauroids are cranial, so that of the 502 characters used by Johnson et al., only five vertebral ones vary within the clade.  Of these one is scorable in mersensis based on the literature- anterior dorsal neural spine height, which is less than centrum height in the figured dorsal (Pl. III, Fig. 6) as in Charitomenosuchus but unlike Platysuchus and Steneosaurus.  Also, the text claims Lemmysuchus and Macrospondylus lack axial diapophyses (which would be unlike mersensis), but the matrix has axial diapophyses present in all scored teleosauroids (Charitomenosuchus, Steneosaurus, Machimosaurus buffetauti).  Of the other variable characters, mersensis lacks complete mid cervical neural spines (Plate III, Fig. 5; character 370), while the number of cervicals, dorsals and sacrals (characters 366, 371 and 379) is unknown due to an incompletely preserved vertebral column.   According to their text mersensis is unlike Machimosaurus in lacking- tall axis neural spine terminating on a plane dorsal to the pre- and postzygapophyses in lateral view; axis neural spine posteriorly expanded in lateral view, and further unlike M. buffetauti in lacking- dorsal margin of the axis neural arch is strongly concave in lateral view.  This leaves mersensis as Teleosauroidea incertae sedis although further study of teleosauroid vertebrae may reveal more.  While Lapparent's cranial 'Steneosaurus' specimens (partial braincase from Bou Iferaoun and snout from Tissenfelt) are most likely to be taxonomically determinable, they are not necessarily conspecific with each other or mersensis
References
- Termier, Gubler and Lapparent, 1940. Reptiles et Poissons du Bathonien d'El-Mers (Moyen-Atlas marocain). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences à Paris. 210, 768-770.
Lapparent, 1955. Étude paléontologique des vertébrés du Jurassique d'El Mers (Moyen Atlas). Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique du Maroc. 124, 1-36.
Chabli, 1986. Données nouvelles sur un "Dinosaurien" Jurassique Moyen du Maroc: Megalosaurus mersensis Lapparent 1955, et sur les Megalosaurides en général. In Taquet and Sudre (eds.). Les Dinosaures de la Chine à la France. Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse. 66-72.
Lang, 2008. Les cetiosaures (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) et les sauropodes du Jurassique moyen: Revision systematique, nouvelles decouvertes et implications phylogenetiques. Doctoral Thesis. Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle. 638 pp.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.
Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

unnamed possible teleosauroid (Lapparent and Zbyszewski, 1957)
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Casal Labrusque / Areia Branca, Leiria, Portugal
Materia
l- (Geology Laboratory of the Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon coll.) two proximal caudal vertebrae (65 mm), five proximal caudal vertebrae (80 mm), distal caudal vertebra (75 mm)
Comments- These were referred to Megalosaurus insignis by Lapparent and Zbyszewski (1957). Carrano et al. (2012) states "They may belong to a teleosaurian crocodilian (Chabli 1986)", but Chabli never mentions the material.
References- Lapparent and Zbyszewski, 1957. Les dinosauriens du Portugal. Mémoires des Services Géologiques du Portugal, nouvelle série. 2, 1-63.
Chabli, 1986. Données nouvelles sur un "Dinosaurien" Jurassique Moyen du Maroc: Megalosaurus mersensis Lapparent 1955, et sur les Megalosaurides en général. In Taquet and Sudre (eds.). Les Dinosaures de la Chine à la France. Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse. 66-72.
Carrano, Benson and Sampson, 2012. The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10(2), 211-300.

Teleosauridae Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1831
Definition- (Teleosaurus cadomensis <- Plagiophthalmosuchus gracilirostris, Machimosaurus hugii) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
Other definition- (Teleosaurus cadomensis <- Metriorhynchus geoffroyi, Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, 2005 online)
References- Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

Teleosaurinae Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1831 vide Lydekker, 1887
Definition- (Teleosaurus cadomensis <- Aeolodon priscus, Indosinosuchus potamosiamensis) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
References- Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

Aeolodontinae Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020
Definition- (Aeolodon priscus <- Indosinosuchus potamosiamensis, Teleosaurus cadomensis) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
References- Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

Machimosauridae Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016 vide Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020
Definition- (Machimosaurus hugii <- Plagiophthalmosuchus gracilirostris, Teleosaurus cadomensis) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
= Steneosauridae Owen, 1843?
Comments- Steneosauridae clearly has precedence over Machimosauridae, being credited to Owen, 1843 online and verifiable as far back as Brougham (1867).  Even if Steneosaurus rostromajor is indeterminate, it was recovered within 'Machimosauridae' by Johnson et al. (2020). 
References- Brougham, 1867. The Circle of the Sciences: With an Introductory Discourse of the Objects, Pleasures, and Advantages of Science. The natural history of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdom, geography, and geology. Volume 2. London Print and Publishing Company. 1092 pp.
Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016. The oldest durophagous teleosauroid (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) from the lower Bathonian of central High Atlas, Morocco. Palaeontology. 59(6), 863-876.
Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

Machimosaurinae Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016 vide Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020
= Steneosaurinae Owen, 1843? vide Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016
Definition- (Machimosaurus hugii <- Deslongchampsina larteti, Charitomenosuchus leedsi) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
Comments- Like Steneosauridae above, Steneosaurinae predates Machimosaurinae based on the Principle of Coordination (ICZN Article 36.1) with Steneosauridae dating to at least Brougham (1867). 
References- Brougham, 1867. The Circle of the Sciences: With an Introductory Discourse of the Objects, Pleasures, and Advantages of Science. The natural history of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdom, geography, and geology. Volume 2. London Print and Publishing Company. 1092 pp.
Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016. The oldest durophagous teleosauroid (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) from the lower Bathonian of central High Atlas, Morocco. Palaeontology. 59(6), 863-876.
Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.

Machimosaurini Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016
Definition- (Machimosaurus hugii <- Neosteneosaurus edwardsi) (Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020)
Comments- Neosteneosaurus edwardsi is here considered a junior synonym of Steneosaurus rostromajor (Mortimer, 2020 online).
References- Jouve, Mennecart, Douteau and Jalil, 2016. The oldest durophagous teleosauroid (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) from the lower Bathonian of central High Atlas, Morocco. Palaeontology. 59(6), 863-876.
Johnson, Young and Brusatte, 2020. The phylogenetics of Teleosauroidea (Crocodylomorpha, Thalattosuchia) and implications for their ecology and evolution. PeerJ. 8:e9808.
Mortimer, 2020 online. https://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-unecessary-death-of-steneosaurus.html

Metriorhynchoidea Fitzinger, 1843 vide Deraniyagala, 1939
Definition- (Metriorhynchus geoffroyi <- Teleosaurus cadomensis) (Young and Andrade, 2009)

Metriorhynchidae Fitzinger, 1843
Definition- (Metriorhynchus geoffroyi + Geosaurus giganteus) (Young and Andrade, 2009)
Other definitions- (Metriorhynchus geoffroyi <- Teleosaurus cadomensis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, 2005 online)
= Geosauridae Lydekker, 1889

Metriorhynchinae Fitzinger, 1843 vide Lydekker, 1887
Definition- (Metriorhynchus geoffroyi <- Geosaurus giganteus) (Young and Andrade, 2009)

Rhacheosaurini Young, Bell and Brusatte, 2011
Definition- (Rhacheosaurus gracilis <- Metriorhynchus geoffroyii, Gracilineustes leedsi) (
Young, Bell and Brusatte, 2011)
Reference- Young, Bell and Brusatte, 2011. Craniofacial form and function in Metriorhynchidae (Crocodylomorpha: Thalattosuchia): Modelling phenotypic evolution with maximum likelihood methods. Biology Letters. 7(6),  913-916.

Geosaurinae Lydekker, 1889 vide Nopcsa, 1928
Definition- (Geosaurus giganteus <- Metriorhynchus geoffroyi) (Young and Andrade, 2009)

Geosaurini Lydekker, 1889 vide Cau and Fanti, 2011
Definition- (Geosaurus giganteus + Geosaurus carpenteri + Dakosaurus maximus) (Cau and Fanti, 2011)
References- Cau and Fanti, 2011. The oldest known metriorhynchid crocodylian from the Middle Jurassic of north-eastern Italy: Neptunidraco ammoniticus gen. et sp. nov. Gondwana Research. 19(2), 550-565.

Geosaurina Lydekker, 1889 vide Foffa, Young, Brusatte, Graham and Steel, 2018
References- Foffa, Young, Brusatte, Graham and Steel, 2018. A new metriorhynchid crocodylomorph from the Oxford Clay Formation (Middle Jurassic) of England, with implications for the origin and diversification of Geosaurini. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 16(13), 1123-1143.

Geosaurus Cuvier, 1824 vide Holl, 1829
= Halilimnosaurus Ritgen, 1826
= Brachytaenius Meyer, 1842
G. grandis (Wagner, 1858) Zittel, 1890
= Cricosaurus grandis Wagner, 1858
= Metriorhynchus grandis (Wagner, 1858) Lydekker, 1888
G. giganteus (Sömmerring, 1816) Quenstedt, 1852
= Lacerta gigantea Sömmerring, 1816
= Lacerta (Geosaurus) gigantea (Sömmerring, 1816) Cuvier, 1824
= Halilimnosaurus crocodiloides Ritgen, 1826
= Mosasaurus bavaricus Holl, 1829
= Geosaurus sömmerringii Meyer, 1831
= Brachytaenius perennis Meyer, 1842
= Mosasaurus giganteus (Sömmerring, 1816) Cope, 1869
G. lapparenti (Debelmas and Strannolaubsky, 1957) Young and Andrade, 2009
= Dakosaurus lapparenti Debelmas and Strannolaubsky, 1957

Plesiosuchina Young, Andrade, Cornée, Steel and Foffa, 2014
Comments- Note this is consistantly misspelled 'Plesiosuchia' in Foffa et al. (2018).
References- Young, Andrade, Cornée, Steel and Foffa, 2014. Re-description of a putative Early Cretaceous "teleosaurid" from France, with implications for the survival of metriorhynchids and teleosaurids across the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary. Annales de Paléontologie. 100, 165-174.
Foffa, Young, Brusatte, Graham and Steel, 2018. A new metriorhynchid crocodylomorph from the Oxford Clay Formation (Middle Jurassic) of England, with implications for the origin and diversification of Geosaurini. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 16(13), 1123-1143.

"Dakosaurina" Foffa, Young, Brusatte, Graham and Steel, 2018

"Dakosaurus" lissocephalus Seeley, 1869
Late Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation, England
Holotype- (CAMSM J29419) partial skull
Comments- Young et al. (2015) stated "this specimen lacks all the Dakosaurus cranial apomorphies listed by Young, Brusatte, Andrade, et al. (2012). The holotype is currently under re-description, which will elucidate its taxonomy."
References- Young, Steel, Rigby, Howlett and Humphrey, 2015 (online 2014). Largest known specimen of the genus Dakosaurus (Metriorhynchidae: Geosaurini) from the Kimmeridge Clay Formation (Late Jurassic) of England, and an overview of Dakosaurus specimens discovered from this formation (including reworked specimens from the Woburn Sands Formation). Historical Biology.

Dakosaurus Quenstedt, 1856
= Aggiosaurus Ambayrac, 1913
D. andiniensis Vignaud and Gasparini, 1996
D. maximus (Plieninger, 1846) Quenstedt, 1856
= Geosaurus maximus Plieninger, 1846
= Dakosaurus maximus var. gracilis Quenstedt vide Debelmas, 1852
= Liodon paradoxus Wagner, 1853
= Liodon primaevum Sauvage, 1871
?= Megalosaurus schnaitheimii Bunzel, 1871
= Dakosaurus primaevus (Sauvage, 1871) Sauvage, 1873
= Teleosaurus suprajurensis Schlosser, 1881
= Dakosaurus gracilis Quenstedt, 1885 (non Debelmas, 1852)
= Megalosaurus gracilis (Quenstedt, 1885) Douville, 1885
= Dakosaurus paradoxus (Wagner, 1853) Fraas, 1902
= Dakosaurus suprajurensis (Schlosser, 1881) Fraas, 1902
D. nicaeensis (Ambayrac, 1913) Young and Andrade, 2009
= Aggiosaurus nicaeensis Ambayrac, 1913

Crocodyliformes Hay, 1930
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus + Protosuchus richardsoni) (Sereno et al., 2001; modified from Kischlat, 2000)
References- Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.

Kemkemia Cau and Maganuco, 2009
K. auditorei Cau and Maganuco, 2009
Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous
Kem Kem Beds, Morocco
Holotype
- (MSNM V6408) distal caudal vertebra (60.48 mm)
Diagnosis- (modified after Cau and Maganuco, 2009) robust distal caudal neural spine (mediolateral width at apex at least 30% of anterior central width); mediolaterally concave dorsal surface of distal caudal neural spine.
Other diagnoses- Lio et al. (2012) found most of the diagnostic characters proposed by Cau and Maganuco were typical of crocodyliforms- inflated neural canal on distal caudal vertebra, broader than width of centrum at mid-length; strongly reduced finger-like distal caudal prezygapophyses lacking articular facets and failing to reach level of anterior end of centrum; shallow fossa on posterior half of lateral surface of distal caudal neural spine bounded distally by postspinal lamina.
Comments- Cau and Maganuco (2009) believed this specimen resembled ceratosaurs such as Ilokelesia, Ligabueino and especially the Lameta abelisaur vertebra GSI K27/705. However, Lio et al. (2012) reidentified it as a crocodyliform vertebra. Due to the poor description of most crocodyliforms, it is not possible to determine its relationships further than it being outside Eusuchia, and dissimilar to Baurusuchus, Simosuchus, Notosuchus and Uruguaysuchus. It may be synonymous with another named taxon from the area, like Araripesuchus, Aegisuchus, Aegyptosuchus, Hamadasuchus, Kaprosuchus, Laganosuchus or Stomatosuchus. Chiarenza and Cau (2016) mentioned mid caudals of Spinosaurus/Sigilmassasaurus share Kemkemia's neural spine anatomy, reduced zygapophyses, non-grooved ventral surface and tall neural spine on a vertebra lacking transverse processes. They thus proposed Kemkenia may be a spinosaurine distal caudal vertebra. I feel this is doubtful as spinosaurine mid caudals lack the expanded neural canal, neural spine fossa or pre/postspinal laminae, and each of these characters are expected to be present proximally and end distally in theropod tails. Thus the broad and dorsally concave neural spine anatomy would be more parsimoniously convergent in Kemkemia and spinosaurines.
References- Cau and Maganuco, 2009. A new theropod dinosaur, represented by a single unusual caudal vertebra, from the Kem Kem Beds (Cretaceous) of Morocco. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano. 150(II), 239-257.
Lio, Agnolin, Cau and Maganuco, 2012. Crocodyliform affinities for Kemkemia auditorei Cau and Maganuco, 2009, from the Late Cretaceous of Morocco. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano. 153(I), 119-126.
Chiarenza and Cau, 2016. A large abelisaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from Morocco and comments on the Cenomanian theropods from North Africa. PeerJ. 4:e1754.

"Maroccanoraptor" Singer, 2015 online
"M. elbegiensis" Singer, 2015 online
Cenomanian, Late Cretaceous
Kem Kem beds, Morocco

Material- (JP Cr683) coracoid (proximodistal 150 mm)
Comments- This was briefly described online by Singer (2015), on the website of a theme park chain based on a specimen collected and owned by the chain. He assigns this unofficial taxon to Unenlagiinae based on resemblence to the coracoid of Buitreraptor. However, Cau (online, 2015) convincingly showed a greater resemblence to crocodyliforms such as Simosuchus. While several taxa are known from the Kem Kem beds (Aegisuchus, Arraripesuchus? rattoides, Elosuchus, Hamadasuchus, Laganosuchus, etc.), none have preserved coracoids, and very few coracoid characters have been used in crocodyliform analyses so far.
References- Cau, 2015 online. http://theropoda.blogspot.it/2015/12/maroccanoraptor.html
Singer, 2015 online. JuraPark na tropie nowych dinozaurow z Maroka. https://web.archive.org/web/20151206224352/https://jurapark.pl/jurapark-na-tropie-nowych-dinozaurow-z-maroka/

unnamed Crocodyliformes (Candeiro, Abranches, Abrantes, Avilla, Martins, Moreira, Torres and Bergqvist, 2004)
Turonian-Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Adamantina Formation of the Bauru Group, Brazil
Material
- (UFRJ-DG 354-Rd) tooth (8.6x5.6x? mm)
(UFRJ-DG 372-Rd) tooth (18.9x10.6x? mm)
Comments- These were assigned to Spinosauridae by Candeiro et al. (2004), but reassigned to Theropoda indet. by Candeiro et al. (2006) because other theropods can also have serrationless teeth and other tetrapods can have smooth striations. This is confusing however, since the teeth were explicitly described as having both mesial and distal serrations.  In any case, while the subcircul;ar section is spinosaurid-like, the larger serrations (3/mm) are not.  Machado et al. (2008) most recently stated without evidence that "compared to published spinosaurid teeth this material more likely belongs to crocodyliforms", where they are provisionally placed here.
References- Candeiro, Abranches, Abrantes, Avilla, Martins, Moreira, Torres and Bergqvist, 2004. Dinosaur remains from western Sao Paulo State, Brazil (Bauru Basin, Adamantina Formation, Late Cretaceous). Journal of South American Earth Sciences. 18, 1-10.
Candeiro, Martinelli, Avilla and Rich, 2006. Tetrapods from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian-Maastrichtian) Bauru Group of Brazil: A reappraisal. Cretaceous Research. 27, 923-946.
Machado, Campos and Kellner, 2008. On a theropod scapula (Upper Cretaceous) from the Marília Formation, Bauru Group, Brazil. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 82(3), 308-313.

Protosuchia Mook, 1934
Definition- (Protosuchus richardsoni <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno et al., 2001)

Protosuchidae Brown, 1934
Definition- (Protosuchus richardsoni + Hemiprotosuchus leali) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
= Protosuchoidea Brown, 1934 vide Deraniyagala, 1939
= Protosuchinae Brown, 1934 vide Busbey and Gow, 1982

Gobiosuchidae Osmolska, 1972
Definition- (Gobiosuchus kielanae + Zaraasuchus shepardi) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)

Lisboasaurus

Mesoeucrocodylia Whetstone and Whybrow, 1983
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Protosuchus richardsoni) (Sereno et al., 2001)
= Emydosauria Blainville, 1822

Lusitanosuchus

unnamed crocodyliform (Sauvage, 1876)
Early Cretaceous
Blacourt, Oise, France

Material- distal femur
Comments- This was initially described as Megalosaurus by Sauvage (1876), then referred to Erectopus superbus by Huene (1926). Chure (2000) determined it was crocodyliform.
References- Sauvage, 1876. Notes sur les reptiles fossiles. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France (ser. 3). 4, 435-442.
Huene, 1926. The carnivorous Saurischia in the Jura and Cretaceous formations, principally in Europe. Revista Museo de La Plata. 29, 35-167.
Chure, 2000. A new species of Allosaurus from the Morrison Formation of Dinosaur National Monument (Utah-Colorado) and a revision of the theropod family Allosauridae. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. 1-964.

undescribed crocodyliform (Carrano et al., 2002)
Middle Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Anembalemba Member of Maevarano Formation, Madagascar

Material- (FMNH PR 2204) proximal caudal vertebra
Comments- This was identified as Masiakasaurus (Carrano et al., 2002) before being reidentified as a crocodyliform (Carrano et al., 2011).
References- Carrano, Sampson and Forster, 2002. The osteology of Masiakasaurus knopfleri, a small abelisauroid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 22(3), 510-534.
Carrano, Loewen and Sertich, 2011. New materials of Masiakasaurus knopfleri Sampson, Carrano, and Forster, 2001, and implications for the morphology of the Noasauridae (Theropoda: Ceratosauria). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology. 95, 53 pp.

Shartegosuchoidea Efimov, 1988 vide Dollman, Clark, Norell, Xu and Choiniere, 2018
Definition- (Shartegosuchus asperopalatum + Shantungosuchus chuhsienensis + Zosuchus davidsoni + Sichuanosuchus huidongensis) (modified after Dollman, Clark, Norell, Xu and Choiniere, 2018)

Neuquensuchus
N. universitas
Referred- (MACN-Pv N 28, N 29) (Bonaparte, 1991)
Comments- Mentioned by Bonaparte (1991) as a theropod.

Shartegosuchidae Efimov, 1988
Definition- (Shartegosuchus asperopalatum, Nominosuchus matutinus <- Zosuchus davidsoni) (modified after Dollman, Clark, Norell, Xu and Choiniere, 2018)

Hsisosuchidae Young and Chow, 1953

Hsisosuchus Young and Chow, 1953
H. chungkingensis Young and Chow, 1953
Middle-Late Jurassic
Tatienwan, Chongqing Group?, Sichuan, China
Holotype- (IVPP V703) skull, mandibles (one incomplete)
Paratype- ....(IVPP V704) caudal osteoderms
Jurassic
Sangqiao, Sichuan, China
Referred- (CNM V1090) incomplete skull, incomplete mandibles, axis, third to twenty-fourth vertebrae, scapula, coracoid, humerus, radius, ulna, pubes, distal femur, proximal tibia, dorsal osteoderms, ventral osteoderms (Li, Wu and Li, 1994)
Comments- The sediments at Tatienwan where the holotype was found "are generally acccepted as Chungking Series of Cretaceous age" according to Young and Chow (1953), today called the Chongqing Group and considered of Middle-Late Jurassic age.  While Li et al. (1994) place it specifically within the Shangshaximiao Formation, this correlation has not been demonstrated to my knowledge.
References- Young and Chow, 1953a. New fossil reptiles from Szechuan, China. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica. 1(3), 87-109.
Young and Chow, 1953b. New fossil reptiles from Szechuan, China. Acta Scientia Sinica. 2(3), 216-243.
Li, Wu and Li, 1994. New material of Hsisosuchus chungkingensis from Sichuan, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 32(2), 107-126.
H. dashanpuensis Gao, 2001
Bajocian, Middle Jurassic
Dashanpu, Xiashaximiao Formation, Sichuan, China
Holotype- (ZDM 3405) skull, cervical vertebra, sacral vertebra, seven dorsal osteoderms
Reference- Gao, 2001. A new species of Hsisosuchus (Mesoeucrocodylia) from Dashanpu, Zigong Municipality, Sichuan Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 39(3), 177-184.
H. chowi Peng and Shu, 2004
Bathonian-Callovian, Middle Jurassic
Huidong, Shangshaximiao Formation, Sichuan, China
Holotype- (ZDM 0146) incomplete skull, mandibles (one incomplete, one anterior), five cervical vertebrae, fifteen dorsal vertebrae, two sacral vertebrae, twelve proximal caudal vertebrae, three mid-distal caudal vertebrae, scapulae (one distal), coracoid, humeri (one proximal), radii (one distal), ulna, radiale, ulnare, pisiform, two distal carpals, metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, manual ungual I, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, metacarpal III, phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV, metacarpal V, ischium, distal tibia, proximal fibula, most osteoderms
Reference- Peng and Shu, 2004. A new species of Hsisosuchus from the Late Jurassic of Zigong, Sichuan, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 43(4), 312-324.
H? sp. (Young, 1942)
Tithonian?, Late Jurassic
IVPP locality 47, upper Guangyuan Group, Sichuan, China

Material- (IVPP V237B; syntype of Chienkosaurus ceratosauroides) tooth (21x11x9.5 mm)
(IVPP V237D; syntype of Chienkosaurus ceratosauroides) tooth (12x7.5x6 mm)
Comments- The material was discovered in late Spring 1941, part of the Chienkosaurus ceratosauroides type consisting of four isolated teeth IVPP V237A-D.  Young's (1942) diagnosis was "Mainly based upon" the largest tooth (V237A), with the three smaller teeth considered immature and (possibly incorrectly) lacking their bases.  Dong et al. (1983) reported that "Rozhdestvensky (1964) proposed that the four teeth of Chienkosaurus could possibly belong to the Crocodilia" (translated), but which work this corresponds to was not listed in the bibliography and cannot be determined.  Dong et al. also stated "during the editing of "The Handbook of Chinese Fossil Vertebrates," Zhiming Dong conducted a review of these four specimens and formally confirmed that the best preserved tooth among the V237 collection was a premaxillary tooth of a carnosaurian dinosaur, but that the remaining three teeth were assignable to the crocodile Hsisosuchus."  The dentition of Hsisosuchus has not been described or figured in enough detail to distinguish it from theropods, but two of the teeth (IVPP V237B and V237D) are similar in being short and barely recurved with a high crown base ratio, characters shared with the tooth figured separately in Hsisosuchus' type description.  They are provisionally placed in Hsisosuchus sp. here.  The third supposed Hsisosuchus tooth (IVPP V237C) is different in having a distinctly D-shaped section with strong carinae somewhat like Guimarota tyrannosauroid premaxillary tooth IPFUB GUI D 89, so is provisionally placed in Tyrannosauroidea here.
Young placed locality 47 at "the top part of the Kuangyuan Series and immediately below the Chentsianyen conglomerate", now known as the Guangyuan Group and the Chengqiangyan Group, with the former corresponding to the Xiashaximiao Formation through the Penglaizhen Formation.  As it was found "immediately below" the boundary, IVPP V237 may be from the Penglaizhen Formation or slightly lower Shuining Formation.  The age is listed as Tithonian on fossilworks and in Weishampel (1990), the latter cited as from "Dong (pers. comm.)". 
References- Young, 1942. Fossil vertebrates from Kuangyuan, N. Szechuan, China. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China. 22(3-4), 293-309.
Dong, Zhou and Zhang, 1983. Dinosaurs from the Jurassic of Sichuan. Palaeontologica Sinica. Whole Number 162, New Series C, 23, 136 pp.
Weishampel, 1990. Dinosaurian distribution. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 63-139.

Metasuchia Benton and Clark, 1988
Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris + Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno et al., 2001)

Notosuchia Gasparini, 1971
Official Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris <-Crocodylus niloticus) (Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021; originally Sereno et al., 2001; Registration Number 417)
Other definitions- (Peirosaurus torminni + Notosuchus terrestris + Libycosuchus brevirostris + Baurusuchus pachecoi) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Sebecia Larsson and Sues, 2007
Definition- (Sebecus icaeorhinus <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Larsson and Sues, 2007)
Comments- A lingering controversy in notosuchian phylogenetics is the placement of Sebecidae and their relatives, either sister to baurusuchians as shown here or sister to mahajangosuchids and/or peirosaurids. 
References- Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021. A new species of Caipirasuchus (Notosuchia, Sphagesauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the evolutionary history of Sphagesauria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(4), 265-287.

Notosuchiformes Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris + Uruguaysuchus aznarezi) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Notosuchimorpha Calvalho et al., 2004
Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris + Stolokrosuchus lapparenti) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Peirosauriformes Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Araripesuchus gomesii + Peirosaurus torminni) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Peirosauromorpha Carvalho et al., 2004
Definition- (Peirosaurus torminni + Candidodon itapecurvense) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Eunotosuchia Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021
Official Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris + Uruguaysuchus aznarezi + Araripesuchus gomesi <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021; Registration Number 418)
Comments- Recent phylogenetic analyses of Notosuchia disagree as to whether uruguaysuchids are closer to peirosaurids or sphagesaurians, with Peirosauriformes working for the former hypothesis and Eunotosuchia officially defined for the latter.
Notosuchiformes, Notosuchimorpha and Peirosauromorpha were all named and defined by Carvalho et al. (2004) using a heterodox topology, and each defines the same clade in most modern topologies.  Which has priority is subjective.
References- Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004. Uberabasuchus terrificus sp. nov., a new Crocodylomorpha from the Bauru Basin (Upper Cretaceous), Brazil. Gondwana Research. 7(4), 975-1002.
Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021. A new species of Caipirasuchus (Notosuchia, Sphagesauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the evolutionary history of Sphagesauria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(4), 265-287.

Brasileosaurus Huene, 1931
B. pachecoi Huene, 1931
Turonian, Late Cretaceous
Adamantina Formation of the Bauru Group, Brazil
Holotype
- (lost) distal quadrate, incomplete humerus, incomplete femur
Comments- Assigned to Coelurosauria by Huene (1931) and to Coeluridae by Romer (1966). Huene (1933) later recognized it was a crocodile, possibly of the same genus as Uruguaysuchus aznarezi. Simpson (1937) assigned it to Notosuchidae.  Candeiro and Figueiroa (2018) report "this material appears to be missing at the present time."
References- Huene, 1931. Verschiedene mesozoische Wirbeltierreste aus Südamerika [Different Mesozoic vertebrate remains from South America]. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung A. 66, 181-198.
Huene, 1933. Ein Versuch zur Stammesgeschichte der Krokodile. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Abteilung B. 11, 577-585.
Simpson. 1937. An ancient eusuchian crocodile from Patagonia. American Museum Novitates. 965, 1-20.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Price, 1950. Os crocodilídeos da fauna da formação Bauru, do Cretáceo terrestre do Brasil meridional. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 22, 473-490.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1-468.
Bertini, 1994. Comments on the fossil amniotes from the Adamantina and Marília formations, continental Upper Cretaceous of the Paraná Basin, Southeastern Brazil (Part 1: Introduction, Testudines, Lacertilia, Crocodylomorpha). Boletim do 3° Simpósio sobre o Cretáceo do Brasil, Rio Claro, 1994, UNESP - Campus de Rio Claro/SP. 97-100.
Candeiro and Figueiroa, 2018. Early twentieth-century paleontological research of Freidrich von Huene: Contributions to the knowledge of Late Cretaceous vertebrates of central Brazil. Historical Biology. 30(8), 1084-1093.

Mahajangasuchini Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Uberabasuchus terrificus + Mahajangasuchus insignis) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
Comments- This was proposed and defined by Carvalho et al. (2004) in their heterodox phylogeny where Majajangasuchus was nested within peirosaurines, and should not be used in consensus topologies due to its tribe prefix at a level including families.

Cunampaia

Mahajangasuchidae Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004 vide Sereno and Larsson, 2009
Definition- (Mahajangasuchus insignis <- Baurusuchus pachecoi, Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis, Goniopholis crassidens, Crocodylus niloticus, Peirosaurus torminni, Simosuchus clarki, Araripesuchus gomesii, Notosuchus terrestris) (Sereno and Larsson, 2009)

Peirosauridae Gasparini, 1982
Definition- (Peirosaurus torminni <- Mahajangasuchus insignis, Notosuchus terrestris, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Araripesuchus gomesii, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Crocodylus niloticus) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Peirosaurus torminni + Lomasuchus palpebrosus) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
(Peirosaurus torminni <- Notosuchus terrestris, Araripesuchus gomesii, Simosuchus clarki, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
(Peirosaurus torminni, Uberabasuchus terrificus <- Sebecus icaeorhinus) (Larsson and Sues, 2007)
(Peirosaurus torminni, Itasuchus jesuinoi, Stolokrosuchus lapparenti <- Notosuchus terrestris, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sphagesaurus huenei, Araripesuchus gomesii, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Mariliasuchus amarali, Crocodylus niloticus) (Geroto and Bertini, 2019)
= Trematochampsidae Buffetaut, 1974
Comments- Meunier and Larsson (2018) redescribed the type material of Trematochampsa and found that in the type lacrimal "the posterior sharp and roofed edge of the antorbital fossa, ornamentation and orbital margin is nearly identical to [Montealtosuchus] arrudacamposi. In fact, close examination of both finds no diagnostic features to separate the two."  While they claim this makes Trematochampsa a nomen dubium, they describe differences from all other taxa including the closely related Uberabasuchus, which would technically make Trematochampsa a senior synonym of Montealtosuchus.  Given the wide geographical separation (Niger vs. Brazil) it is unlikely the two are conspecific however, and the nearly complete articulated skeleton of Montealtosuchus is a far superior type than the isolated lacrimal of Trematochampsa.  Moreover, the latter cannot be distinguished from Pierosaurus as that genus does not preserve a lacrimal.  For these reasons it is seen as justified to use Trematochampsa for only the type lacrimal.  However, this does not excuse discontinuing the use of Trematochampsidae, as Trematochampsa is deeply nested within the later named Peirosauridae, giving us a situation akin to Troodon or Ceratops.  That being said, the crocodyliform community has preferred to use Peirosauridae, but the ICZN should still be petitioned to make this valid under the Code.
Phylogenetic definition- Published phylogenetic definitions fail to exclude mahajangosuchids, which are sister to peirosaurids in some recent phylogenies which place sebecids by baurusuchids.
References- Meunier and Larsson, 2018. Trematochampsa taqueti as a nomen dubium and the crocodyliform diversity of the Upper Cretaceous In Beceten Formation of Niger. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 182, 659-680.
Geroto and Bertini, 2019. New material of Pepesuchus (Crocodyliformes; Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Bauru Group: Implications about its phylogeny and the age of the Adamantina Formation. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 185, 312-334.

Peirosaurinae Gasparini, 1982 vide Geroto and Bertini, 2019
Definition- (Peirosaurus torminni <- Notosuchus terrestris, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sphagesaurus huenei, Itasuchus jesuinoi, Pepesuchus deiseae, Barreirosuchus franciscoi, Araripesuchus gomesii, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Mariliasuchus amarali, Crocodylus niloticus) (Geroto and Bertini, 2019)
= Trematochampsinae Buffetaut, 1974 vide nov.
Comments- As discussed above under Peirosauridae, Meunier and Larsson (2018) found the holotype of Trematochampsa to differ from other crocodyliforms except for Montealtosuchus, which would make any subfamily containing both Peirosaurus and Trematochampsa Trematochampsinae.  This is based on Trematochampsidae having priority over Peirosauridae and the Principle of Coordination where erecting Trematochampsidae automatically erects Trematochampsinae even though the subfamily version has never been published.  Much like the situation for Trematochampsidae however, this is likely to be ignored by the crocodyliform community.
References- Geroto and Bertini, 2019. New material of Pepesuchus (Crocodyliformes; Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Bauru Group: Implications about its phylogeny and the age of the Adamantina Formation. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 185, 312-334.

Hamadasuchus
H? sp.
(Canudo, Salgado, Barco, Bolatti and Ruiz-Omeñaca, 2004)
Late Cenomanian-Early Turonian, Late Cretaceous
Cerro Lisandro Formation, Rio Negro, Argentina
Material
- (Endemas-PV 6) lateral tooth (~21x9x7.6 mm)
Comments- Canudo et al. (2004) and Salgado et al. (2004) reffered this tooth to Spinosauridae and cf. Spinosauridae respectively. Salgado et al. (2009) indicated this differs from spinosaurids in having large serrations which are apically oriented, and Hasegawa et al. (2010) referred it to Hamadasuchus.
References- Canudo, Salgado, Barco, Bolatti and Ruiz-Omeñaca, 2004. Dientes de dinosaurios terópodos y saurópodos de la Formación Cerro Lisandro (Cenomaniense superior-Turoniense inferior, Cretácio superior) en Río Negro (Argentina). Geo-Temas. 6, 31-34.
Salgado, Canudo, Garrido, Ruiz-Omeñaca, Garcýa, de la Fuente, Barco and Bollati, 2009. Upper Cretaceous vertebrates from El Anfiteatro area, Rio Negro, Patagonia. Cretaceous Research. 30, 767-784.
Hasegawa, Tanaka, Takakuwa and Koike, 2010. Fine sculptures on a tooth of Spinosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from Morocco. Bulletin of Gunma Museum of Natural History. 14, 11-20.

Pepesuchinae Geroto and Bertini, 2019
Definition- (Pepesuchus deiseae <- Notosuchus terrestris, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sphagesaurus huenei, Peirosaurus torminni, Gasparinisuchus peirosauroides, Lomasuchus palpebrosus, Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, Araripesuchus gomesii, Malawisuchus mwakasyungutiensis, Mariliasuchus amarali, Crocodylus niloticus) (Geroto and Bertini, 2019)

Uruguaysuchidae Rusconi, 1933
Definition- (Uruguaysuchus aznarezi <- Lomasuchus palpebrosus, Kaprosuchus saharicus, Notosuchus terrestris) (modified from Fernandez Dumont, Bona, Pol and Apesteguía, 2020)
Other definitions- (Uruguaysuchus) (Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Uruguaysuchinae Rusconi, 1933
= "Araripesuchidae" Michard, De Broin, Brunet and Hell, 1990
References- Michard, De Broin, Brunet and Hell, 1990. Le plus ancien crocodilien néosuchien spécialisé à caractères 'eusuchiens' du continent africain (Crétacé inférieur, Cameroun). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris. 311, 365-371.
Fernandez Dumont, Bona, Pol and Apesteguía, 2020. New anatomical information on Araripesuchus buitreraensis with implications for the systematics of Uruguaysuchidae (Crocodyliforms, Notosuchia). Cretaceous Research. 113, 104494.

Ziphosuchia Ortega, Gasparini, Buscalioni and Calvo, 2000
Definition- (Notosuchus terrestris + Libycosuchus brevirostris + Baurusuchus pachecoi) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
References- Ortega, Gasparini, Buscalioni and Calvo, 2000. A new species of Araripesuchus (Crocodylomorpha, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(1), 57-76.
Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004. Uberabasuchus terrificus sp. nov., a new Crocodylomorpha from the Bauru Basin (Upper Cretaceous), Brazil. Gondwana Research. 7(4), 975-1002.

Libycosuchidae Stromer, 1914
= Libycosuchinae Stromer, 1914

Chimaerasuchidae sensu Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Chimaerasuchus pardoxus + Simosuchus clarki) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)

Candidodontidae Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Other definition- (Candidodon itapecurvense + Mariliasuchus amarili) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)

Gondwanasuchia Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Chimaerasuchus paradoxus + Notosuchus terrestris) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
= Xenodontosuchia Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021
Official Definition- (Sphagesaurus huenei + Baurusuchus pachecoi <- Uruguaysuchus aznarezi, Araripesuchus gomesi, Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021; Registration Number 556)
Comments- Ruiz et al. (2021) erected Xenodontosuchia for the Sphagesauria + Baurusuchia clade, but as it explicitly excludes Sebecus it self destructs in phylogenies like this one where sebecids are closer to baurusuchids than sphagesaurids.
References- Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004. Uberabasuchus terrificus sp. nov., a new Crocodylomorpha from the Bauru Basin (Upper Cretaceous), Brazil. Gondwana Research. 7(4), 975-1002.
Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021. A new species of Caipirasuchus (Notosuchia, Sphagesauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the evolutionary history of Sphagesauria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(4), 265-287.

Sphagesauria Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021
Official Definition- (Sphagesaurus huenei <- Baurusuchus pachecoi, Araripesuchus gomesi, Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021; Registration Number 419)
Other definition- (Coronelsuchus civali + Marilliasuchus amarali + Notosuchus terrestris + Sphagesaurus huenei) (modified from Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021)
Comments- Both Pinheiro et al. (2021) and Ruiz et al. (2021) claim to name Sphagesauria, but Ruiz et al. was published April 26 compared to Pinheiro et al. on June 16. 
References- Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021. The first notosuchian crocodyliform from the Araçatuba Formation (Bauru Group, Paraná Basin), and diversification of sphagesaurians. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 93(Suppl. 2), e20201591.
Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021. A new species of Caipirasuchus (Notosuchia, Sphagesauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the evolutionary history of Sphagesauria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(4), 265-287.

Notosuchidae Dollo, 1924
Other definitions- (Notosuchus) (Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
(Notosuchus terrestris <- Comahuesuchus brachybuccalis, Araripesuchus gomesii, Simosuchus clarki, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
= Notosuchinae Dollo, 1924 vide Nopcsa, 1928

Sphagesauridae Kuhn, 1968
Official Definition- (Sphagesaurus huenei + Caipirasuchus montealtensis + Yacarerani boliviensis) (Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021; Registration Number 420)
Other definitions- (Sphagesaurus huenei <- Notosuchus terrestris, Comahuesuchus brachybuccalis, Araripesuchus gomesii, Simosuchus clarki, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sebecus icaeorhinus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007)
(Sphagesaurus huenei, Adamantinasuchus navae <- Chimaerasuchus paradoxus, Notosuchus terrestris, Mariliasuchus amarali, Uruguaysuchus aznarezi, Uruguaysuchus terrai, Comahuesuchus brachybuccalis, Candidodon itapecurvense, Simosuchus clarki, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sebecus icaeorhinus) (Marinho and Carvalho, 2007)
References- Ruiz, Bronzati, Ferreira, Martins, Queiroz, Langer and Montefeltro, 2021. A new species of Caipirasuchus (Notosuchia, Sphagesauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the evolutionary history of Sphagesauria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(4), 265-287.

Caipirasuchinae Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021
Definition- (Caipirasuchus paulistanus <- Sphagesaurus huenei, Armadillosuchus arrudai, Caryonosuchus pricei, Mariliasuchus amarali, Adamantinasuchus navae, Notosuchus terrestris, Yacarerani boliviensis, Coronelsuchus civali) (modified after Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021)
Reference- Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021. The first notosuchian crocodyliform from the Araçatuba Formation (Bauru Group, Paraná Basin), and diversification of sphagesaurians. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 93(Suppl. 2), e20201591.

Sphagesaurinae Kuhn, 1968 vide Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021
Definition- (Sphagesaurus huenei + Armadillosuchus arrudai + Caryonosuchus pricei) (modified from Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021)
References- Pinheiro, Souza, Bandeira, Brum, Pereira, Castro, Ramos and Simbras, 2021. The first notosuchian crocodyliform from the Araçatuba Formation (Bauru Group, Paraná Basin), and diversification of sphagesaurians. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 93(Suppl. 2), e20201591.

Razanandrongobe

Doratodon

Sebecosuchia Simpson, 1937
Definition- (Pehuenchesuchus enderi + Baurusuchus pachecoi) (modified from Martinelli and Pais, 2008)

Sebecoidea Simpson, 1937 vide Sereno, online 2005
= Baurusuchoidea Price, 1945 vide Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004
Definition- (Sebecus icaeorhinus + Baurusuchus pachecoi) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
Comments- Sereno (online 2005) noted that since Sebecidae has priority over Baurusuchidae, Carvalho et al.'s (2004) Baurusuchoidea would have to be called Sebecoidea.
References- Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004. Uberabasuchus terrificus sp. nov., a new Crocodylomorpha from the Bauru Basin (Upper Cretaceous), Brazil. Gondwana Research. 7(4), 975-1002.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]

Iberosuchidae Antunes, 1975
= Bergisuchidae Rossman, Ruhe and Ortega, 2000

Sebecidae Simpson, 1937
Definition- (Sebecus icaeorhinus <- Iberosuchus macrodon, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Sphagesaurus huenei, Peirosaurus torminni, Mahajangasuchus insignis, Crocodilus niloticus) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Sebecus icaeorhinus + Libycosuchus brevirostris) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
(Sebecus icaeorhinus <- Peirosaurus torminni, Uberabasuchus terrificus) (Larsson and Sues, 2007)
Comments- Both published definitions were written with very different topologies in mind.

Baurusuchia Walker, 1968
Official Definition- (Baurusuchus pachecoi <- Sebecus icaeorhinus, Sphagesaurus huenei, Araripesuchus gomesi, Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, Crocodylus niloticus) (Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online; Registration Number 410)
References- Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online. 3D skull modelling and description of a new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous (Bauru Basin) of Brazil. Journal of Anatomy. Early view. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13442

Baurusuchidae Price, 1945
= "Induszalimidae" Malkani, 2014
= Induszalimidae Malkani, 2019
Official Definition- (Baurusuchus pachecoi + Cynodontosuchus rothi + Pissarrachampsa sera) (Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online; Registration Number 411)
Other definitions- (Baurusuchus pachecoi + Stratiotosuchus maxhechti) (modified from Carvalho, Ribeiro and Avilla, 2004)
(Baurusuchus pachecoi <- Sebecus icaeorhinus, Crocodylus niloticus, Simosuchus clarki, Araripesuchus gomesii, Comahuesuchus brachybuccalis, Notosuchus terrestris) (Sereno, online 2005)
References- Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Malkani, 2014. Theropod dinosaurs and mesoeucrocodiles from the terminal Cretaceous of Pakistan.  The second International Symposium of International Geoscience Programme (IGCP) Project 608, abstract volume. 169-172.
Malkani, 2019. Induszalim bala mesoeucrocodile from Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 623-626.
Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online. 3D skull modelling and description of a new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous (Bauru Basin) of Brazil. Journal of Anatomy. Early view. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13442

Pabwehshi Wilson, Malkani and Gingerich, 2001
= "Induszalim" Malkani, 2014a
= Induszalim Malkani, 2019
P. pakistanensis Wilson, Malkani and Gingerich, 2001
= "Induszalim bala" Malkani, 2014a
= Induszalim bala Malkani, 2019
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan
Holotype-
(GSP-UM 2000; = GSP/MSM-3-16) anterior skull, anterior mandibles
Paratype- (GSP-UM 2001; = GSP/MSM-6-3) anterior mandibles
Referred- ?(GSP/MSM-64-15; paratype of Induszalim bala) ?dorsal centrum (29 mm) (Malkani, 2019)
?(GSP/MSM-65-19; paratype of Induszalim bala) ?caudal vertebra (23 mm) (Malkani, 2019)
?(GSP/MSM-66-19; paratype of Induszalim bala) distal ?femur (Malkani, 2019)
(GSP/MSM-155-19; intended syntype of "Vitakridrinda sulaimani"; holotype of Induszalim bala) anterior skull, anterior mandibles (Malkani, 2004)
?(GSP/MSM-1088/19; paratype of Induszalim bala) ?ilial fragment (Malkani, 2019)
?(GSP/MSM-1084-19; "un-number" in Malkani, 2019; paratype of Induszalim bala) partial ?caudal vertebra (Malkani, 2019)
Diagnosis- (after Wilson et al., 2001) dorsally inset first premaxillary alveolus (unknown in Cynodontosuchus and Wargosuchus); prominent premaxillary lip overhanging the external nares (unknown in Cynodontosuchus); diverticulum in the posterodorsal comer of the external naris (unknown in Cynodontosuchus and Pissarrachampsa); diastematic fossa positioned just posterior to the second maxillary tooth (unknown in Wargosuchus); enlarged, caniniform sixth dentary tooth (unknown in Campinasuchus, Cynodontosuchus, Pissarrachampsa and Wargosuchus); reduced fourth and fifth dentary teeth (unknown in Wargosuchus).
(suggested) enlarged third canine tooth in dentary (unknown in Wargosuchus).
Other diagnoses- Malkani (2006a) lists many characters for "Vitakridrinda" in his diagnosis. Those involving the Induszalim snout (rostrum; labiolingually compressed tooth) are plesiomorphic for baurusuchids. Though Malkani (2006a, b) originally reported the naris was surrounded by the premaxilla, he later (2009) indicated the nasal participates too.
Comments- Pabwehshi was described in 2001 based on two snouts, with Wilson et al. (2001) assigning it to Baurusuchidae.
Turner and Calvo (2005) added Pabwehshi to a phylogenetic analysis (127 characters, 32 taxa; founded in Clark's 1994 analysis). They recovered it sister to the only included baurusuchid, Baurusuchus. After ordering several characters (1, 3, 15, 37, 45, 49, 67, 77, 111, 113; mostly based on Turner, 2006), much resolution is lost, but Pabwehshi's placement is identical once the wildcard Iberosuchus is deleted a posteriori. Note Eremosuchus is in the cladogram, but not the data matrix. Enforcing Sues and Larsson's Sebecia (see below) is 8 steps longer, and moving Pabwehshi there (it emerges sister to Bretesuchus) is 9 steps longer. If Hamadasuchus is added, that genus is sister to Araripesuchus and the tree otherwise similar except Libycosuchus is now sister to Notosuchus+Comahuesuchus+Anatosuchus. Now, Sebecia is only 4 steps longer and moving Pabwehshi there 5 steps longer (sister to Bretesuchus again).
Turner (2006) slightly changed the analysis (adding two characters and replacing Libycosuchus with Araripesuchus wegeneri) and found similar results to Turner and Calvo, with Pabwehshi sister to Baurusuchus. The same ordering was modified, and enforcing Sebecia is still 8 steps longer, but moving Pabwehshi there (again sister to Bretesuchus) is 11 steps longer. Hamadasuchus is again sister to Araripesuchus when added, and the tree is otherwise similar. Sebecia is 7 steps longer, and including Pabwehshi in it is 10 steps longer.
Larsson and Sues (2007) entered it into a phylogenetic analysis (158 characters, 33 taxa) and found it sister to a clade of sebecids, Hamadasuchus and peirosaurids instead. They named this clade Sebecia. It takes 4 more steps to place Pabwehshi sister to Baurusuchus, though no other baurusuchids are included. As this is the only analysis to find Pabwehshi outside Baurusuchidae, its topology is tested versus other analyses discussed here.
Nascimento and Zaher (2011) added it to another analysis (262 characters, 63 taxa; founded in Gasparini et al.'s 2005 analysis) which placed it in Baurusuchidae sister to Stratiotosuchus. In this tree, sebecids (here used in a broad sense to also include Bergisuchus and/or Iberosuchus) are sister to baurusuchids, peirosaurids are closer to crocodylians, and Hamadasuchus is not included. 10 more steps are needed to make Larsson and Sues' Sebecia and 14 to include Pabwehshi in it (it falls out sister to Iberosuchus). After adding Hamadasuchus, it takes 8 steps to make that Sebecia and 11 steps to include Pabwehshi.
Montefeltro et al. (2011) examined the phylogeny of Baurusuchidae but excluded Pabwehshi a priori because "it has a sagittal torus on its maxillary palatal shelves, absent in the putative baurusuchids" (referencing Larsson and Sues' paper), but this is only one character. If added to their matrix (66 characters, 10 taxa), Pabwehshi is sister to other baurusuchids. As Larsson and Sues stated "P. pakistanensis shares numerous features with Sebecia in general and H. rebouli in particular", Hamadasuchus was added to the matrix as well. The latter emerges sister to Pabwehshi and other baurusuchids, and enforcing a Pabwehshi-Hamadasuchus clade is two steps longer. Notably, Montefeltro et al.'s analysis is completely cranial and does not include baurusuchid sister taxa (sebecids, then Pehuenchesuchus which can only be coded for two characters) as outgroups.
Pol and Powell (2011) included Pabwehshi in a comparable analysis (285 characters, 89 taxa; founded in Pol and Norell's 2004 analysis) where it again fell out sister to Stratiotosuchus in Baurusuchidae. Sebecids are again sister to baurusuchids, but Hamadasuchus is sister to Peirosauridae (including Mahajungasuchus) plus Stolokrosuchus and neosuchians. 2 more steps are needed to make Larsson and Sues' Sebecia and 6 more to place Pabwehshi there (where it falls out as a basal sebecid). 3 more steps are needed to place this Sebecia sister to Larsson and Sues' version of Neosuchia instead of being in Notosuchia, and 7 more to then include Pabwehshi.
Pol et al. (2012) ran a larger version of that analysis (347 characters, 88 taxa) which had similar results, though Baurusuchidae's monophyly is masked by the uncertain position of Cynodontosuchus. Sebecids are again sister to baurusuchids, but Hamadasuchus (plus Mahajungasuchus) is sister to pierosaurids in basal Notosuchia. 5 more steps are needed to make Larsson and Sues' Sebecia and 9 more to place Pabwehshi there (where it falls out as a basal sebecid). Yet 16 more steps are needed to place this Sebecia sister to Larsson and Sues' version of Neosuchia instead of being in Notosuchia, and 19 more to then include Pabwehshi. To test the importance of including Hamadasuchus, excluding it makes Sebecia 13 steps less likely instead of 5. Forcing a sebecian Pabwehshi without Hamadasuchus is still four steps longer yet (at 17 more steps).
The conclusion of these analyses is that Sebecia is slightly to moderately unparsimonious in most analyses (2-10 more steps), and the one which supported it is smaller than most which rejected it. Importantly, even when Sebecia is enforced, Pabwehshi still clades with baurusuchids with most analyses (including the largest ones) taking 4 extra steps to move it into Sebecia. This suggests there is no sebecian signal in Pabwehshi, as does the lack of a particular position within Sebecia when it is forced to be there (sister to either Bretesuchus, Iberosuchus, or a wildcard basal sebecid). Notably it is always attracted to sebecids though, which are sister to baurusuchids in non-sebecian phylogenies, as opposed to being isolated or close to Hamadasuchus as in Larsson and Sues' paper. While Hamadasuchus is important for making Sebecia itself more likely (by 1-6 extra steps), it only made Pabwehshi more likely to be a sebecian in one analysis, and then only by one step. Most recently, Pol et al. (2014) expanded on the last analysis (412 characters, 109 taxa) to find Pabwehshi as a basal baurusuchid, more derived than Cynodontosuchus but outside Pissarrachampsinae+Baurusuchinae.
"Vitakridrinda" and Induszalim- Malkani first mentioned "Vitakridrinda" in his 2003 description of "Brohisaurus", referencing it as an abelisaurid described in "Malkani, 2004a". The only publication in the bibliography solely by Malkani is his saurischian biodiversity paper, listed as in progress, but not actually published until 2006. As the 2003 mention of "Vitakridrinda" lacks a description or definition (ICZN Article 13.1.1; note the reference to Malkani, 2004a doesn't count under 13.1.2 since it was not published yet), was not indicated to be a new taxon (16.1), and did not have a type specimen indicated (16.4), it was a nomen nudum at the time. The first description of "Vitakridrinda" is generally claimed to be the 2004 "Saurischian Dinosaurs from Late Cretaceous of Pakistan", as referenced in Malkani 2006a and the Paleobiology Database. Yet ICZN Article 9.9 lists "abstracts of articles, papers, posters, texts of lectures, and similar material when issued primarily to participants at meetings, symposia, colloquia or congresses" as not being published work, so the paper doesn't count. In addition, it still violates 16.4 in not indicating a type specimen although it is the first publication to mention specific material including the rostrum that would become the type of Induszalim.
The "Vitakridrinda" material was probably mostly discovered in 2001, as Malkani discovered 2700 bones and bone fragments from the area at that time. The femora GSP/MSM-59-19 and GSP/MSM-60-19 were found associated in one mass and seemingly belong to one individual, here viewed as syntypes of "Vitakridrinda" and asigned to Coelurosauria.  The supposed braincase GSP/MSM-62-19 (mislabeled 61-19 in earlier works) was found 100 meters away in the same horizon, while the snout GSP/MSM-155-19 and supposed tooth block GSP/MSM-61-19 (mislabeled 62-19 in early works) were found later (though early enough to be mentioned in 2004) and 50 meters from the braincase. Malkani believed they all belong to the same individual based on supposed lack of transportation and similar size, but the area of separation is so large that this lacks merit. While Malkani referred to them all as the holotype, they may more properly be syntypes, and their uncertain derivation from one animal would make selection of a lectotype desirable. Indeed Malkani (2014a) refers to braincase to his sauropod taxon "Maojandino" and later "Gspsaurus", and further states "Previously the specimen GSP/MSM-155-19 is assigned to Vitakridrinda sulaimani (theropod dinosaur) but due to secondary palate nature it is being established as Induszalim bala -new genus and species of very large mesoeucrocodile." 
Despite labels for GSP/MSM-155-19, I don't see any distinction from the matrix or bone contacts in figure 5 of Malkani (2006b). The supposed anterior and ventral premaxillary edge is the right shape for an abelisaurid, and the supposed naris is darker (but so is the supposed nasal), but there are two steps in the lateral surface running longitudinally which make no sense for a maxilla. The photo does not show any unambiguous fossil features. However, Wilson (pers. comm., 2014) correctly observed the posterior view (fig. 2C in Malkani, 2010) is very similar to the snout cross section of Pabwehshi. Pabwehshi is from the same formation and about 35% larger, based on the position of the maxillary canine tooth in Induszalim.  Under Molnar's interpretation, Malkani's dorsal palatal process is the secondary palate, the ventral palatal process is the mandible, the cavity between these is the oral cavity, and the cavity in the ventral palatal process is the alveolus of the dentary canine. The "maxillary internal chamber for the acommodation of olfactory equilibrium" is the hollow interior of the maxillary canine tooth.  This leaves almost all of Malkani's supposed lateral surface as matrix which needs to be prepared to expose bone. Thus his supposed bite punctures are merely grooves excavated in the matrix, while his 'combat teeth' are tooth cross sections ventral to the dentary. Malkani's scenario of intraspecific combat causing these features is thus exposed as being fanciful.
Malkani's original (2014a) reference to Induszalim is not valid under the ICZN as it is a conference paper (Article 9.9), while the first acceptable publication that proposes it (Malkani, 2015) exhibits Malkani's common problem of almost always crediting their authorship to prior invalid publications instead of proposing them as new taxa, which is necessary for all names after 1999- ICZN Article 16.1 is "Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new."  However, Malkani (2019) states "Induszalim bala mesoeucrocodile as the new genus and new species was first reported by [1] and formally published by [2]. Here Induszalim is being described for evolutionary study", which I think should count as it is indicated as being a new genus and species.  Thus, I consider 2019 to be the year Induszalim was validly described.
Regarding the validity of Induszalim compared to Pabwehshi, Malkani's (2019) first character "Induszalim bony secondary plate is formed by premaxilla, maxilla and palatine while Pabwehshi secondary plate is formed by premaxilla and maxilla only" is based on misinterpreting the maxillary canine tooth of Induszalim as the maxillary bone, so that the medial edge of the alvoelus is misinterpreted as a suture between the maxilla and 'palatine' (actually maxillary palatal shelf).  This same issues causes Malkani's misinterpreted differences of "in Induszalim the palatine ramus shows elongated contact with maxilla while not found in Pabwehshi", "tooth bearing maxillary ramus is twice away from internal naris cavity in Induszalim than Pabwehshi", and  "dorsoventrally oriented elongated large pneumatopores in maxilla" (actually the hollow interior of the tooth).  Similarly, when Malkani says "dentary is thick with large pneumatopores in Induszalim while small pneumatopores in Pabwehshi dentary", the 'large pneumatophore' in Induszalim is the dentary canine alveolus, which has ended by the more posterior point of Pabwehshi's section.  Another character from the sectional view is also invalid, "Induszalim has twice deep palatal cavity than Pabwehshi", as when scaled to the same size (using the maxillary canine to place Induszalim's section about 20 mm anterior to Pabwehshi's section) the depth of the palatal cavity is the same.  The maximum medial extent of the dentary is more ventrally positioned in Pabwehshi, but this should vary anteroposteriorly as if you go posteriorly enough the dentaries meet ventrally at the median (GSP-UM 2001).  Malkani states "in Induszalim, the diverticulum in wall of internal naris is negligible while diverticulum is well developed in Pabwehshi" (referring to the scalloped lateral edge), but Induszalim has the same three concavities as Pabwehshi.  Finally, "Induszalim has relatively small internal naris cavity than Pabwehshi" (~71% as tall) because it is a more anteriorly placed section and the nasal cavity expanded posteriorly.  The remaining features claimed by Malkani involve external anatomy.  Contra Malkani, the external naris is also subterminal in Pabwehshi, with an everted anteroventral margin to the narial fossa ("stepped premaxilla strip" of Malkani), and the nasal suture with the premaxilla and maxilla is straight as the dorsal bump is more posteriorly placed than preserved in Induszalim's snout.   Of the final two characters- "anterior rostrum moderately inclined (while vertical in Pabwehshi )" is not possible to verify in Induszalim given the lack of external preparation; while fourth dentary tooth largest refers to the "Sulaimanisuchus" proposed holotype.  Thus Induszalim was distinguished from Pabwehshi mostly due to misidentifying the maxillary caninine and not accounting for the differing positions of their cross sections.  The two are synonymized here.
Malkani (2019) refers a number of additional elements to Induszalim, listed as paratypes here, in which he also included anterior dentaries GSI/MSM-63-4 which were already the proposed holotype of his "Sulaimanisuchus kinwai" (Malkani, 2010b) and supposed proximal humerus GSI/MSM-1094-4 which was later referred to that taxon (Malkani, 2020).  In 2020, Malkani referred even more elements to Induszalim, mostly indeterminate fragments but also some potentially diagnostic jaw material (e.g. GSI/MSM-4-3, 5-3, 143-2; note 4-3 is not Pabwehshi even if more mesial teeth were present in the broken medial brown area).  None of this latter material is listed above, nor is the crocodyliform identity of any of the paratype material examined here.  "Sulaimanisuchus" would be distinct from Pabwehshi if Malkani's interpretation of GSI/MSM-63-4 as having an enlarged canine as the fourth dentary tooth is correct, but available photographs are too low resolution to confirm this.  Notably, this morphology is true in all other baurusuchids so is not unexpected, and would make referral of any postcrania to either taxon impossible as the two are almost identical in size.
References- Wilson, Malkani and Gingerich, 2001. New crocodyliform (Reptilia, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Upper Cretaceous Pab Formation of Vitakri, Balochistan (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology. The University of Michigan. 30(12), 321-336.
Malkani, 2003. First Jurassic dinosaur fossils found from Kirthar range, Khuzdar District, Balochistan, Pakistan. Geological Bulletin University of Peshawar. 36, 73-83.
Malkani, 2004. Saurischian dinosaurs from Late Cretaceous of Pakistan. in Hussain and Akbar (eds.). Abstract volume of Fifth Pakistan Geological Congress, Islamabad, Pakistan. 71-73.
Turner and Calvo, 2005. A new sebecosuchian crocodyliform from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25, 87-98.
Malkani, 2006a. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
Malkani, 2006b. First rostrum of carnivorous Vitakridrinda (abelisaurid theropod dinosaur) found from the latest Cretaceous Dinosaur Beds (Vitakri) Member of Pab Formation, Alam Kali Kakor locality of Vitakri area, Barkhan District, Balochistan, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 38(2), 5-24.
Turner, 2006. Osteology and phylogeny of a new species of Araripesuchus (Crocodyliformes: Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Historical Biology. 18, 255-369.
Larsson and Sues, 2007. Cranial osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Hamadasuchus rebouli (Crocodyliformes: Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Cretaceous of Morocco. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 149, 533-567.
Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2010a. Vitakridrinda (Vitakrisauridae, Theropoda) from the Latest Cretaceous of Pakistan. Journal of Earth Science. 21(Special Issue 3), 204-212.
Malkani, 2010b. Stratigraphy and mineral potential of Sulaiman (Middle Indus) basin, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 42(2), 39-66.
Malkani, 2011. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus of Vitakrisauridae Theropoda from Pakistan. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of IGCP 507 on Paleoclimates of the Cretaceous in Asia and their global correlation. Beijing, China. 59-66.
Montefeltro, Larsson and Langer, 2011. A new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogeny of Baurusuchidae. PLoS ONE. 6, e21916.
Nascimento and Zaher, 2011. The skull of the Upper Cretaceous baurusuchid crocodile Baurusuchus albertoi Nascimento & Zaher 2010, and its phylogenetic affinities. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 163(S1), S116-S131.
Pol and Powell, 2011. A new sebecid mesoeucrocodylian from the Rio Loro Formation (Palaeocene) of north-western Argentina. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 163, S7-S36.
Pol, Leardi, Lecuone and Krause, 2012. Postcranial anatomy of Sebecus icaeorhinus (Crocodyliformes, Sebecidae) from the Eocene of Patagonia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32, 328-354.
Pol, Nascimento, Carvalho, Riccomini, Pires-Domingues and Zaher, 2014. A new notosuchian from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogeny of advanced notosuchians. PLoS ONE. 9(4), e93105.
Malkani, 2014a. Theropod dinosaurs and mesoeucrocodiles from the terminal Cretaceous of Pakistan.  The second International Symposium of International Geoscience Programme (IGCP) Project 608, abstract volume. 169-172.
Malkani, 2015. Dinosaurs, mesoeucrocodiles, pterosaurs, new fauna and flora from Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-32.
Malkani, 2019. Induszalim bala mesoeucrocodile from Pakistan. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 623-626.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.
Malkani, unpublished. Saurischian dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous Pab Formation of Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-117.

Pissarrachampsinae Montefeltro, Larsson and Langer, 2011
Official Definition- (Pissarrachampsa sera <- Baurusuchus pachecoi) (Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online; Registration Number 413)
References- Montefeltro, Larsson and Langer, 2011. A new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogeny of Baurusuchidae. PLoS ONE. 6, e21916.
Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online. 3D skull modelling and description of a new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous (Bauru Basin) of Brazil. Journal of Anatomy. Early view. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13442

Baurusuchinae Price, 1945 vide Montefeltro, Larsson and Langer, 2011
Official Definition- (Baurusuchus pachecoi <- Pissarrachampsa sera) (Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online; Registration Number 412)
References- Montefeltro, Larsson and Langer, 2011. A new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogeny of Baurusuchidae. PLoS ONE. 6, e21916.
Darlim, Montefeltro and Langer, 2021 online. 3D skull modelling and description of a new baurusuchid (Crocodyliformes, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Late Cretaceous (Bauru Basin) of Brazil. Journal of Anatomy. Early view. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13442

Neosuchia Benton and Clark, 1988
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Notosuchus terrestris) (Sereno et al., 2001)
Other definitions- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Sebecus icaeorhinus) (Larsson and Sues, 2007)

Paralligatoridae Konzhukova, 1954
= Shamosuchidae Efimov, 1983

Atoposauridae Gervais, 1871
Definition- (Atoposaurus jourdani <- Shamosuchus djadochtaensis, Bernissartia fagessi, Paralligator gradilifrons, Dyrosaurus phosphaticus, Crocodilus niloticus) (suggested)
Other definitions- (Atoposaurus jourdani <- Pierosaurus torminni, Araripesuchus gomesii, Notosuchus terrestris, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Atoposaurus jourdani <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Tennant, Mannion and Upchurch, 2016)
= Brillanceausuchidae Michard, De Broin, Brunet and Hell, 1990
References- Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]

Bernissartiidae Dollo, 1883 emmend. Lydekker, 1888
=Bernissartiinae Dollo, 1883 vide Nopcsa, 1928

Goniopholididae Cope, 1875
Definition- (Goniopholis crassidens <- Crocodylus niloticus, Alligatorellus beaumonti, Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis, Peirosaurus torminni, Araripesuchus gomesii, Notosuchus terrestris) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Goniopholidinae Cope, 1875 vide Lydekker, 1887
= Goniopholidiformes Hay, 1930
References- Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]

Paluxysuchidae Drumheller, Adams, Maddox and Noto, 2021
Definition- (Paluxysuchus newmani <- Goniopholis crassidens, Pholidosaurus schaumburgensis) (Drumheller, Adams, Maddox and Noto, 2021)
Reference- Drumheller, Adams, Maddox and Noto, 2021. Expanded Sampling Across Ontogeny in Deltasuchus motherali (Neosuchia, Crocodyliformes): Revealing Ecomorphological Niche Partitioning and Appalachian Endemism in Cenomanian Crocodyliforms. Cambridge University Press. 67 pp.

Coelognathosuchia Martin, Lauprasert, Buffetaut, Liard and Suteethorn, 2014
Definition- (Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis <- Bernissartia fagessi, Crocodilus niloticus) (modified from Martin, Lauprasert, Buffetaut, Liard and Suteethorn, 2014)
Reference- Martin, Lauprasert, Buffetaut, Liard and Suteethorn, 2014. A large pholidosaurid in the Phu Kradung Formation of north-eastern Thailand. Palaeontology. 57(4), 757-769.

Tethysuchia Buffetaut, 1982
Definition- (Pholidosaurus purbeckensis + Dyrosaurus phosphaticus) (Andrade, Edmonds, Benton and Schouten, 2011)

Pholidosauridae Zittel and Eastman, 1902
Definition- (Pholidosaurus schaumburgensis <- Dyrosaurus phosphaticus, Pelagosaurus typus) (Fortier, Perea and Schultz, 2011)
Other definitions- (Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis <- Alligatorellus beaumonti, Peirosaurus torminni, Araripesuchus gomesii, Notosuchus terrestris, Crocodylus niloticus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Pholidosaurinae Zittel and Eastman, 1902 vide Nopcsa, 1928
References- Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Fortier, Perea and Schultz, 2011. Redescription and phylogenetic relationships of Meridiosaurus vallisparadisi, a pholidosaurid from the Late Jurassic of Uruguay. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 163, S257-S272.

Dyrosauroidea de Stefano, 1903 vide Jouve, Muizon, Cespedes-Paz, Sossa-Soruco and Knoll, 2020 online
Definition- (Dyrosaurus phosphaticus <- Pholidosaurus purbeckensis) (Jouve, Muizon, Cespedes-Paz, Sossa-Soruco and Knoll, 2020 online)
= Tethysuchoidea Souza, Figueiredo, Azevedo, Riff and Kellner, 2020
Definition- (Meridiosaurus valliparadisi, Dyrosaurus phosphaticus <- Pholidosaurus purbeckensis) (Souza, Figueiredo, Azevedo, Riff and Kellner, 2020)
Comments- These two clades with taxonomically equivalent definitions were published close in time to one another, but Dyrosauroidea is favored here as the Principle of Coordination (Article 36.1- "A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group") states it was established by de Stefano in 1903.  Tethysuchoidea has the suffix of a superfamily name, but without a genus 'Tethysuchus' cannot be a family group name and so cannot compete with Dyrosauroidea under the ICZN.  Besides avoiding the confusion of the suffix, Dyrosauroidea is also superior in lacking the superfluous specifier Meridiosaurus.
References- Souza, Figueiredo, Azevedo, Riff and Kellner, 2020 (online 2019). Systematic revision of Sarcosuchus hartti (Crocodyliformes) from the Recôncavo Basin (Early Cretaceous) of Bahia, north-eastern Brazil. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 188(2), 552-578.
Jouve, Muizon, Cespedes-Paz, Sossa-Soruco and Knoll, 2021 (online 2020). The longirostrine crocodyliforms from Bolivia and their evolution through the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 192(2), 475-509.

Elosuchidae de Broin, 2002

Dyrosauridae de Stefano, 1903
= Congosauridae Dollo, 1914
= Rhabdognathidae Swinton, 1930
= Rhabdosauridae Bergounioux, 1955
Definition- (Chenanisuchus lateroculi + Dyrosaurus phosphaticus) (suggested)
Other definition- (Chenanisuchus lateroculi + Rhabdognathus keiniensis) (Barbosa, Kellner and Viana, 2008)
Comments- Barbosa et al.'s (2008) definition fails as it lacks the eponymous genus (ICPN Article 11.10- "when a clade name is converted from a preexisting name that is typified under a rank-based code or is a new or converted name derived from the stem of a typified name, the definition of the clade name must use the type species of that preexisting typified name or of the genus name from which it is derived (or the type specimen of that species) as an internal specifier.").
References- de Stefano, 1903. Nuovi rettili degli strati a fosfato della Tunisia. Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana. 22, 51-80.
Dollo, 1914. Sur la découverte de Téléosauriens tertiaires au Congo. Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique. 7, 288-298.
Swinton, 1930. On the fossil Reptilia from Sokoto Province. Geological Survey of Nigeria. 13, 1-62.
Bergounioux, 1955. Les crocodiliens fossiles des dépôts phosphatés du sud-tunisien. Comptes Rendus des Scéances de l’Académie des Sciences. 240, 1917-1918.
Barbosa, Kellner and Viana, 2008. New dyrosaurid crocodylomorph and evidences for faunal turnover at the K-P transition in Brazil. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275(1641), 1385-1391.

Phosphatosaurinae Buffetaut, 1980
Reference- Buffetaut, 1980. Les crocodiliens paléogènes du Tilemsi (Mali): Un aperçu systématique. Palaeovertebrata. Mémoire jubilaire en hommage à René Lavocat, 15-35.

Hyposaurinae Nopcsa, 1928
Definition- (Dorbignysuchus niatu, Dyrosaurus phosphaticus, Hyposaurus rogersii <- Rodeosuchus machukiru, Phosphatosaurus gavialoides) (modified from Jouve, Muizon, Cespedes-Paz, Sossa-Soruco and Knoll, 2021)
= Dyrosaurinae de Stefano, 1903 vide Zittel, 1923
Other definition- (Dyrosaurus phosphaticus <- Sarcosuchus imperator, Pholidosaurus schaumbergensis, Goniopholis crassidens) (Sereno, online 2005)
Comments- Based on the Principle of Coordination (Article 36.1- "A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group"), a subfamily containing both Hyposaurus and Dyrosaurus must be named Dyrosauridae as de Stefano 1903 has 25 years of priority over Nopcsa 1928 as a family group name.
References- de Stefano, 1903. Nuovi rettili degli strati a fosfato della Tunisia. Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana. 22, 51-80.
Nopcsa, 1928. Paleontological notes on Reptilia. 7. Classification of the Reptilia. Geologica Hungarica Series Paleontologica. 1, 75-85.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Jouve, Muizon, Cespedes-Paz, Sossa-Soruco and Knoll, 2021 (online 2020). The longirostrine crocodyliforms from Bolivia and their evolution through the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 192(2), 475-509.

Stomatosuchidae Stromer, 1925
Definition- (Stomatosuchus inermis <- Crocodylus niloticus, Baurusuchus pachecoi, Peirosaurus torminni, Simosuchus clarki, Araripesuchus gomesii, Notosuchus terrestris) (Sereno and Larsson, 2009)

Susisuchidae Salisbury, Frey, Martill and Buchy, 2003
Other definitions- (Susisuchus anatoceps + Susisuchus jaguaribensis) (Fortier and Schultz, 2009)

Eusuchia Huxley, 1875
Definition- (Hylaeochampsa vectiana + Crocodylus niloticus) (Fiorelli and Calvo, 2007; modified from Brochu, 1999)
Other definitions- (Hylaeochampsa vectiana + Gavialis gangeticus + Alligator mississippiensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (Brochu, 2003)

Hylaeochampsidae Williston, 1925
Definition- (Hylaeochampsa vectiana + Iharkutosuchus makadii + Pachycheilosuchus trinquei + Pietraroiasuchus ormezzanoi) (Buscalioni, Piras, Vullo, Signore and Barbera, 2011)
= Hylaeochampsinae Williston, 1925 vide Nopcsa, 1928
References- Buscalioni, Piras, Vullo, Signore and Barbera, 2011. Early Eusuchia Crocodylomorpha from the vertebrate-rich Plattenkalk of Pietraroia (Lower Albian, southern Apennines, Italy). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 163(suppl_1), S199-S227.

Allodaposuchidae Narváez, Brochu, Escaso, Pérez-García and Ortega, 2015
Definition- (Allodaposuchus precedens <- Hylaeochampsa vectiana, Shamosuchus djadochtaensis, Borealosuchus sternbergii, Planocrania datangensis, Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus niloticus, Gavialis gangeticus) (Narváez, Brochu, Escaso, Pérez-García and Ortega, 2015)
= Allodaposuchia Blanco, Puértolas-Pascual, Marmi, Vila and Sellés, 2014
References- Blanco, Puértolas-Pascual, Marmi, Vila and Sellés, 2014. Allodaposuchus palustris sp. nov. from the Upper Cretaceous of Fumanya (south-eastern Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula): Systematics, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography of the enigmatic allodaposuchian crocodylians. PLoS One. 9(12), e115837.
Narváez, Brochu, Escaso, Pérez-García and Ortega, 2015. New crocodyliforms from southwestern Europe and definition of a diverse clade of European uppermost Cretaceous basal eusuchians. PLoS ONE. 10, e0140679.

"Borealosuchidae" Antunes, 2003
Comments- This name has been listed in tables and figures and so far has failed to meet ICZN rules for validity.  In perhaps its earliest use in Antunes (2003) for instance, it is not indicated as new (ICZN Article 16.1) nor is the type genus cited (Article 16.2).
Reference- Antunes, 2003. Lower Paleogene crocodilians from Silveirinha, Portugal. Palaeovertebrata. 32(1), 1-26.

Pristichampsinae Kuhn, 1968
Definition- (Pristichampsus rollinati <-Gavialis gangeticus, Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Brochu, 2003)
Comments- Brochu (2012) determined the type species Pristichampsus rollinati (known from a tooth and vertebra) was indistinguishable from not only Boverisuchus vorax and B. magnifrons, but also the crocodyloid Quinkana.  This makes it a nomen dubium at a level more inclusive than Crocodylia and family-level taxa based on it useless.  Brochu instead used Planocraniidae for former 'pristichampsids', based on the definite member Planocrania datangensis.
References- Kuhn, 1968. Die Vorzeitlichen Krokodile. Verlag Oeben. 124 pp.
Brochu, 2003. Phylogenetic approaches toward crocodylian history. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 31, 357-397.
Brochu, 2012. Phylogenetic relationships of Palaeogene ziphodont eusuchians and the status of Pristichampsus Gervais, 1853. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-30.

Planocraniidae Li, 1976 emmend. Brochu, 2012
Definition- (Planocrania datangensis <- Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus niloticus, Gavialis gangeticus, Borealosuchus sternbergii, Thoracosaurus macrorhynchus, Allodaposuchus precedens, Hylaeochampsa vectiana) (Brochu, 2012)
Comments- Li (1976) initially named this Pristochampidae, but Brochu (2012) noted "The correct Latin spelling should actually be Planocraniidae, and as first reviser I amend the name as such."
References- Li, 1976. Fossil of Sebecosuchia discovered from Nanxiong, Guangdong. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 14, 169-174.
Brochu, 2012. Phylogenetic relationships of Palaeogene ziphodont eusuchians and the status of Pristichampsus Gervais, 1853. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-30.

Crocodylia Gmelin, 1789
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis + Crocodylus niloticus + Gavialis gangeticus) (Brochu, 2003; modified from Benton and Clark, 1988)
Other definitions- crown(Crocodylus niloticus <- Passer domesticus) (Sereno, 2004)
(Crocodylus niloticus + Gavialis gangeticus) (Sereno, 2001)
= Brevirostres Zittel, 1887
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis + Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Brochu, 1999)
Comments- The phylogeny of eusuchians on this site is based on constraining morphological results to the molecular backbone, otherwise allodaposuchids, Portugalosuchus, "borealosuchids" and planocraniids fall out as stem-brevirostrans, and basal gavialoids like Tomistoma are crocodyloids, among other more minor differences.  Note under these constraints aegyptosuchids are basal gavialines.

Alligatoroidea Cuvier, 1807 vide Gray, 1844
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis <- Gavialis gangeticus, Crocodylus niloticus) (Brochu, 2003; modified from Norell et al., 1994)

Diplocynodontinae Brochu, 1999
Definition- (Diplocynodon ratelii <- Alligator mississippiensis) (Brochu, 1999)

Globidonta Brochu, 1999
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis <- Diplocynodon ratelii) (Brochu, 1999)

Alligatoridae Cuvier, 1807
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis + Caiman crocodilus) (Brochu, 1999)

Alligatorinae Cuvier, 1807 vide Kalin, 1940
Definition- (Alligator mississippiensis <- Caiman crocodilus) (Brochu, 1999)

Caimaininae Norell, 1988
Definition- (Caiman crocodilus <- Alligator mississippiensis) (Brochu, 1999)

Purussaurus
P? terror
= Dinosuchus terror
Holotype- (lost) vertebra
References- Cicade and Hsiou, 2019. Taxonomic revision of Purussaurus (Alligatoroidea, Caimaninae). XXVI Congresso Brasileiro de Paleontologia. 91-92.

Jacarea Gray, 1844
Definition- (Caiman crocodilus + Caiman yacare + Caiman latirostris + Melanosuchus niger) (Brochu, 2003)

Longirostres Harshman, Huddleston, Bollback, Parsons and Braun, 2003
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus + Gavialis gangeticus) (Harshman, Huddleston, Bollback, Parsons and Braun, 2003)
Reference- Harshman, Huddleston, Bollback, Parsons and Braun, 2003. True and false gharials: A nuclear gene phylogeny of Crocodylia. Systematic Biology. 52(3), 386-402.

Gavialoidea Adams, 1854 vide Case, 1930
Definition- (Gavialis gangeticus <- Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Brochu, 2003; modified from Norell et al., 1994)

Crocodyloidea Covier, 1807 vide Fitzinger, 1826
Definition- (Crocodylus niloticus <- Gavialis gangeticus, Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus niloticus) (Brochu, 2003; modified from Norell et al., 1994)

Pan-Aves Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001
Official Definition- (Vultur gryphus <- Crocodylus niloticus) (Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020; Registration Number 404; originally Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001)
= Avemetatarsalia Benton, 1999
Definition- (Vultur gryphus <- Crocodylus niloticus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000; modified from Benton, 1999)
Other definitions- (Passer domesticus <- Crocodilus niloticus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Avemetatarsalia sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Passer domesticus <- Crocodilus niloticus)
References- Benton, 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 354, 1423-1446.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name "Aves." In Gauthier and Gall (eds.). New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom. Peabody Museum of Natural History. 7-41.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.

Aphanosauria Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017
Definition- (Teleocrater rhadinus, Yarasuchus deccanensis <- Crocodylus niloticus, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017)
= "Teleocrateridae" Charig, 1956
Comments- Charig (1956) named the monotypic family Teleocrateridae for his new supposed pseudosuchian (sensu lato) Teleocrater, but it was invalid as names in theses don't count under the ICZN (Article 8.1.1).  Even once published in a valid work (first by Romer, 1966), Teleocrater itself was not yet published validly so it could not be tghe basis of a valid family.  Note Charig (1967a) credited a supposedly In press Charig, 1967 publication for Teleocrateridae and Teleocrater, but this was never published.  While Teleocrateridae could be validly proposed since 2017, it has yet to be, and Nesbitt et al. (2017) chose to create the unranked clade Aphanosauria instead.
References- Charig, 1956. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. 503 pp.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Third Edition. The University of Chicago Pres. 468 pp.
Charig, 1967a. Subclass Archosauria. In Harland, Holland, House, Hughes, Reynolds, Rudwick, Satterthwaite, Tarlo and Willey (eds.). The Fossil Record: A Symposium with Documentation. Geological Society of London. 708-718.
"Charig, 1967b. Preliminary note on the archosaurs in the Manda Formation (Middle Trias) of Tanzania. Palaeontology, In press." [never published]
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017. The earliest bird-line archosaurs and the assembly of the dinosaur body plan. Nature. 544, 484-487.

Arctosaurus Adams, 1875
A. osborni Adams, 1875
Late Triassic
Heiberg Formation, Cameron Island, Nunavut, Canada
Holotype- (NMING: F14878; = NMI 62 1971) incomplete ?middle cervical vertebra (33 mm)
Comments- This was discovered in 1853 and though originally identified as a Teleosaurus vertebra, was described by Adams (1875) as a new reptilian genus more similar to lizards than crocodiles. 
Arctosaurus a dinosaur? Lydekker (1890) placed it in Theropoda fam. indet., stating it was probably related to Anchisaurus (which he viewed as a theropod). Indeed, authors such as Lydekker (1889) and Marsh (1895) placed it in Anchisauridae. A relationship to basal sauropodomorphs remained the consensus until Galton and Cluver (1976) placed it in Theropoda instead due to the short and high proportions and supposed pleurocoel (actually a groove below the posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina). Additional authors who have placed Arctosaurus in Theropoda include Steel (1970; as incertae sedis), Welles (1984; stated to be undiagnostic but also somehow differing from Dilophosaurus and Coelophysis) and Weishampel (1990; as ?Theropoda indet.).  Arctosaurus is generally similar to most Triassic dinosaurs in having posterior centrodiapophyseal and postzygodiapophyseal laminae; and epipophyses, ventral keels and offset centra (so that the anterior articular face is higher if the posterior face is vertical) in anterior-mid cervicals.  However, anterior-mid cervicals of saurischians and silesaurs are more elongate, especially in sauropodomorphs, Nyasasaurus, Daemonosaurus, chindesaurs and neotheropods.  The latter four also differ in having pleurocoelous fossae in their centra.  All dinosauriforms also differ in having dorsally positioned posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae.
Arctosaurus a 'protorosaur'? Huene (1902) throught Arctosaurus belonged to Testudinata based on similarities to his new supposed turtle genus Chelyzoon (ventral keel and [translated] "far-projecting prezygapophysis bears the characteristic small round articular surface").  Chelyzoon blezingeri has since been identified as a twelfth cervical of Tanystropheus conspicuus, and indeed there are similarities with Arctosaurus in that both have amphicoelous, ventrally keeled centra with offset articular surfaces and epipophyses.  Yet besides being shorter as Huene noted, Arctosaurus also differs from tanystropheids in having posterior centrodiapophyseal and postzygodiapophyseal laminae.  Tiny protorosaur-grade Boreopricea is also similar in having offset (anterior) cervical centra and epipophyses, and also has posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae, but lacks ventral keels, posteriorly concave centra and postzygodiapophyseal laminae.
Arctosaurus an allokotosaur? Russell (1984) stated Arctosaurus "has more recently been considered as non-dinosaurian (trilophosaurid, D. Baird, personal communication 1983)."  However, besides having epipophyses, all three trilophosaurid species have different combinations of Arctosaurus-like characters.  Trilophosaurus buettneri has similar centrum elongation with offset faces and ventral keels, but lacks posterior centrodiapophyseal and postzygodiapophyseal laminae and has posteriorly convex centra.  T. caseanus (= Spinosuchus) has more elongate centra with offset faces, but only has a ventral keel on c4 and only has posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae on c6.  It also lacks postzygodiapophyseal laminae and has posteriorly flat centra, and additionally has more slender neural spines (anteroposteriorly).  Teraterpeton has shorter centra that are not offset, but are amphicoelous.  Its epipophyses end after c4, and no cervical that far anterior has either lamina discussed here.  Sues (2017) recently redescribed Arctosaurus as an archosauromorph and potentially an allokotosaur based on "the apparently anterodorsally canted neural spine and the posteriorly pointed epipophyses on the dorsal surface of the postzygapophyses."  However, the anterior margin is sloped posteriorly at its preserved base so the spine shows no evidence of being angled anteriorly (even so, other similar taxa such as poposauroids and aphanosaurs have this tilt as well). Of non-trilophosaurid allokotosaurs, Pamelaria lacks epipophyses and the anterior cervicals of Shringasaurus are only schematically figured and undescribed.  However, those of Azendohsaurus are extremely similar to Arctosaurus, except that ventral keels are absent (only present weakly in mid cervicals) and the neural spine is much longer anteroposteriorly.
Arctosaurus an archosauriform?  Nesbitt et al. (2007) also reviewed the specimen, and placed it as Archosauriformes indet.. Ignoring dinosaurs, epipophyses have been reported in several taxa, of which we can ignore those with centra shorter than tall (e.g. Revueltosaurus, Rauisuchus, Stagonosuchus).  Vancleavea has similar elongation, ventral keels and epophyses, but differs in lacking both posterior centrodiapophyseal and postzygodiapophyseal laminae, offset central surfaces and a posteriorly concave centrum.  Poposauroids have elongate centra, and among them the cervicals of ctenosauriscids are most similar to Arctosaurus.  These have shorter centra than Qianosuchus and shuvosaurids, the latter of which also differ from Arctosaurus in lacking posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae and having pleurocoelous fossae.  Among ctenosauriscids, Xilousuchus seems to lack both posterior centrodiapophyseal and postzygodiapophyseal laminae, but without preserved anterior cervicals in Ctenosauriscus, it is difficult to compare in detail to Arizonasaurus.  The poposauroid Lotosaurus would also appear to agree with Arctosaurus where known (e.g. approximate central elongation, epipophyses, posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina), but has undescribed cervicals that have only been photographed at a distance.  Arizonasaurus does differ from Arctosaurus in having a more dorsally arched posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina, and while the preserved fourth cervical neural arch lacks an epipophyses, its axis has one and other poposauroids have postaxial epipophyses so Arizonasaurus may on c3 as well. 
A final group of archosauriforms that strongly resemble Arctosaurus are the recently recognized aphanosaurs, particularly the middle cervicals of Teleocrater which differ only in being more elongate.  Arctosaurus is provisionally assigned to Aphanosauria here as ctenosauriscids are not known from the Late Triassic and have not been proven to have postaxial epipophyses, but it should be noted the earliest age of the Heiberg Formation is poorly constrained, and that future description of Lotosaurus could support Arctosaurus being another kind of poposauroid.
References- Adams, 1875. On a fossil saurian vertebra, Arctosaurus osborni, from the Arctic regions. Proceedings of the Royal Ireland Academy. 2, 177-179.
Lydekker, 1889. Notes on new and other dinosaurian remains. Geological Magazine, decade 3. 6(8), 352-356.
Lydekker, 1890. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part IV. Containing the orders Anomodontia, Ecaudata, Caudata and Labyrinthodontia; and supplement. British Museum of Natural History. 295 pp.
Marsh, 1895. On the affinities and classification of the dinosaurian reptiles. American Journal of Science. 50(300), 483-498.
Huene, 1902. Übersicht über die Reptilien der Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen (Neue Serie). 6, 1-84.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 87 pp.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae. Annals of the South American Museum. 69, 121-159.
Russell, 1984. A check list of the families and genera of North American dinosaurs. Syllogeus. 53, 35 pp.
Welles, 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda), osteology and comparisons. Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 185, 85-180.
Weishampel, 1990. Dinosaurian distribution. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 63-139.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Sues, 2017 (2016 online). Arctosaurus osborni, a Late Triassic archosauromorph reptile from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 54(2), 129-133.

Spondylosoma Huene, 1942
S. absconditum Huene, 1942
Late Ladinian-Early Carnian, Middle-Late Triassic
Excavation site 44, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Lectotypes- (GPIT 479/30/1) incomplete fourth/fifth cervical vertebra (30 mm)
....(GPIT 479/30/2) sixth/seventh cervical vertebra (35.5 mm)
....(GPIT 479/30/3) incomplete posterior dorsal vertebra (33.6 mm)
....(GPIT 479/30/6) incomplete first sacral vertebra (33 mm)
....(GPIT 479/30/7) second sacral vertebra (37 mm)
Paralectotypes- ?(GPIT 479/30/5) mid dorsal centrum (32 mm)
?(GPIT 479/30/8) incomplete third sacral vertebra (32 mm)
?(GPIT 479/30/9) distal scapula
?(GPIT 479/30/10) proximal scapula
?(GPIT 479/30/11) proximal humerus
?(GPIT 479/30/12) proximal pubis
?(GPIT 479/30/13) distal femur (48 mm trans)
?(GPIT 479/0253a) tooth (19.5x7.2x5.54 mm)
Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Excavation site 45, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Referred- ?(GPIT 479/0253b) tooth (Huene, 1942)
Early Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Find site 1063, Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
?(GPIT 479/30/4) incomplete first dorsal vertebra (32.4 mm) (Huene, 1942)
Comments- Discovered in 1929, this was described by Huene (1942) as a saurischian and redescribed in detail by Galton (2000).  Galton said Huene "noted that Spondylosoma absconditum was based primarily on the vertebrae so, although each bone was given a separate specimen number, the 'average sized' well-preserved vertebrae from the type Excavation site 44 at the "Baum-Sanga" are designated as the lectotype."  Of these, Huene identified GPIT 479/30/1 as a posterior cervical and 479/30/2 as the penultimate cervical.  Galton further states "Most of the other bones described as Spondylosoma absconditum VON HUENE 1942 from the type Excavation site 44 at the "Baum-Sanga" are paralectotypes as they were found with the lectotype vertebrae in fairly close proximity to each other", of which Huene identified GPIT 479/30/8 as a second sacral vertebra of another individual or third sacral.  Galton notes GPIT 479/30/5 "probably came from a smaller individual than the other dorsal vertebrae", 479/30/8 "may be from a slightly smaller individual. However, because of the differences in form, it is not another second sacral vertebra as suggested by VON HUENE (1942), and it is obviously a caudosacral vertebra."  Because Excavation site 44 contained not only the Spondylosoma lectotypes but also smaller dorsal 479/30/4 and larger Archosauria indet. caudal 479/0249, the referral of any of the appendicular or dental material is uncertain.  GPIT 479/0249 (caudal vertebra) and 479/0256a (partial radius) were referred to Spondyosoma by Huene but only retained as Archosauria incertae sedis by Galton. 
Spondylosoma was traditionally assigned to Thecodontosauridae in the 1900s (e.g. Romer, 1945), at the time a grade of primitive sauropodomorphs, with Colbert (1970) defending this based on the "moderately long neck, and possibly a rather small skull."  With the advent of cladistics, Spondylosoma's position was less secure with Carroll (1988) questionably listing it as a staurikosaurid saurischian, and Sues (1990) listing it as ?Dinosauria incertae sedis and stating "its dinosaurian affinities have yet to be firmly established."  Charig (1967) noted it "might still be prestosuchid pseudosuchian", which his 1956 thesis shows is based on his viewing sauropodomorphs as descendants of prestosuchids (his family of Prestosuchus plus Mandasuchus), and Spondylosoma being intermediate between these groups but unassignable due to the unpreserved acetabulum (with sauropodomorphs by definition having an open acetabulum in his typological view).  Galton (2000) excluded it from Dinosauria based on the lack of "a sigmoid curve and epipophyses in the neck and a distally placed deltopectoral crest on the humerus."  He concluded that "On the basis of the form of the sacrum, Spondylosoma is tentatively referred to the Rauisuchidae because the ilium was held obliquely rather than vertically as in poposaurids."  Langer (2004) disagreed, finding "the dorsal margin of the sacral ribs of Spondylosoma is mainly horizontal, as in most archosaurs, and not dorsolaterally inclined, as in the aforementioned rauisuchians" and identifying epipophyses on the more anterior cervical (which I agree with based on Huene's photo, but these were broken by 2000).  He concluded "the taxonomic assignment of Spondylosoma is ambiguous, and both rauisuchian and dinosaur affinities are possible."  Spondylosoma's identity was resolved with the description of Teleocrater by Nesbitt et al. (2017), who found they form a clade at the base of Pan-Aves which the authors named Aphanosauria.  This result was recovered in both Nesbitt's and Ezcurra's archosauriform matrices.  Notably, without Teleocrater, Yarasuchus or Dongusuchus, Spondylosoma resolves as a poposaur sister to Qianosuchus in Nesbitt's matrix but does still resolve as a non-ornithodiran pan-avian in Ezcurra's matrix. 
References- Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes: Ergebnisse der Sauriergrabungen in Sudbrasilien 1928/29. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 332 pp.
Romer, 1945. Vertebrate Paleontology. University of Chicago Press. 687 pp.
Charig, 1956. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. 503 pp.
Charig, 1967. Subclass Archosauria. In Harland, Holland, House, Hughes, Reynolds, Rudwick, Satterthwaite, Tarlo and Willey (eds.). The Fossil Record: A Symposium with Documentation. Geological Society of London. 708-718.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Sues, 1990. Staurikosaurus and Herrerasauridae. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 143-147.
Galton, 2000. Are Spondylosoma and Staurikosaurus (Santa Maria Formation, Middle-Upper Triassic, Brazil) the oldest saurischian dinosaurs? Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 74, 393-423.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 25-46.
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017. The earliest bird-line archosaurs and the assembly of the dinosaur body plan. Nature. 544, 484-487.
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Charig and Barrett, 2018 (as 2017). The anatomy of Teleocrater rhadinus, an early avemetatarsalian from the lower portion of the Lifua Member of the Manda Beds (Middle Triassic). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 37(Supplement to Number 6), 142-177.

Teleocrater Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017
= "Teleocrater" Charig, 1956
T. rhadinus Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017
= "Teleocrater tanyura" Charig, 1956
= "Teleocrater rhadinus" Charig, 1967b vide Charig, 1967a
Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lifua Member of the Manda Beds, Tanzania
Holotype- (NHMUK PV R6795; field number 48b; proposed holotype of "Teleocrater tanyura") (1 year old subadult) incomplete anterior cervical vertebra (53 mm), mid cevical centrum (32 mm), two incomplete posterior cervical vertebra (26, 25 mm), incomplete cervical rib, five partial to incomplete anterior-mid dorsal vertebrae (24, 25, 28, 30, 26 mm), three partial posterior dorsal vertebrae (21, 22, 21 mm), proximal dorsal rib, partial proximal caudal vertebra  (21 mm), ten incomplete mid caudal vertebrae (24, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 24, 25, 23, 22 mm), five distal caudal vertebrae (22, 25, 24, 25, 22 mm), partial scapula, coracoid, radii (one distal; 88 mm), ulna (92 mm), partial ilium, femora (170, 170 mm), tibiae (145, 145 mm), fibula (143 mm), proximal metatarsal III, proximal metatarsal IV, three pedal phalanges (22 mm)
Paratypes- (NHMUK PV R6796; field number 53a; proposed paratype of "Teleocrater tanyura") incomplete anterior vertebra (25 mm; lost?), posterior dorsal centrum (20 mm), distal humerus, limb bone fragment (lost?)
(NMT RB476) (1 year old subadult) humerus (112 mm)
(NMT RB477) humerus (87 mm)
(NMT RB479) ischium
(NMT RB480) scapula (92 mm)
(NMT RB481) (smaller individual) tibia (129 mm)
(NMT RB482) fibula (153 mm)
?(NMT RB484) metacarpal ?II (23 mm)
(NMT RB485) ulna (85 mm)
(NMT RB486) ulna (83 mm)
(NMT RB488) (1 year old subadult) fibula
(NMT RB489) incomplete  ilium
(NMT RB490) calcaneum
(NMT RB491) braincase
(NMT RB493) quadrate (36 mm)
(NMT RB495) maxilla
(NMT RB496) frontal
(NMT RB498) femur (160 mm)
(NMT RB500) anterior dorsal vertebra (21 mm)
(NMT RB504) axis  (27 mm)
(NMT RB505) anterior cervical vertebra (41 mm)
(NMT RB506) anterior cervical vertebra (33 mm)
(NMT RB511) mid cervical vertebra (39 mm)
(NMT RB512) (larger individual) mid cervical vertebra (55 mm)
(NMT RB514) posterior cervical vertebra (23 mm)
(NMT RB516) incomplete posterior dorsal vertebra (23 mm)
(NMT RB519) second sacral vertebra (20 mm)
Comments- Collected in 1933 by Parrington, Charig (1956) described the holotype as "Teleocrater tanyura" in his unpublished thesis.  Charig (1967a) credited the name Teleocrater rhadinus to a supposedly in press Charig, 1967 paper that was never published.  The elements of NHMUK PV R6796 "were collected from the same area as the holotype, but were far enough from the holotype that Parrington considered them to represent another individual" (Nesbitt et al., 2017).  Paratype NMT specimens were discovered in 2015, but as the precise location of the holotype's discovery is uncertain, they "could have come from the exact same locality as the holotype, or from a new locality nearby" (Nesbitt, et al. 2018).  Based on size differences, Nesbitt et al. find they came from at least three individuals.  Nesbitt et al. (2017) officially named and briefly described the material, which was described in detail the next year in Nesbitt et al.'s (2018) monograph.  The braincase remains undescribed.  The 2018 paper reidentifies supposed anterior dorsals DA and DB as posterior cervicals and supposed posterior dorsal DK as a proximal caudal.  Charig (1956) did not include the cervical rib, partial scapula, proximal metatarsals or pedal phalanges with the rest of the holotype, while Nesbitt et al. don't mention the anterior dorsal or small limb bone fragment of NHMUK PV R6796 that are described in Charig's thesis.
Charig (1956) originally described Teleocrater in his thesis as a pseudosuchian (sensu lato, based on the primitively closed acetabulum) probably ancestral to coelurosaurs (sensu lato) based on vertebral similarities with Coelophysis, as he believed in a polyphyletic Saurischia with his other new taxon Mandasuchus ancestral to sauropodomorphs within Pachypodosauria (sauropodomorphs plus carnosaurs).  He assigned it to his new monotypic family Teleocrateridae.  Due to the unpublished and embargoed nature of Charig's thesis, Teleocrater was only seldomly mentioned in the 1900s besides being included in taxonomic lists as a thecodont/pseudosuchian with varying certainty.  Among the few exceptions were Charig et al. (1965) mentioning "Teleocrater and Mandasuchus, apparently quadrupedal in habit, which seem to give indications of coelurosaur and prosauropod ancestry respectively" and Romer (1972) stating of Lewisuchus that "elongation of cervical vertebrae suggests comparison with Teleocrater."  de Ricqlès et al. (2008) described the histology of a holotype metatarsal, listing Teleocrater as "?Archosauriformes", stating "the gross morphological characters of the skeletal material (Charig, 1956; Krebs, 1976) indicate that the animals can be regarded as basal archosauriforms (non Archosauria) incertae sedis" and position Teleocrater closer to Archosauria than Mandasuchus, but further than Erythrosuchus, Chanaresuchus or Euparkeria.  Brusatte et al. (2010) first published a specimen number, listing "'Teleocrater' (BMNH R6796 and uncatalogued)" in their appendix. Nesbitt et al. (2017) recovered Teleocrater as a pan-avian outside Ornithodira using both Nesbitt's and Ezcurra's archosauriform matrices.  This shows the vertebral similarities to Coelophysis are convergent, and indeed modern data shows theropods and sauropodomorphs share a bipedal ancestor with a perforated acetabulum.
References- Charig, 1956. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. 503 pp.
Charig, 1957. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. Abstracts of Dissertations, University of Cambridge. 1955-56, 28-29.
Charig, Attridge and Crompton, 1965. On the origin of the sauropods and the classification of the Saurischia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 176, 197-221.
Charig, 1967a. Subclass Archosauria. In Harland, Holland, House, Hughes, Reynolds, Rudwick, Satterthwaite, Tarlo and Willey (eds.). The Fossil Record: A Symposium with Documentation. Geological Society of London. 708-718.
"Charig, 1967b. Preliminary note on the archosaurs in the Manda Formation (Middle Trias) of Tanzania. Palaeontology, In press." [never published]
Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIV. Lewisuchus admixtus, a further thecodont from the Chañares beds. Breviora. 390, 1-13.
de Ricqlès, Padian, Knoll and Horner, 2008. On the origin of high growth rates in archosaurs and their ancient relatives: Complementary histological studies on Triassic archosauriforms and the problem of a "phylogenetic signal" in bone histology. Annales de Paléontologie. 94, 57-76.
Brusatte, Benton, Desojo and Langer, 2010. The higher-level phylogeny of Archosauria (Tetrapoda: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(1), 3-47.
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017. The earliest bird-line archosaurs and the assembly of the dinosaur body plan. Nature. 544, 484-487.
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Charig and Barrett, 2018 (as 2017). The anatomy of Teleocrater rhadinus, an early avemetatarsalian from the lower portion of the Lifua Member of the Manda Beds (Middle Triassic). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 37(Supplement to Number 6), 142-177.

Avifilopluma
Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001
Definition- (hollow-based, filamentous epidermal appendages homologous with Vultur gryphus) (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001)
Comments- Avifilopluma was named a a theropod subclade defined by the presence of feathers (broadly defined). Yet the ornithischians Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus show identical structures, so all dinosaurs may be avifiloplumans. Moving stemwards, pterosaurs possess this covering as well, termed pycnofibers. Intermediate taxa are only known to possess scales or naked skin when large, so while rampant convergence is possible, it's also possible large taxa lose feathers. Given all of this, Avifilopluma is a good example of why apomorphy-based definitions should not be used.
Reference- Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001. Feathered dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, crown dinosaurs, and the name "Aves." In Gauthier and Gall (eds.). New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom. Peabody Museum of Natural History. 7-41.

Ornithodira Gauthier, 1986
Official Definition- (Compsognathus longipes + Pterodactylus antiquus <- Alligator mississippiensis) (Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020; Registration Number 405)
Other definitions- (Scleromochlus taylori + Pterodactylus antiquus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
(Pterodactylus antiquus + Vultur gryphus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Pterodactylus antiquus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Benton, 2004)
(Pterodactylus antiquus + Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
= "Ornithodira" Gauthier, 1984
= "Ornithotarsi" Gauthier, 1984
= Ornithotarsi Gauthier, 1984 vide Sereno, 1991
= Ornithodira sensu Sereno, 1991
Definition- (Scleromochlus taylori + Pterodactylus antiquus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Dinosauromorpha sensu Sereno, 1991
Definition- (Lagerpeton chanarensis + Lagosuchus talampayensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Ornithodira sensu Kischlat, 2000
Definition- (Pterodactylus antiquus + Vultur gryphus) (modified)
= Ornithodira sensu Benton, 2004
Definition- (Pterodactylus antiquus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Dinosauromorpha sensu Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010
Definition- (Lagerpeton chanarensis + Marasuchus lilloensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Ornithodira sensu Nesbitt, 2011
Definition- (Pterodactylus antiquus + Passer domesticus)
Comments- Gauthier (1984) originally coined the terms Ornithodira and Ornithotarsi in his thesis, the former including Lagosuchus, pterosaurs and dinosaurs, and the latter only including pterosaurs and dinosaurs.  Once this was published in 1986, he had altered his topology to place these in an unresolved trichotomy and thus did not use the term Ornithotarsi.  However, the name was published by Sereno (1991) who wrote "The character evidence supporting this alternative pterosaur-dinosaur clade (termed "Ornithotarsi" by Gauthier [1984: 175-182]) is weak and problematic." 
References- Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Gauthier, 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the Californian Academy of Sciences. 8, 1-55.
Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.
Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010 (online 2009). The origin and early evolution of dinosaurs. Biological Reviews. 85, 55-110.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.

Avipes Huene, 1932
A. dillstedtianus Huene, 1932
Late Ladinian, Middle Triassic
Lettenkohlensandstein, Germany

Holotype- (Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe coll.; = Prussian Geological State Institute coll.) partial metatarsals II-IV
Comments- Described by Huene (1932) as a podokesaurid based on its small size (coelurosaur sensu lato), early age and suggested similarity to Halticosaurus (metatarsal II "is slightly laterally curved distal and the proximal part is much narrower than the distal one" [translated], though the latter doesn't seem to be true in Avipes).  While Huene claims the metatarsals are fused proximally, the suture lines are visible both in proximal section and ?plantar views in his plates.  Norman (1990) suggested a less specific assignment to Archosauria indet. as a "variety of nondinosaurian archosaurs (saltoposuchid crocodilians, lagosuchids, and some pterosaurs) living in the Middle and Late Triassic also had a digitigrade stance", which was followed by Rauhut and Hungerbuhler (2000).  However, non-ornithodiran digitigrade taxa like basal crocodylomorphs, shuvosaurids, proterochampsians and Langobardisaurus have metatarsals which lay diagonally over each other proximally, whereas Lagerpeton, Lagosuchus, Silesaurus and coelophysids lack much overlap as in Avipes.  Pending further comparison it is here placed as Ornithodira incertae sedis.
References- Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Norman, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Coelurosaurs". In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 280-305.
Rauhut and Hungerbuhler, 2000. A review of European Triassic theropods. Gaia 15, 75-88.

unnamed Ornithodira (Parrish, 1999)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Four Aces Mine, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Utah, US

Material- (UCM 76197) incomplete manual ungual, incomplete ?pedal ungual
Comments- Discovered between 1983 and 1988, Parrish (1999) figured and commented on "several incomplete ungual phalanges" including "a straighter form that is more compressed from side to side" which he referred to ?Theropoda.  The ungual in figure 5A does resemble a theropod manual ungual in curvature and flexor tuber size but is also comparable to sauropodomorphs, heterodontosaurids and lagerpetids.  The ungual in figure 5D has a lower flexor tuber and more posteriorly extended dorsal corner which are typical of dinosaurian pedal unguals, but its transversely compressed shape may make it referrable to another kind of reptile's manus.  Jenkins et al. (2017) stated "these specimens are best considered Archosauriformes incertae sedis until further work is conducted."
References- Parrish, 1999. Small fossil vertebrates from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of southern Utah. In Gillette (ed.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication. 99-1, 45-50.
Jenkins, Foster and Gay, 2017. First unambiguous dinosaur specimen from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West. 4, 231-242.

Ornithodira indet. (Heckert, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Upper Kalgary NMMNH L-1430, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-26443) three manual unguals
Comments- Discovered on February 24, 1997, Heckert (2001, 2004) referred these to Theropoda indet., describing them as "strongly laterally compressed, recurved, with lateral and medial grooves ventral to the main claws. The concave articular surfaces possess dual facets for the next most proximal phalanx."  However, this is also true of some manual unguals of basal sauropodomorphs, heterodontosaurids, lagerpetonids and pterosaurs, so it is placed as Ornithodira indet. here.  The NMMNH online catalogue assigns this to ?Ceratosauridae, which probably an error based on the age and undescribed manual unguals of Ceratosaurus.
References- Heckert, 2001, The microvertebrate record of the Upper Triassic (Carnian) lower Chinle Group, southwestern U.S.A. and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico. 465 pp.
Heckert, 2004. Late Triassic microvertebrates from the lower Chinle Group (Otischalkian-Adamanian: Carnian), southwestern U.S.A. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 27, 1-170.

unnamed Ornithodira (Galton, Dyke and Kurochkin, 2009)
Late Berriasian-Early Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Cornet bauxite, Bihor, Romania

Material- (MTCO 17032; = MTCO-P 1912) distal ?radius
(MTCO 17637) proximal radius or distal femur
(MTCO 17661; = MTCO-P 9109) proximal radius or distal femur
Comments- Kessler and Jurcsak (1984) referred MTCO 17032 (= MTCO-P 1912) to Archaeopteryx sp. as a distal ulna. Dyke et al. (2011) considered it Archosauria indet., though noted it did resemble a pterosaur distal radius.
Galton et al. (2009) refer to basal hesperornithine elements from the Berriasian of Romania which are similar to Enaliornis. Dyke et al. only noted one element referred to Hesperornithes, a distal femur (MTCO 17637) said to be similar to Enaliornis in size and shape. However, Agnolin and Varricchio (2012) thought the very small and widely separated distal condyles, very wide, opened and pneumatized popliteal groove, and lack of an anterior extensor groove were dissimilar to birds and resembled the proximal radius of Azhdarcho.
MTCO 17661 (= MTCO-P 9109) was illustrated as a distal humerus of Aves indet. by Jurcsack and Kessler (1991), but was recently identified as a bird distal femur by Dyke et al.. Agnolin and Varricchio believed it was more similar to Azhdarcho's radius, for the same reasons as MTCO 17637.
References- Kessler, 1984. Lower Cretaceous birds from Cornet, Roumania. In Rief and Westphal (eds). Third Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Tubingen. 119-121.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Romania, Bihor County). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsack and Kessler, 1991. The Lower Cretaceous paleofauna from Cornet, Bihor County, Romania. Nymphaea. 21, 5-32.
Galton, Dyke and Kurochkin, 2009. Re-analysis of Lower Cretaceous fossil birds from the UK reveals an unexpected diversity. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 102A.
Dyke, Benton, Posmosanu and Naish, 2011. Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) birds and pterosaurs from the Cornet bauxite mine, Romania. Palaeontology. 54(1), 79-95.
Agnolin and Varricchio, 2012 . Systematic reinterpretation of Piksi barbarulna Varricchio, 2002 from the Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Western USA (Montana) as a pterosaur rather than a bird. Geodiversitas. 34(4), 883-894.

Ornithodira indet. (Nessov, 1988)
Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Baybishe, Bostobe Formation, Kazakhstan
Material
- (ZIN PO 3475) pedal ungual (6.6 mm)
Comments- Nessov (1988) first figured and noted (translated) "In the Santonian-?Campanian of Baibish, a pneumatized thin-walled ungual phalanx (Fig. 1.5) of a small bird was found."  He later (1992) figured ZON PO 3475 as "Aves indet. (?), claw phalanx of hindlimb", describing it as "a small, thin-boned, pneumatized claw (Fig. 4K) that is possibly from a small bird."  Bakhurina and Unwin (1995) later stated the element "is strikingly similar to the pedal unguals of Dsungaripterus", but "the material cannot be clearly identified as pterosaurian."  It is thus placed in Ornithodira indet. here.
References- Nessov, 1988. New Cretaceous and Paleogene birds of Soviet Middle Asia and Kazakhstan and environments. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta AN SSSR. 182, 116-123.
Nessov, 1992. Mesozoic and Paleogene birds of the USSR and their paleoenvironments. In Campbell (ed.). Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring Pierce Brodkorb. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series. 36, 465-478.
Bakhurina and Unwin, 1995. A survey of pterosaurs from the Jurassic and Cretaceous of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia. Historical Biology. 10, 197-245.

Ornithodira indet. (Romer, 1972)
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Material
- (MCZ 3691) tibiae (80 mm), fibulae (Romer, 1972)
(MCZ 4121) twelve dorsal vertebrae (7.5 mm), three (?)sacral vertebrae (6.5 mm), ilia (one partial), proximal tibia, fibulae (one proximal; 84 mm) (Romer, 1972)
(MCZ 9483) scapulocoracoids (42 mm) (Romer, 1972)
(PULR 71) few fragmentary vertebrae (Lecuona, Desojo and Pol, 2017)
(PVL 3455) vertebral material, partial femur, distal femur, proximal tibia, several metatarsal fragments, fragments (Bittencourt, Arcucci, Marsicano and Langer, 2015)
(PVL 4670) proximal caudal vertebrae (Sereno and Arcucci, 1994)
Comments- Romer (1972) referred partial skeleton MCZ 4121 to Lagerpeton, but Sereno and Arcucci (1993) state "The ilium and fibula (Romer, 1972:fig. 1C, F), in contrast, differ markedly from better preserved specimens" and that "there is no basis for comparison of two isolated scapulocoracoids (Romer, 1972:fig. 2; MCZ 4121, mislabeled Lagosuchus talampayensis in figure legend)."  Remes (2008) states that the illustrated scapulocoracoid is now labeled MCZ 9483 and referred to Lagosuchus in the MCZ collections, but did not say whether the rest of MCZ 4121 has also been recatalogued.  He did state the scapula differs from both Lewisuchus and Lagosuchus PVL 4672, but was similar enough to also be dinosauriform.  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) also excluded the scapulocoracoid from Lagosuchus.
Similarly, Romer referred tibiae and fibulae MCZ 3691 to Lagerpeton, but Sereno and Arcucci wrote "the hind-limb elements from the second slab (Romer, 1972:fig. 1D, E; MCZ 3691) are too fragmentary for adequate comparison." 
Sereno and Arcucci (1994) referred caudal series PVL 4670 to Marasuchus lilloensis, but this was rejected by Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019; who synonymized that species with Lagosuchus talampayensis) "because of the absence of autapomorphies or a unique combination of character states that may support their species-level assignment."
When discussing Pseudolagosuchus, Bittencourt et al. (2015) state "Another specimen collected from the Chañares Formation (PVL 3455) resembles those mentioned by Arcucci (1987), but its affinities are unclear" and list it as "Genus and species indeterminate" in their Supplementary Table 2.  This specimen has otherwise only been listed by Lecuona et al. (2017) in their Appendix II as a specimen of Lewisuchus.  In the same appendix is PULR 71, which Lecuona (pers. comm., 2021) confirmed consists of fragmentary vertebrae whose assignment to Lewisuchus is questionable.
These are all referred to Ornithodira indet. here.
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus. Breviora. 394, 1-7.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1993. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Lagerpeton chanarensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 13(4), 385-399.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1994. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis gen. nov.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14(1), 53-73.
Remes, 2008. Evolution of the pectoral girdle and forelimb in Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia): Osteology, myology, and function. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 355 pp.
Bittencourt, Arcucci, Marsicano and Langer, 2015 (online 2014). Osteology of the Middle Triassic archosaur Lewisuchus admixtus Romer (Chañares Formation, Argentina), its inclusivity, and relationships amongst early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 13(3), 189-219.
Lecuona, Desojo and Pol, 2017. New information on the postcranial skeleton of Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum (Archosauria: Suchia) and reappraisal of its phylogenetic position. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 181(3), 638-677.
Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2019. The validity of Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer, 1971 (Archosauria, Dinosauriformes), from the Late Triassic of Argentina. Breviora. 565, 1-21.

Pterosauromorpha Kuhn-Schnyder and Rieber, 1986
Official Definition- (Pterodactylus antiquus <- Alligator mississippiensis, Compsognathus longipes) (Andres and Padian, 2020; Registration Number 149)
Other definitions- (Pterodactylus antiquus <- Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Kischlat, 2000; modified from Padian, 1997)
(Pterodactylus antiquus <- Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Kuhn-Schnyder and Rieber, 1986. Handbook of Paleozoology. The John Hopkins University Press. 394 pp.
Padian, 1997. Pterosauromorpha. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 617-618.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Andres and Padian, 2020. Pterosauromorpha E. Kuhn-Schnyder and H. Rieber 1986 [B. Andres and K. Padian], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1194-1199.

undescribed possible pterosauromorph (Atanassov, 2001)
= Protoavis texensis (in part) Chatterjee, 1991
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material- (TTU-P9200; holotype of Protoavis texensis in part) ischium (Chatterjee, 1991)
(TTU-P9201; paratype of Protoavis texensis in part) tibia (~39 mm), fibula (~41 mm), four tarsals, metatarsal I (12 mm), metatarsal II (20 mm), metatarsal III (18 mm), metatarsal IV (14 mm) (Chatterjee, 1991)
(TTU-P10110; Atanassov's proposed holotype) partial maxilla, incomplete dentary, two sacral vertebrae, ilium (40.8 mm), ischia (45.5 mm), femur (56.5 mm), tibia (34.7 mm), fibula (32.7 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, metatarsal I (12.1 mm), metatarsal II, metatarsal III (~15.4 mm), metatarsal IV (14.7 mm), metatarsal V (9.5 mm), phalanx V-1 (6.3 mm) (Atanassov, 2001)
?(TTU-P10111-10123, 10125-10154, 10156-10184, 10186-10198) thirteen cervical vertebrae, twelve dorsal vertebrae, five sacral vertebrae, thirty-seven caudal vertebrae (Atanassov, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Kirkpatrick Quarry MOTT 3628, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

(TTU-P9367) tibia (Chatterjee, 1995)
(TTU-P9368) tibia (~58 mm) (Chatterjee, 1995)
(TTU-P9369) fibula (Chatterjee, 1995)
?(TTU-P10199-10209) four cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebra, sacral vertebra, five caudal vertebrae (Atanassov, 2001)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Boren (=Neyland) Quarry MOTT 3869, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

?(TTU-P10209-10217) dorsal vertebrae, rib fragments (Atanassov, 2001)
Comments- This taxon was named and described in a thesis (Atanassov, 2001, 2002) as a basal pterosauromorph. Examination of the figures leads me to believe material originally referred to Protoavis in fact belongs to Atanassov's taxon. The original (Chatterjee, 1991; reidentified as a vomer and pterygoid in 1999) sternum is an ischium, the radius and ulna are the tibia and fibula, and the metacarpus is the metatarsus. Sereno (1997) was the first to suggest Protoavis' supposed metacarpus was actually an archosaurian metatarsus. The new form's maxilla, dentary, ilium and femur seem unrepresented in Protoavis' material, while some characters of the vertebrae are a good match. Unfortunately, only two vertebrae (both sacrals) were associated with the appendicular and cranial elements of this new taxon, so it's possible the latter's vertebrae are from a drepanosaurid or other taxon.  These are listed in abbreviated form here, interested readers can consult Atanassov's thesis for which numbers correspond to which axial regions.  It should also be mentioned that the pterosauromorph identity of TTU-P10110 deserves to be reanalyzed given the recent recognition of lagerpetids as basal pterosauromorphs and aphanosaurs as basal pan-avians. 
References- Chatterjee, 1991. Cranial Anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 332(1265): 277-342.
Chatterjee, 1995. The Triassic bird Protoavis. Archaeopteryx. 13, 15-31.
Sereno, 1997. The origin and evolution of dinosaurs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 25, 435-489.
Chatterjee, 1999. Protoavis and the early evolution of birds. Palaeontographica A. 254, 1-100.
Atanassov, 2001. Two new archosauromorphs from the Late Triassic of Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3) 30A.
Atanassov, 2002. Two new archosaur reptiles from the Late Triassic of Texas. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University. 352 pp.
Martz, 2008. Lithostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of southern Garza County, west Texas. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University. 504 pp.

Scleromochloidea Huene, 1914 vide Young, 1964 emmend.
Scleromochlidae Huene, 1914
Scleromochlinae Huene, 1914 vide Nopcsa, 1923
Scleromochlus Woodward, 1907
S. taylori Woodward, 1907
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lossiemouth East Quarry, Lossiemouth Sandstone Formation, Scotland
Holotype- (NHMUK R3556; = Taylor coll.) incomplete skull (28 mm), fragmentary mandibles, cervical series (15.5 mm; 1.8 mm each), dorsal series (40 mm), few partial dorsal ribs, sacrum (6.5 mm; 2.2 mm each), first-ninteenth caudal vertebrae (c1 2.1 mm), few distal caudal vertebrae, seven chevrons, scapula (12 mm), coracoids, humerus (18.5 mm), incomplete radius (~17.5 mm), incomplete ulna (~17.5 mm), two carpals, metacarpals I (one proximal; ~1.3 mm), phalanx I-1 (~.5 mm), manual ungual I, metacarpals II (one proximal; 2.3 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, manual ungual II, metacarpal III (3.7 mm), phalanges III-X, manual ungual III, metacarpal IV (~1.7 mm), phalanx IV-1 (~.6 mm), phalanx IV-2 (~.4 mm), proximal metacarpal V?, incomplete ilia (8.4 mm), pubes (8.5 mm), ischium (6 mm), incomplete femora (30 mm), incomplete tibiae (31.7 mm), incomplete fibulae (31.5 mm), astragalus, distal tarsals I, distal tarsal II, distal tarsal IV, metatarsals I (16.1 mm), metatarsals II, metatarsals III (18.2 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III, metatarsals IV, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, pedal ungual IV, proximal metatarsal V, pedal phalanges
Paratypes- (NHMUK R3146A; = Grant coll.) incomplete skull (33 mm), incomplete mandibles, fragmentary cervical series (12.3 mm), fragmentary dorsal series (47.0 mm), eight dorsal ribs, fragmentary sacrum (6.8 mm), ~15 partial caudal vertebrae, scapula (12.9 mm), incomplete humeri, incomplete radius, incomplete ulna, distal femora (27.5 mm), incomplete tibiae (33 mm), incomplete fibula (33 mm), metatarsals (16.3 mm), integument?
(NHMUK R3146B; = Grant coll.) incomplete skull (27 mm), mandibles, fragmentary cervical series (~15 mm), fragmentary dorsal series, few partial dorsal ribs, sacrum (6.4 mm; 1.9-2.0 mm each), first-fourth caudal vertebrae, humeri (16 mm), partial radius/ulna, four manual phalanges(?), incomplete ilia (~6.8 mm), fragmentary femora (24 mm), tibia (27 mm), fibula (27 mm), partial metatarsus
(NHMUK R3557; = Taylor coll.) partial skull (33 mm), partial mandibles, few cervical vertebrae (1.8-2.1 mm), cervical ribs, several dorsal vertebrae (1.9-2.5 mm), several dorsal ribs, eighteen fragmentary caudal vertebrae (mid caudal 2.7 mm, distal caudal 3.0 mm), chevrons? (lost), humerus (22.5 mm), incomplete radius (~18 mm), incomplete ulna (~18 mm), several carpals, metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, metacarpal II, phalanx II-1, metacarpal III, metacarpal IV, metacarpal V, three phalanges, incomplete ilium, pubes, ischia, femora (32.5 mm), tibiae (one incomplete; 35.5 mm), fibulae (one partial; 35.5 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, distal tarsals, metatarsal I, metatarsal II, metatarsal III (19 mm), metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, five pedal phalanges, metatarsal V, integument?
Referred- (NHMUK R3914) ?palatines, ?pterygoids, partial ?hyoid, several fragmentary dorsal vertebrae (dorsal series ~45.7 mm), several partial dorsal ribs, incomplete scapula (12 mm), partial coracoid, humeri (19.2 mm), radii (18.3 mm), ulnae (18.9 mm), metacarpus (3.1 mm), incomplete femur, incomplete fibula, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, three proximal metatarsals, phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III, incomplete pedal digit IV, phalanx ?-1, proximal phalanx ?-2, fragments (Huene, 1914)
(NHMUK R4823, NHMUK R4824) several fragmentary dorsal vertebrae, gastralia, fragmentary sacrum, ~thirty fragmentary caudal vertebrae, partial scapulae (10 mm), humeri (17.5 mm), incomplete ulnae, fragmentary ilia, incomplete femur (27 mm), incomplete tibiae (30.3 mm), incomplete fibula (30.3 mm), several distal tarsals, partial metatarsal I, partial metatarsals II, partial metatarsals III (16.9 mm), partial metatarsals IV, metatarsal V, six pedal phalanges, integument? (Sereno, 1991)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lossiemouth West Quarry, Lossiemouth Sandstone Formation, Scotland
(NHMUK R5589) fragmentary skull, several fragmentary dorsal vertebrae, several partial dorsal ribs, caudal vertebrae, partial scapulae, distal humerus, radius (18.3 mm), ulna (18.3 mm), partial femora (30.5 mm), partial tibiae (33.5 mm), partial fibulae (33.5 mm), metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II, metatarsal III (18.5 mm), metatarsal IV, inetgument? (Benton, 1999)
Comments- NHMUK R3146A/B was purchased by the museum in 1903, while the holotype and R3557 were purchased in 1907.  Of the referred specimens, NHMUK R3914 was purchased in 1911, R4823/4824 in 1921 and R5589 in 1929. 
The specimens are largely preserved as natural molds in sandstone, so that much of the information has been gleaned from casts/peels over the decades.  Bennett (2020) notes that sand "grains can be seen adhering (sometimes in clumps!) to the PVC and silicone rubber, indicating that each set of positive impressions made resulted in changes to the impressions."  Thus anatomical details of these small specimens has been more controversial than most taxa covered on this site and the reader is referred to Benton (1999) and Bennett for details.  Among the more notable reidentifications, Bennett stated "I disagree with Benton’s (1999: fig. 2b) interpretation of the left hindlimb of NHMUK R3146B on the ventral slab in that what he interpreted as the fibula is interpreted as the articulated tibia and fibula with a proximal tarsal articulated at the distal end and what he interpreted as the tibia is interpreted as the closely appressed metatarsals based on the morphology of the metatarsals and the lack of evidence of disturbance."  Bennett also found that a structure in NHMUK R3146B labeled a chevron by Benton "is a fortuitous alignment of two gently curving dorsal rib segments with the end of the posterior one lying atop the end of the anterior one." In the holotype, Benton identified a distal tarsal III, but Bennett finds "the gap exhibits only an irregularly textured surface that differs from that of the matrix and presumably reflects a mulmy infilling of the negative impression of distal tarsal 3."  Bennett also reidentifies the supposed radius/ulna and manus of NHMUK R4823/4824 (Benton's figure 6a) as a tibia/fibula and pes and the femur and tibia/femur (Benton's figure 6b) as tibia and metatarsals respectively.  In the same specimen, Benton identified the element articulating with the humerus in figure 6b as a radius, but Bennett reidentifies it as an ulna.  Foffa et al. (2022) identify many new elements based on μCT scanning including a radius, ulna and manus for NHMUK R3557.  Note while their figure 1g shows all elements preserved except the phalanges of digit V, figure 1f only shows five phalanges including no obvious unguals.  Other newly identified elements were distal caudals, chevrons and more right pedal phalanges in NHMUK R3556, more dorsal ribs and right pedal phalanges in NHMUK R3557, metatarsals in NHMUK R3146A, a fibula in NHMUK R3146B, left forelimb and most of the left pedal phalanges in NHMUK R3914.  They also noted "We did not find evidence for any 3D structures dorsal to the vertebrae that would indicate the presence of osteoderms; the 2D structures previously identified as osteoderms may be integument impressions instead."
Relationships- Woodward (1907) initially believed "most of the characters agree well with those of the Dinosauria, especially the American Triassic genera described by Marsh", with a footnote specifying Anchisaurus, Ammosaurus and Hallopus, the latter now regarded as a crocodylomorph.  Broadkorb (1971) viewed it as dinosaurian as well.  Swinton (1960) noted several characters more similar to dinosaurs than Ornithosuchus and so suggested "it may well be that here is an animal of pseudosuchian generalized type that has crossed over the border and is already dinosaurian", which in modern terminology would make it a pan-avian, but Swinton was hindered by the lack of an objective definition for Dinosauria.  Indeed, Bennett (1996) recovered this exact topology with Ornithosuchus, Scleromochlus and Lagosuchus progressively more closely related to dinosaurs, but only after a posteriori exclusion of hindlimb characters supporting pan-avian pterosaurs.  Nesbitt et al. (2017) recovered Scleromochlus in a polytomy with Lagerpeton and dinosauromorphs when adding it to Ezcurra's archosauromorph matrix, and as potentially a lagerpetid or a dinosauriform when adding it to Nesbitt's archosaur analysis.
Huene (1908) instead placed in "family" Ornithosuchia along with Ornithosuchus and Hallopus within a Pseudosuchia also including aetosaurs, Dyoplax, Erpetosuchus and Proterosuchus.  Huene (1914) redescribed Scleromochlus and now placed it in a monotypic new family Scleromochlidae in the same Pseudosuchia, with his phylogram showing this to be a paraphyletic group with Scleromochlus closest to pterosaurs.  Nopcsa (1923) had a similar scheme when first using the subfamily Scleromochlinae alongside Ornithosuchinae and Euparkerinae [sic] within Ornithosuchidae.  Young (1964) was the first to use a suprafamilial suffix with his misspelled 'Scleromochiloidea' ancestral to pterosaurs in his phylogram.  This general idea of Scleromochlus as a pseudosuchian sensu lato most closely related to pterosaurs has been the consensus since Huene until 2017, with Gauthier (1984) and Padian (1984) first extensively proposing it in cladistic form, with Scleromochlus+pterosaurs most closely related to Lagosuchus and dinosaurs. 
A solution to both its similarity to lagerpetids and to pterosaurs was first recovered by Kammerer et al. (2020) who used Nesbitt's matrix to find Scleromochlus as sister to pterosaurs, with lagerpetids as more basal pterosauromorphs.  Similarly, Ezcurra et al. (2020) used Ezcurra's matrix with new lagerpetid material and additional pterosaurs to find Scleromochlus a pterosauromorph sister to lagerpetids plus pterosaurs.  Foffa et al. (2020, 2022) used new μCT data to recover a topology similar to these two studies.  Depending on the interpretation of the tarsus, Scleromochlus resolves as either the basalmost pterosauromorph, the basalmost lagerpetid or in a polytomy with other lagerpetids.
Ironically, both recent redescriptions of Scleromochlus have recovered more heterodox topologies.  Benton (1999) found Scleromochlus to be a pan-avian sister to Ornithodira (pterosaurs plus dinosaurs), but the matrix quality is far behind Nesbitt's or Ezcurra's and can be ignored today.  Similarly, Bennett (2020) updates Scleromochlus' scorings for his problematic 2013 archosauromorph analysis that combines many independent hindlimb characters together and makes many characters irreversable, leading to it being the most basal archosauriform besides proterosuchids.  More confusingly, his addition of Scleromochlus to Ezcurra's matrix resulted in it being a doswelliid.  His scorings should be compared with those of Nesbitt et al.'s (2017; first published in Ezcurra et al., 2017) to determine the source of this discrepency.
References- Woodward, 1907. On a new dinosaurian reptile (Scleromochlus Taylori, gen. et sp. nov.) from the Trias of Lossiemouth, Elgin. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 63(1-4), 140-144.
Huene, 1908. Die Dinosaurier der Europaiaschen Triasformation mit Berucksichtiging der aussereuropaischen Vorkommnisse. Geologische und paläontologische Abhandungen. 1, 1-419.
Huene, 1914. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Archosaurier. Geologische und paläontologische Abhandungen, NF. 13, 3-53.
Nopcsa, 1923. Die Familien der Reptilien. Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie. 210 pp.
Swinton, 1960. The origin of birds. In Marshall (ed.). Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds. Vol. 1. Academic Press. 1-14.
Young, 1964. On a new pterosaurian from Sinkiang. China Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 8, 221-255.
Brodkorb, 1971. Origin and evolution of birds. In Farner, King and Parkes (eds.). Avian Biology. Vol. 1. Academic Press. 20-55.
Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Padian,1984. The origin of pterosaurs. In Reif and Westphal (eds.). Third Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Short Papers. Attempto. 163-168.
Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Bennett, 1996. The phylogenetic position of the Pterosauria within the Archosauromorpha. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 118(3), 261-308.
Benton, 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 354, 1423-1446.
Ezcurra, Fiorelli, Martinelli, Rocher, Von Baczko, Ezpeleta, Taborda, Hechenleitner, Trotteyn and Desojo, 2017. Deep faunistic turnovers preceded the rise of dinosaurs in southwestern Pangaea. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1(10), 1477-1483.
Nesbitt, Butler, Ezcurra, Barrett, Stocker, Angielczyk, Smith, Sidor, Niedźwiedzki, Sennikov and Charig, 2017. The earliest bird-line archosaurs and the assembly of the dinosaur body plan. Nature. 544, 484-487.
Bennett, 2020. Reassessment of the Triassic archosauriform Scleromochlus taylori: Neither runner nor biped, but hopper. PeerJ. 8:e8418.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.
Foffa, Barrett, Butler, Nesbitt, Walsh, Brusatte and Fraser, 2020. New information on the Late Triassic reptile Scleromochlus taylori from μCT data. 141-142.
Kammerer, NesbittFlynn, Ranivoharimanana and Wyss, 2020. A tiny ornithodiran archosaur from the Triassic of Madagascar and the role of miniaturization in dinosaur and pterosaur ancestry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117(30), 17932-17936.
Foffa, Dunne, Nesbitt, Butler, Fraser, Brusatte, Farnsworth, Lunt, Valdes, Walsh and Barrett, 2022. Scleromochlus and the early evolution of Pterosauromorpha. Nature. 610, 313-318.

Lagerpetidae Arcucci, 1986 emmend. Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009
Official Definition- (Lagerpeton chanarensis <- Eudimorphodon ranzii, Silesaurus opolensis, Vultur gryphus) (Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020; Registration Number 406).
Other definition- (Lagerpeton chanarensis <- Alligator mississippiensis, Eudimorphodon ranzii, Marasuchus lilloensis, Silesaurus opolensis, Triceratops horridus, Saltasaurus loricatus, Passer domesticus) (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009)
= Lagerpetidae sensu Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009
Definition- (Lagerpeton chanarensis <- Alligator mississippiensis, Eudimorphodon ranzii, Marasuchus lilloensis, Silesaurus opolensis, Triceratops horridus, Saltasaurus loricatus, Passer domesticus)
Comments- Arcucci (1986) erected the family Lagerpetonidae, but this was changed to Lagerpetidae by Nesbitt et al. (2009) which was explained by Langer et al. (2013) who stated it "was formed (before 1999) based on an incorrect identification of the type-genus stem, which is Lagerpet- instead of Lagerpeton-", thus falling under ICZN Article 29.3.1.  Further, the explosion of new material and studies on the family since 2009 with authors using Lagerpetidae has made it the spelling in prevailing usage so that Article 29.5 does not apply.  Finally, Ezcurra et al.'s (2020) recent official definition of Lagerpetidae under the Phylocode would be problematic if Lagerpetonidae were retained under the ICZN.
A potential issue will arise if Scleromochlus falls under the definition of Lagerpetidae, as Scleromochlidae was named 72 years earlier by Huene, so would have priority under the ICZN but not the ICPN.
As described under Lagerpeton's entry, a monotypic Lagerpetidae was classified as saurischian-grade Dinosauria by Paul (1988) and Theropoda (as Theropodomorpha) by Olshevsky (1991).
References- Arcucci, 1986. Nuevos materiales y reinterpretacion de Lagerpeton chanarensis Romer (Thecodontia, Lagerpetonidae nov.) del Triasico Medio de La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 23(3-4), 233-242.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009. Hindlimb osteology and distribution of basal dinosauromorphs from the Late Triassic of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(2), 498-516.
Langer, Nesbitt, Bittencourt and Irmis, 2013. Non-dinosaurian Dinosauromorpha. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379, 157-186.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.

Lagerpeton Romer, 1971
L. chanarensis Romer, 1971
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Holotype- (PULR 06; = MLP 64-XI-14-10; field number 67) femur (77.8 mm), tibia (92.5 mm), incomplete fibula, astragalocalcaneum (~8 mm trans), distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (7.3 mm), phalanx I-1 (8.3 mm), pedal ungual I (5.3 mm), metatarsal II (25.9 mm), phalanx II-1 (10.2 mm), phalanx II-2 (8.8 mm), pedal ungual II (10.2 mm; lost), metatarsal III (44.0 mm), phalanx III-1 (lost), phalanx III-2 (lost), phalanx III-3 (lost), pedal ungual III (lost), metatarsal IV (49.4 mm), phalanx IV-1 (lost), phalanx IV-2 (lost), phalanx IV-3 (lost), phalanx IV-4 (lost), pedal ungual IV (lost), metatarsal V (17.4 mm)
Paratype- (PVL 4619) first sacral vertebra, second sacral vertebra, ilia, pubes, ischia, femur (76.7 mm), tibia (90.0 mm), fibula, astragalocalcaneum (14.6 mm trans), distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (8.6 mm), phalanx I-1 (~9.7 mm), metatarsal II (25.2 mm), phalanx II-1 (10.8 mm), phalanx II-2 (9.0 mm), pedal ungual II (10.6 mm), metatarsal III (42.1 mm), phalanx III-1 (11.8 mm), phalanx III-2 (8.3 mm), phalanx III-3 (7.9 mm), pedal ungual III (10.0 mm), metatarsal IV (47.4 mm), phalanx IV-1 (12.6 mm), phalanx IV-2 (8.3 mm), phalanx IV-3 (7.6 mm), phalanx IV-4 (6.0 mm), pedal ungual IV (9.3 mm), partial right hindlimb
Referred- (MCZ 4121; in part) partial femora (Romer, 1972a)
(MCZ 101542) dorsal rib fragment, incomplete scapulocoracoid (scapula 40.2 mm), humerus (48.5 mm), distal femur (McCabe and Nesbitt, 2019)
(PVL 4625) prefrontal, frontal, dentaries, last eight dorsal vertebrae (7 mm), first sacral vertebra, second sacral vertebra, nine proximal caudal vertebrae, ten mid/distal caudal vertebrae, scapula, pelvises, femur, proximal tibia (lost?) (Arcucci, 1986)
(PVL 5000) proximal femur (Sereno and Arcucci, 1993)
Comments- The holotype and MCZ 101542 were discovered in 1964.  While Romer (1971) initially reported the holotype as corresponding to field number 64, Sereno and Arcucci (1993) stated "In his specimen list, field number 64 is identified as the "skull of a cynodont." Probably field number 67 is the correct number, which is recorded from the same locality as "Articulated front leg (foot poor), ? cynodont."  Sereno and Arcucci stated "Since Romer's publication, the ungual of digit II and all of the phalanges of digits III and IV have been lost."  PVL 4619 and 4625 were discovered in 1966, with Bonaparte (1984) illustrating part of the former as cf. Lagerpeton.  Sereno and Arcucci noted "In PVL 4619, the lateral portion of the co-ossified astragalocalcaneum was fractured during preparation; the crack and adjacent damaged surfaces were previously interpreted as the suture between separate proximal tarsals."  They further state "Previously, a fragment of the base of metatarsal II was added to the base of metatarsal I in PVL 4619, giving metatarsal I a somewhat longer appearance" and also "a triangular bone fragment glued to the base of metatarsal IV in PVL 4619 was misinterpreted as a very reduced metatarsal V." 
Romer (1972a) referred partial skeleton MCZ 4121 to Lagerpeton, but Sereno and Arcucci (1993) state "The ilium and fibula (Romer, 1972:fig. 1C, F), in contrast, differ markedly from better preserved specimens" and that "there is no basis for comparison of two isolated scapulocoracoids (Romer, 1972:fig. 2; MCZ 4121, mislabeled Lagosuchus talampayensis in figure legend)."  Similarly, Romer referred tibiae and fibulae MCZ 3691 to Lagerpeton, but Sereno and Arcucci wrote "the hind-limb elements from the second slab (Romer, 1972:fig. 1D, E; MCZ 3691) are too fragmentary for adequate comparison."  These are all referred to Ornithodira indet. here.  Ezcurra et al. (2020) state PVL 4625 was reprepared in 2018, which exposed a prefrontal, frontal, dentaries and scapula that are referred to the taxon based on resemblance to Ixalerpeton.
Relationships- Romer (1971) initially suggested Lagerpeton was "connected in some fashion with a radiation leading toward the dinosaurs and, particularly, toward the coelurosaurian group of the Saurischia."  In his 1972b classification of thecodonts, Romer said "it is not impossible that Lagerpeton is related" to Scleromochlus and placed it tentatively in Scleromochlidae.  Similarly, Bakker and Galton (1974) wrote "Some of the little 'rabbit thecodontians' such as Lagosuchus and Lagerpeton, have immobile astragalar-calcaneal joints and lack calcaneal 'heels', and may be related in some way to dinosaur origins."  Olshevsky (1978) wrote "The genera Lagerpeton (Scleromochlidae) and Lagosuchus (Erpetosuchidae) may both be prosauropod dinosaurs (Bonaparte 1978; R. A. Long, pers. comm.)", which has not otherwise been suggested.  Paul (1988) placed Lagerpeton explicitly in Lagosuchia within his paraphyletic Paleodinosauria within Dinosauria, although his statement "Both the theropods and the herbivorous dinosaurs are descendants of early predators of this kind" would suggest they would be outside our modern concept of Dinosauria as ornithischians plus saurischians only.  Olshevsky (1991) also placed it in Lagosuchia, but included this in his new group Theropodomorpha, which would correspond to the modern concept of Theropoda, with his Theropoda being Neotheropoda.  What would be the three decade consensus was first proposed in an SVP abstract by Sereno and Novas (1990), who wrote "Ornithodirans more advanced than pterosaurs are united by synapomorphies of the tarsus and pes.  Within this subgroup, Lagerpeton is the basal sister taxon."  Sereno (1991) proposed several characters to include Lagerpeton in his newly defined Dinosauromorpha, further refined in Sereno and Arcucci (1993), with Sereno and Arcucci (1994) in turn explicitly listing characters excluding it from Dinosauriformes (also listed without discussion by Novas, 1992).  This was first cladistically tested by Benton (1999) and recovered in every published analysis until 2020.  Novas and Agnolin (2015) proposed in an abstract that Lagerpeton was instead "a basal archosauriform nested within Proterochampsidae, and nearly related to the genus Tropidosuchus."  This is elaborated on in Agnolin's (2017) thesis, which shows he added 9 characters to Nesbitt's archosauriform analysis and rescored (mainly) Lagerpeton, Chanaresuchus and Tropidosuchus, with 13 more steps needed to force it sister to Dinosauromorpha.  Dromomeron joins Lagerpeton, with this clade sister to Tropidosuchus and Chaneresuchus being more basal.  However, this hypothesis seems to have been abandoned, as Ezcurra et al. (2020; with Agnolin as fifth author) described new material which resembles basal pterosaurs instead of proterochampsids and recovered lagerpetids as pterosauromorphs in Ezcurra's archosauromorph matrix, with 23 steps required to place them in Dinosauromorpha.
References- Romer, 1971. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. X. Two new but incompletely known long-limbed pseudosuchians. Breviora. 378, 1-10.
Romer, 1972a. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus. Breviora. 394, 1-7.
Romer, 1972b. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XVI. Thecodont classification. Breviora. 395, 1-24.
Bakker and Galton, 1974. Dinosaur monophyly and a new class of vertebrates. Nature. 248, 168-172.
Olshevsky, 1978. The archosaurian taxa (excluding the Crocodylia). Mesozoic Meanderings. 1, 62 pp.
Bonaparte, 1984. Locomotion in rauisuchid thecodonts. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 3(4), 210-218.
Arcucci, 1986. Nuevos materiales y reinterpretacion de Lagerpeton chanarensis Romer (Thecodontia, Lagerpetonidae nov.) del Triasico medio de La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 23(3-4), 233-242.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Sereno and Novas, 1990. Dinosaur origins and the phylogenetic position of pterosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 10(3), 42A.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1993. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Lagerpeton chanarensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 13(4), 385-399.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1994. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis gen. nov.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14(1), 53-73.
Benton, 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B. 354, 1423-1446.
Novas and Agnolin, 2015. Lagerpeton chanarensis Romer (Archosauriformes): A derived proterochampsian from the Middle Triassic of NW Argentina. Libro de resúmenes del V Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología de Vertebrados. 48.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
McCabe and Nesbitt, 2019. The first pectoral and forelimb material assigned to the lagerpetid Lagerpeton chanarensis: Comparing to other lagerpetids and other avemetatarsalians. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2019, 151.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.
McCabe and Nesbitt, 2021. The first pectoral and forelimb material assigned to the lagerpetid Lagerpeton chanarensis (Archosauria: Dinosauromorpha) from the upper portion of the Chañares Formation, Late Triassic. Palaeodiversity. 14, 121-131.

Dromomeron Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007
Diagnosis- (after Nesbitt et al., 2009) concave posterolateral surface of crista tibiofibularis on distal femur; distinct scar on anterior surface of distal femur; posterolateral condyle of proximal tibia ventrally deflected or "hooked."
Comments- Only D. romeri is detailed here, as D. gregorii or D. gigas material have not been assigned to Theropoda.
References- Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009. Hindlimb osteology and distribution of basal dinosauromorphs from the Late Triassic of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(2), 498-516.
D. romeri Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Hayden Quarry, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

Holotype- (GR 218) femur (96.9 mm)
Paratypes- ?...(GR 219) femur
?...(GR 220) tibia
(GR 221) partial femur
(GR 222) tibia
(GR 223) astragalocalcaneum
(GR 234) incomplete femur (126.8 mm)
Referred- (GR 238; GR 235 in Nesbitt, 2011) (2 year old subadult) partial skeleton including caudal vertebrae, humerus (~119 mm), incomplete radius, ulna, metacarpal I, phalanx I-1, metacarpal II, metacarpal III, metacarpal IV, manual ungual IV, pelvis, femur (135.3 mm), tibia, partial fibula, metatarsal I, metatarsal II, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1 and phalanx IV-2 (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009)
(GR 239; GR 236 in Nesbitt, 2011) tibia (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009)
(GR 1036) (2 year old subadult) femur (103.9 mm) (Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019)
(GR 1037) femur (96.6 mm) (Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019)
(GR 1038) (3 year old adult) femur (144.4 mm) (Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019)
(GR 1039) femur (135.5 mm) (Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Snyder Quarry NMMNH L-3845, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

(NMMNH P-35379) astragalocalcaneum (Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Arroyo Seco, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

(AMNH 2721; = AMNH 2702 before 1973; paralectotype of Coelurus bauri) distal femur (Cope, 1887)
(AMNH 30648) distal tibia (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009)
(AMNH 30649) distal tibia (Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Main Elk Creek DMNH 1306, 'red siltstone member' of the Chinle Formation, Colorado, US
(DMNH EPV.54826) proximal femur (Small, 2009; described in Martz and Small, 2019)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
lower Sunday Canyon, Tecovas Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(WTAMU-V-8301) distal femur (Sarigül, 2016)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters South MOTT 3898, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TTU-P12537X) proximal tibia (Sarigül, 2016)
Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 795, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(MNA.V.7237) incomplete astragalus (Kirby, 1989)
Diagnosis- (after Irmis et al., 2007) absence of a fourth trochanter; sharp ridge on anteromedial edge of distal femur; large crest on anteromedial edge of astragalus.
(after Nesbitt et al., 2009) lateral tuberosity on anterolateral edge of distal femur.
Comments- The type material of Dromomeron was discovered in 2006 and described by Irmis et al. (2007) as a new taxon of lagerpetid. Note Ezcurra et al. (2020) state "Two specimens previously referred to D. romeri (DMNH EPV.63873, 29956; Martz and Small, 2019) are not considered here as part of the hypodigm because they lack autapomorphies or a unique combination of apomorphies diagnostic of the species. In addition, the morphology of the deltopectoral crest of DMNH EPV.29956 considerably differs from that of GR 238, suggesting it may correspond to a different taxon."
Found on June 1 2000, NMMNH P-35379 was initially catalogued as Theropoda before being referred to Dromomeron romeri by Irmis et al. (2007).
Is Tawa an adult Dromomeron?  Bennett (2015) proposed that D. romeri is actually the juvenile of Tawa hallae based on the shape and development of femoral processes, but that D. gregorii was a valid taxon. He does not note that if this were true, Tawa hallae would be a junior synonym of Dromomeron romeri, and that gregorii would need a new genus. However, Bennett fails to engage in the larger picture in that D. romeri is also known from other hindlimb material (some of which is associated in partial skeleton GR 238), that this small material shares lagerpetid characters with gregorii and Lagerpeton itself, and that is has e.g. fused astragalocalcanea unlike the larger Tawa material. Indeed, Parker (DML, 2015) urged "Please don't put too much stock in Bennett's (2015) ideas about Tawa hallae and Dromomeron romeri forming an ontogenetic series of the same taxon", noting "there is a large amount of unpublished material from the Hayden Quarry as well as other SW NA TR sites that clearly demonstrates that the femoral head anatomy is not due to crushing or a lack of ossification."  Müller (2017) agreed, noting D. romeri shares characters with the more mature (based on scar development) D. gigas, and lacks any suggested autapomorphies shared with Tawa.  Griffin et al. (2019) concurred, finding that the largest Dromomeron is bigger than the smallest Tawa and is histologically an adult or nearly so, and that "the postcranium of an associated specimen of D. romeri (GR 1041 [misstyped 238?]) lacks dinosaurian and dinosauriform synapomorphies, instead possessing apomorphic character states that pertain to lagerpetids."  An obvious example which completely repudiates the synonymy is the tiny metacarpal IV of Tawa with two vestigial phalanges compared to metacarpal IV of GR 238 which is subequal to metacarpal III is length and width and retains a well developed ungual (as figured by Ezcurra et al., 2020).
Old material- AMNH 2721 was originally a syntype of Coelurus bauri (Cope, 1887 first published it as a proximal tibia of Tanystropheus bauri) and was generally retained in Coelophysis bauri (e.g. Huene, 1906; Padian, 1986; though first illustrated by Huene 1915 as Coelophysis longicollis) until that taxon was given a neotype from a different locality in 1996. Since then it has been lumped with Cope's other original Coelophysis material as Coelophysidae indet., or even Archosauria indet. (Nesbitt et al., 2007). Most recently, Rauhut reidentified it as a distal femur and Nesbitt et al. (2009) referred it to Dromomeron romeri. AMNH 30648 and 30649 were also collected in the 1880s as Coelophysis material, and were reidentified as D. romeri by Nesbitt et al. (2009).
Astragalus MNA.V.7237 was discovered in the late 1980s and initially mentioned by Kirby (1989) in his statement "A recurved ungual, and astragalus, and several laterally compressed, recurved teeth with serrated edges from locality 791 are similar to those of theropod dinosaurs."  Kirby (1991) later described it as ?Ceratosauria indet. and stated it was from locality 360.  He said it "bears a laterally displaced ascending process traversed anteriorly by an ascending channel, and was expanded medially as indicated by the outline of basal attachment, corresponding to derived features reported for ceratosauroid theropods" including Coelophysis and Dilophosaurus, and "exhibits evidence of the astragalocalcaneal fusion characteristic of ceratosauroids."  Hunt et al. (1998) were more conservative and merely stated it was "undoubtedly dinosaurian."  Marsh (2018) redescribed MNA.V.7237 as a specimen of Dromomeron romeri, citing the locality as 795 which Gillette (pers. comm. 2021) revealed was separated from 360 by 1998, although Kirby's initial assignment to 791 remains a mystery.  While Marsh doesn't discuss Kirby's taxonomic assignment, Kirby's Plate 15 shows he viewed this as a right astragalus instead of a left one, and thus his supposed laterally placed anterior ascending process is actually the lagerpetid medially placed posterior ascending process with a transversely orinted posterior foramen.  Regarding fusion, Marsh reports it "is broken laterally and medially so it is impossible to determine if the calcaneum was co-ossified to the astragalus", although lagerpetids ironically also have fused astragalocalcanea like some coelophysoids.
References- Cope, 1887. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 24(126), 209-228.
Huene, 1906. Ueber die Dinosaurier der Aussereuropaischen Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 12, 99-156.
Huene, 1915. On reptiles of the New Mexican Trias in the Cope collection. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. 34, 485-507.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs: Faunal Change Across the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Kirby, 1989. Late Triassic vertebrate localities of the Owl Rock Member (Chinle Formation) in the Ward Terrace area of northern Arizona. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 12-28.
Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University 496 pp.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009. Hindlimb osteology and distribution of basal dinosauromorphs from the Late Triassic of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(2), 498-516.
Small, 2009. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from the Eagle Basin (Chinle Formation), Colorado, U.S.A.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 182A.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Bennett, 2015. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform characters in basal pterosaurs re-examined. Historical Biology. 27(6), 796-814.
Parker, DML 2015. http://dml.cmnh.org/2015Jul/msg00035.html
Sarigül, 2016. New basal dinosauromorph records from the Dockum Group of Texas, USA. Palaeontologia Electronica. 19.2.21A. 1-16.
Müller, 2017. Are the dinosauromorph femora from the Upper Triassic of Hayden Quarry (New Mexico) three stages in a growth series of a single taxon? Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 89(2), 835-839.
Marsh, 2018. A new record of Dromomeron romeri Irmis et al., 2007 (Lagerpetidae) from the Chinle Formation of Arizona, U.S.A. PaleoBios. 35, 1-8.
Smith, Irmis, Nesbitt and Turner, 2018. New material of Dromomeron romeri (Archosauria, Dinosauromorpha) from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of New Mexico provides insight into the evolutionary morphology of early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2018, 219.
Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019. Integrating gross morphology and bone histology to assess skeletal maturity in early dinosauromorphs: New insights from Dromomeron (Archosauria: Dinosauromorpha). PeerJ. 7:e6331.
Martz and Small, 2019. Non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of the Eagle Basin, northern Colorado: Dromomeron romeri (Lagerpetidae) and a new taxon, Kwanasaurus williamparkeri (Silesauridae). PeerJ. 7:e7551.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.
D. gregorii Nesbitt, Irmis, Parker, Smith, Turner and Rowe, 2009
D. gigas Martínez, Apaldetti, Correa and Abelín, 2015

Pterosauria Owen, 1842
Official Definition- (fourth manual digit hypertrophied to support a wing membrane, as in Pterodactylus antiquus) (Andres and Padian, 2020; Registration Number 157)
Comments- The authorship of this name is sometimes given as Kaup (1834), but he used Pterosaurii instead.
References- Kaup, 1834. Versuch einer Eintheilung der Saugethiere in 6 Stämme und der Amphibien in 6 Ordnung. Isis von Oken. 3, 311-316.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles, Part II.  Report Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science. 60-204.
Andres and Padian, 2020. Pterosauria R. Owen 1842 [B. Andres and K. Padian], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1200-1203.

"Archaeopteryx" "vicensensis"

Laopteryx

Rhamphorhynchus

Eurolimnornithiformes Bock and Buhler, 1996
Eurolimnornithidae Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986
Comments- Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) proposed the name Eurolimnornithidae for their new genus Eurolimnornis, but continued to place it in the order Limnornithiformes. Yet since Limnornis is a passeriform, using the latter order for the Cretaceous taxon would be confusing. Bock and Buhler (1996) accordingly named the Eurlimnornithiformes.
References- Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of the Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 28, 289-295.
Bock and Buhler, 1996. Nomenclature of Cretaceous birds from Romania. Cretaceous Research. 17, 509-514.
Eurolimnornis Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986 (non Kessler, 1987)
E. corneti Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986 (non Kessler, 1987)
Late Berriasian-Early Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Cornet bauxite, Bihor, Romania
Holotype
- (MTCO 17642; = MTCO-P 7896) distal humerus (12 mm wide)
Comments- This specimen has a complicated taxonomic history, which has been unraveled by Bock and Buhler (1996). Those authors note the relevent papers were published very close together and in a different order than their manuscripts were written, so often reference incorrect dates for each other. In addition, while the holotypes of each valid species were originally thought to be a humerus and femur, Agnolin and Varricchio (2012) have revealed both to be humeri, and both are now catalogued under different numbers than they were when most of the literature was written. Kessler (1984) originally described this specimen and another distal humerus (MTCO 14909; = MTCO-P 1637; described as a distal femur) as "Limnornis corneti", but did not provide a proper description, making it a nomen nudum. Kessler and Jurcsak (1984) soon officially described the species as Limnornis corneti with MTCO 14909 as the holotype, but learned the genus was preoccupied by a furnariid passeriform. Jurcsak and Kessler (1985) thus proposed the replacement name "Palaeolimnornis" for their species. However, "Palaeolimnornis" was merely introduced in a list of taxa, making it a nomen nudum. Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) again noted Limnornis was preoccupied, but this time proposed the name Eurolimnornis corneti for the taxon. Oddly, they did not discuss why they did not stick with "Palaeolimnornis" (though they did state it was a synonym), and unfortunately they designated MTCO 17642 as the holotype. This makes Eurolimnornis corneti a separate species from their original Limnornis corneti based on MTCO 14909. In 1987, Kessler officially proposed Eurolimnornis as a replacement name for Limnornis corneti, though he did not note "Palaeolimnornis" or Kessler and Jurcsak's earlier use of Eurolimnornis. This makes Eurolimnornis corneti of Kessler, 1987 (based on MTCO 14909) a separate taxon (and junior homonym) of Eurolimnornis corneti of Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986 (based on MTCO 17642). MTCO 14909 is now known under the name Palaeocursornis corneti. It seems Kessler and/or Jurcsak had intended to switch the holotype of corneti to make MTCO 17642 Palaeolimnornis corneti, later changed to Eurolimnornis corneti, and make MTCO 14909 Palaeocursornis biharicus, but various steps were not allowed by the ICZN, leading to the current situation.
Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) and Kurochkin (1995) considered this species to be an avian sensu lato (perhaps similar to grebes), but Hope (2002) noted the rounded distal condyles are known in most euornithines, while the well developed brachial fossa is present in Ichthyornis as well (it is also seen in Longicrusavis, Gansus and several non-euornithines). Most recently, Agnlin and Varricchio (2012) have reinterpreted it as pterosaurian. They noted it differed from Ornithocheiroidea and Azhdarchoidea, but did not identify it past Pterosauria indet.. Here it is placed in Caelidracones, as only this clade extended into the Cretaceous.
A supposed ulnar shaft fragment (MTCO 17956; = MTCO-P 6966) and supposed distal carpometacarpus (MTCO 17558; = MTCO-P 207) were made paratypes of this species by Kessler and Jurcsak (1986), but Hope finds there is no evidence for this and Dyke et al. (2011) have reidentified them as an archosaur long bone shaft and bird proximal scapula respectively.
References- Kessler, 1984. Lower Cretaceous birds from Cornet, Roumania. In Rief and Westphal (eds). Third Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Tubingen. 119-121.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Romania, Bihor County). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985. La paleofaune de Cornet - implications phylogenetiques et ecologiques. Evolution et Adaptation. 2, 137-147.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of the Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 28, 289-295.
Kessler, 1987. New contributions to the knowledge about Lower and Upper Cretaceous birds from Romania. In Currie and Koster (eds). Fourth Symposium on Terrestrial Ecosystems. Occasional Papers, Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology. 3, 133-135.
Jurcsack and Kessler, 1991. The Lower Cretaceous paleofauna from Cornet, Bihor County, Romania. Nymphaea. 21, 5-32.
Kurochkin, 1995. Synopsis of Mesozoic birds and early evolution of class Aves. Archaeopteryx. 13, 47-66.
Bock and Buhler, 1996. Nomenclature of Cretaceous birds from Romania. Cretaceous Research. 17, 509-514.
Benton, Cook, Grigorescu, Popa and Tallodi, 1997. Dinosaurs and other tetrapods in an Early Cretaceous bauxite-filled fissure, northwestern Romania. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 130(1-4), 275-292.
Hope, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In Chiappe and Witmer (eds). Mesozoic birds: Above the heads of dinosaurs. Berkeley: University of California Press. 339-388.
Dyke, Benton, Posmosanu and Naish, 2011. Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) birds and pterosaurs from the Cornet bauxite mine, Romania. Palaeontology. 54(1), 79-95.
Agnolin and Varricchio, 2012 . Systematic reinterpretation of Piksi barbarulna Varricchio, 2002 from the Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Western USA (Montana) as a pterosaur rather than a bird. Geodiversitas. 34(4), 883-894.

Pterodactyloidea Plieninger, 1901
Official Definition- (metacarpal IV that is at least 80 percent as long as the humerus (at adult stage), as in Pterodactylus antiquus) (Andres and Padian, 2020; Registration Number 158)
References- Plieninger, 1901. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Flugsaurier. Palaeontographica. 48, 65-90.
Andres and Padian, 2020. Pterodactyloidea F. Plieninger 1901 [B. Andres and K. Padian], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1204-1207.

probable Pterodactyloidea indet. (Huene, 1926)
Kimmeridgian, Late Jurassic
quarry near St. Niklaus, Solothurn Turtle Limestone, Switzerland
Material- (NMS 20'870) incomplete manual phalanx IV-2 (~420 mm)
Comments- Huene (1926) described the material and stated "
The bone probably represents the distal part of a coelurosaur fibula" (translated).  However, Meyer and Hunt (1999) found "in all details of morphology including elongation of the shaft, rounded triangular cross section, asymmetrical flaring of both ends and the thinness of bone, NMS 20'870 is nearly identical in morphology to a right wing phalanx 2 of a pterosaur", and that "The large size of the specimen and the absence of a deep phalangeal groove (e.g. Wellnhofer, 1977) suggests that this bone does not represent a rhamphorynchoid."
References- Huene, 1926. Die Saurierfauna des Portlandkalkes von Solothurn. Eclogae geologicae Helveticae. 19, 584-603.
Meyer and Hunt, 1999. The first pterosaur from the Late Jurassic of Switzerland: Evidence for the largest Jurassic flying animal. Oryctos. 2, 111-116.

possible Pterodactyloidea indet. (Lewy, Milner and Patterson, 1992)
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Oron, Phosphate Member, Mishash Formation, Israel
Material- (Geological Survey of Isreal 8047/1649) endocast
(Geological Survey of Isreal coll.) stem of endocast
Comments- Note the figured endocast was stated to be from the Oron locality, but the more fragmentary brainstem's locality was unspecified but would have been Oron, Zin or Nahal Ashosh.
Lewy et al. (1993) described these as Titanopteryx sp. "on the assumption that they may be associated with isolated pterosaur bones found nearby in the phosphates of the upper level at Oron (Fig. 1), including wing-finger phlanges[sic], and the proximal part of a humerus, 65 mm wide across the head", although these remains are undescribed and not necessarily congeneric with Titanopteryx (now Arambourgiana) from the Maastrichtian of Jordan.  Averianov (2014) wrote "Although pterosaur nature of the figured endocast (Lewy et al. 1992: pl.1, figs 5, 6) cannot be ruled out (see, for comparison, Witmer et al. 2003), its small size (length around 3 cm) and reported bird-like structure suggest avian affinities."  Specifically, Lewy et al wrote "The topography of the brain is ... even more bird-like than in the other Cretaceous examples, an interminate pterodactyloid from the Cambridge Greensand (Cenomanian) (Seeley, 1870), and the Campanian Pteranodon (Edinger, 1927). The olfactory lobes are extremely reduced and are in fact unrecgnozable as discrete structures. The cerebral hemispheres (ce; Pl. 1, fig. 5) are comperatively large and much expended laterally, so that they are broader than long and almost cover the optic lobes (ol) in dorsal view, as in modern birds. The optic lobes (ol) of the midbrain are displaced laterally and ventrally into the basal half of the brain by the large cerebellum (cl), which covers the midbrain and contacts the cerebral hemispheres."  However, they also say "The floccular lobes (fl) of the cerebellum are much larger than in modern bird brains of comparable size, as they are in all other pterosaurs" and small Campanian pterosaurs are now known (e.g. Piksi, Northumberland Formation RBCM.EH.2009.019.0001 and Dinosaur Park Foarmtion TMP 1981.016.0107 and 1996.012.0369), so the material should be restudied.
References- Lewy, Milner and Patterson, 1992. Remarkably preserved natural endocranial casts of pterosaur and fish from the Late Cretaceous of Israel. Geological Survey of Israel Current Research. 7, 31-35.
Averianov, 2014. Review of taxonomy, geographic distribution, and paleoenvironments of Azhdarchidae (Pterosauria). ZooKeys. 432, 1-107.

probable Pterodactyloidea indet. (Young, 1935)
Early Cretaceous
Mengyin Formation, Shandong, China
Material- proximal manual phalanx IV-1
Comments- This was initially described by Young (1935) as "the ?ulna of a small carnivorous Dinosaur of the Struthiomimus type", but Young (1958) later said it "may belong to Pterosauria."  In 1964, Young labels it Pterosauria indet. and notes "It is about the same size (slightly larger) and structure as the same bone" in Dsungaripterus.
References- Young, 1935. Dinosaurian remains from Mengyin, Shantung. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China. 15, 519-533.
Young, 1958. The dinosaurian remains of Laiyang, Shantung. Palaeontologia Sinica, New Series C. 16, 1-138.
Young, 1964. On a new pterosaurian from Sinkiang. China Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 8, 221-255.

Herbstosaurus pigmaeus

Pterodactylus

Cimoliornis diomedeus

Cretornis hlavaci

Piksi Varricchio, 2002
P. barbarulna Varricchio, 2002
Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Two Medicine Formation, Montana, US

Holotype- (MOR 1113) distal humerus, proximal radius, proximal ulna, distal ulna
Diagnosis- (after Agnolin and Varricchio, 2012) distal margin of humerus oblique relative to the main axis of the shaft, with trochlea strongly distally extended; trochlea bulbous and subspherical; acute and well defined transverse crest connecting the entepicondyle and the lateral ridge that delimitates the olecranal fossa, in posterior view.
Comments- Originally described as a ornithothoracine of uncertain, but probably basal, relationship. Agnolin and Varricchio (2012) later redescribed it as an ornithocheiroid pterosaur.
References- Varricchio, 2002. A new bird from the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation of Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 39(1), 19-26.
Agnolin and Varricchio, 2012 . Systematic reinterpretation of Piksi barbarulna Varricchio, 2002 from the Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Western USA (Montana) as a pterosaur rather than a bird. Geodiversitas. 34(4), 883-894.

"Palaeornis" Mantell, 1844 (preoccupied Vigors, 1825)
= "Osteornis" Gervais, 1844
= "Lithosteornis" Gervais, 1844
"P." cliftii
Mantell, 1844
= "Osteornis ardeaceus" Gervais, 1844 in part
= Pterodactylus cliftii (Mantell, 1844) Bronn, 1848
= Pterodactylus sylvestris Owen, 1859
= Pterodactylus ornis Owen, 1861
= Ornithocheirus cliftii (Mantell, 1844) Lydekker, 1888
Late Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation, England
Holotype- (NHMUK 2353; = Mantell coll.) (adult?) proximal humerus (~100 mm)
....(NHMUK 2353a; = Mantell coll.) distal humerus
History- These specimens may have been first mentioned by Mantell (1824), who referred to birds preserved in two layers of "the Tilgate forest, near Cuckfield."  NHMUK 2353 was first illustrated by Mantell (1827) as one of several "Bones of birds?" from the Wealden, compared to another of several "Bones of birds, from Stonesfield" (= Taynton Limestone Formation) which was actually a pterosaur humerus (now lost).  Mantell (1837) figured it as "The head of a tibia(?)" of a bird, and described and figured NHMUK 2353a as the distal part of a "Tarso-metatarsal bone of a Wader", largely based on a supposed hallucial fossa which is actually the lateral margin of the m. brachialis origin.  Mantell (1844) later officially named NHMUK 2353a Palaeornis cliftii, again as a distal tarsometatarsus closely related to Ardea, and again mentioning NHMUK 2353 as "the proximal head of a tibia."  Owen (1845) redescribed both pieces, concluding that "the Wealden fossil (fig. 3) is the proximal end of the left humerus of a Pterodactyle: and since the other fossil from the Tilgate strata (figs. 1 to 4) is the distal extremity of a left humerus, presenting the same degree of approximation to that part in the bird, but with differences irreconcileable with their identity, and which are most likely to be such as will be found in the same part in a Pterodactyle; and since the fossil (figs. 1 to 4) corresponds precisely in its proportions and the size of the shaft with the fossil (figs. 5 to 8), it is highly probable that it is part of the samebone."  Mantell (1846) agreed they were two parts of one humerus but wrote "while it is probable that the bones in question will prove to be Pterodactylian, the evidence is not conclusive; some of them may be referred to birds."  His final statement regarding it concludes that it is "probably, of a Pterodactyle; although there are certain points in which it unquestionably differs from the arm-bone of any flying reptile hitherto observed" (Mantell, 1851).  Bronn (1848) first listed the genus Palaeornis as preoccupied by a psittaculid bird, generally considered a junior synonym of Psittacula although recent molecular studies have suggested splitting the latter genus and retaining Palaeornis.  While Bronn reassigned the species to Pterodactylus, he misspelled the name as clifti with one i, which was followed by most authors until 2009.  Notably, Mantell (1848) mentions "bones, supposed to belong to Birds (Palaeornithis)" from the Wealden, but whether this is a misspelling or an attempt to replace Palaeornis is unknown.  Owen later proposed two different names for the same specimen a couple years apart, "the Wealden Pterodactyle (Pt. sylvestris, Ow.)" (Owen, 1859) and "The Wealden Pterodactyle (Pter. ornis)" (Owen, 1861), not referencing Mantell's paper but rather his own 1845 paper that left the humerus unnamed.  Lydekker (1888) first provisionally referred cliftii to Ornithocheirus, misspelled as "Ornithochirus(?) clifti", listing the specimen numbers for the first time and noting both were sold to the NHMUK from the Mantell collection in 1836.  Through the 1990s, cliftii was referred to Ornithocheirus, although as Hooley states in his 1914 review of the genus it and other species based on postcrania "must for the present remain in the genus Ornithocheirus, but for no other reason than that they have been placed there, for the characters of the bones belonging to the genus Ornithocheirus are absolutely unknown."  Wellnhofer (1978) placed it in Ornithocheiridae incertae sedis without comment. 
Modern studies- Witton (2009) reviewed the history of "Palaeornis" cliftii (which formed the basis of the section above) and redescribed it, interpreting the humerus as lonchodectid based on comparison to Cambridge Greensand humerus CAMSM B54081 assigned to Lonchodectes by Unwin (2001).  However, CAMSM B54081 resolved as a basal pteranodontian when analyzed by Rodrigues and Kellner (2013), and has since been assigned to the azhdarchoid Ornithostoma by Averianov (2012) and later to Azhdarchoidea incertae sedis by Smith et al. (2021) upon the identification of a second Cambridge Greensand azhdarchoid (CAMSM B40085).  The discovery of an associated postcranium in the lonchodectid Ikrandraco allows us to compare humeri, and while it and cliftii do share a slightly distally placed and tall deltopectoral crest, it's only ~73% as proximodistally long in cliftii, angled proximally instead of distally and Ikandraco lacks the expanded lateral condyle distally and is much more robust (although the latter may partially be due to crushing).  Averianov (2012) correctly noted cliftii is more like azhdarchids (and Bennetazhia) than CAMSM B54081 in having a slightly distally placed deltopectoral crest, and that Bennettazhia also has an expanded lateral condyle.  Of compared taxa, cliftii is most similar to Bennettazhia and Averianov suggested it "may belong to a closely related taxon of basal azhdarchoids", which is accepted here pending comparison to other members of the clade.
"Osteornis"- Gervais (1844) proposed the name Osteornis in his thesis- "-It is bird bone. I will thus name the bone debris or the whole bones of birds found in the fossil state (1), and I will propose its use to naturalists, to designate all the bone ornitholiths whose specific determination will appear impossible." (translated, as are the following quotes from the work)  Footnote 1 indicates "Lithosteornis would be preferable, but it is too long a word."  Gervais proposes three species, the first of which is "O. ardeaceus, according to M. Mantel" for "a tarsus, humerus and radius from the Wealden Formation of Tilgate Forest to have come from a neighboring wader of the heron (Ardea vulgaris)", referencing a 1835 abstract of Mantell's talk at the Geological Society that lacks illustrations.  As such, Gervais' work fails to satisfy ICZN Article 12.1 ("every new name published before 1931 ... must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication") and 12.2.7 (an indication can include "the proposal of a new genus-group name or of a new species-group name in association with an illustration of the taxon being named, or with a bibliographic reference to such an illustration").  Additionally, "Lithosteornis" and arguably "Osteornis" fail to satisfy Article 11.5 ("To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed") as the former is immediately rejected and the latter was basically an attempt to designate a name for indeterminate specimens.  Brodkorb (1978) first reviewed the situation and concurred "O. ardeaceus is thus a nomen nudum with no status in nomenclature."  Richmond (1902) proposed "O. ardeaceus" as the type species because it is the first one mentioned by Gervais.
References- Mantell, 1824. Description of some fossil vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex. Transactions of the Geological Society, London. 1, 421-424.
Vigors, 1825. Sketches in ornithology; or observations on the leading affinities of some of the more extensive groups of birds. Zoological Journal. 2, 37-69.
Mantell, 1827. Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex. London. 92 pp.
Mantell, 1835. On the bones of birds from the strata of Tilgate Forest in Sussex. Proceedings of The Geological Society of London. 2(41), 203.
Mantell, 1837. On the bones of birds discovered in the strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex. Transactions of the Geological Society of London. 5, 175-177.
Gervais, 1844. Remarques sur les oiseaux fossiles. PhD thesis, Université Paris. 45 pp.
Mantell, 1844. The Medals of Creation; or, First Lessons in Geology and in the Study of Organic Remains. Henry G. Bohn. 930 pp.
Owen, 1845. On the supposed fossil bones of birds from the Wealden. The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 2, 96-102.
Mantell, 1846. Supposed bird's bones of the Wealden. American Journal of Science. 2, 274-275.
Bronn, 1848. Index Palaeontologicus oder Ubersicht der bis jetzt bekannten fossilen Organismen. Schweizerbart. 604 pp.
Mantell, 1848. A brief notice of organic remains recently discovered in the Wealden Formation. The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 5, 37-43.
Mantell, 1851. Petrifactions and their Teachings; or, A Handbook to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum. Henry G. Bohn. 228 pp.
Owen, 1859. Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Cretaceous Formations; Supplement I. Palaeontographical Society Monograph. 1-19.
Owen, 1861. Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Cretaceous Formations; Supplement III. Pterosauria (Pterodactylus). Palaeontographical Society Monograph. 1-19.
Lydekker, 1888. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamta, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum of Natural History. 309 pp.
Richmond, 1902. List of generic terms proposed for birds during the years 1890 to 1900, inclusive, to which are added names omitted by Waterhouse in his "Index Generum Avium. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 24, 663-729.
Hooley, 1914. On the ornithosaurian genus Ornithocheirus, with a review of the specimens from the Cambridge Greensand in the Sedgewick Museum, Cambridge. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 78, 529-557.
Brodkorb, 1978. Catalogue of fossil birds: part 5 (Passeriformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences. 23(3), 139-228.
Wellnhofer, 1978. Handbuch der Palaoherpetologie. Teil 19: Pterosauria. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 82 pp.
Unwin, 2001. An overview of the pterosaur assemblage from the Cambridge Greensand (Cretaceous) of eastern England. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe. 4, 189-221.
Witton, 2009. On pterodactyloid diversity in the British Wealden (Lower Cretaceous) and a reappraisal of "Palaeornis" cliftii Mantell, 1844. Cretaceous Research. 30,  676-686.
Martill, 2010. The early history of pterosaur discovery in Great Britain. In Moody, Buffetaut, Naish and Martill (eds.). Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Saurians: A Historical Perspective. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 343, 287-311.
Averianov, 2012. Ornithostoma sedgwicki - Valid taxon of azhdarchoid pterosaurs. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute RAS. 316(1), 40-49.
Rodrigues and Kellner, 2013. Taxonomic review of the Ornithocheirus complex (Pterosauria) from the Cretaceous of England. ZooKeys. 308, 1-112.
Smith, Martill, Unwin and Steel, 2021 (online 2020). Edentulous pterosaurs from the Cambridge Greensand (Cretaceous) of eastern England with a review of Ornithostoma Seeley, 1871. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 132(1), 110-126.

Dsungaripteridae Young, 1964
Reference- Young, 1964. On a new pterosaurian from Sinkiang. China Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 8, 221-255.

unnamed dsungaripterid (Young, 1964)
Early Cretaceous
Tugulu Group?, Xinjiang, China
Material- (IVPP V2779) tibiotarsus (165 mm), fibula
Comments- Young (1964) described this as ?Ornithurae indet. and stated it "looks quite similar to the tibia of Hesperornis and other hawks-like birds."  Buffetaut (1996) noticed "Young was even more cautious in the Chinese version of his paper, in which he wrote that the Changji bone  if it was not a pterosaur, might be the first record of a Mesozoic bird in China" and that his figure labels it Dsungaripteroidea indet..  Buffetaut redescribed the specimen and concluded "Direct comparison of the tibia from Changji with that of Noripterus (on the basis of specimens kept at the IVPP) reveals marked resemblances in the general shape of the bone, the degree of fusion of the fibula, and the shape of the articular ends" and assigned it to Dsungaripteridae.  As it is probably from the same geological group as Noripterus and of similar size (specimen 64043-3 has a tibiotarsus 157 mm long), it may actually be a specimen of that taxon.
References- Young, 1964. On a new pterosaurian from Sinkiang. China Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 8, 221-255.
Buffetaut, 1996. The "ornithurine" from the Lower Cretaceous of Changji, Xinjiang (China): Bird or pterosaur? Cretaceous Research. 17, 505-508.

Azhdarchidae Nessov, 1984
Reference- Nessov, 1984. Pterosaurs and birds from the Late Cretaceous of Middle Asia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1, 47-57.

Aralazhdarcho Averianov, 2007
?= "Samrukia" Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit, online 2011
?= Samrukia Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit vide Buffetaut, 2012
A. bostobensis Averanov, 2007
?= "Samrukia nessovi" Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit, online 2011
?= Samrukia nessovi Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit vide Buffetaut, 2012
Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Bostobe Formation, Kazakhstan
Holotype
- (ZIN PH 9/43) anterior fragment of fifth/sixth cervical vertebra
Paratypes- ?(TsNIGR 41/11915) jugal (Nessov, 1984)
?(ZIN Ph 16/43) proximal manual phalanx IV-2
?(ZIN Ph 37/43) jaw fragment
?(ZIN Ph 43/43) proximal femur
?(ZIN Ph 44/43) partial axial centrum
?(ZIN Ph 45/43) distal scapular fragment
?(ZIN Ph 46/43) posterior dorsal centrum
Referred- ?(WDC Kz-001; holotype of Samrukia nessovi) posterior mandibles ( Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit, 2011)
?(ZIN Ph 57/43) proximal humerus (Averianov et al., 2015)
Other diagnoses- (after Naish et al., 2011; for Samrukia nessovi) large size (mandibular length >275 mm); presence of deep mediodorsal sulcus in the post-dentary region; prominent and raised anterior margin of the mandibular cotyla.
Comments- Discovered in 1982, Nessov (1984) originally figured jugal TsNIGR 41/11915 as "Pterosauria gen. indet.", said to be "part of a skull that evidently had large apertures at the sides, as in Ornithodesmus" (now Istiodactylus).   It was also figured as Pterosauria indet. by Nessov (1997).  Averianov (2004) described both it and cervical fragment ZIN PH 9/43 as Azhdarchidae gen. et sp. indet..  Averianov (2007) made the cervical the holotype of Aralazhdarcho bostobensis and described several additional remains, although as usual for Bostobe and Bissekty taxa these are all isolated and thus only provisionally applied based on the assumption of a single comparable taxon in the locality.
Samrukia the supposed bird- This specimen was placed in Euornithes (their Ornithuromorpha) when analyzed in the theropod matrix of Naish et al. (2012), but Buffetaut (2011) subsequently identified it as a pterosaur. Oddly, the latter restudy appeared in print before the actual description. Naish et al. was originally published electronically as an Advance online article on August 11 2011, but not physically published until the February 23 2012 issue.  As it lacked a ZooBank registration it was a nomen nudum until the latter publication (ICZN Article 8.5.3 states "a work must "be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred").  Buffetaut's paper was online on November 10 2011, but published physically in the July-December 2011 issue.  Note this does not count as establishing the name Samrukia nessovi, as it was explicitly not claimed to be a new name (ICZN Article 16.1) and additionally is not given differentiating characters (Article 13.1.1), with Buffetaut instead saying "Whether the type material of S. nessovi is sufficient to warrant the erection of a new pterosaur taxon is debatable, so that S. nessovi may turn out to be a nomen dubium."  Averianov (2014) wrote Samrukia "is similar to the mandible of Quetzalcoatlus (Kellner and Langston 1996: figs 4C, D, 5) in having a peculiar posterolateral process of the lateral cotyle of the mandibular articulation, which could be a synapomorphy for Azhdarchidae. Samrukia nessovi is referred here to Azhdarchidae and tentatively considered a subjective junior synonym of Aralazhdarcho bostobensis."
References- Nessov, 1984. Pterosaurs and birds from the Late Cretaceous of Middle Asia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 1, 47-57.
Nessov, 1997. [Cretaceous Nonmarine Vertebrates of Northern Eurasia]. Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. 218 pp.
Averianov, 2004a. New data on Cretaceous flying reptiles (Pterosauria) of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 2004(4), 73-83.
Averianov, 2004b. New data on Cretaceous flying reptiles (Pterosauria) from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Paleontological Journal. 38, 426-436.
Averianov, 2007a. New records of azhdarchids (Pterosauria, Azhdarchidae) from the Late Cretaceous of Russia, Kazakhstan, and central Asia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 2007(2), 73-79.
Averianov, 2007b. New records of azhdarchids (Pterosauria, Azhdarchidae) from the Late Cretaceous of Russia, Kazakhstan, and central Asia. Paleontological Journal. 41, 189-197.
Buffetaut, 2011. Samrukia nessovi, from the Late Cretaceous of Kazakhstan: A large pterosaur, not a giant bird. Annales de Paléontologie. 97(3-4), 133-138.
Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit, 2011. A gigantic bird from the Upper Cretaceous of central Asia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2011, 165.
Naish, Dyke, Cau, Escuillie and Godefroit, 2012 (online, 2011). A gigantic bird from the Upper Cretaceous of central Asia. Biology Letters. 8(1), 97-100.
Averianov, 2014. Review of taxonomy, geographic distribution, and paleoenvironments of Azhdarchidae (Pterosauria). ZooKeys. 432, 1-107.
Averianov, Dyke, Danilov and Skutschas, 2015. The paleoenvironments of azhdarchid pterosaurs localities in the Late Cretaceous of Kazakhstan. ZooKeys. 483, 59-80.

Palaeocursornithiformes Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986
= Limnornithiformes Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984
= Cursornithiformes Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
Palaeocursornithidae Jurcsak and Kessler, 1988
= "Limnornithidae" Kessler, 1984
= Limnornithidae Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984
= "Cursornithidae" Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
Comments- Kessler (1984) originally proposed the Limnornithidae, but this was without an official description, making it a nomen nudum. Shortly thereafter, Kessler and Jurcsak (1984) officially named the Limnornithidae and Limnornithiformes for their new taxon Limnornis corneti, yet because Limnornis is preoccupied by a recent passeriform, neither family or order name can be used for the Cretaceous taxon. In 1985, Jurcsak and Kessler proposed Cursornithidae and Cursornithiformes for "Paleocursornis biharicus", but the family is not valid as there is no genus "Cursorius" to which it refers. The order is not covered by the ICZN, so could technically be used but would be misleading. Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) finally named Palaeocursornithiformes and Jurcsak and Kessler named Palaeocursornithidae, both for Palaeocursornis biharicus, which is now a junior synonym of Palaeocursornis corneti. If Palaeocursornis is an azhdarchid, Azhdarchidae named in 1984 still has priority.
References- Kessler, 1984. Lower Cretaceous birds from Cornet, Roumania. In Rief and Westphal (eds). Third Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Tubingen. 119-121.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Romania, Bihor County). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985. La paleofaune de Cornet - implications phylogenetiques et ecologiques. Evolution et Adaptation. 2, 137-147.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of the Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 28, 289-295.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1988. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romaniei. III . Filogenie si sistematica. Nymphaea. 18, 647-688.
Palaeocursornis Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986
= "Limnornis" Kessler, 1984
= Limnornis Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984 (preoccupied Gould, 1839)
= "Palaeolimnornis" Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
?= "Palaeocursornis" Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
= Palaeocursornis Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986
= Eurolimnornis Kessler, 1987 (non Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986)
P. corneti (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984) Bock and Buhler, 1996
= "Limnornis corneti" Kessler, 1984
= Limnornis corneti Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984
= "Palaeolimnornis" corneti (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984) Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
?= "Palaeocursornis biharicus" Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985
= Palaeocursornis biharicus Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986
= Eurolimnornis corneti (Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984) Kessler, 1987 (non Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986)
Late Berriasian-Early Valanginian, Early Cretaceous
Cornet bauxite, Bihor, Romania
Holotype
- (MTCO 14909; = MTCO-P 1637) distal humerus (12 mm wide)
Comments- This specimen has an incredibly complicated taxonomic history, which has been unraveled by Bock and Buhler (1996). Those authors note the relevent papers were published very close together and in a different order than their manuscripts were written, so often reference incorrect dates for each other. In addition, while the holotypes of each valid species were originally thought to be a humerus and femur, Agnolin and Varricchio (2012) have revealed both to be humeri, and both are now catalogued under different numbers than they were when most of the literature was written. Kessler (1984) originally described the holotype (MTCO 14909; = MTCO-P 1637; as a distal femur) and another distal humerus (MTCO 17642; = MTCO-P 7896) as "Limnornis corneti", but did not provide a proper description, making it a nomen nudum. Kessler and Jurcsak (1984) soon officially described the species as Limnornis corneti with the supposed femur as the holotype, but learned the genus was preoccupied by a furnariid passeriform. Jurcsak and Kessler (1985) thus proposed the replacement name "Palaeolimnornis" for their species. However, "Palaeolimnornis" was merely introduced in a list of taxa, making it a nomen nudum. Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) again noted Limnornis was preoccupied, but this time proposed the name Eurolimnornis corneti for the taxon. Oddly, they did not discuss why they did not stick with "Palaeolimnornis" (though they did state it was a synonym), and unfortunately they designated the other distal humerus MTCO 17642 as the holotype. This makes Eurolimnornis corneti a separate species from their original Limnornis corneti based on MTCO 14909. In 1987, Kessler officially proposed Eurolimnornis as a replacement name for Limnornis corneti, though he did not note "Palaeolimnornis" or Kessler and Jurcsak's earlier use of Eurolimnornis. This makes Eurolimnornis corneti of Kessler, 1987 (based on MTCO 14909) a separate taxon (and junior homonym) of Eurolimnornis corneti of Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986 (based on MTCO 17642). Jurcsak and Kessler (1985) listed "Palaeocursornis biharicus" in a faunal list, without reference to a replacement name or holotype, making it a nomen nudum. It is here used as a junior synonym for the species represented by MTCO 14909 because the next year, Kessler and Jurcsak (1986) officially described Palaeocursornis biharicus with MTCO 14909 as the holotype, making biharicus a junior synonym of corneti. However, Palaeocursornis is a valid genus name and thus forms the combination Palaeocursornis corneti, first used by Bock and Buhler (1996). It seems Kessler and/or Jurcsak had intended to switch the holotype of corneti to make MTCO 17642 Palaeolimnornis corneti, later changed to Eurolimnornis corneti, and make MTCO 14909 Palaeocursornis biharicus, but various steps were not allowed by the ICZN, leading to the current situation.
Kessler and Jurcsak (1984) believe the holotype belongs to a ratite, while Kurochkin (1995) assigns it to Palaeognathae. The latter assignment is due to the narrow medial condyle articular surface, wide anterior ridge and "unexpressed crest on the internal supracondyle." Hope (2002) finds the patellar sulcus and large tibiofibular crest indicate it belongs to Ornithurae, and notes that among Aves, tinamiforms and lithornithids also have narrow and deep intercondylar sulci and patellar fossae. Most recently, Agnlin and Varricchio (2012) have reinterpreted it as a pterosaur distal humerus, possibly an azhdarchid.
Three additional specimens were made paratypes of Limnornis corneti by Kessler and Jurcsak (1984). MTCO 17642 (= MTCO-P 7896) is a distal humerus that is now the holotype of the pterosaur Eurolimnornis corneti (see above). MTCO 17956 (= MTCO-P 6966) was described as an ulnar shaft, but was most recently reinterpreted as an indeterminate archosaur long bone shaft by Dyke et al. (2011).
References- Gould, 1839. Birds. In Darwin (ed.). The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. 3(3). Smith Elder and Co.. 33-56.
Kessler, 1984. Lower Cretaceous birds from Cornet, Roumania. In Rief and Westphal (eds). Third Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems, Tubingen. 119-121.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1984. Fossil bird remains in the bauxite from Cornet (Romania, Bihor County). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 25, 393-401.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1985. La paleofaune de Cornet - implications phylogenetiques et ecologiques. Evolution et Adaptation. 2, 137-147.
Kessler and Jurcsak, 1986. New contributions to the knowledge of the Lower Cretaceous bird remains from Cornet (Romania). Travaux du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Grigore Antipa. 28, 289-295.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1987. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romaniei. II . Morfologia speciilor fosile. Nymphaea. 17, 583-609.
Kessler, 1987. New contributions to the knowledge about Lower and Upper Cretaceous birds from Romania. In Currie and Koster (eds). Fourth Symposium on Terrestrial Ecosystems. Occasional Papers, Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology. 3, 133-135.
Jurcsak and Kessler, 1988. Evolutia avifaunei pe teritoriul Romaniei. III . Filogenie si sistematica. Nymphaea. 18, 647-688.
Jurcsack and Kessler, 1991. The Lower Cretaceous paleofauna from Cornet, Bihor County, Romania. Nymphaea. 21, 5-32.
Kurochkin, 1995. Synopsis of Mesozoic birds and early evolution of class Aves. Archaeopteryx. 13, 47-66.
Bock and Buhler, 1996. Nomenclature of Cretaceous birds from Romania. Cretaceous Research. 17, 509-514.
Benton, Cook, Grigorescu, Popa and Tallodi, 1997. Dinosaurs and other tetrapods in an Early Cretaceous bauxite-filled fissure, northwestern Romania. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 130(1-4), 275-292.
Hope, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In Chiappe and Witmer (eds). Mesozoic birds: Above the heads of dinosaurs. Berkeley: University of California Press. 339-388.
Dyke, Benton, Posmosanu and Naish, 2011. Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) birds and pterosaurs from the Cornet bauxite mine, Romania. Palaeontology. 54(1), 79-95.
Agnolin and Varricchio, 2012 . Systematic reinterpretation of Piksi barbarulna Varricchio, 2002 from the Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of western USA (Montana) as a pterosaur rather than a bird. Geodiversitas. 34(4), 883-894.

Dinosauromorpha Benton, 1985
Official Definition- (Compsognathus longipes <- Pterodactylus antiquus, Alligator mississippiensis) ( Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020; Registration Number 407)
Other definitions- (Megalosaurus bucklandii <- Pterodactylus antiquus) (modified from Sereno, 1991; modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Lagerpeton chanarensis + Lagosuchus talampayensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Sereno, 1991)
(Passer domesticus <- Pterodactylus antiquus) (modified from Benton, 2004)
(Passer domesticus <- Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus woodwardi, Pterodactylus antiquus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Lagerpeton chanarensis + Marasuchus lilloensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Langer, Nesbitt, Bittencourt and Irmis, 2013)
= Dinosauromorpha sensu Sereno, 1991
Definition- (Megalosaurus bucklandii <- Pterodactylus antiquus) (modified)
= Dinosauromorpha sensu Benton, 2004
Definition- (Passer domesticus <- Pterodactylus antiquus) (modified)
= Dinosauriformes sensu Benton, 2004
Definition- (Passer domesticus <- Lagerpeton chanarensis) (modified)
= Dinosauromorpha sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Passer domesticus <- Crocodylus niloticus, Ornithosuchus woodwardi, Pterodactylus antiquus)
Comments- Benton (1985) originally proposed this as a cohort seemingly equivalent to Pan-Aves, listed as including "ornithosuchids, dinosaurs, birds." 
References- Benton, 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 84(2), 97-164.
Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Langer, Nesbitt, Bittencourt and Irmis, 2013. Non-dinosaurian Dinosauromorpha. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379, 157-186.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.

Dinosauriformes Novas, 1992
Official Definition-
(Lagosuchus talampayensis + Compsognathus longipes) (Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020; modified from Novas, 1992; Registration Number 408)
Other definitions-
(Lagosuchus talampayensis + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Marasuchus lilloensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Novas, 1996)
(Passer domesticus <- Lagerpeton chanerensis) (modified from Benton, 2004)
(Marasuchus lilloensis + Passer domesticus) (Sereno, online 2005; modified from Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010)
= Dinosauriformes sensu Novas, 1996
Definition- (Marasuchus lilloensis + Pseudolagosuchus major + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Dinosauriformes sensu Kischlat, 2000
Definition- (Lagosuchus talampayensis + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Dinosauriformes sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Marasuchus lilloensis + Passer domesticus)
Comments- Novas (1992) first proposed Dinosauriformes for a clade "that comprises the most recent common ancestor of Lagosuchus, Dinosauria, and all taxa stemming from it."
References- Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Novas, 1996. Dinosaur monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 16, 723-741.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Benton, 2004. Origin and relationships of Dinosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 7-19.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010 (online 2009). The origin and early evolution of dinosaurs. Biological Reviews. 85, 55-110.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Bronzati, Dalla Vecchia, Agnolin, Benson, Brissón Egli, Cabreira, Evers, Gentil, Irmis, Martinelli, Novas, da Silva, Smith, Stocker, Turner and Langer, 2020. Enigmatic dinosaur precursors bridge the gap to the origin of Pterosauria. Nature. 588, 445-449.

unnamed dinosauriform (Parrish and Carpenter, 1986)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Blue Mesa Stump Field NE PFV 262, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (PEFO 26678) incomplete scapula
Comments- Parrish and Carpenter (1986) write "An uncatalogued theropod scapula from the lower part of the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation in the Petrified Forest National Park compares favorably with the specimen from New Mexico in size (see Table 10.1), although poor preservation of the Arizona specimen prevents giving it a generic assignment."  Hunt et al. (1998) however stated "Long (pers. comm., 1989) reidentified this as rauisuchian", repeated by Hunt et al. (1998) - "Long (pers. commun., 1989) identified this as rauisuchian."  Most recently, Marsh and Parker (2020) figured it and assigned it to Dinosauriformes "owing to the relatively long scapular blade and posteroventrally-oriented glenoid."
References- Parrish and Carpenter, 1986. A new vertebrate fauna from the Dockum Formation (Late Triassic) of eastern New Mexico. In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press. 151-160.
Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

unnamed Dinosauriformes (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (UCMP 25793) distal tibia (Long and Murry, 1995)
(UCMP 25834) distal femur (Hutchinson, 2001)
Comments- Discovered in 1934, Long and Murry (1995) assigned UCMP 25793 to ?Prosauropoda indet. (calling it UCMP A269/25793, but A269 is merely the locality number) without rationale.  Hunt et al. (1998) stated it "is not assignable to Prosauropoda because this specimen does not exhibit any prosauropod synapomorphies of the distal tibia (Novas 1989) and could represent a primitive theropod (compare Novas 1989, fig. 2.2-3)", with the latter being figures of Herrerasaurus and Staurikosaurus.  Irmis (2005) found it "is very similar to the distal tibiae of Silesaurus (Dzik, 2003), Eoraptor (pers. obs.), and Herrerasaurus (Novas, 1993), and therefore assignable to the Dinosauriformes (Nesbitt et al., in prep). It cannot be assigned to the Saurischia or "Prosauropoda" because the posterolateral margin of the tibia in distal view is not straight or concave."  The in prep. paper was published as Nesbitt et al. (2007), who indeed referred it to Dinosauriformes indet..
UCMP 25834 was also discovered in 1934 and was initially listed as cf. Sphenosuchus by Hutchinson (2001), who noted it had an anterior trochanter and calculated its bone wall thickness/diameter ratio of 32%.  Irmis (2005) wrote it was "assignable to Dinosauriformes because the fibular groove forms an obtuse angle, not 90° as in chatterjeeids", again agreed upon by Nesbitt et al. (2007).  The latter state it may be referrable to Camposaurus, which would be supported if it had e.g. an infrapopliteal ridge as in coelophysids.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Hutchinson, 2001. The evolution of femoral osteology and soft tissues on the line to extant birds (Neornithes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 131, 169-197.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.

Lagosuchia Chatterjee, 1982
Lagosuchidae Bonaparte, 1975
Lagosuchinae Bonaparte, 1975 vide Paul, 1988
Comments- Bonaparte (1975) first proposed assigning Lagosuchus to a family, stating "the differences between Lagosuchus and the other Los Chañares thecodonts correspond to family level differences, except perhaps with Lagerpeton."  This remained monotypic until Arcucci (1987) described Pseudolagosuchus, which she assigned to Lagosuchidae based on "characteristics of the femur (development of the femoral head and fourth trochanter), tibia and fibula (orientation and expansion of the epiphyses), and above all the proximal tarsals (transverse extension of the astragalus, position of the ascending process, reduction and position of the calcaneal tubercle)."  These characters are either vague or typical of dinosauriforms, so do not support a monophyletic Lagosuchidae.  Notably, Novas (1989) also included Pseudolagosuchus in Lagosuchidae but commented on a couple characters it shares with dinosaurs to the exclusion of Lagosuchus, presaging his 1992 paper that established this phylogenetically.  Olshevsky (1991) was the last author to use a non-monotypic family for Lagosuchus, also including Pseudolagosuchus.  Paul (1988) tentatively assigned Pseudolagosuchus to Staurikosauridae, but instead included Lewisuchus within his Lagosuchidae, stating "The hips are missing, and as a result I cannot be sure this is a lagosuchid, but the general similarity to its Ischichuca neighbor Lagosuchus suggests that it is."  The only character stated to support this is that Lagosuchidae "lacks the peculiar foot of Lagerpeton", which is both symplesiomorphic and unknown in Lewisuchus (being based on an incorrectly assigned proterochampsid pes).  Ironically, Pseudolagosuchus has since been synonymized with Lewisuchus, so both Novas and Paul were grouping Lagosuchus with the same taxon.  The only taxon which has resolved as closer to Lagosuchus than to dinosaurs in quantitative phylogenetic analyses is Saltopus, which sometimes occurs there (e.g. Ezcurra et al., 2020), although Saltopodidae has priority in that case as it was proposed in 1949.
Paul (1988) also creates the monotypic subfamily Lagosuchinae to contain Lagosuchus but not Lewisuchus, which was superfluous at the time and lacks a use in current topologies as well.
The first author to create a higher level taxon for lagosuchids was Chatterjee (1982) who proposed suborder Lagosuchia within Thecodontia for thecodonts with an advanced mesotarsal ankle joint, listing only Lagosuchidae as belonging although the unmentioned Lagerpeton was known to be mesotarsal at the time as well so would presumably have counted.  Indeed Paul (1988) uses the order Lagosuchia to include both lagosuchids and lagerpetids, as does Olshevsky (1991).  While shown as monophyletic in figure 10-1, Paul only distinguishes them from staurikosaurians based on their symplesiomorphic short pubes.  In modern topologies, each of these Lagosuchia concepts would merely cover non-dinosaur, non-pterosaur ornithodirans.
References- Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Chatterjee, 1982. Phylogeny and classification of thecodontian reptiles. Nature. 295, 317-320.
Arcucci, 1987. Un nuevo Lagosuchidae (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) de la fauna de Los Chañares (edad reptil Chañarense, Triasico Medio), La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 24(1-2), 89-94.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Fiorelli and Desojo, 2020 (online 2019). New specimen sheds light on the anatomy and taxonomy of the early Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Chañares Formation, NW Argentina. The Anatomical Record. 303(5), 1393-1438.
Lagosuchus Romer, 1971
= "Marasuchus" Sereno and Arcucci, 1993
= Marasuchus Sereno and Arcucci, 1994
L. talampayensis Romer, 1971
= Lagosuchus lilloensis Romer, 1972b
= "Marasuchus" lilloensis (Romer, 1972b) Sereno and Arcucci, 1993
= Marasuchus lilloensis (Romer, 1972b) Sereno and Arcucci, 1994
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Holotype- (PULR 09; = MLP 64-XI-14-11 in part; field number 146) eighth-fifteenth dorsal vertebrae (5.0 mm), two sacral vertebrae, first-seventh caudal vertebrae (7.0 mm), partial mid-distal caudal vertebra, partial scapulocoracoid, incomplete humerus (28.0 mm), radius (18.0 mm), ulna (~18.0 mm), ilial fragments, partial pubes, partial ischium, femora (one distal; 40.0, 41.0 mm), tibiae (one proximal; 46.6 mm), fibulae (one proximal), astragalus, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (14.3 mm), phalanx I-1 (6.6 mm), pedal ungual I (lost), metatarsal II (22.5 mm), phalanx II-1 (5.3 mm), metatarsal III (24.1 mm), phalanx III-1 (6.6 mm; distal end lost), metatarsal IV (23.6 mm), several pedal phalanges (lost), pedal ungual (5.1 mm), metatarsal V (11.4 mm)
Paratypes- (PVL 3870) maxilla, posterior braincase, atlantal intercentrum, axis (5.5 mm), third cervical vertebra (4.3 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (5.0 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (4.3 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (4.1 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (3.6 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (3.1 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (2.6 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra, fifth dorsal neural arch, sixth dorsal vertebra, seventh dorsal vertebra, eighth dorsal vertebra, ninth dorsal vertebra, incomplete tenth dorsal vertebra, incomplete eleventh dorsal vertebra, partial twelfth dorsal vertebra, thirteenth dorsal centrum, fourteenth dorsal vertebra, fifteenth dorsal centrum, incomplete sacrum, first-fifteenth caudal vertebrae, incomplete ilia, incomplete pubes, incomplete ischia, femora (43.0, 42.2 mm), tibiae (47.6, 50.1 mm), incomplete fibulae, astragali, calcanea, distal tarsals III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsals I (one incomplete; 14.1 mm), phalanx I-1 (7.3 mm), metatarsals II (24.8 mm), phalanx II-1 (7.6 mm), proximal phalanx II-2, metatarsals III (28.0 mm), phalanges III-1 (8.7, 8.4 mm), phalanx III-2 (one incomplete; 6.6 mm), phalanx III-3 (7.1 mm), metatarsals IV (27.8 mm), phalanges IV-1 (6.5, 6.8 mm), phalanx IV-2 4.3 mm), incomplete phalanx IV-3, metatarsals V (one proximal; 14.5 mm)
(PVL 3871 in part; holotype of Marasuchus lilloensis) fifteenth dorsal centrum, first sacral vertebra (6.5 mm), second sacral vertebra, first caudal vertebra (5.9 mm), second caudal vertebra (6.2 mm), third caudal vertebra (6.1 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (6.9 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (7.2 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (7.4 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (7.5 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (7.6 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (7.7 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (8.0 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (8.3 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra (8.5 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (8.7 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (9.4 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (9.8 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (9.6 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (9.6 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (10.1 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (10.4 mm), twentieth caudal vertebra (10.9 mm), twenty-first caudal vertebra (10.8 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra (11.1 mm), twenty-third caudal vertebra (11.3 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (11.3 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (11.5 mm), seventeen fragmentary to complete chevrons (c3 24.4, c4 ~25.0, c5 ~24.3, c6 16.5, c7 ~12.5 mm), incomplete ilia, proximal pubis, proximal ischium, femora (55.1, 57.5 mm), tibiae (70.0, 70.0 mm), fibulae (69.7, 70.1 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (23 mm), metatarsal II (34, 36.3 mm), phalanges II-1 (8.3, 9.3 mm), metatarsal III (40.4 mm), phalanx III-1 (11.2 mm), phalanx III-2 (7.4 mm), phalanx III-3 (5 mm), metatarsal IV (38, 36.0 mm), phalanx IV-1 (6.9 mm), phalanx IV-2 (4.7 mm), phalanx IV-3 (4.5 mm), phalanx IV-4 (4.4 mm), proximal metatarsal V
Referred- (MCZ 4137; = MCZ 4116; field number 174) eighth cervical vertebra, ninth cervical vertebra, incomplete first dorsal vertebra, incomplete second dorsal vertebra, third dorsal vertebra, fourth dorsal vertebra, fifth dorsal vertebra, incomplete sixth dorsal vertebra, seventh dorsal vertebra, incomplete eighth dorsal vertebra, incomplete ninth dorsal vertebra, tenth dorsal centrum, eleventh dorsal vertebra, twelfth dorsal vertebra, anterior thirteenth dorsal vertebra, partial fourteenth dorsal centrum, incomplete fifteenth dorsal centrum, first sacral vertebra, incomplete second sacrual vertebra, ilium, pubis, femur (37 mm), proximal tibia (Romer, 1972b)
(PVL 3872) incomplete quadrate (distal portion lost), partial squamosal, braincase, preatlases, atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neural arches, axis (5.5 mm), third-ninth cervical vertebrae, first-eighth dorsal vertebrae (lost?) (Bonaparte, 1975)
(PVL 4671) proximal caudal vertebrae, chevrons (Sereno and Arcucci, 1994)
(PVL 4672) first-ninth cervical vertebrae, first-eighth dorsal vertebrae, scapula, coracoid, humerus (Sereno and Arcucci, 1994)
Comments- Discovered in 1964, Romer (1971) initially only noted the forelimb and hindlimbs of the holotype, including pedal ungual I and "several disarticulated phalanges" missing by Sereno and Arcucci's 1994 paper.  Romer (1972b) illustrated the limbs in more detail.  Sereno and Arcucci first referred the vertebrae, scapulocoracoid and pelvic fragments.  Most of pedal phalanx III-1 was broken off between 1994 and 2017.  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) note "The left hindlimb is labeled with the same number (PULR 08) as the holotype of the pseudosuchian Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum", but while it is on the same slab, Sereno and Arcucci's specimen numbers would suggest numbers are assigned by individual instead of by slab.  Thus the entire individual is here called PULR 09.  Agnolin (2017; published with some changes as Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2019) described the holotype in detail.
PVL 3871 was discovered in 1969 and first described as "a specimen in the Instituto Lillo collection" by Romer (1971).  Romer (1972b) later described it in more detail as a new species L. lilloensis based on the illogical argument "we have three specimens of femur of holotype size, only one larger. It is highly improbable that in a collection there would be three immature forms against only one adult."  This was rejected by Bonaparte (1975) and subsequent authors, but by 1992 Sereno and Arcucci were calling the second species "Lagosuchus" lilloensis (Sereno and Arcucci, 1993) and even let the genus Marasuchus and combination M. lilloensis slip in the text a few times presumably by accident.  Note Marasuchus is still a nomen nudum here though, as it fails to satisfy ICZN Article 13.1.3. ("be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name").  Sereno and Arcucci (1994) reveal they believe the Lagosuchus talampayensis holotype to lack autapomorphies and differ from PVL 3871 in having a more slender scapula, a shorter radiohumeral ratio (65% vs. >72%) and an unexpanded distal ulna.  However, Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) show the type has an expanded dorsal neural spine which was a proposed autapomorphy of Marasuchus and also shares a globose femoral head with 'Marasuchus' specimens MCZ 4137, PVL 3870, and PVL 3871.  Their synonymy is accepted here.  They further note the scapula of PVL 4672 is also slender, and that Coelophysis bauri radiohumeral ratios vary between 54-68%.  Remes (2008) described the differences between the pectoral girdle and forelimb of PVL 3871 and that of PVL 4672, Lewisuchus and dinosauriform PVL 9483.  Based on this, the fact Romer never mentioned the elements in his descriptions and that Bonaparte never reported an association with the rest of the specimen, Remes instead uses similarities with 'sphenosuchian' crocodylomorphs to suggest they belong to a member of that group and were incorrectly added to the lilloensis holotype.  Besides the differences in scapular shape and slightly longer deltopectoral crest (29% vs.26% in the holotype), the ulnar morphology is so different that I agree they are unlikely to be conspecific.  The ulna of PVL 3871 is not merely relatively longer than Lagosuchus, it also has an elongate olecranon while the holotype lacks one at all, and a much thinner (<5% of non-olecranon length vs. 10%) tapering shaft.  This also makes sense with the slender PVL 4672 scapulocoracoid assigned to Lagosuchus.  I therefore follow Remes in assigning the scapulocoracoid and forelimb of PVL 3871 to Crocodylomorpha indet..
PVL 3870 was initially briefly described by Romer (1971) as "a further Instituto Lillo specimen that may pertain to Lagosuchus", and later mentioned by Romer (1972b) as "a hindleg that corresponds closely with the type in pattern" "in the Tucuman collection."  It and 3870 were described in detail by Bonaparte (1975) and Sereno and Arcucci (1994).  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) noted it differs from the holotype in having metatarsal V longer than I (103% vs. 80%) but considered this individual variation.
MCZ 4137 was originally known as MCZ 4116 and was mentioned and illustrated by Romer (1972b) and Bonaparte (1975) as Lagosuchus talampayensis.  Sereno and Arcucci (1994) however stated it differed in that "The neural spines in the dorsal vertebrae of this specimen alternate in shape between subtriangular and subrectangular", but "Because the anterior dorsal vertebrae, fragmentary ischium, and pubis are similar to the corresponding bones in M. lilloensis," ... this "either constitutes an unusual case of sexual dimorphism or may indicate the presence of an additional closely related taxon."  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) note it shares a globose femoral head with the other specimens and refers it to Lagosuchus talampayensis, with the neural spines apparently considered individual variation.
PVL 3872 was described by Bonaparte (1975), but Sereno and Arcucci (1994) stated "portions of two cranial bones originally associated with the braincase are now lost; these fragments appear to represent the posterior portion of the right squamosal and part of the right postorbital (originally identified as a quadrate; Bonaparte, 1975:fig. 3)."  Contrary to this, Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) state the specimen still includes an "articulated partial right squamosal and quadrate (the ventral two-thirds of the quadrate are currently lost)", which can be verified by Agnolin's (2017) figure 19A.  While Bonaparte lists "a sequence of 22 articulated vertebrae", Sereno and Arcucci and Agnolin and Ezcurra only list the first nine as present.  Agnolin's (2017) thesis redescribes the skull and that of PVL 3870 in depth.
PVL 4672 has not been figured, initially being referred by Sereno and Arcucci (1994) with brief notes on its vertebrae.  Remes (2008) first states a scapulocoracoid and humerus are also present in the specimen, later noted by Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019).
Not Lagosuchus- The slab containing the holotype also includes remains of Gracilisuchus (PULR 08), Tropidosuchus (PULR unnumbered) and other unidentified amniotes (Lecuona, Desojo and Pol, 2017), which has led to some confusion.  Romer (1971) mentioned "a series of vertebrae with average lengths of centra of 7.5 mm in the best preserved region", which he later (1972a) referred to Gracilisuchus' holotype noting (in 1972b) they "appear on closer study to be caudals of Gracilisuchus."  Sereno and Arcucci (1994) concluded they "are clearly too large to belong to the holotype of L. talampayensis and represent cervical and dorsal vertebrae of the small proterochampsid Tropidosuchus romeri."
Romer (1972b) also described a nodule which included "materials that appear to pertain to Lagerpeton (MCZ 4121)" "and a few bones of Lagosuchus."  Among these are two scapulocoracoids, one of which he describes then illustrates as Lagosuchus talampayensis.  Remes (2008) notes that scapulocoracoid (and more/all of MCZ 4121?) has since been renumbered MCZ 9483 and is still referred to Lagosuchus in the collection, but states it differs from PVL 4672.  Agnolin and Ezcurra (2019) remove this and caudal series MCZ 4670 referred by Sereno and Arcucci (1994), based on "the absence of autapomorphies or a unique combination of character states that may support their specieslevel assignment."  These are placed in Ornithodira indet. here.
Relationships- Ever since their initial description together, hypotheses on the relationships of Lagosuchus have mirrored its contemporary ornithodiran Lagerpeton.  Romer (1971) initially suggested Lagosuchus was "connected in some fashion with a radiation leading toward the dinosaurs and, particularly, toward the coelurosaurian group of the Saurischia."  Similarly, Bakker and Galton (1974) wrote "Some of the little 'rabbit thecodontians' such as Lagosuchus and Lagerpeton, have immobile astragalar-calcaneal joints and lack calcaneal 'heels', and may be related in some way to dinosaur origins."  Bonaparte (1975) presented several phylograms based on different anatomical areas, with presacral anatomy placing Lagosuchus at the base of Dinosauria/Saurischia, pelvic anatomy placing it at the base of Theropoda, and hindlimb anatomy placing it closer to Coelophysis than herrerasaurids.  Olshevsky (1978) first listed it under Erpetosuchidae then wrote "The genera Lagerpeton (Scleromochlidae) and Lagosuchus (Erpetosuchidae) may both be prosauropod dinosaurs (Bonaparte 1978; R. A. Long, pers. comm.)", which has not otherwise been suggested.  Paul (1988) placed Lagosuchus within his paraphyletic Paleodinosauria within Dinosauria, although his statement "Both the theropods and the herbivorous dinosaurs are descendants of early predators of this kind" would suggest they would be outside our modern concept of Dinosauria as ornithischians plus saurischians only.  Olshevsky (1991) included lagosuchians in his new group Theropodomorpha, which would correspond to the modern concept of Theropoda, with his Theropoda being Neotheropoda.  A unique cladistic result based on an unpublished analysis was shown by Kischlat (2000), who recovered Marasuchus as a non-eusaurischian saurischian and wrote (translated) "preliminary results show that Marasuchus may be a true saurischian dinosaur."  A cladistic consensus began with Gauthier (1984) who placed it in his new taxon Ornithodira sister to Pterosauria+Dinosauria (which he called Ornithotarsi), first published in Gauthier and Padian (1985) and later in Gauthier (1986) with Lagosuchus, pterosaurs and dinosaurs in an unresolved trichotomy.  Lagosuchus has been viewed as closer to dinosaurs than pterosaurs and Lagerpeton since Sereno and Novas (1990; first seriously tested in Benton, 1999), and as outside a silesaur plus dinosaur clade since Novas (1992; first seriously tested in Irmis et al., 2007) with silesaurs unknowingly represented by Pseudolagosuchus (= Lewisuchus) for sixteen years.  This position has been recovered in every published cladistic analysis since.
References- Romer, 1971. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. X. Two new but incompletely known long-limbed pseudosuchians. Breviora. 378, 1-10.
Romer, 1972a. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIII. An early ornithosuchid pseudosuchian, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, gen. et sp. nov.. Breviora. 389, 1-24.
Romer, 1972b. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XV. Further remains of the thecodonts Lagerpeton and Lagosuchus. Breviora. 394, 1-7.
Bakker and Galton, 1974. Dinosaur monophyly and a new class of vertebrates. Nature. 248, 168-172.
Bonaparte, 1975. Nuevos materiales de Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) y su significado en el origen de los Saurischia. Chañarense inferior, Triasico Medio de Argentina. Acta Geologica Lilloana. 13, 5-90.
Olshevsky, 1978. The archosaurian taxa (excluding the Crocodylia). Mesozoic Meanderings. 1, 62 pp.
Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Gauthier and Padian, 1985. Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight. In Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds.). The Beginnings of Birds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 185-197.
Gauthier, 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the Californian Academy of Sciences. 8, 1-55.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Sereno and Novas, 1990. Dinosaur origins and the phylogenetic position of pterosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 10(3), 42A.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Sereno, 1991. Basal archosaurs: Phylogenetic relationships and functional implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 11(S4), 53 pp.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1993. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Lagerpeton chanarensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 13(4), 385-399.
Sereno and Arcucci, 1994. Dinosaurian precursors from the Middle Triassic of Argentina: Marasuchus lilloensis gen. nov.. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14(1), 53-73.
Benton, 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Series B). 354, 1423-1446.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Remes, 2008. Evolution of the pectoral girdle and forelimb in Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia): Osteology, myology, and function. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 355 pp.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Lecuona, Desojo and Pol, 2017. New information on the postcranial skeleton of Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum (Archosauria: Suchia) and reappraisal of its phylogenetic position. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 181(3), 638-677.
Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2019. The validity of Lagosuchus talampayensis Romer, 1971 (Archosauria, Dinosauriformes), from the Late Triassic of Argentina. Breviora. 565, 1-21.

Nyasasaurus Nesbitt, Barrett, Werning, Sidor and Charig, 2013
= "Nyasasaurus" Charig, 1967b vide Charig, 1967a
N. parringtoni Nesbitt, Barrett, Werning, Sidor and Charig, 2013
?= Thecodontosaurus alophos Haughton, 1932
= "Nyasasaurus cromptoni" Charig, 1967b vide Charig, 1967a
Late Anisian, Middle Triassic
Lifua Member of Manda Beds, Tanzania
Holotype
- (NHMUK R6856) (~2-3 m, subadult) two partial dorsal vertebrae (38 mm), two partial dorsal centra, partial first primordial sacral vertebra, partial inserted sacral vertrebra (39 mm), partial inserted sacral rib, partial second primordial sacral vertebra (39 mm), partial second primordial sacral ribs, three fragmentary centra, incomplete humerus (~150 mm)
Referred- ?(NHMUK R6795; = S 507; material of "Teleocrater rhadinus" in partim) anterior cervical vertebra, mid dorsal vertebrae
?(SAM-PKK10654; holotype of Thecodontosaurus alophos) two incomplete anterior cervical vertebrae (73 mm), fragmentary anterior cervical vertebra, two partial mid to posterior dorsal vertebrae (38 mm)
Diagnosis- (After Nesbitt et al., 2013) hyposphene-hypantrum intervertebral articulations in presacral vertebrae; at least three sacral vertebrae; dorsoventrally tall sacral ribs; ventrally elongated deltopectoral crest; laterally deflected apex of deltopectoral crest; distinct notch central to apex of deltopectoral crest; pointed expansion on proximal surface near dorsal extent of deltopectoral crest; proximal surface of humerus continuous with lateral surface of deltopectoral crest; distinct fossa present on posterodorsal surface, just ventral to proximal surface.
Other diagnoses- Haughton (1932) distinguished Thecodontosaurus alophos from Coelophysis? longicollis and unspecified South African taxa based on its lack of a ventrally keeled anterior cervical centrum.
Charig in his original unpublished description of Nyasasaurus diagnosed it based on two characters (at least three sacral vertebrae; deltopectoral crest extends for 47% of humeral length) which Nesbitt et al. (2011) state are widespread in basal dinosaurs.
Comments- The holotype of Thecodontosaurus alophos was discovered in the early 1930s and described by Haughton (1932) as a thecodontosaurian theropod similar to Coelophysis? longicollis. It was believed to be synonymous with Nyasasaurus parringtoni by Nesbitt et al (2013) based on the similarity of the dorsal vertebrae, similar position when entered into Nesbitt's matrix and recovery from the same horizon. However, they share no published autapomorphies or combination of characters, so this is tentative. It should be noted alophos has priority over parringtoni in case the former proves to be diagnostic in the future.
Nyasasaurus was originally described by Charig (1956) in his thesis as Specimen 50b and referred to Prestosuchidae. Charig (1967a) credited the name Nyasasaurus cromptoni to a supposedly in press Charig, 1967 paper that was never published.  He listed it as a "probably thecodontosaurid" prosauropod, though without a diagnosis this is a nomen nudum. White (1973) listed it as an anchisaurid. Nesbitt et al. (2013) strated Charig's unpublished manuscript named this Nyasasaurus parringtoni and believed it to be a dinosaur or close relative. They later officially named the taxon, 56 years after Charig's thesis.
Nesbitt et al. (2013) note the vertebrae of "Teleocrater rhadinus" are very similar to Nyasasaurus, but the appendicular and other elements appear to belong to another individual.
Nesbitt et al. (2013) recovered the holotype as either the sister taxon of Dinosauria, most basal ornithischian or a dilophosaurid. The Thecodontosaurus alophos specimen was found as the sister taxon of Tawa+neotheropods. When combined, the resulting OTU is closer to Dinosauria than silesaurids, but outside examined ornithischians, sauropodomorphs and Tawa+neotheropods.
References- Haughton, 1932. On a collection of Karroo vertebrates from Tanganyika Territory. The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 88, 634-671.
Charig, 1956. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. 503 pp.
Charig, 1967a. Subclass Archosauria. In Harland, Holland, House, Hughes, Reynolds, Rudwick, Satterthwaite, Tarlo and Willey (eds.). The Fossil Record: A Symposium with Documentation. Geological Society of London. 708-718.
"Charig, 1967b. Preliminary note on the archosaurs in the Manda Formation (Middle Trias) of Tanzania. Palaeontology, In press." [never published]
White, 1973. Catalogue of the genera of dinosaurs. Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 44, 117-155.
Nesbitt, Barrett, Werning, Sidor and Charig, 2013. The oldest dinosaur? A Middle Triassic dinosauriform from Tanzania. Biology Letters. 9(1), 20120949.

Saltopodidae Wilfarth, 1949
Reference- Wilfarth, 1949. Die Lebensweise der Dinosaurier. Schweizerbart. 95 pp.
Saltopus
Huene, 1910
S. elginensis Huene, 1910
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Lossiemouth Sandstone Formation, Scotland

Holotype- (NHMUK 2915) (~800-1000 mm) two centra, anterior dorsal centrum (7 mm), anterior dorsal centrum (7.5 mm), partial fifth dorsal centrum (9 mm), sixth dorsal centrum (9 mm), seventh dorsal centrum, eighth dorsal centrum, ninth dorsal vertebra, tenth dorsal vertebra, eleventh dorsal vertebra, twelfth dorsal centrum, thirteenth dorsal centrum, fourteenth dorsal centrum, fifteenth dorsal centrum, six partial dorsal ribs, first sacral vertebra (~10 mm), second sacral vertebra (~10 mm), sacral ribs, twenty-four caudal vertebrae (proximal 9-10 mm, distal 11 mm), chevrons, scapula (~28 mm), scapular or humeral fragment, humerus (36 mm), radius (25 mm), ulna (25 mm), centrale, three distal carpals, metacarpal I, metacarpal II, metacarpal III, partial phalanx III-1, metacarpal IV (7 mm), metacarpal V (5 mm), ilia (26, 23 mm), pubis (33 mm), ischia (~35-40 mm), femora (47 mm), tibiae (66 mm), fibulae, astragali, calcanea, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal II (35 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, metatarsal III (38 mm), partial phalanx III-1 (12 mm), partial phalanx III-2 (8.5 mm), partial phaalnx III-3 (7 mm), partial pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV (35 mm), phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2 (5 mm), phalanx IV-3 (5 mm), partial phalanx IV-4 (4 mm), pedal ungual IV (4 mm), metatarsal V (15 mm)
Comments- The holotype was shown to Huene in 1909. Historically, Saltopus was generally classified as a primitive theropod until being ignored by most authors through the 90s and early 2000s. In an abstract, Benton and Walker (2009) determined it was an ornithodiran but could not exclude it from Dinosauria. Benton and Walker (2011) redescribed the holotype, and found it was between Pseudolagosuchus and Silesauridae+Dinosauria in one matrix, and sister to Marasuchus in another.
References- Huene, 1910. Ein primitiver Dinosaurier aus der mittleren Trias von Elgin. Geologische und Palaontologische Abhandlungen, Neue Folgung. 8, 315-322.
Benton and Walker, 2009. The enigmatic Late Triassic reptile Saltopus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 62A.
Benton and Walker, 2011. Saltopus, a dinosauriform from the Upper Triassic of Scotland. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 285-299.

Dracohors Cau, 2018
Definition- (Megalosaurus bucklandii <- Marasuchus lilloensis) (Cau, 2018)
Comments- Since 1992 this clade would function to include Pseudolagosuchus and later other 'silesaurs' along with Dinosauria, but if 'silesaurs' are ornithischians as on this site, it becomes taxonomically equivalent to Dinosauria.
Reference- Cau, 2018. The assembly of the avian body plan: A 160-million-year long process. Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana. 57(1), 1-25.

Avipluma Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004
Definition- (hollow-based, branched, filamentous epidermal appendages homologous with Vultur gryphus) (Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004)
Comments- This clade was first defined as the "1st theropod with Vultur gryphus' hollow-based, branched, filamentous epidermal appendages (= feathers)" and all of its descendants.  However, the rare preservation of integument on small pan-avians makes this likely to encompass Dinosauria at least based on branched structures in Kulindadromeus, and perhaps all of Ornithodira as well based on anurognathid pterosaurs (Yang et al., 2018).
References- Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004. A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on Aves Linnaeus 1758. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Abstracts. 30.
Yang, Liang, McNamara, Kearns, Pittman, Kaye, Orr, Xu and Benton, 2018. Pterosaur integumentary structures with complex feather-like branching. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 3, 24-30.

Dinosauria Owen, 1842
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Megalosaurus bucklandii + Cetiosaurus oxoniensis) (Langer, Novas, Bittencourt, Ezcurra and Gauthier, 2020; Registration Number 194)
Other definitions- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis + Allosaurus fragilis + Stegosaurus armatus) (modified from Novas, 1992)
(Triceratops horridus + Passer domesticus) (Sereno, 2004; modified from Padian and May, 1993)
(Hylaeosaurus armatus + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Iguanodon bernissartensis + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004; modified from Olshevsky, 2000)
(Triceratops horridus + Diplodocus carnegii + Passer domesticus) (Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017)
(Megalosaurus bucklandii + Hylaeosaurus armatus + Plateosaurus engelhardti + Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018)
= Pachypodes Meyer, 1845 preoccupied Erichson, 1840
= Pachypoda Troschel, 1867 preoccupied Gray, 1821
= Ornithoscelida Huxley, 1869
Definition- (Triceratops horridus + Passer domesticus) (Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017)
= Prodinosauria Haeckel, 1895
= Phytodinosauria Bakker, 1986
= Eudinosauria Novas, 1992
Definition- (Allosaurus fragilis + Stegosaurus armatus) (modified from Novas, 1992)
= Dinosauria sensu Novas, 1992
Definition- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis + Allosaurus fragilis + Stegosaurus armatus) (modified)
= Dinosauria sensu Padian and May, 1993
Definition- (Triceratops horridus + Passer domesticus) (modified)
= Dinosauria sensu Olshevsky, 2000
Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Megalosaurus bucklandii) (modified)
= Dinosauria sensu Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017
Definition- (Triceratops horridus + Diplodocus carnegii + Passer domesticus)
= Dinosauria sensu Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018
Definition- (Megalosaurus bucklandii + Hylaeosaurus armatus + Plateosaurus engelhardti + Iguanodon bernissartensis)
Comments- Although definitions using birds as a specifier were widespread in the 1990s, birds were not viewed as dinosaurs in their initial formulation by Owen, nor by the vast majority of workers until the 1970's and later. Thus, a definition involving two of Owen's original dinosaurs was preferred in Phylonyms.
Meyer (1845) used Pachypodes as an alternative to Dinosauria (for Megalosaurus, Plateosaurus, Hylaeosaurus and Iguanodon), but this is preoccupied by a group of beetles (Erichson, 1840). Similarly, Troschel (1867) and several later authors used Pachypoda as an alternative to Dinosauria, but the name is preoccupied by a bivalve group (Gray, 1821). Haeckel (1895) erected Prodinosauria for the most basal grade of dinosaurs, but did not indicate which taxa belonged.
References- Gray, 1821. A natural arrangement of Mollusca, according to their internal structure. London Medical Repository. 15, 229-239.
Erichson, 1840. Entomographien, Untersuchungen in dem Gebiete der Entomologie mit besonderer Benutzung der Königl. F. H. Morin. 180 pp.
Owen, 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles, Part II. Report Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science. 60-204.
Meyer, 1845. System der fossilen Saurier. Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie. 1845, 278-285.
Troschel, 1867. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Herpetologie während des Jahres 1866. Archiv Fur Naturgeschichte. 3(2), 33-41.
Haeckel, 1895. Systematische Phylogenie der Wirbelthiere: (Vertebrata). 660 pp.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004. A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on Aves Linnaeus 1758. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Abstracts. 30.
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature. 543(7646), 501-506.
Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018. The oldest ceratosaurian (Dinosauria: Theropoda), from the Lower Jurassic of Italy, sheds light on the evolution of the three-fingered hand of birds. PeerJ. 6:e5976.
Langer, Novas, Bittencourt, Ezcurra and Gauthier, 2020. Dinosauria R. Owen 1842 [M. C. Langer, F. E. Novas, J. S. Bittencourt, M. D. Ezcurra, and J. A. Gauthier], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1208-1217.

Dinosauria incertae sedis

Apatodon Marsh, 1877
A. mirus Marsh, 1877
Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation, Colorado, US
(Marsh-Felch Quarry 1)
Holotype- (YPM coll.; lost) partial neural spine
Comments- While Marsh only specified the locality to the "Rocky Mountains region" of the US, Monaco (1998) noted it came from Marsh-Felch Quarry 1 in Colorado.
Discovered in 1877, Marsh originally described Apatodon mirus that year as a partial dentary "with the last molar in place." Marsh states it was "about as large as a tapir" and that the supposed tooth resembled a suid most in form and crown surface, but that the structure was different and the "fangs" at least partially fused with the dentary. The molar was stated to be 8 mm apicobasally, 41 mm mesiodistally and 20 mm labiolingually. As for its identification, while Marsh said it was "very unlike any corresponding jaw of a dinosaur" and "suggests the mammalian type", he also stated it was "widely different from anything yet described, and its exact affinities are doubtful." The specimen has never been illustrated or described further.
Baur (1890) viewed the specimen, determining it to be a weathered partial dinosaur neural spine, "some parts of which looked something like a tooth of a hog." He states Marsh knew of this identification "long ago", but never published a correction.
Meyer (1890) also saw the holotype and stated he considered it "in the same way as other assistants of Professor Marsh do, not as the jaw of a mammal, but as a piece of a vertebrae of a Dinosaur." He also noted "Marsh is apparently of the same opinion, for in his "list of genera," printed as manuscript, Apatodon is enumerated as Dinosaur. The question is only Why has Professor Marsh not published corrections to his previous statements? and has he recognized himself the true nature of the fossil, or has it been pointed out to him? One of his assistants has made to me, and in my presence to somebody else, the positive statement that he has demonstrated this to the professor."
After this, we have no record of original viewings of the specimen. Hay (1902) listed it below Ornithopoda between Macelognathus and Brachyrophus while stating it was "a doubtful genus of doubtful position." Huene (1909; as incertae sedis), Abel (1910; as incertae sedis) and Mook (1916) also placed it in Ornithischia, while Zittel (1911) placed it specifically in Stegosauridae. Hay (1930) listed it under diplodocids, this time between Dystrophaeus and Brachyrophus. Kuhn (1939) listed it as a sauropod, between the titanosaur and diplodocid sections. Steel (1970) and Casanovas et al. (1987) listed it as a titanosaur. Chure and McIntosh (1989) incorrectly indicated Marsh originally identified Apatodon as a theropod. Olshevsky (1991) synonymized it with Allosaurus fragilis, as did Glut (1997). None of these authors justified their referrals in any way or indicated they had further resources for the specimen.
McIntosh (pers. comm. 1997 to Chure, 2000) and Glut both say the specimen cannot be found in the YPM collections.
A Textual Investigation- The phylogenetic assignments of every author before Chure and McIntosh are most easily explained by them copying Hay. Huene, Abel and Zittel kept the trio of Apatodon, Macelognathus and Brachyrophus together in their schemes, all following Hay's original placements. Mook also kept Apatodon and Macelognathus together, but had Camptosaurus inserted between them and Brachyrophus. Abel listed the three underneath the stegosaur genera, which Zittel probably misunderstood to indicate they were stegosaurs. Hay then kept it next to Brachyrophus 28 years later (Macelognathus having been moved to Theropoda) and before Alamosaurus, which Kuhn copied. Kuhn's pairing of Apatodon+Brachyrophus was placed between Campylodon and Alamosaurus, which probably inspired Steel to place Apatodon in Titanosauridae, as those two genera belong to that family. This was in turn copied by Casanovas et al. in their review of titanosaur genera. Notably, the latter two papers repeat Marsh's description of the material as a jawbone as if it were accurate, so widespread memory of Baur's and Meyer's reidentification had apparently faded by the 70s.
Given these patterns, the only real questions revolve around why Hay listed it in the places he did, as everyone's copying leads back to him. In fact, it seems likely Hay (1902) never intended to classify Apatodon as an ornithischian in the first place. Macelognathus, Apatodon and Brachyrophus (in that order) are the last dinosaurs listed in his paper, each with a comment stating their position is problematical or doubtful. Macelognathus is listed under Macelognathidae, and the lack of any other heading between it and the other two taxa could naively suggest Hay intended them all to be macelognathids. Yet they are known from incomparable parts of the skeleton (dentaries, a neural spine fragment, and centra respectively) and had no prior history together, so this seems unlikely (Macelognathus has since proven to be a basal crocodylomorph, while I believe Brachyrophus may be based on juvenile sauropod caudal centra). Given the lack of a heading separating Macelognathus/idae from Apatodon, it's likely the lack of a heading above Macelognathidae doesn't mean that family or the two subsequent genera were supposed to be in Ornithopoda, or even Ornithischia (as Huene assumed). Indeed, it may be none were even supposed to be in 'order' Dinosauria, as Hay mentions Marsh assigned Macelognathus to the order Macelognatha and states of Brachyrophus "even the ordinal position of this genus is doubtful." Pages 505 and 506 between Dinosauria and Pterosauria may have just been a convenient place to list three Morrison reptiles of uncertain ordinal affinities. Why did Hay then move Apatodon and Brachyrophus to Sauropoda in 1930? These two genera are the last saurischians listed before Orthopoda (=Ornithischia) except for Alamosaurus being listed below them. It's plausible Alamosaurus' placement was a mistake and that as in 1903, the two genera were supposed to be listed between groups, in this case Saurischia and Orthopoda. As such, they would be Dinosauria incertae sedis. In conclusion, Hay's confusing method of listing taxa led to incorrect assumptions by future workers, and all identifications more specific than Dinosauria are ultimately based on these errors.
Olshevsky (pers. comm., 2015) based his synonymy with Allosaurus on a tip from Molnar, which in turn was originally suggested by McIntosh (pers. comm. to Molnar, 2015). McIntosh is said to have located a paper claiming Marsh mistook an Allosaurus neural spine for a mammal jaw, which would be a probable reference to the Apatodon type. Unfortunately, neither Olshevsky nor Molnar remember the citation for this paper and I have not located it or heard back from McIntosh. As such, this is an intriguing idea that remains unconfirmed. It may also mean Chure and McIntosh's assignment of Apatodon to Theropoda was purposeful, even if the asterisk indicating Marsh thought this was a mistake. Notably, Allosaurus' mid dorsal neural spines do possess interspinous ligament protrusions which are somewhat molar-like, so could be confused for a tooth fused to the jawbone. Also, the holotype of Allosaurus was recovered from the same quarry during the same year, so it's possible Apatodon actually belongs to the holotype individual of Allosaurus fragilis. Even if we had the specimen though, it's unlikely a partial dorsal neural spine could be identified more precisely than Allosauridae.
Ignoring the so far unproven association with Allosaurus, Apatodon could be from any dinosaurian clade. Given a tapir's dentary is ~400 mm long, even a piece of such a bone would have to come from a large vertebra. No other large tetrapods are known from the Morrison Formation, so a dinosaurian identity is likely even considering the poor state of knowledge in the 1890s. Besides Allosaurus, the holotype of Diplodocus was also recovered from Marsh-Felch Quarry 1 that year, as well as material referred to Apatosaurus, Haplocanthosaurus and Stegosaurus.
References- Marsh, 1877. Notice of some new vertebrate fossils. American Journal of Arts and Sciences. 14, 249-256.
Baur, 1890. A review of the charges against the paleontological department of the U.S. Geological Survey, and of the defence made by Prof. O. C. Marsh. The American Naturalist. 24(1), 298-304.
Meyer, 1890. Some more nuts for Marsh to crack. Yew York Herald. January 26 1890, p. 25.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey. 179, 1-868.
Huene, 1909. Skizze zu einer Systematik und Stammesgeschichte der Dinosaurier. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. 1909, 12-22.
Abel, 1910. Die Rekonstruktion des Diplodocus. Abhandlungen der kaiserlichen und koeniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien. 5, 1-60.
Zittel, 1911. Grundzüge der Paläontologie (Paläozoologie). II. Abteilung. Vertebrata. Druck und Verlag von R. Oldenbourg, München. 1-598.
Mook, 1916. A study of the Morrison Formation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 27(1), 39-191.
Hay, 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institution of Washington. 390(II), 1-1074.
Kuhn, 1939. Saurischia. In Fossilium Catalogus I. Animalia. 87. 124 pp.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 1-8.
Casanovas, Santafé, Sanz and Buscalioni, 1987. Arcosaurios (Crocodilia, Dinosauria) del Cretácico superior de la Conca de Tremp (Lleida, España). Estudios Geologicos, Volumen Extraordinario Galve-Tremp. 95-110.
Chure and McIntosh, 1989. A Bibliography of the Dinosauria (Exclusive of the Aves) 1677-1986. Museum of Western Colorado Paleontology Series #1. 226 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Glut, 1997. Dinosaurs - The Encyclopedia. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC. 1076 pp.
Monaco, 1998. A short history of dinosaur collecting in the Garden Park fossil area, Canon City, Colorado. Modern Geology. 23, 465-480.
Chure, 2000. A new species of Allosaurus from the Morrison Formation of Dinosaur National Monument (Utah-Colorado) and a revision of the theropod family Allosauridae. PhD thesis. Columbia University. 964 pp.

unnamed dinosaur (Kirby, 1991)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
MNA 214, Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material
- (MNA.V.6729) proximal tibia?, distal tibia
Comments- Kirby (1991) initially identified this as "a fragmentary tibia" of cf. Postosuchus sp. from MNA locality 214, "lacking the majority of the shaft but retaining both extremities, which exhibits identical lateral compression with little evidence of crushing."  However, he suggested "Features of MNA V6729 in fact more closely correspond to those illustrated for the tibia of Staurikosaurus pricei."  Kirby (1993) listed cf. Staurikosauridae? from MNA locality 214 in his figure 2, no doubt referring to this specimen.  Indeed Spielmann et el. (2007) stated that "While examining the MNA collection, we encountered two bone fragments, cataloged together, that were identified as Staurikosauridae? indet.", but while they agreed one specimen is potentially "a distal tibia, given the offset of two surfaces on one end of the fragment", the proximal tibia of Kirby's thesis merely "appears to be a limb element given its elliptical cross-section, but cannot be interpreted further."  Spielmann et al. concluded "given Kirby’s (1993) lack of justification for his interpretation and the poor quality of the specimens we assign them to Archosauromorpha indet."
Based on Spielmann et al.'s figure, the one piece does seem to be a distal tibia based on the third of distal surface that is more proximally limited and angled, so that their figure 3C is a left tibia in anterolateral view.  Basal archosauromorphs such as Trilophosaurus and Hyperodapedon only have a single distal tibial surface, as do lagerpetids and Lagosuchus, while those of phytosaurs and aetosaurs aren't offset as much as MNA.V.6729.  While poposaurs and Postosuchusalso have this angled proximally displaced surface (anterior tibial condyle), they have an L-shape in distal view not seen in MNA.V.6729.  Among dinosaurs, MNA.V.6729 is actually dissimilar to Staurikosaurus in being transversely expanded (1.73 times depth vs. 0.98 times), but is more like Silesaurus, herrerasaurid UFSM 11330, basal plateosaurians and basal neotheropods.  More detailed analysis of distal shape may provide a more specific assignment.  The other fragment is congruent with a basal dinosaurian proximal tibia, but if so it lacks a fibular ridge unlike neotheropods and some silesaurs.
References- Kirby, 1991. A vertebrate fauna from the Upper Triassic Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of northern Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 496 pp.
Kirby, 1993. Relationships of Late Triassic basin evolution and faunal replacement in the southwestern United States: Perspectives from the upper part of the Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 233-242.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). The Global Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.

undescribed dinosaur (Lydekker, 1888)
Early-Middle Oxfordian, Late Jurassic
Upper Oxford Clay, England

Material- (NHMUK 40517) distal fibula
Comments- This was first mentioned by Lydekker (1888) as Omosaurus? sp., then referred to Lexovisaurus durobrivensis by Galton (1985). Pickering (unpublished ms) has referred it to Metriacanthosaurus parkeri. It was most recently called Dinosauria indet. by Maidment et al. (2008).
References- Lydekker, 1888. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W., Part 1. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamta, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria: British Museum of Natural History, London. 309 pp.
Galton, 1985. British plated dinosaurs (Ornithischia, Stegosauridae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 5, 211-254.
Maidment, Norman, Barrett and Upchurch, 2008. Systematics and phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6, 367-407.

unnamed dinosaur (Novas, Chatterjee, Ezcurra and Kutty, 2009; described by Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Upper Maleri Formation, India
Material
- (ISI R282) first sacral vertebra, third sacral vertebra, proximal caudal vertebra, ilium, pubes (one partial, one proximal)
Comments- Novas et al. (2009) said this resembles herrerasaurs, but Novas et al. (2011) later described it as a non-sauropodomorph dinosauriform. It emerged as a dinosaur outside Eoraptor+Chindesaurus+Tawa+Neotheropoda and Guaibasauridae+more derived sauropodomorphs when entered into Yates' sauropodomorph matrix.
References- Novas, Chatterjee, Ezcurra and Kutty, 2009. New dinosaur remains from the Late Triassic of Central India. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 156A.
Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011. New dinosaur species from the Upper Triassic Upper Maleri and Lower Dharmaram formations of Central India. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 333-349.

unnamed dinosaur (Novas, Chatterjee, Ezcurra and Kutty, 2009; described by Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Upper Maleri Formation, India
Material
- (ISI R284) ilium
Comments- This was mentioned by Novas et al. (2009) as a basal saurischian of uncertain affinities. It was later described even less securely by Novas et al. (2011) as a dinosauriform. They noted it resembled Nambalia so could belong to it, couldn't be compared to Jaklapallisaurus or Pradhania, but differed from Lamplughsaura, putative guaibasaurid ISI R277, and dinosaur ISI R282.
References- Novas, Chatterjee, Ezcurra and Kutty, 2009. New dinosaur remains from the Late Triassic of Central India. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 156A.
Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011. New dinosaur species from the Upper Triassic Upper Maleri and Lower Dharmaram formations of Central India. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 333-349.

Dinosauria indet. (Malkani, 2009)
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Vitakri Formation, Pakistan

Material- (GSP/MSM-1049-K) proximal femur
Comments- A proximal femur (GSP/MSM-1049-K) originally listed as a referred "Vitakridrinda" specimen (Malkani, 2009) was referred to Vitakrisaurus in 2019.  It is approximately two-thirds as large as "Vitakridrinda" and differs in having a greater trochanter extend proximally past the head as in several coelurosaur and ornithischian groups.  It is placed in Dinosauria indet. here, as the inturned head is unlike crocodyliforms.
References- Malkani, 2009. New Balochisaurus (Balochisauridae, Titanosauria, Sauropoda) and Vitakridrinda (Theropoda) remains from Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series). 41(2), 65-92.
Malkani, 2015. Dinosaurs, mesoeucrocodiles, pterosaurs, new fauna and flora from Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan, Information Release. 823, 1-32.
Malkani, 2019. Vitakrisaurus saraiki theropod from south Asia. Open Journal of Geology. 9, 643-645.
Malkani, 2020. Theropods, mesoeucrocodiles and pterosaurs found from the latest Maastrichtian Vitakri Formation of Balochistan, Pakistan; Description with large photographs and comparison with coeval taxa from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Open Journal of Geology. 10, 510-551.

unnamed dinosaur (Huene, 1929)
Campanian-Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Allen Formation, Rio Negro, Argentina
Material
- (MLP CS 1240) metatarsal IV (100 mm)
Comments- Carnosaurus was listed by Huene (1929) in a faunal list for three specimens- a metapodial (MLP CS 1240) from the Allen Formation, a tooth (MACN coll.) perhaps from the Chubut group, and provisionally ("Cf. Carnosaurus") a tooth (MLP coll.) from the Plottier Formation. As Olshevsky (DML, 1999) noted, the name is probably a typographical error for Carnosauria made when translating the paper from German to Spanish. This is indicated by the fact he never attaches a name to these specimens in the description or plates, and indeed states on of the specimens is taxonomically indistinguishable from another named genus. Since "Carnosaurus" was apparently not meant as a valid name when it was published (ICZN Article 11.5), it is a nomen nudum.
MLP CS 1240 is listed as metatarsals in the faunal list, but described as a ?third metacarpal similar to Allosaurus. However, it is dissimilar to theropod metacarpals in several respects. The distal articular surface is not ginglymoid, unlike metacarpals I-III of ceratosaurs and basal tetanurines or I-II of avetheropods. There is no extensor pit dorsally unlike theropod metacarpals I and II, and ceratosaur metacarpal III. The shaft is much more robust than tetanurine metacarpal IIIs except for Torvosaurus, while the proximal end is less expanded than theropod metacarpal IIs, and the shaft is far more elongate than most theropod metacarpal Is. The form is more similar to a sauropod or ankylosaur metatarsal, both groups that are known from the Allen Formation. It is here assigned to Dinosauria indet. pending further comparisons.
References- Huene, 1929. Los saurisquios y ornitisquios del Cretacéo Argentino. Anales del Museo de La Plata (series 3). 3, 1-196.
Olshevsky, DML 1999. https://web.archive.org/web/20200720012936/http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00507.html

unnamed Dinosauria (Pretto, Schultz and Langer, 2015)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Janner Site, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

(CAPPA/UFSM 0271) incomplete humerus (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
?(CAPPA/UFSM 0273) (juvenile?) distal femur (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
(UFRGS-PV-1240-T) incomplete proximal caudal vertebra (31 mm), partial proximal caudal vertebra, three partial to incomplete mid caudal vertebrae (35 mm), partial mid chevron, incomplete humerus, incomplete pubis, femur (265 mm) (Pretto, Schultz and Langer, 2015)
Comments- Pretto et al. (2015) recovered fragmentary skeleton UFRGS-PV-1240-T in several positions within Dinosauria using Nesbitt's archosaur matrix.
Müller et al. (2020) could only assign humerus CAPPA/UFSM 0271 to Dinosauria and femur CAPPA/UFSM 0273 to cf. Dinosauria. 
References- Pretto, Schultz and Langer, 2015. New dinosaur remains from the Late Triassic of southern Brazil (Candelária Sequence, Hyperodapedon Assemblage Zone). Alcheringa. 39, 1-10.
Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020. Comments on additional dinosaur specimens from the Janner Site (Upper Triassic of the Paraná Basin), southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia. 23(3), 171-184.

Ornithischia Seeley, 1888
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Allosaurus fragilis, Camarasaurus supremus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 639)
Other definitions- (Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus) (Sereno, 2005; modified from Sereno, 1998; modified from Padian and May, 1993)
(Stegosaurus armatus <- Allosaurus fragilis) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Cetiosaurus medius) (Norman, Witmer and Weishampel, 2004)
(Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Megalosaurus bucklandii, Cetiosaurus medius) (Wagner, 2004)
(Triceratops horridus <- Tyrannosaurus rex) (modified from Weishampel, 2004)
(Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus, Saltasaurus loricatus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus, Diplodocus carnegii) (Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017)
= Predentata Marsh, 1894
= Ornithischia sensu Padian and May, 1993
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus)
= Ornithischia sensu Norman, Witmer and Weishampel, 2004
Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Cetiosaurus medius)
= Ornithischia sensu Wagner, 2004
Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Megalosaurus bucklandii, Cetiosaurus medius)
= Ornithischia sensu Weishampel, 2004
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Tyrannosaurus rex) (modified)
= Ornithischia sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus, Saltasaurus loricatus)
= Ornithischia sensu Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Passer domesticus, Diplodocus carnegii)
References- Seeley, 1888. On the classification of the fossil animals commonly named Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 43(258-265), 165-171.
Marsh, 1894. The typical Ornithopoda of the American Jurassic. American Journal of Science, Series 3. 48, 85-90.
Padian and May, 1993. The earliest dinosaurs. In Lucas SG, Morales M, eds. The Nonmarine
Triassic. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 379–381.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Norman, Witmer and Weishampel, 2004. Basal Ornithischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 325-334.
Wagner, 2004.
Weishampel, 2004. Ornithischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 323-324.
Sereno, 2005. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology. 54(4), 595-619.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature. 543(7646), 501-506.
Müller and Garcia, 2020. A paraphyletic 'Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs. Biology Letters. 16(8), 20200417.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

unnamed silesaur (Parker and Martz, 2010)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Valley of the Dead PFV 337, Blue Mesa Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material
- (PEFO 35117) proximal femur
Comments- Parker and Martz (2010) stated "a probable theropod dinosaur femur (PEFO 35117) [has] also been recovered from above the Newspaper Rock Bed in this area (PFV 337)", although they listed it in theior Table 1 as being from PFV 339.  Marsh and Parker (2020) describe and figure this specimen as a silesaurid "owing to the presence of a ventral notch under the femoral head when preserved and a highly reduced posteromedial proximal tuber that forms a subtriangular proximal outline."
References- Parker and Martz, 2010. 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(3-4), 231-260.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

"Lewisuchidae" Olshevsky, 1991
"Lewisuchinae" Paul, 1988
Comments- Paul (1988) proposed Lewisuchinae as a new monotypic subfamily of lagosuchids, but failed to follow ICZN Article 13.1.1, that every new name published after 1930 must "be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon."  Similarly, Olshevsky (1991) proposed family Lewisuchidae as a nomen novum for Paul's subfamily, but the latter would have to be valid for Olshevsky's motion to work.  Thus both proposed family-level names are nomina nuda.
References- Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Lewisuchus Romer, 1972
= Pseudolagosuchus Arcucci, 1987
L. admixtus Romer, 1972
= Pseudolagosuchus major Arcucci, 1987
Early Carnian, Late Triassic
Massetognathus-Chaneresuchus Assemblage Zone, Chañares Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Holotype- (PULR 01 in part; = MLP 1964-XI-14-14 in part) incomplete maxilla, maxillary fragment, posterior skull, stepes, incomplete dentary, dentary fragment, posterior mandible (lost), atlantal intercentrum, atlantal neurapophysis, atlantal rib (14 mm), odontoid, axis (14 mm), incomplete axial rib, third-tenth cervical vertebrae, proximal seventh-ninth cervical ribs, first-eighth dorsal vertebrae (11 mm), posterior dorsal vertebra, proximal first dorsal rib, several complete to partial dorsal ribs (80 mm), two (?)sacral ribs, four proximal caudal vertebrae, five mid caudal vertebrae, scapulocoracoids, humeri (one proximal, one incomplete), tibiae (106, 105 mm), osteoderms
Referred- (CRILAR-Pv 552) (subadult) partial premaxillae, maxillary fragments, fragmentary jugal, partial quadrate, fragmentary braincase, pterygoid fragment, incomplete dentaries, splenial fragment, posterior mandible, tooth, incomplete cervical vertebra (14.6 mm), two partial cervical vertebrae (14.1 mm), two mid-posterior dorsal centra (12.3, 10.5 mm), posterior cervical or dorsal neural spine, partial first sacral vertebra (11.7 mm), second sacral centrum (11.2 mm), two partial proximal caudal vertebrae (11.6, 11.8 mm), eight to ten mid-distal caudal vertebrae (13.2, 13.7, 14.3, 14.6 mm), two partial proximal chevrons, scapular fragment, partial coracoid, distal humerus, incomplete ulna, distal radius, proximal metacarpal, ilia (one incomplete, one fragmentary), pubes (one incomplete, one distal), proximal ischium, proximal femora, distal femora, tibiae (one incomplete, one distal; ~103 mm), fibular fragments, possible metatarsal fragments (Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Fiorelli and Desojo, 2020)
(MACN 18954; paratype of Pseudolagosuchus major) two anterior dorsal vertebrae, mid dorsal vertebra, five partial to complete mid caudal vertebrae, proximal femur, distal femora (one lost?), proximal tibiae, proximal fibula, astragalus, calcaneum (Arcucci, 1987)
(PULR 53; paratype of Pseudolagosuchus major) incomplete axis, fourth cervical vertebra, partial fifth cervical vertebra, three caudal vertebrae, chevrons, partial forelimb(?) ?including humerus (63.3 mm), distal femur, proximal tibia, ?tibial shaft, distal tibiae, ?fibular shaft, distal fibula, astragalus, metatarsal IV, metapodial elements, incomplete phalanx, fragments (Arcucci, 1987)
?(PULR 112; PULR 111 in Agnolin, 2017) (subadult) postorbital, incomplete squamosal, incomplete quadrate (20.18 mm), pterygoid fragment, seventh-tenth cervical vertebrae (10.35, 10.7, 10.7, 8.8 mm), first-eleventh dorsal vertebrae (d1 8.9, d2 9.1, d3 10.2, d4 10.10 mm), fragmentary dorsal ribs, ilia (one incomplete, one fragmentary; 41.5 mm), incomplete pubis, ischium, femur (95.99 mm), tibia (106.85 mm), astragalus (15.25 mm trans), calcaneum (Novas, Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2015; described in Agnolin, 2017)
?(PULR 113) (subadult) ilium, femur, tibia (Garcia Marsà, Agnolín and Fernando Novas, 2019)
(PULR unnumbered; = PULR '53' of Novas, 1996) femur (94.2 mm), tibia (101.1 mm) (Novas, 1996)
(PVL 3454; paratype of Pseudolagosuchus major) last dorsal centrum, first sacral centrum, partial second sacral centrum, first-second caudal centra, three partial mid-distal caudal vertebrae, fragmentary ilia, distal femur, incomplete tibia (109.6 mm), fibulae (one incomplete, one proximal), astragalus, proximal metatarsal ?III (65.3 mm) (Arcucci, 1987)
?(PVL 3456) vertebral fragment, incomplete ilium, incomplete femur (109.1 mm), distal tibia, distal fibula, two incomplete metatarsals, fragments (Hutchinson, 2001)
(PVL 4629; holotype of Pseudolagosuchus major) four fragmentary dorsal centra, nine partial dorsal ribs, two sacral centra (lost?), pubes, femur (115 mm), tibia (122 mm), fibula, astragalus, fragmentary calcaneum (Arcucci, 1987)
Comments- Discovered in 1964, Lewisuchus was preserved in a nodule also containing proterochampsid and cynodont elements.  Arcucci (1998) noted the pedal material described by Romer and a previously unpublished astragalus "can be identified as belonging to a much smaller proterochampsid" and that "the bone described as a femur has been reidentified as a tibia."  Bittencourt et al. (2015) reidentified and reassigned more elements mentioned by Romer, concurring that "the described structures of the femur, i.e. 'femoral head' and the 'greater trochanter', are more properly interpreted as the cnemial crest and the caudoproximal condyles of a tibia."  "Three further vertebrae of appropriate size ... presumably ... from the "lumbar" or sacral region" are "probably proximal caudal vertebrae", while "Several further isolated vertebrae [that] are present in the concretion, not well preserved" are "five semi-articulated vertebrae ... [which] probably belong to the middle portion of the tail."  Bittencourt et al. also assigned the incomplete dentary to Proterochampsidae, in addition to the material previously noted.  The posterior mandible was lost by the time of Nesbitt's (2009) thesis.  Ezcurra et al. (2020) confirmed Romer's original assignment of the dentary to the holotype based on their new specimen CRILAR-Pv 552, as did Agnolin in his 2017 thesis.  Agnolin also reasseses the braincase anatomy of the holotype.  Note disagreement exists on the cervical versus dorsal count in Lewisuchus, with Bittencourt et al. suggesting seven cervicals while Agnolin suggests nine, but I use a count of ten here as Bittencourt et al. state "the preserved ribs articulate with both the neural arch and the ventrocranial margin of the centrum up to the 10th presacral vertebra." 
Pseudolagosuchus- Arcucci (1987) described four postcrania as a new taxon of lagosuchid, Pseudolagosuchus major.  Bittencourt et al. (2015) did not include sacral centra in their list of holotype material, so these may have been lost by then.  They also added three dorsals and an "isolated sequence of three elongated vertebrae" to PVL 3454 which may be cervicals or mid-distal caudals based on that description, and indeed Ezcurra et al. (2020) later listed these as "three articulated caudal centra with the base of the neural arches."  What Bittencourt et al. had listed as "apparently two sacral and three dorsal" vertebrae were reidentified by Ezcurra et al. as "two sacral centra articulated to the last dorsal and first two caudal centra (second sacral centrum represented by its anterior end)." 
Bittencourt et al. added a "head ... of a right femur" and "distal surface of a left femur" to MACN 18954 while reidentifying the "distal portions of articulated tibia and fibula" listed by Arcucci as "the proximal half of articulated left tibia and fibula."  Note they also reported the "proximal portion of an additional left tibia" in the material, which wouild mean more than one individual is present.  Ezcurra et al. do not mention the distal left femur and identify the additional proximal tibia as a right one, so perhaps only one individual is present after all. 
Bittencourt et al. also added a distal femur, proximal tibia, an additional distal tibia, a chevron, and an "incomplete phalanx, possible middle portion of tibia and fibula, indeterminate metapodial elements, articulated incomplete axis and two post-axial cervical vertebrae" to PULR 53.   Note while Novas (1996) stated cervical epiphyses are absent in Pseudolagosuchus, no cervicals were reported at the time but these must be the axis and cervicals 4-5 just noted.  Bittencourt et al. reported "Novas (1996, p. 727) referred to this species a non-numbered specimen mislabelled as 'UPLR 53', which includes a complete femur and tibia. This specimen is probably a silesaurid and may represent another individual of P. major."  While this explains the proximal femoral characters and figure, Novas also referenced "Pseudolagosuchus (UPLR 53)" for an anteriorly sigmoid metatarsal IV which might be one of the indeterminate metapodia noted by Bittencourt et al., and stated "the ischium of Pseudolagosuchus(PULR 53) is poorly known" which would suggest some preservation of that element that is otherwise unreported.  Ezcurra et al. add the presence of a "block with probable partial forelimb still heavily covered with matrix", but don't mention the additional distal tibia, middle portions of tibia and fibula, metapodial elements or phalanx listed by Bittencourt et al., perhaps indicating these are the same pieces being interpreted in different ways.  The paper also indicates that by 2019 Novas' 'UPLR 53' elements had been incorporated into the PULR 53 specimen, as Ezcurra et al. write "The presence of duplicated left femora indicates that this specimen is represented by at least two individuals."  Carrano (1998) includes measurements of a "ULPR (1)" specimen whose femur and tibia (94.1, 100.8 mm) are similar to PULR unnumbered above but also includes a 63.3 mm humerus, perhaps part of the supposed forelimb of PULR 53.
Bittencourt et al. state "Another specimen collected from the Chañares Formation (PVL 3455) resembles those mentioned by Arcucci (1987), but its affinities are unclear" and list it as "Genus and species indeterminate" in their Supplementary Table 2.  This specimen has otherwise only been listed by Lecuona et al. (2017) in their Appendix II as a specimen of Lewisuchus, along with PULR 71 which is based on fragmentary vertebrae whose assignment to Lewisuchus is uncertain (Lecuona pers. comm. 2021).  These are listed as Ornithodira indet, here pending future study.
While Pseudolagosuchus material has not been redescribed since 1987, Bittencourt et al. did state it "will be reviewed elsewhere."
Relationships- While noting the long snout and enlarged second pedal digit were similar to proterochampsids (and as stated above the pes is now thought to be from a member of that family), Romer (1972) considered Lewisuchus likely to be a pseudosuchian (sensu lato).  Within that group, he considered close relationships with Hesperosuchus (now recognized as a crocodylomorph) and more presciently the then undescribed Teleocrater (now a basal pan-avian), and stated it "may possibly be a form leading toward the coelurosaurs."  Charig et al. (1976) also considered a relationship with the crocodylomorph Pseudohesperosuchus most likely, formalized by Bonaparte (1981) who assigned it to his Sphenosuchia.  A non-paracrocodylomorphan pseudosuchian position was suggested when Carroll (1988) questionably included Lewisuchus in Gracilisuchidae, and supported cladistically by Parrish (1993) who recovered it in a trichotomy with Turfanosuchus and Suchia (a non-prestosuchid, non-rauisuchiform suchian in his terminology) largely based on overestimating the length of the dorsal quadratojugal process.  Paul (1988) first correctly placed Lewisuchus in Pan-Aves, as a lagosuchid lagosuchian within his paraphyletic Paleodinosauria, which as noted in Lagosuchus' entry, would probably be outside our modern concept of Dinosauria as ornithischians plus saurischians only.  Paul never proposes a character to support placing Lewisuchus in his monophyletic Lagosuchia but states in regard to familial assignment that "The hips are missing, and as a result I cannot be sure this is a lagosuchid, but the general similarity to its Ischichuca neighbor Lagosuchus suggests that it is" and that it "lacks the peculiar foot of Lagerpeton", which is both symplesiomorphic and unknown in Lewisuchus (being based on that incorrectly assigned proterochampsid pes).  Brusatte et al. (2010) and Nesbitt (2009, 2011) first recovered Lewisuchus as a silesaurid, which has been the consensus since although if silesaurs are paraphyletic to ornithischians as in Müller and Garcia (2020), Lewisuchus becomes a more basal ornithischian than the reduced monophyletic Silesauridae.
Pseudolagosuchus was initially assigned to Lagosuchidae by Arcucci (1987) based on "characteristics of the femur (development of the femoral head and fourth trochanter), tibia and fibula (orientation and expansion of the epiphyses), and above all the proximal tarsals (transverse extension of the astragalus, position of the ascending process, reduction and position of the calcaneal tubercle)."  These characters are either vague or typical of dinosauriforms, so do not support a monophyletic Lagosuchidae.  Novas (1989) also included Pseudolagosuchus in Lagosuchidae but commented on a couple characters it shares with dinosaurs to the exclusion of Lagosuchus, presaging his 1992 paper that established this phylogenetically.  Paul (1988) had the right idea, noting the long pubes were shared with dinosaurs sensu stricto and that its "its femur and tibia look rather like a staurikosaur's, one more primitive than Staurikosaurus itself", when one realizes his Staurikosauria/Staurikosauridae which he assigned the genus to are paraphyletic to dinosaurs and/or theropods in his topology.  Novas (1992) proposed a similar topology cladistically where Pseudolagosuchus was intermediate between Lagosuchus and herrerasaurids along the dinosaurian stem, based on pubic length and the anteriorly limited astragalar ascending process.  While this position has become the consensus, the precise placement of Pseudolagosuchus with respect to silesaurs was controversial prior to its synonymy with Lewisuchus, with Ezcurra (2006) recovering it basal to Silesaurus, Eucoelophysis and Dinosauria, while some of Nesbitt's (2011) trees placed it within Silesauridae.
Synonymy and new specimens- Although Pseudolagosuchus was cladistically supported as a dinosauriform since Novas (1992), Paul's (1988) early suggestion Lewisuchus belonged there was not supported until Arcucci (1997) proposed that "although not much of the available material overlaps, some of it suggests that these could represent a single taxon."  The next year, Arcucci (1998) wrote "the anatomical similarities between the tibia and dorsal vertebrae from Lewisuchus and Pseudolagosuchus strongly suggests that they are synonyms", but the consensus over the next two decades was summed by Nesbitt's (2011) conclusion "the two taxa cannot be formally synonymized at present because they do not share any autapomorphies."  For instance, in Bittencourt et al.'s (2015) redescription of Lewisuchus, they found the tibiae to be similar but "a set of diagnostic characters that unites all of them in the same taxon cannot be constructed" and the anterior cervicals of PULR 53 "are superficially similar to the vertebrae of L. admixtus in their size and the presence of a broad excavation on the lateral surface of the centrum. Yet, these characters are variously present in proterochampsids, as well as in Marasuchus..."  Besides slight size variations, the only difference noted was that the tibia of PULR unnumbered "differs from that of L. admixtus in the presence of a conspicuous cranial curvature of the ventral part of the shaft, which is also seen in Silesaurus (ZPAL AbIII/363)."  Two new specimens have changed this, PULR 112 (first reported in an abstract by Novas et al., 2015; then described in Agnolin's 2017 thesis as PULR 111) and CRILAR-Pv 552 found in 2013 and described by Ezcurra et al. (2020).  Both share cranial and axial characters with Lewisuchus and hindlimb characters with Pseudolagosuchus, proving Arcucci correct.  Ezcurra et al. further supported referrals of Pseudolagosuchus specimens MACN 18954, PULR 53, PULR unnumbered (as proximal femoral characters of 'PULR 53') and PVL 3454 to the taxon based on unique combinations of characters.  PVL 3456, PULR 113 and PULR 112 were not evaluated, but the apparent lack of several characters in the latter (unlike Ezcurra et al.'s diagnosis, the femoral head has a proximal transverse groove, the astragalus is said to lack a non-articular surface on the posterior side of the ascending process, the anterolateral corner of the astragalus projects laterally past the posterolateral corner) might suggest another taxon pending formal description by Agnolin.  Supporting Lewisuchus characters listed by Garcia Marsa et al. (2019) that could apply to PULR 113 are limited to differing "from coeval Lagosuchus in having larger sized elements, lack of a bulbose femoral head, ... and the posteriorly positioned external condyle on the proximal tibia", when the latter isn't present in all specimens, and the head shape is only the lack of a Lagosuchus autapomorphy.  PVL 3456 remains completely undescribed and unfigured besides Hutchinson listing it as having a "Groove for the ISTR insertion present, proximal to the trochanteric shelf" as in most other basal ornithodirans.These three specimens are all questionably referred to Lewisuchus here.
References- Romer, 1972. The Chañares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. XIV. Lewisuchus admixtus, gen. et sp. nov., a further thecodont from the Chañares beds. Breviora. 390, 1-13.
Charig, Krebs, Sues and Westphal, 1976. Thecodontia. Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. 13, 137 pp.
Bonaparte, 1981. Descripcion de Fasolasuchus tenax y su significado en la sistematica y evolucion de los Thecodontia. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia". 3, 55-101.
Arcucci, 1987. Un nuevo Lagosuchidae (Thecodontia - Pseudosuchia) de la fauna de Los Chañares (edad reptil Chañarense, Triasico Medio), La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 24(1-2), 89-94.
Carroll, 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. 698 pp.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Parrish, 1993. Phylogeny of the Crocodylotarsi, with reference to archosaurian and crurotarsan monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(3), 287-308.
Novas, 1996. Dinosaur monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 16, 723-741.
Arcucci, 1997. Dinosauromorpha. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 179-183.
Arcucci, 1998. New information about dinosaur precursors from the Triassic Los Chanares fauna, La Rioja, Argentina. Gopndwana 10: Event Stratigraphy of Gondwana. 9-10.
Carrano, 1998. The evolution of dinosaur locomotion: Functional morphology, biomechanics, and modern analogs. Volume One. PhD Thesis, The University of Chicago. 424 pp.
Hutchinson, 2001. The evolution of femoral osteology and soft tissues on the line to extant birds (Neornithes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 131, 169-197.
Ezcurra, 2006. A review of the systematic position of the dinosauriform archosaur Eucoelophysis baldwini Sullivan & Lucas, 1999 from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Geodiversitas. 28 (4),649-684.
Nesbitt, 2009. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. PhD thesis, Columbia University. 656 pp.
Brusatte, Benton, Desojo and Langer, 2010. The higher-level phylogeny of Archosauria (Tetrapoda: Diapsida). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(1), 3-47.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Bittencourt, Arcucci, Marsicano and Langer, 2015 (online 2014). Osteology of the Middle Triassic archosaur Lewisuchus admixtus Romer (Chañares Formation, Argentina), its inclusivity, and relationships amongst early dinosauromorphs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 13(3), 189-219.
Novas, Agnolin and Ezcurra, 2015. Taxonomy of basal dinosauriforms: Evidence provided by a new specimen from the Triassic Chañares Formation, NW Argentina. V Congreso Latinoamerico de Paleontología de Vertebrados. 50.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Lecuona, Desojo and Pol, 2017. New information on the postcranial skeleton of Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum (Archosauria: Suchia) and reappraisal of its phylogenetic position. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 181(3), 638-677.
Garcia Marsà, Agnolín and Novas, 2019 (online 2017). Bone microstructure of Lewisuchus admixtus Romer, 1972 (Archosauria, Dinosauriformes). Historical Biology. 31(2), 157-162.
Ezcurra, Nesbitt, Fiorelli and Desojo, 2020 (online 2019). New specimen sheds light on the anatomy and taxonomy of the early Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Chañares Formation, NW Argentina. The Anatomical Record. 303(5), 1393-1438.
Müller and Garcia, 2020. A paraphyletic 'Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs. Biology Letters. 16(8), 20200417.

unnamed silesaur (Cope, 1887a)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Arroyo Seco, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

Material- (AMNH 2704; = AMNH 2701 before 1973; paralectotype of Coelurus longicollis) femur (215 mm)
(AMNH 2713 in part; = AMNH 2701 before 1973; paralectotype of Episcoposaurus horridus) proximal humerus
Comments- AMNH 2704 was originally a syntype of Coelurus longicollis (Cope, 1887a), and referred to longicollis (as Tanystropheus then Coelophysis) through Huene (1926) before Cope's original species were synonymized under Coelophysis bauri by Colbert.  While the specimen is generally identified as an indeterminate at the level of Theropoda (Hunt and Lucas, 1991) or even Archosauria (Nesbitt et al., 2007), it seems to be a silesaur-grade dinosauriform based on the shape of the femoral head.  Additionally it is similar to Eucoelophysis, Kwanasaurus, Sacisaurus and Diodorus is having a reduced fourth trochanter, and similar to Lutungutali, Silesaurus, Asilisaurus and Lewisuchus in lacking a cleft anterior trochanter.  Both Eucoelophysis and Kwanasaurus are from the Petrified Forest Member as well, but differ in having a cleft anterior trochanter.
AMNH 2713 was initially the holotype of the aetosaur Episcoposaurus horridus (Cope, 1887b), which was recognized as a chimaera including phyosaur material by Huene (1915) who designated a large femur as the lectotype.  Gregory (1953) synonymized Episcoposaurus horridus and Typothorax coccinarum (also represented in Cope's AMNH 2709 and 2710 [in part] from the same locality).  Parker (2012) retained some AMNH 2713 material as the large Typothorax 'Episcoposaurus' individual (distal caudal, incomplete femur, proximal tibia, distal tibia, calcaneum, caudal osteoderm), other 2713 material as a smaller Typothorax (proximal ulna, two proximal radii?, distal radius, two dorsal lateral osteoderms; which may belong to the 2709/2710 individual), yet other 2713 material as phytosaurian (partial interclavicle, two humeri, two ulnae, proximal ulna), and newly recognized the "proximal end of a right humerus of a dinosauriform (e.g. Silesaurus;".  As he states, Eucoelophysis is from nearby deposits but does not preserve forelimb material.  A humerus referred to Kwanasaurus (DMNH EPV.59302) differs in having an anterior longitudinal groove.
References- Cope, 1887a. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. American Naturalist. 21, 367-369.
Cope, 1887b. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 24(126), 209-228.
Huene, 1906. Ueber die Dinosaurier der Aussereuropaischen Trias. Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen. 12, 99-156.
Huene, 1915. On reptiles of the New Mexican Trias in the Cope collection. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. 34, 485-507.
Gregory, 1953. Typothorax and Desmatosuchus. Postilla. 16, 1-27.
Padian, 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia: Theropoda) and a new specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). In Padian (ed.). The Beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs: Faunal Change Across the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary. Cambridge University Press. 45-60.
Hunt and Lucas, 1991. Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a Late Triassic dinosaur from New Mexico (USA). Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 65(1/2), 191-198.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Parker, 2012. Redescription and taxonomic status of specimens of Episcoposaurus and Typothorax, the earliest known aetosaurs (Archosauria: Suchia) from the Upper Triassic of western North America, and the problem of proxy "holotypes". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26,

unnamed silesaur (Fraser, Padian, Walkden and Davis, 2002)
Late Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Cromhall Quarry, England
Material
- (AUP 11095A; paratype of Agnosphitys cromhallensis) tooth
(VMNH 1751; paratype of Agnosphitys cromhallensis) maxilla
(VMNH 1750; paratype of Agnosphitys cromhallensis) humerus
(VMNH coll.; paratypes of Agnosphitys cromhallensis) humerus, humeral fragments
Comments- This material was in a fissure fill discovered in 1990 and initially referred to the dinosauriform Agnosphitys by Fraser et al. (2002), otherwise known from ilia and astragali. Fraser and Padian (1995) first mention a humerus referred to their then-unnamed ornithodiran and possible basal dinosaur, with "a low deltopeetoral[sic] crest extending approximately one-third of the way down the shaft."  Bonaparte et al. (2007) stated "The left ilium and astragalus are very similar to those of Guaibasaurus and Saturnalia" and so tentatively considered it a guaibasaurid, but suggested "The humerus referred by the cited authors to Agnosphitys is quite different from the humerus of Guaibasaurus and Saturnalia (Langer et al. 1999) and probably belongs to a different taxon."  Baron et al. (2017) agreed, stating the hypodigm "could represent a chimaera as it is based on disarticulated fissure fill material", as "The maxilla (VMNH 1751) seems almost certainly of silesaurid affinity, due to the ankylosed nature of its teeth" and "the humerus (VMNH 1750) also appear[s] very similar to those same elements in other silesaurid taxa", yet "the 'more derived' nature of elements like the astragalus suggest a dinosaurian affinity" and specifically the holotype ilium "appears much more similar to those of basal sauropodomorphs such as Saturnalia tupiniquim and Guaibasaurus candelariensis."  Thus the maxilla and humeri are here assigned to a Lewisuchus-grade silesaur.
References- Fraser and Padian, 1995. Possible dinosaur remains from Britain and the diagnosis of the Dinosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15(3), 30A.
Fraser, Padian, Walkden and Davis, 2002. Basal dinosauriform remains from Britain and the diagnosis of the Dinosauria. Palaeontology. 45(1), 79-95.
Bonaparte, Brea, Schultz and Martinelli, 2007 (online 2006). A new specimen of Guaibasaurus candelariensis (basal Saurischia) from the Late Triassic Caturrita Formation of southern Brazil. Historical Biology. 19(1), 73-82.
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature. 543(7646), 501-506.

Sulcimentisauria Martz and Small, 2019
Definition- (Silesaurus opolensis <- Asilisaurus kongwe) (Martz and Small, 2019)
Reference- Martz and Small, 2019. Non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs from the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) of the Eagle Basin, northern Colorado: Dromomeron romeri (Lagerpetidae) and a new taxon, Kwanasaurus williamparkeri (Silesauridae). PeerJ. 7:e7551.

Parapredentata Norman, Baron, Garcia and Müller, 2022
Definition- (Silesaurus opolensis + Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Norman, Baron, Garcia and Müller, 2022)
Reference- Norman, Baron, Garcia and Müller, 2022. Taxonomic, palaeobiological and evolutionary implications of a phylogenetic hypothesis for Ornithischia (Archosauria: Dinosauria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 196(4), 1273-1309.

Eucoelophysis Sullivan and Lucas, 1999
E. baldwini
Sullivan and Lucas, 1999
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Cross Quarry NMMNH L-4205, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

Holotype- (NMMNH P-22298; Orphan Mesa theropod) (?) two incomplete posterior cervical vertebrae (33.7 mm), (?) presacral neural arch, (?) presacral vertebral fragments, (?) incomplete proximal caudal centrum, (?) three partial caudal centra, (?) partial scapulocoracoid, ilial fragment, (?) incomplete pubis, (?) proximal ischium?, femora (one proximal, one incomplete; ~210 mm), proximal tibia, incomplete metatarsal II, metatarsal III (91 mm), distal metatarsal IV, pedal phalanges, fragments
Comments- Discovered on December 30 1983, Long and Murry (1995) referred to this as "UNM, poorly preserved postcranial remains including proximal extremities of left and right femora, a presacral vertebra and a fragmentary scapula" under Theropoda indet..  Sullivan et al. (1996) stated "the Orphan Mesa theropod, which has been deposited in the collections of the ... [NMMNH], consists of parts of both femora, the right pubis, the greater part of the right tibia, metatarsals II and III, phalanges, fragments of the ilium, vertebrae and other bones", and figured a centrum.  At the time they viewed this as a topotype of Coelophysis bauri, and of their characters supposedly distinct from 'Rioarribasaurus', the wedge-shaped femoral head is indeed different, but the open pubic obturator notch and metatarsal II overlapping metatarsal III are probably preservational.  As background knowledge, Hunt and Lucas (1991) felt Cope's original Coelophysis specimens collected by Baldwin in 1881 (including the lectotypes of C. bauri, C. longicollis and C. willistoni) were indeterminate, and created the name Rioarribasaurus colberti for the abundant complete Coelophysis Quarry (= Ghost Ranch, = Whitaker Quarry) specimens.  However, the ICZN later (1996) ruled Coelophysis Quarry specimen AMNH 7224 is the neotype of Coelophysis bauri, so when Sullivan and Lucas (1999) described partial skeleton NMMNH P-22298 from near the horizon of Cope's originals they named it Eucoelophysis baldwini as a new taxon of ceratosaur sensu lato.  They referred it to Ceratosauria based on the supposedly triangular and backswept dorsal transverse processes and supposed trochanteric shelf, but Nesbitt et al. (2007) find the dorsals are actually cervicals, that the transverse processes aren't backswept anyway, and that the femora lack trochanteric shelves (which can be seen in Sullivan and Lucas' figure 6).  Nesbitt et al. (2005) reported "Eucoelophysis is not a dinosaur, but possesses basal several ornithodiran synapomorphies", which was followed up by Nesbitt et al. (2007) who concluded "Based on several potential synapomorphies and other shared characters in the femur, we hypothesise that Eucoelophysis, Silesaurus and Pseudolagosuchus may form a group of basal dinosauriforms close to, but outside, Dinosauria."  Irmis et al. (2007) first recovered Eucoelophysis in a clade with Silesaurus sister to Dinosauria, which was named Silesauridae in 2010 and became the consensus hypothesis for the next couple decades.  Ezcurra (2006) also reanalyzed Eucoelophysis in depth, recovering it as sister to Dinosauria (with Silesaurus and Pseudolagosuchus progressively stemward).  This website follows the topology of  Müller and Garcia (2020) who recover silesaurs as a grade of basal ornithischian, with Eucoelophysis closer to other ornithischians than Silesaurus or Lewisuchus (= Pseudolagosuchus). 
Sullivan and Lucas (1999) reported the type material was found "directly associated with a few phytosaur bones and some unidentifiable elements within a square meter area", while Nesbitt et al. (2007) say it "was collected from a small quarry with a mixed assemblage including Typothorax, represented by an osteoderm and other numerous unidentifiable fragments."  While the hindlimb was articulated, referral of the other elements to the same individual is less certain.  Nesbitt et al. noted that "The vertebrae that Sullivan & Lucas (1999) identified as dorsal vertebrae are actually posterior cervical vertebrae, because they preserve parapophyses on the ventrolateral sides of the anterior portion of the centrum" and that contra to what Sullivan and Lucas claim "none of the vertebrae have triangular, backswept, posteriorly-directed transverse processes."  These vertebrae have pleurocoelous fossae unlike other silesaurs, but similar to and of identical size to the contemporaneous saurischian Chindesaurus.  Sullivan and Lucas referred the scapulocoracoid "with a query to this taxon owing to its incomplete nature", but it seems similar to Silesaurus' in shape and fusion, so plausibly belongs to the type individual.  Regarding the associated pubis, Nesbitt et al. state "the iliac, ischial and acetabular facets ... cannot be clearly discerned because of the poor preservation of the proximal end" and "it is not certain if the acetabulum was open."  They doubt the referral of the pubis to the type individual because "The pubes of Silesaurus and Pseudolagosuchus are nearly identical, but" ... "differ substantially from the pubis found with the holotype of Eucoelophysis, which is gracile and rod-like."  But if silesaurs are a grade of basal ornithischian as in Müller and Garcia's (2020) topology, a taxon closer to Eocursor and genasaurs might be expected to have a more gracile and rod-like pubis than Silesaurus.  Nesbitt et al. say "Regardless of whether the bone Sullivan & Lucas (1999) identified as the ischium is referable to Eucoelophysis, it does not belong to a dinosaur" and report it "lacks an articular facet with the pubis."  Based on the photo on the NMMNH online catalogue, it could possibly be a proximal humerus instead with the supposed pubic peduncle being a deltopectoral crest, and there are two slightly narrower shafts which could be a radius and ulna.  This is speculation however, pending restudy of the actual material.
Referred material- Sullivan and Lucas (1999) believed Cope's original Coelophysis hypodigm from Arroyo Seco may belong to Eucoelophysis, but "most of these specimens are not diagnostic because they lack apomorphic characters that would permit unambiguous generic and specific assignment."   However, they do refer pubis AMNH 2706 (a specimen referred to Tanystropheus longicollis by Cope, 1887) to the taxon based on the transverse groove below the acetabular area on the proximal surface.  Nesbitt et al. (2007) reported this groove is shallower than in Eucoelophysis and is absent medially, as in Saturnalia, and that "Recent repreparation ... indicates the presence of both an obturator foramen and pubic foramen, a coelophysoid theropod character."  AMNH 2706 is thus placed here with the other Arroyo Seco coelophysoid specimens.  Two other Cope specimens from 1881, femur AMNH 2704 and humerus AMNH 2713 in part, do seem to be referrable to silesaurs however (see entry above). 
Heckert et al. (2000b, 2003) tentatively referred the Snyder Quarry coelophysid to Eucoelophysis sp. based on "details of the scapulocoracoid, ischium and tibia", but only state one supposed synapomorphy- "the strongly appressed [tibial] surface that was held in contact with the fibula."  However, this is a plesiomorphy compared to neotheropods and is actually absent in the Snyder Quarry tibiae (NMMNH P-29046, P-29047) which have a fibular crest as in most theropods.  Note while Heckert et al. (2000a) states the Snyder Quarry coelophysid "is recognized as a distinct and, as yet, unnamed species" and references their 2000b paper, the latter and their 2003 paper merely say "Some of the differences between these theropods and Eucoelophysis may warrant erection of a new species, but many of these differences, particularly in the femur, could be sex-related."  Ezcurra (2006) and Nesbitt et al. (2007) correctly refer the Snyder Quarry material to a coelophysoid while showing Eucoelophysis is silesaur-grade.
Irmis et al. (2007) figure and note a partial dentary (GR 224), incomplete ilium (GR 225) and proximal femur (GR 195) from the Hayden Quarry that they say "may be referable to Eucoelophysis," which was found "only a kilometer away from the Hayden Quarry, and from the same stratigraphic unit."  However, they also state "the only overlapping element is the proximal portion of the femur, and although GR 195 is identical to the femora of the Eucoelophysis holotype, they do not share any unique characters absent from Silesaurus."  An additional silesaur, Kwanasaurus, has since been described from equivalent desposits in Colorado, and seems to have similar teeth but differs in having more ilial surface dorsal to the acetabulum and a laterally overhung brevis fossa.  It's also possible the unassociated Hayden Quarry and Colorado elements are referrable to more than one silesaur taxon, which may include Eucoelophysis.
Rinehart et al. (2009) refer a partial skeleton from the Coelophysis Quarry (TMP 1984.063.0033) to Eucoelophysis.  The authors list several characters supposedly similar to the latter genus.  The transverse proximal femoral groove is also present in coelophysids (e.g. UCMP 129618), while the anterior trochanter was said to be very similar to gracile rhodesiensis so would be expected in a gracile Coelophysis bauri.  Rinehart et al. state "A small, sharp, distinct, crest-like anterolateral trochanter is located immediately anterior to the greater trochanter on the anterior surface of the femur head as is seen in Eucoelophysis baldwini (Fig. 42E-F). This trochanter is unique, and we consider it to be the single most diagnostic feature in our assignment of TMP84-63-33 to Eucoelophysis."  Yet this is merely the dorsolateral trochanter, common in dinosauriforms including Coelophysis bauri itself (Nesbitt, 2011).  The authors also say "The tibia shows an appressed tibia surface (a wide, shallow sulcus to accommodate the fibular shaft) as in Eucoelophysis baldwini", which would be a similarity if true but is not figured.  However, the supracetabular crest is confluent with the brevis ridge as in coelophysids but unlike Eucoelophysis, and most importantly the femoral head is strongly medially projected and rounded as in basal theropods but unlike silesaurs including Eucoelophysis.  Oddly, Rinehart et al. say "This difference ... could be an artifact of preservation. We judge that it is probably due to the weathered condition of the holotype" when the femoral head shape of Eucoelophysis has been recognized as real and similar to Lewisuchus and Silesaurus since 2006.  TMP 1984.063.0033 is here considered a specimen of Coelophysis bauri as none of the few remaining potentially valid suggested differences (one less fused sacral, the broader and more angled scapula, and the absent fibular crest on the tibia) are demonstrated by the authors.
References- Cope, 1887. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 24(126), 209-228.
Hunt and Lucas, 1991. Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a Late Triassic dinosaur from New Mexico (USA). Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 65, 191-198.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature, 1996. Opinion 1842. Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, Saurischia): Lectotype replaced by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53, 142-144.
Sullivan, Heckert and Hunt, 1996. The type locality of Coelophysis, a Late Triassic dinosaur from north-central New Mexico (USA). Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 70, 245-255.
Sullivan and Lucas, 1999. Eucoelophysis baldwini, a new theropod dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, and the status of the original types of Coelophysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 19(1), 81-90.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000a. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000b. Preliminary description of coelophysoids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian: Early-Mid Norian) Snyder Quarry, north-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 27-32.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas and Rinehart, 2003. Coelophysids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Snyder Quarry. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 24, 127-132.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2005. Critical review of the Late Triassic dinosaur record, part 3: Saurischians of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 96A.
Ezcurra, 2006. A review of the systematic position of the dinosauriform archosaur Eucoelophysis baldwini Sullivan & Lucas, 1999 from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Geodiversitas. 28(4), 649-684.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Rinehart, Lucas, Heckert, Spielmann and Celeskey, 2009. The paleobiology of Coelophysis bauri (Cope) from the Upper Triassic (Apachean) Whitaker Quarry, New Mexico, with detailed analysis of a single quarry block. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 45, 260 pp.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Müller and Garcia, 2020. A paraphyletic 'Silesauridae' as an alternative hypothesis for the initial radiation of ornithischian dinosaurs. Biology Letters. 16(8), 20200417.

Silesauridae Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010
Definition-
(Silesaurus opolensis <- Heterodontosaurus tucki, Marasuchus lilloensis) (Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010)
Other definition- (Silesaurus opolensis <- Passer domesticus, Triceratops horridus, Alligator mississippiensis) (Nesbitt, 2011)
References- Langer, Ezcurra, Bittencourt and Novas, 2010 (online 2009). The origin and early evolution of dinosaurs. Biological Reviews. 85, 55-110.
Nesbitt, 2011. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 352, 292 pp.
Langer, Nesbitt, Bittencourt and Irmis, 2013. Non-dinosaurian Dinosauromorpha. In Nesbitt, Desojo and Irmis (eds.). Anatomy, Phylogeny and Palaeobiology of Early Archosaurs and their Kin. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 379, 157-186.

unnamed ornithischian (Gay, 2001)
Sinemurian-Pliensbachian, Early Jurassic
Rock Head (Bowl Area) MNA 219-0, Silty Facies Member of the Kayenta Formation, Arizona, US

Referred- (MNA.V.109) femur (281 mm)
Comments- Discovered in 1978, this was described by Gay (2001) as a juvenile Dilophosaurus femur, justified with "The entocondyle, ectocondyle and ectocondylar tuber are all present on the distal end of MNA P1.109, and all look like the corresponding parts of UCMP 37302."  Marsh and Rowe (2020) instead removed this as "a complete ornithischian femur."  It is ~3.4 times larger than Scutellosaurus, but could belong to the unnamed larger Kayenta thyreophoran (MNA.V.96, MNA.V.136, TMM 45608-1, UCMP 130056).
References- Gay, 2001. New specimens of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin. 8, 19-23.
Marsh and Rowe, 2020. A comprehensive anatomical and phylogenetic evaluation of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda) with descriptions of new specimens from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Journal of Paleontology. 94(Memoir 78), 103 pp.

Thecospondylus

Tichosteus
T. lucasanus
T? aequifacies

unnamed possible ornithischian (Lull, 1911)
Aptian-Albian, Early Cretaceous
Arundel Formation, Maryland, US
Material- (USNM 8454; = Goucher College 3101) (juvenile) posterior dorsal centrum (69.0 mm)
Comments- The vertebral centrum USNM 8454 was originally referred to the ankylosaur Priconodon crassus by Lull (1911; based on comparison to Stegosaurus), but provisionally reassigned to Ornithomimus affinis by Gilmore (1920), who thought it was a first sacral centrum. It is from a young individual as the neural arch is unfused. It is certainly not an avetheropod posterior dorsal or sacral centrum, as it is much taller than wide, not very constricted ventrally nor transversely expanded anteriorly, lacks sutures for sacral ribs and has a ventral keel. These features are more similar to caudal vertebrae, but there seem to be no chevron facets. The lack of parapophyses excludes anterior dorsals and cervicals from consideration. Although ankylosaurs sometimes have transversely compressed anterior sacrals (e.g. Polacanthus) and a straighter ventral margin, they also have sacral rib facets and very wide neural canals unlike USNM 8454. Their dorsal vertebrae are universally wide while their caudals have transverse processes located on the centrum. Tenontosaurus has deeper vertebrae which are opisthocoelous (anterior dorsals) or broad (posterior dorsals, sacrals, proximal caudals), though the centra are keeled. Smaller ornithopods have longer centra, which are still far too broad, though more comparable in ventral concavity. Sauropods like Pleurocoelus have pleurocoels or lateral fossae in their centra, except for caudals which resemble those of ankylosaurs in having ventrally placed transverse processes. They further differ in being broader and opisthocoelous (presacrals) with no ventral keel. Thus while no close match can be found at the moment, it doesn't match theropod centra and seems more likely to be a small ornithischian.
References- Lull, 1911. Systematic paleontology of the Lower Cretaceous deposits of Maryland: Vertebrata. Maryland Geological Survey. Lower Cretaceous volume, 183-211.
Gilmore, 1920. Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. United States National Museum Bulletin. 110, l-154.
Brownstein, 2016 online. Redescription of Arundel Formation ornithomimosaur material and a reinterpretation of Nedcolbertia justinhofmanni as an "ostrich dinosaur": Biogeographic implications. PeerJ Preprints. 4:e2308v1.

Genasauria Sereno, 1986
Official Definition
- (Stegosaurus stenops + Ankylosaurus magniventris + Iguanodon bernissartensis + Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 615)
Other definitions- (Ankylosaurus magniventris + Triceratops horridus) (modified from Sereno, 1998; modified from Currie and Padian, 1997)
(Ankylosaurus magniventris + Parasaurolophus walkeri + Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Stegosaurus stenops + Ankylosaurus magniventris + Parasaurolophus walkeri + Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Triceratops horridus) (Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008)
= Prionodontia Owen, 1874
Definition- (Scelidosaurus harrisonii + Iguanodon bernissartensis + Echinodon becklesii) (Norman, Baron, Garcia and Müller, 2022)
= Genasauria sensu Currie and Padian, 1997
Definition- (Ankylosaurus magniventris + Triceratops horridus) (modified)
= Neornithischia sensu Kischlat, 2000
Definition- (Stegosaurus armatus + Triceratops horridus) (modified)
= Genasauria sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Ankylosaurus magniventris + Parasaurolophus walkeri + Triceratops horridus)
= Genasauria sensu Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008
Definition- (Stegosaurus stenops + Ankylosaurus magniventris + Parasaurolophus walkeri + Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Triceratops horridus)
= Saphornithischia Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021
Official Definition- (Stegosaurus stenops + Iguanodon bernissartensis + Triceratops horridus + Heterodontosaurus tucki) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 747)
Comments- Norman et al. (2022) proposed Prionodontia for "traditional ornithischians" as opposed to silesaurs, but neglected to include Lesothosaurus as an internal specifier to ensure this content when the genus is outside Genasauria.  Furthermore, Norman et al. nonsensically state that compared to Genasauria and Saphornithischia, Prionodontia "takes precedence by over a century" merely because the name was published earlier despite the other two names already being registered with the ISPN.  If that were possible, anyone could define e.g. Goniopoda Cope, 1866 and claim it has priority over Theropoda Marsh, 1881 which has already been registered.
References- Owen, 1874. Monograph of the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck Formations. Supplement V. Dinosauria (Iguanodon). Palaeontographical Society Monographs. 27, 1-18.
Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Currie and Padian, 1997. Genasauria. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 271.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008. The phylogeny of the ornithischian dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6(1), 1-40.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.
Norman, Baron, Garcia and Müller, 2022. Taxonomic, palaeobiological and evolutionary implications of a phylogenetic hypothesis for Ornithischia (Archosauria: Dinosauria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 196(4), 1273-1309.

Thyreophora Nopcsa, 1915
Official Definition
- (Stegosaurus stenops, Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Iguanodon bernissartensis, Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 659)
Other definitions- (Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Triceratops horridus) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Parasaurolophus walkeri, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Stegosaurus stenops, Euoplocephalus tutus <- Hypsilophodon foxii) (modified from Norman, 2021)
= Thyreophora sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Triceratops horridus) (modified)
= Thyreophora sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Parasaurolophus walkeri, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus)
= Thyreophora sensu Norman, 2021
Definition- (Stegosaurus stenops, Euoplocephalus tutus <- Hypsilophodon foxii) (modified)
References- Nopcsa, 1915. Die dinosaurier der Siebenbürgischen landesteile Ungarns. Mitteilungen aus den Jahrbuch der Königlich Ungarnischen Geologischen Reichsanstalt. 23, 1-24.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.
Norman, 2021 (online 2020). Scelidosaurus harrisonii (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Early Jurassic of Dorset, England: Biology and phylogenetic relationships. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 191, 1-86.

Regnosaurus
R. northamptoni

Ankylosauria sensu Norman, 2021
Definition- (Euoplocephalus tutus, Edmontonia longiceps <- Scelidosaurus harrisonii) (modified)

Eurypoda Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Stegosaurus stenops + Ankylosaurus magniventris) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Sereno, online 2005; modified from Sereno, 1998; Registration Number 614)
References- Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Stegosauria
Marsh, 1877
Official Definition- (Stegosaurus stenops <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Sereno, online 2005; modified from Galton, 1997; Registration Number 653)
References- Marsh, 1877. A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the Rocky Mountains. American Journal of Science and Arts. 14, 513-514.
Galton, 1997. Stegosauria. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 701-703.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

"Astrodon" pusillus

Chialingosaurus
C. kuani

Craterosaurus
C. pottonensis

Ankylosauria
Osborn, 1923
Official Definition- (Ankylosaurus magniventris <- Stegosaurus stenops) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Sereno, online 2005; modified from Carpenter, 1997; Registration Number 588)
Other definitions- (Euoplocephalus tutus, Edmontonia longiceps <- Scelidosaurus harrisonii) (modified from Norman, 2021)
(Euoplocephalus tutus, + Edmontonia longiceps) (modified from Norman, 2021)
= Ankylosauromorpha Carpenter, 2001
Definition- (Euoplocephalus tutus, Edmontonia longiceps <- Stegosaurus stenops) (modified from Norman, 2021)
References- Osborn, 1923. Two Lower Cretaceous dinosaurs of Mongolia. American Museum Novitates. 95, 1-10.
Carpenter, 1997. Ankylosauria. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 16-20.
Carpenter, 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of the Ankylosauria. In Carpenter (ed.). The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. 455-483.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.
Norman, 2021 (online 2020). Scelidosaurus harrisonii (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Early Jurassic of Dorset, England: Biology and phylogenetic relationships. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 191, 1-86.

Sarcolestes
S. leedsi

Struthiosaurus
S. austriacus

Neornithischia Cooper, 1985
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis, Triceratops horridus <- Stegosaurus stenops, Ankylosaurus magniventris) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 636)
Other definitions- (Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Stegosaurus armatus + Triceratops horridus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri, Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Stegosaurus stenops, Ankylosaurus magniventris) (Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008)
= "Melisauria" Gauthier, 1984
= Neornithischia sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (modified)
= Cerapoda sensu Weishampel, 2004
Definition- (Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (modified)
= Neornithischia sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri, Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris)
= Neornithischia sensu Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Stegosaurus stenops, Ankylosaurus magniventris)
Comments- Cooper's (1985) original concept of Neornithischia grouped thyreophorans and marginocephalians (including heterodontosaurids) together to the exclusion of ornithopods (including fabrosaurids).  As such, it was an alternative hypothesis to Cerapoda which groups ornithopods and marginocephalians together.  Thus Sereno's (1998) reformulation of Neornithischia to be the cerapod stem is not congruent with Cooper's use.
Gauthier (1984) proposed the new taxon "Melisauria" in his thesis for "the monophyletic sister-group of Thyreophora within Ornithischia", including Heterodontosaurus, Ceratopsia, Ornithopoda and perhaps Pachycephalosauria.
References- Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Cooper, 1985. A revision of the ornithischian dinosaur Kangnasaurus coetzeei Haughton, with a classification of the Ornithischia. Annals of the South African Museum. 95, 281-317.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Weishampel, 2004. Ornithischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 323-324.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008. The phylogeny of the ornithischian dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6(1), 1-40.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Cerapoda Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 597)
Other definitions- (Triceratops horridus <- Ankylosaurus magniventris) (modified from Weishampel, 2004)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri + Triceratops horridus) (Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008)
= Ornithopoda sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Heterodontosaurus tucki + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified)
= Cerapoda sensu Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri + Triceratops horridus)
References- Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Weishampel, 2004. Ornithischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 323-324.
Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008. The phylogeny of the ornithischian dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6(1), 1-40.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Ornithopoda Marsh, 1881
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 640)
Other definitions- (Heterodontosaurus tucki + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Edmontosaurus regalis <- Triceratops horridus) (Norman, Sues, Witmer and Coria, 2004)
(Heterodontosaurus tucki + Parasaurolophus walkeri, <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Triceratops horridus) (Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019)
= Euornithopoda Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- within Ornithopoda (Iguanodon bernissartensis <-Heterodontosaurus tucki) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 613)
Other definitions- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Heterodontosaurus tucki) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Heterodontosaurus tucki, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Euornithopoda sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Heterodontosaurus tucki) (modified)
= Ornithopoda sensu Norman, Sues, Witmer and Coria, 2004
Definition- (Edmontosaurus regalis <- Triceratops horridus)
= Euornithopoda sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Heterodontosaurus tucki, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus)
= Ornithopoda sensu Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Triceratops horridus)
= Ornithopoda sensu Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus)
References- Marsh, 1881. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part V. The American Journal of Science and Arts Series 3. 21, 417-423.
Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Norman, Sues, Witmer and Coria, 2004. Basal Ornithopoda. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 393-412.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Butler, Upchurch and Norman, 2008. The phylogeny of the ornithischian dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6(1), 1-40.
Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019. New small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Neornithischia) from the Early Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation (Strzelecki Group) of the Australian-Antarctic rift system, with revision of Qantassaurus intrepidus Rich and Vickers-Rich, 1999. Journal of Paleontology. 93, 543-584.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Kulindadromeus Godefroit, Sinitsa, Dhouailly, Bolotsky, Sizov, McNamara, Benston and Spagna, 2014
= Daurosaurus Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a
= Kulindapteryx Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a
= Lepidocheirosaurus Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015
K. zabaikalicus Godefroit, Sinitsa, Dhouailly, Bolotsky, Sizov, McNamara, Benston and Spagna, 2014
= Daurosaurus olovus Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a
= Kulindapteryx ukureica Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a
= Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015
Aalenian, Middle Jurassic
Ukureyshaya Formation, Russia
Holotype
- (INREC K3/109) (juvenile) incomplete skull, incomplete mandible
Paratypes- (INREC K3/112) dentary or dorsal vertebra
(INREC K3/113) ilium
(INREC K3/114) incomplete pubis
(INREC K3/124) ischium
(INREC K3/134) incomplete humerus (mislabeled as scapula)
(INREC K3/200) dentary
(INREC K3/202) distal caudal vertebra
(INREC K3/203; PIN 5434/54) scapula, humerus
(INREC K3/204) partial scapula
(INREC K3/205) ulna
(INREC K3/206) femur
(INREC K3/207) tibia
(INREC K3/208) proximal femur
(INREC K3/209) proximal tibia
(INREC K4/22) partial skull, fragmentary dentary, sclerotic plates, feathers
(INREC K4/33) dorsal ribs, scapula, feathers
(INREC K4/42) maxilla
(INREC K4/44) proximal tibia, feathers
(INREC K4/57) tibia, tarsus, scales
(INREC K4/72) metatarsal I, partial metatarsal II, partial metatarsal III, partial metatarsal IV
(INREC K4/94) proximal caudal vertebrae, scales
(INREC K4/116) femur, scales, feathers
(INREC K4/117) at least six proximal caudal vertebrae, scales
(INREC K4/118) metatarsal fragments, pedal phalanges, scales
(INREC K4/150) five proximal caudal vertebrae
(INREC K4/159; PIN 5435/51; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) eleven distal caudal vertebrae, scales
(INREC K4/201) partial mandible
(INREC K coll.) four partial skulls, several hundred specimens including cranial elements, pedal phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, phalanx II-1, pedal ungual II, phalanx III-1, pedal ungual III, phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2, phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, pedal claw sheaths
(PIN 5434/57; 5435/57 in Alifanov et al., 2014; = INREC K4/115) humerus, proximal radius, proximal ulna, scales, feathers
Referred- (PIN 5434/1; holotype of Daurosaurus olovus) ilium (100 mm), ischial fragment, femur (120 mm), tibia (155 mm)
(PIN 5434/2; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5434/17; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ilium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/19) partial dentary (Alifanov, 2014)
(PIN 5434/20; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ilium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/24) pubis (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/25; holotype of Kulindapteryx ukureica) fragmentary proximal caudal vertebra, incomplete pubis, ischium (104 mm) (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/37; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ilium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/39; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ischium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/40; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ischium (90 mm) (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/41) ilium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/43; paratype of Daurosaurus olovus) ischium (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b)
(PIN 5434/56; 5435/56 in Alifanov et al., 2014) humerus, radius, feathers (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a,b) or distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5434/63; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5434/64; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5434/65; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5434/67; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) distal caudal vertebra (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/1; holotype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) incomplete pedal phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2 (18 mm), partial pedal ungual II, incomplete phalanx III-1, partial phalanx III-2 (~15 mm), fragmentary phalanx III-3, incomplete phalanx IV-1, phalanx IV-2 (12.5 mm), distal phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4 (13.5 mm), pedal ungual IV, pedal claw sheath, scales, feathers (Alifanov, 2014; described by Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/12; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/13) feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/14) scales, feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/23) distal femur, proximal tibia, proximal fibula, scales, feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/47) feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/48) feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/50; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/52; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/54; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/59) scales, feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/61) scales, feathers (Alifanov et al., 2014)
(PIN 5435/62; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/63; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
(PIN 5435/64; paratype of Lepidocheirosaurus natatilis) caudal vertebrae, scales (Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015)
Diagnosis- (after Godefroit et al., 2014) maxilla with anterior ascending process much lower than posterior ascending process; maxillary fenestra larger than antorbital fenestra; jugal with notched postorbital ramus; postorbital with dorsoventrally expanded posterior ramus; dorsoventrally slender postacetabular process; deep extensor fossae on metatarsals II-IV.
Comments- Kulindadromeus material was first discovered in 2010 (announced in Alifanov, 2012 and 2014a,b prior to naming of any taxa), with the type material corrected between 2010 and 2012. Two bonebeds are known in the Kulinda locality, each containing hundreds of specimens in various states of articulation. Godefroit et al. (2014) described the material as the basal neornithischian Kulindadromeus on July 25th (submitted March 13th), noting "Each individual skeletal element is represented by a single morphotype, and all of the observed morphological differences can easily be explained by ontogenetic and intraspecific variation, as confirmed by the detailed study of the partial skeletons" and that besides ornithischian material, only a single shed theropod tooth had been found. Alifanov (2014) wrote a preliminary paper proposing the Kulinda material belonged to a hypsilophodontid, a jeholosaurid and a theropod. Alifanov and Saveliev (2014a,b; submitted March 3rd) later described the two ornithischians as the hypsilophodontid Kulindapteryx and the jeholosaurid Daurosaurus, each based on pelvic and/or hindlimb material, with most other material only referred to Hypsilophodontia indet.. Godefroit (DML 2014) alleges Alifanov stole INREC material and gave them PIN specimen numbers for his description of the taxa with Saveliev, and indeed INREC K4/115 is the same specimen as PIN 5434/57, while INREC K3/203 and PIN 5434/54 are part and counterpart. Neither Russian nor English version of Alifanov and Saveliev's paper has an established paper publication date (unlike Godefroit et al., who registered Kulindadromeus with ZooBank in their electronic publication), though they were available online by July 3rd and August 6th respectively. Of Godefroit et al.'s diagnostic characters for Kulindadromeus, only Daurosaurus' holotype can be evaluated- the dorsoventrally slender postacetabular process which is indeed present. Thus if the Russian version of Alifanov and Saveliev's paper was physically published prior to July 25th, it could be argued Daurosaurus is a diagnostic senior synonym of Kulindadromeus. Given the alleged ethical issues of Alifanov and Saveliev's paper, the poor quality of Daurosaurus' holotype (ilium, femur and tibia; the latter two of which have morphologies that are mostly "indiscernible" in their own words) compared to Kulindadromeus' (incomplete skull), the far more detailed and modern description in Godefroit's paper, and unestablished physical publication date of Daurosaurus, Kulindadromeus is used for the taxon here.
Lepidocheirosaurus- Alifanov's (2014) reported theropod material is PIN 5435/51 (distal caudal vertebrae with associated scales) and PIN 5435/1 (supposed distal metacarpals, phalanges and scales). While only referred to Theropoda fam. indet. at the time, these were later described as a new basal ornithomimosaur taxon Lepidocheirosaurus by Alifanov and Saveliev (2015), along with other distal caudals. These authors referred it to their new family Nqwebasauridae along with the eponymous genus. The supposed manus is the holotype, but is far more likely to be a pes with the supposed metacarpals I-III being phalanges II/III/IV-1. This is based on the lack of an asymmetrical ginglymus on 'metacarpal I', a short 'phalanx I-1', and short 'phalanx III-3'. These are expected in a pedal phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2 and phalanx IV-4 respectively though. As the only non-Kulindadromeus dinosaur material in the Kulinda beds reported by Godefroit et al. is a single shed theropod tooth, and the pes matches basal ornithischians, Lepidocheirosaurus is probably a junior synonym of Kulindadromeus. As for the referred caudal material, PIN 5435/51 is the counterslab to Kulindadromeus specimen INREC K4/159. Other specimens share the dorsal scales of Kulindadromeus and/or long postzygapophyses which are like basal ornithischians but unlike most theropods. As no other caudal morphologies are known from Kulinda, it would be very unlikely for only theropod caudals to be preserved but only ornithischian crania, pectoral and pelvic elements.
References- Alifanov, 2012. Kulinda, the first Late Jurassic dinosaur locality in Russia. Priroda. 2012(3), 53-54.
Alifanov, 2014a. On the discovery of Late Jurassic dinosaurs in Transbaikalia. Doklady Akademii Nauk. 455(4), 421-423.
Alifanov, 2014b. The discovery of Late Jurassic dinosaurs in Russia. Doklady Earth Sciences. 455(2), 365-367.
Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014a. Two new ornithischian dinosaurs (Hypsilophodontia, Ornithopoda) from the Late Jurassic of Russia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 48(4), 72-82.
Alifanov and Saveliev, 2014b. Two new ornithischian dinosaurs (Hypsilophodontia, Ornithopoda) from the Late Jurassic of Russia. Paleontological Journal. 48(4), 414-425.
Alifanov, Saveliev, Tereshchenko, Artemov and Seregin, 2014a. Skin structure in ornithischian dinosaurs (Hypsilophodontia, Ornithopoda) from the Late Jurassic of Transbaikalia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 48(5), 72-80.
Alifanov, Saveliev, Tereshchenko, Artemov and Seregin, 2014b. Integument structure in ornithischian dinosaurs (Hypsilophodontia, Ornithopoda) from the Late Jurassic of Transbaikalia. Paleontological Journal. 48(5), 523-533.
Godefroit, DML 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20210517101514/http://dml.cmnh.org/2014Jul/msg00028.html
Godefroit, Sinitsa, Dhouailly, Bolotsky, Sizov, McNamara, Benston and Spagna, 2014a. A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales. Science. 345(6195), 451-455.
Godefroit, Sinitsa, Dhouailly, Bolotsky, Sizov, McNamara, Benston and Spagna, 2014b. Response to Comment on "A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales". Science. 346(6208), 434c.
Lingham-Soliar, 2014. Comment on "A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales". Science. 346(5208), 434b.
Saveliev and Alifanov, 2014a. A new type of skin derivatives in ornithischian dinosaurs from the Late Jurassic of Transbaikalia (Russia). Doklady Akademii Nauk. 456(2), 251-253.
Saveliev and Alifanov, 2014b. A new type of skin derivatives in ornithischian dinosaurs from the Late Jurassic of Transbaikalia (Russia). Doklady Biological Sciences. 456, 182-184.
Alifanov and Saveliev, 2015. The most ancient ornithomimosaur (Theropoda, Dinosauria), with cover imprints from the Upper Jurassic of Russia. Paleontological Journal. 49(6), 636-650.

Clypeodonta Norman, 2014
Official Definition- within Ornithopoda (Hypsilophodon foxii + Edmontosaurus regalis) (modified from Norman, 2015; Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 604)
Other definitions- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Thescelosaurus neglectus) (Norman, 2014)
= Hypsilophodontia Cooper, 1985
Official Definition- within Ornithopoda (Hypsilophodon foxii + Tenontosaurus tilletti, <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 624)
Other definitions- (Hypsilophodon foxii + Tenontosaurus tilletti) (Norman, 2015)
= Euguanodontia Coria and Salgado, 1996
Official Definition- (Gasparinisaura cincosaltensis + Dryosaurus altus + Camptosaurus dispar, <- Tenontosaurus tilletti) ( Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018; Registration Number 612)
Other definitions- (Gasparinisaura cincosaltensis + Dryosaurus altus + Camptosaurus dispar) (modified from Coria and Salgado, 1996)
= Euiguanodontia sensu Coria and Salgado, 1996
Definition- (Gasparinisaura cincosaltensis + Dryosaurus altus + Camptosaurus dispar) (modified)
= Hypsilophodontia sensu Norman, 2015
Definition- (Hypsilophodon foxii + Tenontosaurus tilletti)
References- Cooper, 1985. A revision of the ornithischian dinosaur Kangnasaurus coetzeei Haughton, with a classification of the Ornithischia. Annals of the South African Museum. 95, 281-317.
Coria and Salgado, 1996. A basal iguanodontian (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from the Late Cretaceous of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 16(3), 445-457.
Norman, 2014. Iguanodonts from the Wealden of England: Do they contribute to the discussion concerning hadrosaur origins? In Eberth and Evans (eds.). Hadrosaurs. Indiana University Press. 10-43.
Norman, 2015 (online 2014). On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings Group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 173, 92-189.
Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018 (online 2017). A basal ornithopod dinosaur from the Cenomanian of the Czech Republic. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 16, 967-979.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Iguanodontia sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Hypsilophodon foxii) (modified)

Iguanodontia sensu Norman, 2004
Definition- (Edmontosaurus regalis <- Thescelosaurus neglectus) (modified)
= Iguanodontia sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Hypsilophodon foxii, Thescelosaurus neglectus)
= Clypeodonta sensu Norman, 2014
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Thescelosaurus neglectus)

Iguanodontia Baur, 1891
Official Definition- (Tenontosaurus tilletti + Rhabdodon priscus + Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis, <- Hypsilophodon foxii) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 626)
Other definitions- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Hypsilophodon foxii) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Edmontosaurus regalis <- Thescelosaurus neglectus) (modified from Norman, 2004)
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Hypsilophodon foxii, Thescelosaurus neglectus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Tenontosaurus tilletti + Rhabdodon priscus + Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018)
(Tenontosaurus tilletti + Rhabdodon priscus + Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis, <- Triceratops horridus) (Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019)
= Iguanodontia sensu Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018
Definition- (Tenontosaurus tilletti + Rhabdodon priscus + Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis)
= Iguanodontia sensu Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019
Definition- (Tenontosaurus tilletti + Rhabdodon priscus + Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis, <- Triceratops horridus)
References- Baur, 1891. Remarks on the reptiles generally called Dinosauria. American Naturalist. 25, 434-454.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Norman, 2004. Basal Iguanodontia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 413-437.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018 (online 2017). A basal ornithopod dinosaur from the Cenomanian of the Czech Republic. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 16, 967-979.
Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019. New small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Neornithischia) from the Early Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation (Strzelecki Group) of the Australian-Antarctic rift system, with revision of Qantassaurus intrepidus Rich and Vickers-Rich, 1999. Journal of Paleontology. 93, 543-584.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Elasmaria Calvo, Porfiri and Novas, 2007
Official Definition- (Macrogryphosaurus gondwanicus + Talenkauen santacrucensis <- Hypsilophodon foxii, Thescelosaurus neglectus, Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 609)
Other definitions- (Macrogryphosaurus gondwanicus + Talenkauen santacrucensis) (Calvo, Porfiri and Novas, 2007)
(Macrogryphosaurus gondwanicus + Talenkauen santacrucensis <- Hypsilophodon foxii, Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019)
= Elasmaria sensu Calvo, Porfiri and Novas, 2007
Definition- (Macrogryphosaurus gondwanicus + Talenkauen santacrucensis)
= Elasmaria sensu Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019
Definition- (Macrogryphosaurus gondwanicus + Talenkauen santacrucensis <- Hypsilophodon foxii, Iguanodon bernissartensis)
References- Calvo, Porfiri and Novas, 2007. Discovery of a new ornithopod dinosaur from the Portezuelo Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Neuquén, Patagonia. Argentina Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 65, 471-483.
Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019. New small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Neornithischia) from the Early Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation (Strzelecki Group) of the Australian-Antarctic rift system, with revision of Qantassaurus intrepidus Rich and Vickers-Rich, 1999. Journal of Paleontology. 93, 543-584.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Fulgurotherium
F. australe


Loncosaurus
L. argentinus

Dryomorpha Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Dryosaurus altus + Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 606)
Other definitions- (Dryosaurus altus, Parasaurolophus walkeri) (
Sereno, online 2005)
(Dryosaurus altus + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (Boyd, 2015)
= Dryomorpha sensu Boyd, 2015
Definition-
(Dryosaurus altus + Parasaurolophus walkeri)
References- Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch.
http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Boyd, 2015. The systematic relationships and biogeographic history of ornithischian dinosaurs.
PeerJ. 3:e1523.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Ankylopollexia Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Camptosaurus dispar + Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 585)
Other definitions- (Camptosaurus dispar + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
= Ankylopollexia sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Camptosaurus dispar + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified)
References- Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Camptosauridae Marsh, 1885
Official Definition- (Camptosaurus dispar <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 595)
Other definitions- (Camptosaurus dispar <- Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
= Camptosauridae sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Camptosaurus dispar <- Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified)
References- Marsh, 1885. Names of extinct reptiles. American Journal of Science. 29, 169.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Camptosaurus
?= Symphyrophus
C. dispar
?= Symphyrophus musculosus

Styracosterna Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis <- Camptosaurus dispar) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 656)
Other definitions- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Camptosaurus dispar) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
= Iguanodontoidea Bonaparte, 1850 vide Hay, 1902
Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis, Edmontosaurus regalis <- Camptosaurus dispar) (modified from Norman, 2002)
= Styracosterna sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Camptosaurus dispar) (modified)
References- Bonaparte, 1850. Conspectus systematum herpetologiae et amphibiologiae. Editio altera reformata. E. J. Brill. 4 pp.
Hay, 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey. 179, 868 pp.
Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Norman, 2002. On Asian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). 4. Redescription of Probactrosaurus gobiensis Rozhdestvensky, 1966. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 136, 113-144.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

"Cetiosaurus" brachyurus

Neoiguanodontia Norman, 2014
Official Definition- (Hypselospinus fittoni + Iguanodon bernissartensis + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020; Registration Number 635)
Other definitions-
(Hypselospinus fittoni + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (Norman, 2014)
= Neoiguanodontia sensu Norman, 2014
Definition- (Hypselospinus fittoni + Parasaurolophus walkeri)
References- Norman, 2014. Iguanodonts from the Wealden of England: Do they contribute to the discussion concerning hadrosaur origins? In Eberth and Evans (eds.). Hadrosaurs. Indiana University Press. 10-43.
Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020 (online 2019). Osteology, phylogenetic affinities and taxonomic status of the enigmatic late Maastrichtian ornithopod taxon Orthomerus dolloi (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Cretaceous Research. 108, 104334.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Hadrosauriformes Sereno, 1997
Official Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Hadrosaurus foulkii) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020; Registration Number 617)
Other definitions- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Parasaurolophus walkeri)
(modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
= Hadrosauriformes sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Iguanodon bernissartensis + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified)
References- Sereno, 1997. The origin and evolution of dinosaurs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 25(1), 435-489.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020 (online 2019). Osteology, phylogenetic affinities and taxonomic status of the enigmatic late Maastrichtian ornithopod taxon Orthomerus dolloi (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Cretaceous Research. 108, 104334.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Hadrosauroidea Cope, 1869 vide Huene, 1952
Official Definition- (Hadrosaurus foulkii <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Prieto-Marquez, 2010; Registration Number 619)
Other definitions-
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
= Hadrosauroidea sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (modified)
References- Cope, 1869. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America. Part I. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series. 14, 1-104.
Huene, 1952. Die Saurierwelt und ihre geschichtlichen Zusammenhänge. Gustav Fischer. 64 pp.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Prieto-Márquez, 2010. Global phylogeny of Hadrosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) using parsimony and Bayesian methods. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 159, 435-502.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

unnamed possible hadrosauroid (Gemmellaro, 1921)
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Duwi Formation, Al Sharauna, Gebel Duwi and/or Gebel Nakheil, Egypt

Material- (MGUP MEGA005) manual ungual I (~36 mm)
Comments- Gemmellaro (1921) referred several remains to Megalosaurus crenatissimus (Abelisauridae indet. here) from three localities in eastern Egypt.  He described two unguals and figured one (MGUP MEGA004), comparing the latter favorably to crenatissimussyntype FSL 92.290, but it is here identified as a titanosaur pedal ungual. The second specimen was stated to be "similar in shape to the one already described, only a little shorter, bulkier, less sharp and with the two lateral faces equally developed; for this reason I think this could correspond to a middle digit's ungual" (translated).  Yet photos provided by Di Patti (pers. comm. 6-2023) show it is dissimilar to any theropod or sauropod manual or pedal ungual in being a blunt cone.  Similarity in size and shape is seen with Ouranosaurus' manual ungual I, and plesiomorphic ankylopollexians with manual ungual I were still present in the Campanian (e.g. Batyrosaurus), although it would have to be further from Hadrosauridae than Tethyshadros which had lost manual digit I.  Given the late age, it is here provisionally considered a hadrosauroid manual ungual I.
Reference- Gemmellaro, 1921. Rettili maëstrichtiani di Egitto. Giornale di Scienze Naturali ed Economiche. 32, 339-351.

Hadrosauromorpha Norman, 2014
Official Definition- (Hadrosaurus foulkii <- Probactrosaurus gobiensis) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020; Registration Number 620)
Other definitions-
(Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Probactrosaurus gobiensis) (Norman, 2014)
= Hadrosauromorpha sensu Norman, 2014
Definition- (Parasaurolophus walkeri <- Probactrosaurus gobiensis)
References- Norman, 2014. Iguanodonts from the Wealden of England: Do they contribute to the discussion concerning hadrosaur origins? In Eberth and Evans (eds.). Hadrosaurs. Indiana University Press. 10-43.
Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020 (online 2019). Osteology, phylogenetic affinities and taxonomic status of the enigmatic late Maastrichtian ornithopod taxon Orthomerus dolloi (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Cretaceous Research. 108, 104334.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Parrosaurus
= Neosaurus
P. missouriensis
= Neosaurus missouriensis

Bactrosaurus Gilmore, 1933
B. johnsoni Gilmore, 1933
Middle-Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
AMNH 141 Johnson's Quarry, Iren Dabasu Formation, Inner Mongolia, China
Holotype- (AMNH 6553) maxilla, dentary, ten dorsal vertebrae, seven sacral vertebraethirty-six caudal vertebrae, scapula, sternal, pubes, ischia, femur, fibula, pedes (one partial)
Referred- ?(AMNH 6576 in part; paratype of Ornithomimus asiaticus) (juvenile) pedal ungual ?II (~31 mm) (pers. obs.)
[many more, see Prieto-Marquez, 2011 for partial list]
Comments- In July 2009 I observed a hadrosaurid pedal ungual catalogued under AMNH 6576 (which includes almost a hundred paratype Archaeornithomimus elements from the Johnson Quarry AMNH locality 141).  This is likely to be a juvenile Bactrosaurus (compare to Gilmore Fig. 39), as all indentifiable hadrosaurs from that quarry are assignable to the taxon, including numerous juvenile individuals.
References- Gilmore, 1933. On the dinosaurian fauna of the Iren Dabasu Formation. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. 67, 23-78.
Prieto-Marquez, 2011. Cranial and appendicular ontogeny of Bactrosaurus johnsoni, a hadrosauroid dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of northern China. Palaeontology. 54(4), 773-792.

"Troodon" isfarensis Nessov, 1995
= Saurornithoides isfarensis (Nessov, 1995) Olshevsky, 2000
Early Santonian, Late Cretaceous
Isfara 2, Yalovach Formation, Tajikistan

Holotype- (CCMGE 484/12457) prefrontal
Comments- Nessov (1995) described this as a troodontid frontal, but Averianov and Sues (2007) reidentified the specimen as a hadrosaurid prefrontal while Averianov and Alifanov (2012) redescribed it.
References- Nessov, 1995. Dinosaurs of nothern Eurasia: New data about assemblages, ecology, and paleobiogeography. Institute for Scientific Research on the Earth's Crust. 156 pp.
Olshevsky, 2000. An annotated checklist of dinosaur species by continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 1-157.
Averianov and Sues, 2007. A new troodontid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Cenomanian of Uzbekistan, with a review of troodontid records from the territories of the former Soviet Union. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 27(1), 87-98.
Averianov and Alifanov, 2012a. [New data on duck-billed dinosaurs (Ornithischia, Hadrosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Tajikistan] Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 2012(5), 67-73.
Averianov and Alifanov, 2012b. New data on duck-billed dinosaurs (Ornithischia, Hadrosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Tajikistan. Paleontological Journal. 46(5), 512–519.

Hadrosauridae sensu Horner, Weishampel and Forster, 2004
Definition- (Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus + Parasaurolophus walkeri)

Telmatosaurus Nopcsa, 1903
= Limnosaurus Nopcsa, 1900 (preoccupied Marsh, 1872)
= "Limnosaurus" Nopcsa, 1899
T. transsylvanicus (Nopcsa, 1900) Nopcsa, 1903
= Limnosaurus transsylvanicus Nopcsa, 1900
Early-Middle Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Sinpetru Formation, Romania
Holotype
- (NHMUK R3386) incomplete skull
Referred- (FGGUB R.351; = LPB.V.351) distal metatarsal III (Grigorescu and Kessler, 1981)
[many more, see Weishampel et al., 1993 for list]
Comments- Nopcsa (1899) first mentions Limnosaurus as (translated) "an ornithopod belonging to the hadrosaurus group", but it is a nomen nudum as it was not "accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication" (ICZN Article 12.1) since it referenced only Nopcsa's then-unpublished 1900 description.  After its official description, Nopcsa (1903) recognized the genus Limnosaurus was preoccupied by the planicraniid crocodylifom Limnosaurus ziphodon (probably a synonym of Boverisuchus vorax, but considered invalid due to uncertain type material), so proposed Telmatosaurus for the dinosaur. 
Discovered in Summer 1978, FGGUB R.351 was first described by Grigorescu and Kessler (1981) as a distal femur of the supposed pelecaniform Elopteryx.  This was based on comparable size to the known Elopteryx proximal femora and proposed pelecaniform characters ("the heavy proportion found in the pelicans", "the triangular [popliteal fossa] that is distinctive for the Pelecaniformes", "The apophysis for the external gastrocnemian muscle is prominent, ovoidal in shape, with a, ridged surface, as it is common for the Sulids"), but Elopteryx has since been identified as non-avian, perhaps a basal pygostylian.  Csiki and Grigorescu (1998) believed Elopteryx was deinonychosaurian, and instead proposed the "presence of a distinctively deep groove at the base of the crista tibiofibularis" was a ceratosaurian (sensu lato) character, and that "a non-elliptical muscle scar on the craniodistal region of the femur" and "a craniomedial crest originating above the medial (tibial) condyle" were neoceratosaurian characters, concluding it was "a neoceratosaur (probably an abelisaurid)."  Most recently, Kessler et al. (2005) wrote inspection "revealed the presence of a complete bone (MAFI Ob.3120a) in which the distal end is virtually identical in size and morphology to FGGUB R.351; it shows that this specimen represents instead the distal end of a moderately large metatarsal, belonging probably to a hadrosaur." Weishampel et al.'s (1993) redescription of Telmatosaurus lists MAFI Ob.3120 as metatarsals III and IV, one presumably a and the other b, so FGGUB R.351 is assigned to metatarsal III based on its deep intercondylar groove.
References- Marsh, 1872. Preliminary description of new Tertiary reptiles. Part I and Part II. The American Journal of Science, series 3. 4(22), 298-309
Nopcsa, 1899. Jegyzetek Hatzeg videkenek geologiajahoz. Földtani közlöny. 29, 332-335.
Nopcsa, 1900. Dinosaurierreste aus Siebenbürgen (Schädel von Limnosaurus transsylvanicus nov. gen. et spec.). Denkschriften der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 68, 555-591.
Nopcsa, 1903. Telmatosaurus, new name for the dinosaur Limnosaurus. Geological Magazine (series 4). 10, 94-95.
Grigorescu and Kessler, 1981. A new specimen of Elopteryx nopcsai from the dinosaurian beds of Hateg Basin. Revue Roumaine de Geologie, Geophysique et Geographie, Geologie. 24, 171-175.
Weishampel, Norman and Grigorescu, 1993. Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus from the Late Cretaceous of Romania: The most basal hadrosaurid
dinosaur. Palaeontology. 36, 361-385
Csiki and Grigorescu, 1998. Small theropods from the Late Cretaceous of the Hateg Basin (Western Romania) - an unexpected diversity at the top of the food chain. Oryctos. 1, 87-104.
Kessler, Grigorescu and Csiki, 2005. Elopteryx revisited - a new bird-like specimen from the Maastrichtian of the Hateg Basin. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae. 5, 249-258.

Hypsibema
H. crassicauda

Hadrosauridae Cope, 1869
Official Definition- (Hadrosaurus foulkii + Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020; Registration Number 616)
Other definitions-
(Hadrosaurus foulkii + Lambeosaurus lambei) (modified from Forster, 1997)
(Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus + Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified from Horner, Weishampel and Forster, 2004)
(Hadrosaurus foulkii + Edmontosaurus regalis + Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei) (Prieto-Márquez, 2010)
= Hadrosauridae sensu Forster, 1997
Definition- (Hadrosaurus foulkii + Lambeosaurus lambei)
= Hadrosauridae sensu Prieto-Márquez, 2010
Definition- (Hadrosaurus foulkii + Edmontosaurus regalis + Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei)
References- Cope, 1869. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America. Part I. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series. 14, 1-104.
Forster, 1997. Phylogeny of the Iguanodontia and Hadrosauridae. Journal of Vertebrate paleontology. 17(3), 47A.
Horner, Weishampel and Forster, 2004. Hadrosauridae. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 438-463.
Prieto-Márquez, 2010. Global phylogeny of Hadrosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) using parsimony and Bayesian methods. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 159, 435-502.
Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020 (online 2019). Osteology, phylogenetic affinities and taxonomic status of the enigmatic late Maastrichtian ornithopod taxon Orthomerus dolloi (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Cretaceous Research. 108, 104334.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

unnamed probable hadrosaurid (Standhardt, 1986)
Late Campanian, Late Cretaceous
Upper Aguja Formation, Texas, US
Material-
(LSUMG V-1226) incomplete femur
Comments- Standhardt (1986) described this as Carnosauria incertae sedis, but it is more likely hadrosaurid based on the lack of an ectocondylar tuber.
Reference- Standhardt, 1986. Vertebrate paleontology of the Cretaceous/Tertiary transition of Big Bend National Park, Texas. PhD thesis, Louisiana State University. 298 pp.

unnamed Hadrosauridae (Alifanov and Bolotsky, 2010a)
Late Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
Udurchukan Formation of the Tsagayan Group, Russia
Material
- (AEHM 2/419; paratype of Arkharavia heterocoelica) caudal vertebra (80 mm)
(AEHM 2/420; paratype of Arkharavia heterocoelica) caudal vertebra (85 mm)
(AEHM 2/720; paratype of Arkharavia heterocoelica) proximal caudal vertebra (80 mm)
(AEHM 2/997; paratype of Arkharavia heterocoelica) proximal caudal vertebra (93 mm)
Comments- These were referred to Alifanov and Bolotsky's (2010a, b) new supposed titanosauriform Arkharavia, but, Godefroit et al. (2012) stated the type vertebrae were likely hadrosaurid instead. Mannion et al. (2013) confirmed paratype AEHM 2/720 is hadrosaurid based on neural spine anatomy, and this would also hold true for the figured paratype AEHM 2/997. Another paratype (AEHM 2/420) is said to have the same kind of neural spine, so may also be hadrosaurid, but the final one (AEHM 2/419) is neither figured nor remarked upon, so we have no information to judge it from. Several hadrosaurid taxa are known from the Udurchukan Formation (Amurosaurus, Kerberosaurus, Olorotitan) and the correlated Yuliangze Formation (Charonosaurus, Mandschurosaurus, Sahaliyania, Wulagasaurus), but only a few of these have associated caudals, and none have been distinguished using caudal characters.
References- Alifanov and Bolotsky, 2010a. Arkharavia heterocoelica gen. et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of far earstern Russia. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal. 2010(1), 76-83.
Alifanov and Bolotsky, 2010b. Arkharavia heterocoelica gen. et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of the far East of Russia. Paleontological Journal. 44(1), 84-91.
Godefroit, Bolotsky and Bolotsky, 2012. Osteology and relationships of Olorotitan arharensis, a hollow-crested hadrosaurid dinosaur from the latest Cretaceous of far eastern Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 57(3), 527-560.
Mannion, Upchurch, Barnes and Mateus, 2013. Osteology of the Late Jurassic Portuguese sauropod dinosaur Lusotitan atalaiensis (Macronaria) and the evolutionary history of basal titanosauriforms. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 168(1), 98-206.

Euhadrosauria Weishampel, Norman and Grigorescu, 1993
Official Definition- (Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei, <- Hadrosaurus foulkii) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 611)
Other definitions-
(Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei) (Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020)
= Saurolophidae Brown, 1914 vide Prieto-Marquez, 2010
Definition- (Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei) (Prieto-Marquez, 2010)
= Euhadrosauria sensu Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020
Definition- (Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei)
References- Brown, 1914. Corythosaurus casuarius, a new crested dinosaur from the Belly River Cretaceous, with provisional classification of the family Trachodontidae. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin. 33, 559-565.
Weishampel, Norman and Grigorescu, 1993. Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus from the late Cretaceous of Romania: the most basal hadrosaurid dinosaur. Palaeontology. 36, 361-385.
Prieto-Márquez, 2010. Global phylogeny of Hadrosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) using parsimony and Bayesian methods. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 159, 435-502.
Madzia, Jagt and Mulder, 2020 (online 2019). Osteology, phylogenetic affinities and taxonomic status of the enigmatic late Maastrichtian ornithopod taxon Orthomerus dolloi (Dinosauria, Ornithischia). Cretaceous Research. 108, 104334.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Heterodontosauridae sensu Sereno, 19i98
Definition-
(Heterodontosaurus tucki <- Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified)
Marginocephalia sensu Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019
Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus <- Parasaurolophus walkeri)

Marginocephalia Sereno, 1986
Official Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Ceratops montanus + Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018; Registration Number 633)
Other definitions- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Ceratops montanus) (modified from Currie and Padian, 1997)
(Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Triceratops horridus) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Sereno, online 2005)
(Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus <- Parasaurolophus walkeri) (Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019)
= Marginocephalia sensu Currie and Padian, 1997
Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Ceratops montanus) (modified)
= Marginocephalia sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis + Triceratops horridus) (modified)
References- Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Currie and Padian, 1997. Cerapoda. In Currie and Padian (eds.). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press. 105.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Boyd and Mazuch, 2018 (online 2017). A basal ornithopod dinosaur from the Cenomanian of the Czech Republic. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 16, 967-979.
Herne, Nair, Evans and Tait, 2019. New small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Neornithischia) from the Early Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation (Strzelecki Group) of the Australian-Antarctic rift system, with revision of Qantassaurus intrepidus Rich and Vickers-Rich, 1999. Journal of Paleontology. 93, 543-584.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Pachycephalosauria Maryanska and Osmólska, 1974
Official Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis <- Ceratops montanus, Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 642)
Other definitions- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis <- Triceratops horridus) (modified from Sereno, 1998; Maryanska, Chapman and Weishampel, 2004)
(Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Hypsilophodon foxii, Heterodontosaurus tucki, Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Pachycephalosauria sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis <- Triceratops horridus) (modified)
References- Maryanska and Osmólska, 1974. Pachycephalosauria, a new suborder of ornithischian dinosaurs. Palaeontologia Polonica. 30, 45-102.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Maryanska, Chapman and Weishampel, 2004. Pachycephalosauria. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmólska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 464-477.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Heterodontosauridae Kuhn, 1966 or Romer, 1966
Official Definition- (Heterodontosaurus tucki <- Stegosaurus stenops, Iguanodon bernissartensis, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021; Registration Number 622)
Other definitions-
(Heterodontosaurus tucki <- Parasaurolophus walkeri) (modified from Sereno, 1998)
(Heterodontosaurus tucki <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Parasaurolophus walkeri, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
= Heterodontosauria Cooper, 1985
= "Xiphosauridae" Sereno, 1986
= Heterodontosauridae sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Heterodontosaurus tucki <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Parasaurolophus walkeri, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, Triceratops horridus)
Comments- Sereno (2012) noted "Kuhn (1966) is identified as the author of the taxon Heterodontosauridae, although Romer (1966) independently proposed the same taxon in the same year (synchronous publication noted by Kuhn 1967: 77, 122). ... Establishing priority by publication date in this case is no longer possible", thus both authorships are listed here.
Sereno (1986) proposed Xiphosauridae as a family within Heterodontosauria including Heterodontosaurus, Lanasaurus and Lycorhinus to the exclusion of Abrictosaurus.  However, 'Xiphosaurus' is not a named genus (although sometimes a misspelling of the dactyloid lizard Xiphosurus) and thus cannot have a family named after it (ICZN Article 35.3). 
References- Kuhn, 1966. Die reptilien. Verlag Oeben. 154 pp.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press. 468 pp.
Kuhn, 1967. Amphibien und Reptilien. Gustav Fischer Verlag. 124 pp.
Cooper, 1985. A revision of the ornithischian dinosaur Kangnasaurus coetzeei Haughton, with a classification of the Ornithischia. Annals of the South African Museum. 95, 281-317.
Sereno, 1986. Phylogeny of the bird-hipped dinosaurs. National Geographic Research. 2, 234-256.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Sereno, 2012. Taxonomy, morphology, masticatory function and phylogeny of heterodontosaurid dinosaurs. ZooKeys. 226, 1-225.
Madzia, Arbour, Boyd, Farke, Cruzado-Caballero and Evans, 2021. The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs. PeerJ. 9:e12362.

Fruitadens Butler, Galton, Porro, Chiappe, Henderson and Erickson, 2010
= "Fruitadens" Butler, Galton, Porro, Chiappe, Henderson and Erickson, 2009
F. haagarorum Butler, Galton, Porro, Chiappe, Henderson and Erickson, 2010
= "Fruitadens haagarorum" Butler, Galton, Porro, Chiappe, Henderson and Erickson, 2009
Early Tithonian, Late Jurassic
Brushy Basin Member, Morrison Formation, Colorado, US
Holotype- (LACM 115747) (adult) partial and fragmentary maxillae, incomplete and fragmentary dentaries, incomplete anterior cervical vertebra (8 mm), partial seventh/eighth cervical vertebra (7.5 mm), incomplete anterior dorsal vertebra (7.7 mm), two anterior dorsal centra (7.5, 8 mm), dorsal vertebra (9 mm), two posterior dorsal centra (9.3, 10 mm), six partial sacral vertebrae (10.1, 9.1, 8, 8, 7.9, 8.1 mm), first caudal vertebra (8 mm), five incomplete proximal caudal vertebrae (8.5, 10 mm), three distal caudal vertebrae (10.5, 12, ~11.5 mm), vertebral fragments, proximal femur, partial tibiae (10.6 mm trans), partial metatarsal, long bone fragments
Paratypes- (LACM 115727) (adult) partial femora, partial tibiae (11.3 mm trans distally), astragalocalcaneum (11.3 mm trans), fragments
(LACM 120478) (juvenile) humerus (36.7 mm), incomplete femur, tibia (71.8 mm, 8.6 mm trans distally), fibula (61 mm), astragalocalcaneum (9.1 mm trans)
(LACM 128258) (juvenile) incomplete premaxilla, partial maxilla, partial dentaries, incomplete mid-posterior dorsal vertebra (6.3 mm), distal caudal vertebra (6.5 mm)
Referred- (LACM 120602) distal caudal vertebra (9 mm), astragalocalcaneum, metatarsals I (one incomplete; 26.5 mm), phalanx I-1 (12 mm), incomplete metatarsal II/III/IV, phalanx III-1 (13 mm), pedal phalanx (8 mm) (Butler et al., 2012)
(LACM 128303) anterior dentary (Butler et al., 2012)
Diagnosis- (after Butler et al., 2009) premaxillary crowns small and subequal in size, expanded labiolingually and mesiodistally above root; maxillary caniniform absent; maxillary/dentary crowns low and triangular, with symmetrically distributed enamel; denticles extend over half of maxillary/dentary crowns, not restricted to apical third; dentary caniniform present but apicobasal height does not exceed that of largest dentary cheek tooth crown; small, unserrated, peg-like and procumbent tooth present anterior to dentary caniniform; distal end of tibia with anteromedial flange; apex of ascending process of astragalus is formed by separate ossification; two large foramina pierce anterior surface of ascending process of astragalus.
(after Butler et al., 2012) small foramen on anteroventral aspect of medial dentary, ventral to Meckelian groove and beneath dentary crowns 3 and 4.
Comments- The holotype was collected in August 1977, and LACM 115727 and 120478 in July/August of 1979.  Callison and Rasmussen (1980) called the holotype cf. Fabrosaurus but LACM 115727 and 120478 cf. Coelurosaurus sp..  As discussed under the Coelurosauria entry, a genus Coelurosaurus does not exist.  Glut (1982) mentioned "a tiny coelurosaur represented by at least four individuals", referencing a 38 mm long humerus and femur with a "very well-developed fourth trochanter", both referencing LACM 12048.  Glut also mentioned "a new fabrosaurid" represented by "a left maxilla fragment with a complete tooth, a mandible fragment, vertebrae and various limb fragments" which "more closely resembles Echinodon than Nanosaurus", referring to the holotype.  These were both given a citation of Callison pers. comm..  By 1984, Callison and Quimby were referring to both LACM 115727 and 120478 as fabrosaurids but do mention "a probable
coelurosaur (LACM 120503) from the Fruita" which is like LACM 120478 in that both are "fully grown and smaller than an adult chicken."  However, the LACM online database lists 120503 as being a scale, which wouldn't make sense in Callison and Quimby's statement or be identifiable as a coelurosaur.  Past this reference only ornithischian identifications are mentioned, generally comparing it to Echinodon which is now identified as a heterodontosaurid.  The official description was published on October 21 2009 by Butler et al., but not physically published until February 2010.  They recovered Fruitadens as a heterodontosaurid one node more derived than Echinodon, and publushed a detailed osteology in 2012.  "A distal femur of the crocodylomorph Macelognathus was previously included within LACM 115747, but has now been removed from this specimen" (Butler et al., 2012).  While Butler et al. (2009) originally stated LACM 115727 includes "fragmentary cervical, dorsal and caudal vertebrae", they later only described these as "bone fragments."  While Butler et al. (2009) identified the metatarsal preserved in the holotype as metatarsal I, Butler et al. (2012) say "the positional identification ... is uncertain." 
References- Callison and Rasmussen, 1980. Faunal list. Fruita Paleontological Area, S 1/2 Sec. 13, N 1/2 Sec. 24, T. 1N., R. 3W., Ute P.M., Mesa County, Colorado. Late Jurassic, Morrison Formation. In Armstrong and Kihm (eds.). An Evaluation of the Fossil Vertebrate Resources of the Glade Park and Mount Garfield Planning Areas, Grand Junction District of the Bureau of Land Management, Western Colorado. 142-156.
Glut, 1982. The New Dinosaur Dictionary. Citadel Press. 288 pp.
Callison and Quimby, 1984. Tiny dinosaurs: Are they fully grown? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 3(4), 200-209.
Butler, Galton, Porro, Chiappe, Henderson and Erickson, 2009 (physically published 2010). Lower limits of ornithischian dinosaur body size inferred from a diminutive new Upper Jurassic heterodontosaurid from North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 277(1680), 375-381.
Butler, Porro, Galton and Chiappe, 2012. Anatomy and cranial functional morphology of the small-bodied dinosaur Fruitadens haagarorum from the Upper Jurassic of the USA. PLoS ONE. 7(4), e31556.

Pachycephalosauria sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis <- Ankylosaurus magniventris, Hypsilophodon foxii, Heterodontosaurus tucki, Triceratops horridus)

Saurischia Seeley, 1888
Official Definition- (Allosaurus fragilis, Camarasaurus supremus <- Stegosaurus stenops) (Gauthier, Langer, Novas, Bittencourt and Ezcurra, 2020; Registration Number 195)
Other definitions- (Passer domesticus <- Triceratops horridus) (modified from Padian, 1997; modified from Gauthier, 1986)
(Allosaurus fragilis <- Stegosaurus armatus) (modified from Kischlat, 2000)
(Megalosaurus bucklandii, Plateosaurus engelhardti <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004)
(Tyrannosaurus rex <- Triceratops horridus) (modified from Holtz and Osmolska, 2004)
(Passer domesticus, Saltasaurus loricatus <- Triceratops horridus) (Sereno, online 2005)
(Diplodocus carnegii <- Triceratops horridus) (Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017)
(Allosaurus fragilis, Diplodocus longus <- Iguanodon bernissartensis) (Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018)
= Opisthocoelia Owen, 1860
= Pachypodosauria Huene, 1914
= Saurischia sensu Gauthier, 1986
Definition- (Passer domesticus <- Triceratops horridus) (modified)
= Saurischia sensu Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004
Definition- (Megalosaurus bucklandii, Plateosaurus engelhardti <- Iguanodon bernissartensis)
= Saurischia sensu Holtz and Osmolska, 2004
Definition- (Tyrannosaurus rex <- Triceratops horridus)
= Saurischia sensu Sereno, online 2005
Definition- (Passer domesticus, Saltasaurus loricatus <- Triceratops horridus)
= Saurischia sensu Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017
Definition- (Diplodocus carnegii <- Triceratops horridus)
= Saurischia sensu Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018
Definition- (Allosaurus fragilis, Diplodocus longus <- Iguanodon bernissartensis)
Comments- The most common early definition included birds as a specifier, but birds were not originally viewed as saurischians. Indeed, they were not accepted as such until the 1980's. Thus, a definition not necessitating their inclusion is preferred. Kischlat's definition uses taxa which Seeley used to exemplify Saurischia and Ornithischia, different than Clarke et al.'s definition using taxa with historical priority and Holtz and Osmolska's less objective choices. Clarke et al.'s and Sereno's definitions do have the advantage of ensuring both sauropodomorphs and theropods are included however.  Gauthier et al.'s (2020) final definition in Phylonyms combines Kischlat's philosophy for specifiers with the addition of a sauropodomorph.
Owen (1860) named Opisthocoelia for a crocodylian group containing "Cetiosaurus" medius, Pelorosaurus and Streptospondylus. Huene (1914) erected Pachypodosauria for carnosaurs and sauropodomorphs, to the exclusion of coelurosaurs.
References- Owen, 1860. Palaeontology, or a Systematic Summary of Extinct Animals and their Geological Relations. Second Edition. Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. 463 pp.
Seeley, 1888. On the classification of the fossil animals commonly named Dinosauria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 43, 165-171.
Huene, 1914. Beiträge zur geschichte der Archosaurier [Contribution to the history of the archosaurs]. Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen. 13(7), 1-56.
Gauthier, 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the Californian Academy of Sciences. 8, 1-55.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Clarke, Gauthier, de Queiroz, Joyce, Parham and Rowe, 2004. A phylogenetic nomenclature for the major clades of Amniota Haeckel 1866, with emphasis on Aves Linnaeus 1758. First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, Abstracts. 30.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution. Nature. 543(7646), 501-506.
Dal Sasso, Maganuco and Cau, 2018. The oldest ceratosaurian (Dinosauria: Theropoda), from the Lower Jurassic of Italy, sheds light on the evolution of the three-fingered hand of birds. PeerJ. 6:e5976.
Gauthier, Langer, Novas, Bittencourt and Ezcurra, 2020. Saurischia H. G. Seeley 1888 [J. A. Gauthier, M. C. Langer, F. E. Novas, J. Bittencourt, and M. D. Ezcurra], converted clade name. In de Queiroz, Cantiono and Gauthier (eds.). Phylonyms: A Companion to the PhyloCode. Taylor & Francis Group. 1218-1223.

Saurischia incertae sedis

Alwalkeria Chatterjee and Creisler, 1993
= Walkeria Chatterjee, 1987
A. maleriensis (Chatterjee, 1987) Chatterjee and Creisler, 1993
= Walkeria maleriensis Chatterjee, 1987
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
Holotype
- (ISI R 306 in part) (?)dorsal vertebra (~20 mm), incomplete femur (122 mm), astragalus (25 mm wide, 13 mm tall)
Diagnosis- excavation of bases of dorsal neural arches; highly expanded femoral head; very prominant fourth trochanter.
Comments- Discovered in 1974 and originally referred to Podokesauridae (Chatterjee, 1987), Alwalkeria was later assigned to Herrerasauridae by Paul (1988) based on unspecified femoral similarities, who viewed it as a link between traditional herrerasaurids and Protoavis. This latter link was due to the unserrated teeth though, which are no longer thought to be part of the holotype. Novas (1989) found the astragalus exhibited characters suggesting it was a Herrerasaurus-grade dinosaur, outside Neotheropoda. Norman (1990) viewed it as a theropod with no particularily close ties to coelophysoids. Rauhut and Remes (2005) find Alwalkeria to be chimaerical, with the anterior skull referrable to a crurotarsan, perhaps an ornithosuchid. This agrees with Rauhut's (2003) comments that the long mandibular symphysis is present in members of Crurotarsi. The partial cervical vertebra is said to resemble prolacertiforms, while the dorsal centra are highly variable in size and lamina development, suggesting they may belong to multiple taxa. The femur and astragalus are dinosaurian however, with the latter possessing saurischian characters. Rauhut and Remes state the femur lacks characters of sauropodomorphs or neotheropods though, suggesting a herrerasaurid- or Eoraptor-grade saurischian.
References- Chatterjee, 1987. A new theropod dinosaur from India with remarks on the Gondwana-Laurasia connection in the Late Triassic. Geophysical Monograph. 41, 183-189.
Paul, 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York. A New York Academy of Sciences Book. 464 pp.
Norman, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Coelurosaurs". in Weishampel, et al. (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. p. 280-305.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Chatterjee and Creisler, 1994. Alwalkeria (Theropoda) and Morturneria (Plesiosauria), new names for preoccupied Walkeria Chatterjee, 1987 and Turneria Chatterjee and Small, 1989. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14(1), 142.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.
Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011. New dinosaur species from the Upper Triassic Upper Maleri and Lower Dharmaram Formations of central India. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 333-349.

Saurischia indet. (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (UCMP 139622; paratype of Camposaurus arizonensis) proximal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Kaye Quarry UWBM C2226 (= Jim Camp Wash beds), Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
?(DMNH 2018-05-01) sternal plate (77 mm) (Bradley, Nesbitt, Burch, Irmis, Smith and Turner, 2018)
(PEFO 42987; = UWBM 117640) distal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Comments- Discovered in June 1983, UCMP 139622 was described as Theropoda indet. by Long and Murry (1995), who figured it as Ceratosauria indet..  Note they used UCMP A269 as the specimen number, but that is the UCMP locality number for the Placerias Quarry.  While they compared the posteromedial ligament sulcus to coelophysids and Dilophosaurus, Irmis (2005) noted this is characteristic of saurischians in general and placed it in Saurischia indet.  Hunt et al. (1998) made this a paratype of their new ceratosaur (sensu lato) Camposaurus, "As there is no duplication of elements and all specimens are of comparable size the most parsimonius explanation is that they represent a single individual."  However, they also said its "association with the holotype cannot be absolutely demonstrated" and Irmis (2005) and Nesbitt et al. (2007) both call it isolated and the latter states its association with Camposaurus cannot be substantiated.  Nesbitt et al. and Marsh and Parker (2020) agree with the Saurischia indet. identification.  Hunt et al. use "femoral head more rectangular" from this specimen as an additional character diagnosing Camposaurus from "Syntarsus" and Coelophysis (probably silesaur AMNH 2704), and while this is true (compared to actual Coelophysis bauri as well) it is also seen in other saurischians such as Chindesaurus and Alwalkeria.  "Note when Hunt et al. wrote the specimen was still uncatalogued at the UCMP, but it was catalogued as UCMP 139622 by 2002 (Angielczyk, 2002), and this has been mistyped as UCMP 139662 by some authors (Irmis, 2005; Marsh and Parker, 2020, who mistakenly call it a distal femur).  UCMP 139662 is actually a crocodylomorph sacral centrum (UCMP online catalogue). 
DMNH 2018-05-01 was first announced as "similar in morphology [to Tawa], but with several subtle differences (such as its proportionally greater width, tapered posterior margin, and the position of comparable ridges on the ventral and dorsal surfaces) that preclude a taxonomic referral at this time."  It was later described by Bradley et al. (2020) as ?Theropoda based on its resemblence to Tawa, but given that genus' uncertain phylogenetic placement and poor preservation of sterna among basal dinosaurs, DMNH 2018-05-01 is referred to ?Saurischia here.
Marsh and Parker (2020) figured femur PEFO 42987 and placed it in Saurischia based on the distal groove running posterolaterally into an obtuse angle between the lateral condyle and ectocondylar tuber.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Bradley, Nesbitt, Burch, Irmis, Smith and Turner, 2018. Sternal elements of the early dinosaur Tawa hallae fill a critical gap in the evolution of the sternum in Avemetatarsalia (Reptilia: Archosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts, 95.
Bradley, Burch, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2020 (as 2019). Sternal elements of early dinosaurs fill a critical gap in the evolution of the sternum in Avemetatarsalia (Reptilia: Archosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(5), e1700992.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

unnamed Saurischia (Long and Murray, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Flattops W PFV 071 UCMP V82259, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (PEFO 21660; = UCMP 126751) distal femur (Long and Murry, 1995)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Clambake Amphitheater PFV 184, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(PEFO 34562) distal femur (Parker and Martz, 2010)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(PEFO 33956) distal femur (Nesbitt, 2007)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Black Knoll E PFV 451, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(PEFO 44469) distal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Puerco Ridge N PFV 453, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(PEFO 44470) distal pubis (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Dead Wash NW2 PFV 492, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

(PEFO 44474) distal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Comments- Discovered in 1982, Long and Murry (1995) referred UCMP 126751 to Chatterjeea (= Shuvosaurus) without comment.  Parker and Irmis (2005) figured it and referred it to Dinosauria indet. instead because in distal view the lateral angle between the lateral condyle and ectocondylar tuber is obtuse.  Parker and Martz (2010) referred to it as a theropod.  Marsh and Parker (2020) figured it in a different view and placed it in Saurischia based on the distal groove running posterolaterally into the angle noted above. 
Nesbitt (2007) listed femur PEFO 33956 as belonging to his Group Y, later called shuvosaurids.  Marsh and Parker (2020) figured it and assigned it to Saurischia based on the same characters noted above for UCMP 126751.
Parker and Martz (2010) reported "The distal end of a large dinosauriform femur (PFV 184; PEFO 34562) was collected approximately from the Black Forest Bed horizon by Michael Parrish in 1988 (PEFO unpublished data)."  Under the stratigraphic system of Marsh and Parker (2020), the Black Forest Bed is part of the Petrified Forest Member, and the specified its identity to Saurischia based on the same characters noted above for UCMP 126751. 
Marsh and Parker (2020) referred PEFO 44470 to Theropoda "owing to the presence of a posteriorly-straight and relatively short pubic boot" which would make it either a herrerasaurid or relative of Tawa.  Similarly, they referred distal femur PEFO 44474 to Saurischia and stated "the crista tibiofibularis and lateral condyle are not well separated from one another" as in the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade, but that is also found in e.g. Buriolestes and Staurikosaurus.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Nesbitt, 2007. The anatomy of Effigia okeeffeae (Archosauria, Suchia), theropod-like convergence, and the distribution of related taxa. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 302, 84 pp.
Parker and Martz, 2010. 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(3-4), 231-260.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

Saurischia indet. (Long and Murry, 1995)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
NMMNH L-2741, Wallace Ranch Member, Redonda Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material
- (NMMNH P-22494) proximal ischium
Comments- NMMNH P-22494 was supposedly originally referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995) in their description of the taxon as a herrerasaurid, but removed by Hunt et al. (1998) and assigned to Herrerasauridae indet.. However, this is not listed as a referred Chindesaurus specimen in the former paper.  The NMMNH online catalogue indicates it is a proximal ischium discovered on February 13 1995, which allows us to correlate it with a specimen mentioned by Hunt et al. (1997) in an abstract.  There they state it "consists of a partial ischium from the uppermost portion of the Redonda Formation -above the massive yellow sandstone bench that is present in the fluvial interval of the Redonda Formation in eastern Quay County", and that it and another Redonda specimen "represent theropods more derived than Herrerasauridae with hip heights of about 1 m. Neither specimen is generically determinate and both may represent the same taxon."  Given the different published interpretations and undescribed ischial morphology of the Chindesaurus+Tawa clade, this is placed as Saurischia indet. here.  This may be the record of Theropoda listed from Locality 2741 in Spielmann et al. (2006).
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, Huber, Reid, Frost, Cotton and Cotton, 1997. Theropod dinosaurs from the latest Triassic Redonda Formation of east-central New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society Annual Spring Meeting. 56.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Spielmann, Lucas and Hunt, 2006. The vertebrate macrofauna of the Upper Triassic (Apachean) Redonda Formation, east-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin. 37, 502-509.

unnamed saurischian (Stocker, 2013)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material
- (TMM 31100-545) femur
....(TMM 31100-1324) tibia
Comments- Stocker (2013) described these as a new taxon of Tawa-grade theropod based on the symmetrical fourth trochanter, flat proximal tibial surface, and lack of a ridge on the posterodistal tibia. Nesbitt and Ezcurra (2015) found they are not referrable to Lepidus from the same deposits, and stated "other isolated limb bones" were referred to the taxon by Stocker, but only the femur and tibia are mentioned in that thesis.
References- Stocker, 2013. Contextualizing vertebrate faunal dynamics: New perspectives from the Triassic and Eocene of western North America. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 297 pp.
Nesbitt and Ezcurra, 2015. The early fossil record of dinosaurs in North America: A new neotheropod from the base of the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60(3), 513-526.

unnamed saurischian (Sarıgül, 2018)
Early Norian, Late Triassic

Boren Quarry MOTT 3869, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (TTU-P10514) incomplete dentary
....(TTU-P10515) incomplete dentary
Comments
- These specimens were collected in 2003 and described by Sarıgül (2018) as Saurischia gen. et sp. indet..  Based on the characters discussed (enlarged serrations, first dentary tooth not inset, no dorsoventral expansion anteriorly), it seems most similar to Pampadromeus.
Reference
- Sarıgül, 2018 (online 2017). New archosauromorph fragments from the Dockum Group of Texas and assessment of the earliest dinosaurs in North America. Historical Biology. 30(8), 1059-1075.

unnamed Saurischia (Lehane, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Lot Kirkpatrick MOTT 3634, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Material- (TTU-P10072) several dorsal vertebral fragments, several mid and distal caudal vertebrae, chevron fragments, ilial fragments, proximal pubis, proximal femur, distal tibia, incomplete astragalus (Lehane, 2005)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic

Macy Ranch MOTT 3927, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (TTU-P12587X) proximal femur (Sarıgül, 2014)
Comments- While originally identified as Shuvosaurus (Lehane, 2005) or Coelophysis (Lehman and Chatterjee, 2008), TTU-P10072 was described as a new taxon of theropod closer to Neotheropoda than Herrerasaurus or Eoraptor by Nesbitt and Chatterjee (2008). As the latter placement was based on the highly miscoded Smith et al. matrix with very few non-neotheropod OTUs, I added it to an expanded version of Nesbitt's archosauriform matrix and found it to most parsimoniously be a saturnaliine sauropodomorph, but can move in a position equivalent to what Nesbitt and Chatterjee found (sister to Tawa) with one more step, and into Coelophysoidea with two more steps. Because of this, it is here placed as Saurischia incertae sedis pending further analysis.
Discovered in the 2000s, TTU-P12587X was described as Theropoda indet. by Sarigül (2017).  This is because "The anteromedial tuber is well developed and expanded medially as in Tawa and neotheropods."  He states it "differs from TTU-P10072 by the smaller size and in lacking a longitudinal groove on the proximal surface."
References- Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005. Depositional setting and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Journal of Earth System Science. 114(3), 325-351.
Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008. Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Post Quarry and surrounding areas, west Texas, U.S.A. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Abhandlungen. 249(2), 143-156.
Sarigül, 2014. Anatomy of the Late Triassic dinosauromorphs from the Dockum Group of Texas: Their biostratigraphic, paleobiogeographic and evolutionary significance. PhD thesis. Texas Tech University. 300 pp.
Sarigül, 2017. New theropod fossils from the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, USA, and a brief overview of the Dockum theropod diversity. PaleoBios. 34, 1-18.

unnamed saurischian (Galton, 1985)
Norian, Late Triassic
Lowenstein Formation, Germany
Material
- (SMNS 51958) proximal femur
Comments- Galton (1985) referred this specimen to the same unnamed family as Aliwalia, within Herrerasauria. This was followed by Paul (1988), who placed both in Herrerasauridae. However, Yates (2006) noted Aliwalia is a junior synonym of Eucnemesaurus, which is a sauropodomorph and differs from SMNS 51958 in several respects. Namely, the latter has a more proximally placed fourth trochanter which lacks a rounded profile and notched distal end. Also, the anterior trochanter does not form a proximodistally elongate ridge, unlike sauropodomorphs more derived than Saturnalia. The lack of a proximal notch separating the anterior trochanter and femoral shaft is unlike ornithischians, and most neotheropods except robust coelophysoids and robust ceratosaurs. The symmetrical fourth trochanter is unlike sauropodomorphs, Herrerasaurus and Eoraptor. The markedly inturned femoral head indicates SMNS 51958 is a dinosaur, more derived than Silesaurus or Lewisuchus.
References- Galton, 1985. The poposaurid thecodontian Teratosaurus suevicus v. Meyer, plus referred specimens mostly based on prosauropod dinosaurs, from the Middle Stubensandstein (Upper Triassic) of Nordwurttemberg. Stuttgart Beitrage zur Naturkunde (B). 116, 1-29.
Paul, 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York. A New York Academy of Sciences Book. 464 pp.
Yates, 2007. Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology. 19(1), 93-123.

unnamed Saurischia (Huene, 1940)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Lower Maleri Formation, India
Material
- (ISI K 33/608a) distal femur
(ISI K 33/621a) proximal tibia
Comments- Huene (1940) described ISI K 33/608a as "a Coelurosaurian, and would probably best fit into the family Podokesauridae", based on being from the same locality as dorsal vertebra ISI K 33/606b which was supposedly similar in size, but Ezcurra (2012) calculated the femur was too large to belong to the same individual as the vertebra.  Colbert (1958) concurred, stating it "is remarkably similar to the lower end of the femur in small Coelophysis" in having thin walls, being "somewhat convex along its front border and [having] two prominent distal condyles."  Ezcurra (2012) more recently concluded that it is "almost identical to that observed in basal saurischian dinosaurs (e.g. tibial condyle with a square outline, rounded fibular condyle, concave lateral margin of the tibiofibular crest)" but is proportionally wider than Silesaurus in distal view and "lacks neotheropod features, such as a mediodistal crest or an infrapopliteal ridge."  He referred it to cf. Saurischia, noting it differs from Alwalkeria in the lack of an extensor fossa.
Huene (1940) stated ISI 33/621a "is probably also from a Coelurosaurian, but from an animal about twice the size of" ISI K 33/608a "and therefore probably belongs to at least a different species."  Colbert (1958) noted the variation in AMNH Coelophysis material size and so wrote "it is more likely that we see here an indication of variability in size within a single species."  Ezcurra (2012) found it to be dinosaurian based on the laterally curved cnemial crest and based on differences from ornithischians (in which "the cnemial crest is very well developed, the lateral condyle is considerably more projected posteriorly than the medial condyle and both condyles are separated by a deep posterior notch") referred it to Saurischia. 
References- Huene, 1940. The tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic Maleri beds. Palaeontologica Indica, new series. 1, 1-42.
Colbert, 1958. Relationships of the Triassic Maleri fauna. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India. 3, 68-81.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.

unnamed Saurischia (Raath, Oesterlen and Kitching, 1992)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Dande Communal Lands, Pebbly Arkose Formation, Zimbabwe
Material
- (Z 53/3(7)) (adult?) proximal femur (Raath, Oesterlen and Kitching, 1992)
Late Norian-Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
The Dock, Pebbly Arkose Formation, Zimbabwe

(NHMZ 2518) manual phalanx (Sciscio, Viglietti, Barrett, Broderick, Munyikwa, Chapelle, Dollman, Edwards, Zondo and Choiniere, 2021)
Comments- Discovered in May 1990, Raath et al. (1992) reported this as a "fragment of dinosaurian femur from the same site as rhynchosaur specimen Z 53/3. On the basis of fourth trochanter morphology, this femur seems to belong to a prosauropod."  Raath (1996) figured the specimen better, saying it "bears the characteristic crest-like fourth trochanter of a prosauropod dinosaur", and stating that "Lathough it is small compared to most of the known southern African prosauropods ... the specimen is taken to be an adult based on the degree of opssification of scars of minor surface features."  Langer et al. (1999) stated its morphology "is almost indistinguishable from that of Saturnalia, and it would not be surprising if they belonged to the same taxon."  Langer (2001) elaborated, believing the trochanteric shelf and semi-pendant fourth trochanter to be found in only Saturnalia and Herrerasaurus, but referred it to the former based on size and the presence of a nutrient foramen. Langer nonsensically describes this foramen as "caudal to the fourth trochanter" in both, but Raath illustrates and describes the foramen to be opposite the fourth trochanter on the anterior surface in the Zimbabwean specimen, while Langer shows the foramen in Saturnalia to be just lateral to the distal edge of the fourth trochanter. Thus they are in different positions. Most recently, Ezcurra (2012) stated it could only be identified as an indeterminate saurischian, saying it not only fell into the morphological range of Saturnalia and Herrerasaurus, but also Staurikosaurus. However, the latter differs in lacking a trochanteric shelf. Since Langer (2001), other basal saurischians have been described with the same combination of features- Sanjuansaurus, Pampadromaeus, Alwalkeria and Eoraptor. The latter three are all similar in size and at least Eoraptor seems to have the anteriorly placed nutrient foramen (PVSJ 559). Ezcurra's position is thus followed and the Zimbabwean femur is referred to Saurischia indet..  Notably, Griifin et al. (2018) reported an incomplete sauropodomorph skeleton from the same formation whose "postcranial skeleton is strikingly similar to that of Saturnalia", suggesting Langer's idea may have been correct after all.
Sciscio et al. (2021) mention and figure NHMZ 2518 as "a possible theropod dinosaur phalanx", but given the uncertain placement of e.g. herrerasaurids this is retained as Saurischia here.
References- Raath, Oesterlen and Kitching, 1992. First record of Triassic Rhynchosauria (Reptilia: Diapsida) from the lower Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Palaeontologia Africana. 29, 1-10.
Raath, 1996. Earliest evidence of dinosaurs from central Gondwana. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 39, 703-709.
Langer, Abdala, Richter and Benton, 1999. A sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Upper Triassic (Carnian) of southern Brazil. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des Planetes. 329, 511-517.
Langer, 2001. Saturnalia tupiniquim and the early evolution of dinosaurs. PhD thesis, University of Bristol. 371 pp.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.
Griffin, Munyikwa, Broderick, Tolan, Zondo, Nesbitt and Taruvinga, 2018. An exceptional new Late Triassic (Carnian) fossil assemblage from Zimbabwe and the biogeography of the early dinosaurs across Pangea. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2018, 137.
Sciscio, Viglietti, Barrett, Broderick, Munyikwa, Chapelle, Dollman, Edwards, Zondo and Choiniere, 2021 (online 2020). Sedimentology and palaeontology of the Upper Karoo Group in the Mid-Zambezi Basin, Zimbabwe: New localities and their implications for interbasinal correlation. Geological Magazine. 158(6), 1035-1058.

undescribed possible saurischian (Reig, 1963)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Material- (PVL 2469) tibia (440 mm)
Comments- This was stated to perhaps belong to a new genus of saurischian by Reig (1963), as it did not match Herrerasaurus in morphology. As several additional taxa have since been named from that formation (e.g. Panphagia, Eoraptor, Sanjuansaurus), it may belong to one of those.
Reference- Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estratos de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico Superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (República Argentina) [The presence of saurischian dinosaurs in the "Ischigualasto beds" (upper Middle Triassic) of San Juan and La Rioja Provinces (Argentine Republic)]. Ameghiniana. 3, 3-20.

undescribed saurischian (Novas, Haro and Canale, 2003)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Material- basicranium, cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebrae, sacral vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, fragmentary ilia, fragmentary ischia, fragmentary femur, tibia, fibula, metatarsals
Comments- This taxon is said to have a prominent and pointed mid and posterior cervical epipophyses, no presacral pleurocoels, dorsal hyposphenes-hypantra, wing-like postacetabular process, deep brevis fossa, prominent and conical anterior trochanter, no trochanteric shelf, globose distal femoral articular surface and deep tibiofibularis groove. Novas et al. assigned it to a theropod more derived than herrerasaurids and Eoraptor but outside Neotheropoda. Though the subsequently described Eodromaeus has this position and is from the same formation, it differs from the new taxon in having cervical pleurocoels and a trochanteric shelf.
Reference- Novas, Haro and Canale, 2003. Un nuevo terópodo basal de la Formación Ischigualasto (Carniano) de la provincia de San Juan, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 40(4), 63R.

unnamed saurischian (Bonaparte, 1960)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Los Colorados Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Holotype- (PVL 2264; paratype of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis) (~118 kg) incomplete femur
Comments- Found in June 1960, PVL 2264 was originally illustrated and described by Bonaparte (1960) as an ornithosuchid.  It was then listed by Reig (1963) as a paratype of Herrerasaurus, and by Novas (1993) as Archosauria indet., both without comment.  Ezcurra figured and redescribed it as Theropoda indet. based on the symmetrical crest-like fourth trochanter, more like Eodromaeus, Tawa and neotheropods than herrerasaurids. 
References- Bonaparte, 1960. Noticia sobre la presencia de restos fosiles de tetrápodos triásicos en los Estratos de Los Colorados (prov. de San Juan). Acta Geológica Lilloana. 3, 181-186.
Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estratos de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico Superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (República Argentina). Ameghiniana. 3, 3-20.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Ezcurra, 2017. A new early coelophysoid neotheropod from the Late Triassic of northwestern Argentina. Ameghiniana. 54, 506-538.

unnamed possible saurischian (Bonaparte, 1971)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Los Colorados Formation, La Rioja, Argentina
Holotype- (PVL 3848 in part) three incomplete cervical vertebrae (~14 mm)
Comments- This was included by Bonaparte (1971) as part of his Coelurosauria indet., but Ezcurra (2017) described the rest of the specimen as the coelophysoid Powellvenator and stated "these vertebrae are smaller than expected for a single individual in comparison with the hindlimb bones and they do not show neotheropod apomorphies (e.g., pleurocoels).  As a result, these three articulated cervical vertebrae were tentatively excluded from PVL 3848."  They are placed here tentatively as Saurischia indet. based on their elongation.
References-
Bonaparte, 1971. Los tetrapodos del sector superior de la Formacion Los Colorados, La Rioja, Argentina. (Triásico Superior) I parte. Opera Lilloana. 22, 1-183.
Ezcurra, 2017. A new early coelophysoid neotheropod from the Late Triassic of northwestern Argentina. Ameghiniana. 54, 506-538.

unnamed saurischian (Ezcurra and Novas, 2007)
Late Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Upper Los Colorados Formation, La Rioja, Argentina

Material- (PULR coll.) partial ilium, proximal pubis
Comments- This was associated with the holotype of Zupaysaurus (Arcucci and Coria, 2003), but cannot be referred to that taxon due to several characters (ventrally projected articular facet of pubic peduncle; supraacetabular crest laterally projected and not extended over the ischial peduncle; supraacetabular crest well separated from the lateral magin of the brevis fossa; articular facet of the ischial peduncle reduced). Ezcurra and Novas (2007) considered it to be a non-neotheropod saurischian. The other material originally stated by Arcucci and Coria to be associated with but not referrable to Zupaysaurus (proximal scapulocoracoid, distal femora, proximal tibia) was later referred to that taxon by Ezcurra and Novas.
References- Arcucci and Coria, 2003. A new Triassic carnivorous dinosaur from Argentina. Ameghiniana. 40(2), 217-228.
Ezcurra and Novas, 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the Triassic theropod Zupaysaurus rougieri from NW Argentina. Historical Biology. 19(1), 35-72.

unnamed Saurischia (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
Buriol, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Material- (CAPPA/UFSM 0228) fused first and second primordial sacral vertebrae (17, 17.5 mm) (Moro, Kerber, Müller and Pretto, 2021)
(CAPPA/UFSM 0274) partial astragalus (Müller, 2020 online)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Janner Site, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

(CAPPA/UFSM 0270) ninth cervical centrum, tenth cervical vertebra, first dorsal vertebra, second dorsal vertebra, incomplete third dorsal vertebra, partial fourth dorsal centrum, posterior dorsal vertebra, posterior dorsal or proximal caudal centrum, femur (144 mm) (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
(CAPPA/UFSM 0272) incomplete femur (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
(UFRGS-PV-1232-T) first primordial sacral vertebra, second primordial sacral vertebra, ilium (83 mm) (Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020)
Comments- Müller (online 2020) described astragalus CAPPA/UFSM 0274) as a saurischian, noting the angled and poorly anteriorly extended anteromedial corner is most similar to Eodromaeus and Saturnalia.  While it was discovered at the same locality as Buriolestes, the holotype of the latter has a medially fragmented astraglus that cannot be compared.
Müller et al. (2020) referred fragmentary skeleton CAPPA/UFSM 0270 to Dinosauria, but it can also be specified to Saurischia based on the presence of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations and the non-silesaur femur.  Similarly, they only refer sacrum and ilium UFRGS-PV-1232-T to Dinosauria, but find the ilial proportions and postacetabular rugosities are most similar to Eoraptor and Buriolestes.  Femur CAPPA/UFSM 0272 was also only assigned to Dinosauria but has a symmetrical fourth trochanter only present in Tawa, Staurikosaurus and neotheropods. 
Moro et al. (2021) described sacrum CAPPA/UFSM 0228 as a saurischian, recovering it as a neotheropod in Cabreira et al.'s dinosauromorph analysis but noting the fusion of only the primordial sacrals is more similar to some plateosaurs (but also present in Liliensternus).  It was found five meters from the holotype of Buriolestes but differs in that a slightly larger specimen of Buriolestes lacks central fusion as in other basal sauropodomorphs.
References- Müller, Garcia and Pretto, 2020. Comments on additional dinosaur specimens from the Janner Site (Upper Triassic of the Paraná Basin), southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia. 23(3), 171-184.
Moro, Kerber, Müller and Pretto, 2021 (online 2020). Sacral co-ossification in dinosaurs: The oldest record of fused sacral vertebrae in Dinosauria and the diversity of sacral co-ossification patterns in the group. Journal of Anatomy. 238(4), 828-844.
Müller, 2020 online. Astragalar anatomy of an early dinosaur from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Historical Biology. Latest articles. DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2020.1814276

Herrerasauria Galton, 1985
Definition- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis <- Liliensternus liliensterni, Plateosaurus engelhardti) (modified from Langer, 2004)
= Staurikosauria Paul, 1988
= Herreravia Paul, 1988
= Herrerasauridae sensu Sereno, 1998
Definition- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis <- Passer domesticus) (modified)
Comments- Galton (1985) erected Herrerasauria to contain Staurikosaurus, Herrerasaurus and Aliwalia, within Theropoda. Paul (1988) later named Herreravia to contain Herrerasaurus, Frenguellisaurus, Aliwalia, Alwalkeria and possibly Protoavis. Both terms were seldomly used, as Herrerasauridae was soon defined to contain both Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus (Novas, 1992), making Herrerasauria redundant. Aliwalia is now known to be a junior synonym of the sauropodomorph Eucnemesaurus (Yates, 2007). Alwalkeria and Protoavis are both chimaeras whose theropod material seems more closely related to birds than Herrerasaurus (Remes and Rauhut, 2005; Nesbitt et al., 2007) and Frenguellisaurus is a synonym of Herrerasaurus itself (Novas, 1993). Langer (2004) recently reinstated Herrerasauria to include herrerasaurids and taxa more closely related to them than to sauropodomorphs and neotheropods. He suggested Chindesaurus may be a non-herrerasaurid herrerasaurian, but this has yet to be validated by a published phylogenetic analysis. In fact, that of Yates (2006) found Chindesaurus to be closer to Neotheropoda than Herrerasauridae. However, the unpublished analysis of Bittencourt and Kellner (2004) agrees with Langer. Hunt (1996) proposed Chindesaurus, Gojirasaurus (as "Revueltoraptor") and "Comanchesaurus" belonged to a herrerasaur clade separate from Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus, which would make them non-herrerasaurid herreravians under Langer's definition. The latter two taxa are now considered to be coelophysoids (Nesbitt et al., 2007). Novas et al. (2009) said ISI R282 resembles herrerasaurs, but Novas et al. (2011) later found it to emerge as a dinosaur outside Eoraptor+Chindesaurus+Tawa+Neotheropoda and Guaibasauridae+more derived sauropodomorphs when entered into Yates' sauropodomorph matrix.
References- Galton, 1985. The poposaurid thecodontian Teratosaurus suevicus v. Meyer, plus referred specimens mostly based on prosauropod dinosaurs, from the Middle Stubensandstein (Upper Triassic) of Nordwurttemberg. Stuttgart Beitrage zur Naturkunde (B). 116, 1-29.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Hunt, 1996. A new clade of herrerasaur-like theropods from the Late Triassic of western North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16(3), 43A.
Sereno, 1998. A rationale for phylogenetic definitions, with application to the higher-level taxonomy of Dinosauria. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen. 210(1), 41-83.
Bittencourt and Kellner, 2004. The phylogenetic position of Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 from the Triassic of Brazil. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24(3).
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska. The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 861 pp.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos.Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Yates, 2007. Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology. 19(1), 93-123.
Novas, Chatterjee, Ezcurra and Kutty, 2009. New dinosaur remains from the Late Triassic of Central India. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 29(3), 156A.
Novas, Ezcurra, Chatterjee and Kutty, 2011. New dinosaur species from the Upper Triassic Upper Maleri and Lower Dharmaram formations of Central India. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 101, 333-349.

Herrerasauridae Benedetto, 1973
= Staurikosauridae Galton, 1977
Definition- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis + Staurikosaurus pricei) (modified from Novas, 1992)
Other definitions- (Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis <- Passer domesticus) (Sereno, online 2005; modified from Sereno, 1998)
Diagnosis- (after Novas, 1992; Langer, 2004) shortened posterior dorsal centra (dorsals 13-15 with length 80% or less of height); posterior dorsal and first sacral vertebrae with robust, squared neural spines; sacral ribs very deep and cover nearly 90% of the ilium; vertical neural spines on proximal caudals; elongate distal caudal prezygopophyses; brevis shelf and fossa reduced; reduced anterior trochanter.
(after Ezcurra and Novas, 2007) distal carpal V enlarged.
Comments- After being referred to Sauropodomorpha (Van Heerden, 1978; 1979; Cooper, 1981), herrerasaurids were generally excluded from Dinosauria (Gauthier, 1984, 1986; Brinkman and Sues, 1987; Paul, 1988; Novas, 1989; Benton, 1990; Sereno and Novas, 1990; Novas, 1992; also Langer et al., 1999 and Fraser et al., 2002) until Herrerasaurus was redescribed (Sereno and Novas, 1992; Novas, 1993; Sereno, 1993; Sereno and Novas, 1993) as a theropod. Additional studies placed Herrerasauridae in Theropoda (Sereno et al., 1993; Novas, 1996, 1997; Benton, 1999; Sereno, 1999; Kischlat, 2000; Rauhut, 2003; Tykoski, 2005; Ezcurra and Novas, 2007), or as saurischians outside the sauropodomorph-theropod clade (Eusaurischia) (Padian and May, 1993; Bonaparte and Pumares, 1995; Holtz, 1995; Langer et al., 1999; Langer, 2004; Ezcurra, 2006; Langer and Benton, 2006; Yates, 2007; Irmis et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2007; Bittencourt Rodrigues, 2010; Ezcurra, 2010). A position inside Theropoda is tentatively followed here, as it is more parsimonious when all the data of Rauhut (2003), Tykoski (2005), Ezcurra and Novas (2007), Langer and Benton (2006) and Smith et al. (2007) is combined, but only by four steps.
Benedetto (1973) erected Herrerasauridae to include Herrerasaurus and Staurikosaurus, though Staurikosaurus was generally excluded until Novas' 1992 study. Before then, Herrerasauridae was viewed as monotypic by most sources except for Paul (1988).
Not herrerasaurids- Paul (1988) included both Aliwalia and Alwalkeria in Herrerasauridae and considered Protoavis a possible herrerasaurid derivative. Aliwalia is now known to be a junior synonym of the sauropodomorph Eucnemesaurus (Yates, 2007). Alwalkeria and Protoavis are both chimaeras whose theropod material seems more closely related to birds than Herrerasaurus (Remes and Rauhut, 2005; Nesbitt et al., 2007). He also considered SMNS 51958, a proximal femur from the Lowenstein Formation of Germany, a herrerasaurid. While this may be true, it shows no particular similarity to herrerasaurid femora compared to those of other theropods. Novas (1989) referred part of Trialestes paratype PVL 2559 to Herrerasauridae indet., but this was retained in Trialestes by Clark et al. (2000).
Kirby (1993) referred to cf. Staurikosauridae? from the Owl Rock Member of the Chinle Formation of Arizona, but this was based on two limb bone fragments (MNA.V.6729) which Spielmann et al. (2007) could not identify past Pan-Archosauria indet., but which I assign here to Dinosauria at least. Long and Murry (1995) referred Chindesaurus to Herrerasauridae, which seems unlikely based on Langer (2004) and Yates (2006). Hunt (1994) referred Gojirasaurus (as "Revueltoraptor") and "Comanchesaurus" to a broader version of Herrerasauridae in his unpublished thesis. These are called herrerasaurids A and B by Hunt et al. (1998), but are coelophysoids (Nesbitt et al., 2007). Herrerasaurid C of Hunt et al. (1998) is based on dorsal and caudal centra from the Bull Canyon Formation (NMMNH P-16656) which were assigned to Archosauria indet. by Nesbitt et al (2007). Dzik (2001) identified a second sacral vertebra (ZPAL AbIII/284) from the Late Triassic of Poland as a possible herrerasaurid, but this was later referred to the silesaurid Silesaurus opolensis (Dzik, 2003). Nesbitt (2001) tentatively assigned a distal pubis from the Middle Triassic Moekopi Formation of Arizona to Herrerasauridae, but more recently (pers. comm., 2010) states its morphology is equivocal between poposauroids and theropods.
References- Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Benedetto, 1973. Herrerasauridae, nueva familia de saurisquios triasicos. Ameghiniana. 10(1), 89-102.
Galton, 1977. On Staurikosaurus pricei, an early saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil, with notes on the Herrerasauridae and Poposauridae. Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 51, 234-245.
van Heerden, 1978. Herrerasaurus and the origin of sauropod dinosaurs. South African Journal of Science. 74, 187-189.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Gauthier, 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the Californian Academy of Sciences. 8, 1-55.
Brinkman and Sues, 1987. A staurikosaurid dinosaur from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina and the relationships of the Staurikosauridae. Palaeontology. 30, 493-503.
Paul, 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York. A New York Academy of Sciences Book. 464 pp.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Benton, 1990. Origin and interrelationships of dinosaurs. in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds). The Dinosauria. University of California Press: Berkeley. 11-30.
Sereno and Novas, 1990. Dinosaur origins and the phylogenetic position of pterosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 10(3), 42A.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Sereno and Novas, 1992. The complete skull and skeleton of an early dinosaur. Science. 258, 1137-1140.
Kirby, 1993. Relationships of Late Triassic basin evolution and faunal replacement in the southwestern United States: Perspectives from the upper part of the Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Lucas and Morales (eds.). The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 3, 233-242.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Padian and May, 1993. The earliest dinosaurs. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 3, 379-381.
Sereno, 1993. The pectoral girdle and forelimb of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 425-450.
Sereno and Novas, 1993. The skull and neck of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 451-476.
Sereno, Forster, Rogers and Monetta, 1993. Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature. 361, 64-66.
Hunt, 1994.
Bonaparte and Pumares, 1995. Notas sobre el primer craneo de Riojasaurus incertus (Dinosauria, Prosauropoda, Melanorosauridae) del Triasico Superior de La Rioja, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 32, 341-349.
Holtz, 1995. A new phylogeny of the Theropoda. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15(3), 35A.
Novas, 1996. Dinosaur monophyly. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 16, 723-741.
Novas, 1997. Herrerasauridae. in Currie and Padian (eds). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press, San Diego, California/London, UK. 303-311.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531. 
Langer, Abdala, Richter and Benton, 1999. A sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Upper Triassic (Carnian) of souther Brazil. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences, Paris. 329, 511-517.
Benton, 1999. Scleromochlus taylori and the origin of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Series B). 354, 1423-1446.
Sereno, 1999. The evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 284, 2137-2147.
Clark, Sues and Berman, 2000. A new specimen of Hesperosuchus agilis from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico and the interrelationships of basal crocodylomorph archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(4), 683-704.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. in Lucas and Heckert (eds). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Dzik, 2001. A new Paleorhinus fauna in the Early Late Triassic of Poland. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 625-627.
Nesbitt, 2001. New fossil vertebrate material from the Holbrook Member, Moenkopi Formation (Middle Triassic) from Northern Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 83A.
Fraser, Padian, Walkeden and Davis, 2002. Basal dinosauriform remains from Britain and the diagnosis of the Dinosauria. Palaeontology. 45, 78-95.
Dzik, 2003. A beaked herbivorous archosaur with dinosaur affinities from the Early Late Triassic of Poland. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 23(3), 556-574.
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska. The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 861 pp.
Remes and Rauhut, 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian. in Kellner, Henriques and Rodrigues (eds). II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Boletim de Resumos.Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 218.
Sereno, online 2005. Stem Archosauria - TaxonSearch. http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php [version 1.0, 2005 November 7]
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.
Ezcurra, 2006. A review of the systematic position of the dinosauriform archosaur Eucoelophysis baldwini Sullivan & Lucas, 1999 from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Geodiversitas. 28(4),649-684.
Langer and Benton, 2006. Early dinosaurs: A phylogenetic study. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 4(4), 309-358.
Ezcurra and Novas, 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the Triassic theropod Zupaysaurus rougieri from NW Argentina. Historical Biology. 19(1), 35-72.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Smith, Makovicky, Hammer and Currie, 2007. Osteology of Cryolophosaurus ellioti (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic of Antarctica and implications for early theropod evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 151, 377-421.
Spielmann, Lucas and Heckert, 2007. Tetrapod fauna of the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Owl Rock Formation, Chinle Group, Arizona. In Lucas and Spielmann (eds.). The Global Triassic, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 41, 371-383.
Yates, 2007. Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology. 19(1), 93-123.
Bittencourt Rodrigues, 2010. Revisao filogenetica dos dinossauriformes basais: Implicacoes para a origem dod dinossauros. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Universidade de Sao Paulo. 288 pp.
Ezcurra, 2010. A new early dinosaur (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) from the Late Triassic of Argentina: A reassessment of dinosaur origin and phylogeny. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(3), 371-425.

undescribed possible herrerasaurid (Heckert, 1999)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Bluewater Creek Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

Material- (NMMNH P-18391) proximal tibia
Comments- This was identified as a theropod by Heckert (1999), and was tentatively assigned to Herrerasauridae by Heckert et al. (2000).
References- Heckert. 1999. Upper Triassic tetrapods from the Lucero Uplift, central New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 50th Field Conference, Albuquerque 50:311-315
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. in Lucas and Heckert (eds). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.

undescribed possible herrerasaurid (Murry and Long, 1989)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Placerias Quarry UCMP A269, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Material- (UCMP 177316; paratype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli) five dorsal centra
Comments- Murry and Long (1989) mention Chindesaurus remains from the Placerias quarry, which were specified as five dorsal centra in the UCMP by Long and Murry (1995) in their description of the taxon as a herrerasaurid. The latter publication figured them as UCMP A269, but this is the number of the Placerias quarry locality, not the specimen itself.  Angielczyk (2002) notes "These specimens have the number UCMP 177316."  Hunt et al. (1998) stated they "are not generically determinate, but are herrerasaurid." They are similar to Chindesaurus, but less constricted transversely and are here tentatively placed in Herrerasauridae due to their shortnesss. 
References- Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American Southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254. 
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Angielczyk, 2002. A selective annotation of published Triassic vertebrates from the UCMP collection. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Triassic Stratigraphy and Paleontology. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 21, 297-301.

undescribed possible herrerasaurid (Hunt and Lucas, 1989)
Late Norian, Late Triassic

Barranca Creek NMMNH L-176, Bull Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, New Mexico, US
Material- (NMMNH P-17325; paratype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli) dorsal centrum
Comments- This was discovered in 1988.  Hunt and Lucas (1989) mention "a staurikosaurid" from Barranca Creek, which Hunt (1994) assigned to his 'Herrerasauridae indet.' which he believed "to represent a distinct herrarasaurid taxon of the size of "Chindesaurus bryansmalli"."  Long and Murry (1995) referred it to Chindesaurus once they described the taxon, but Hunt et al. (1998) instead called it "an indeterminate herrerasaurid" which was agreed upon by Heckert et al. (2000).  It has never been figured or described. 
References- Hunt and Lucas, 1989. Late Triassic vertebrate localities in New Mexico. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 72-101.
Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). PhD thesis, University of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254. 
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. In Lucas and Heckert (eds.). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.

Herrerasauridae indet. (Sarigül, 2014)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters South MOTT 3898, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (TTU-P12531X) proximal femur
Comments- Discovered in the 2000s, this was described as Herrerasauridae indet. by Sarigül (2017).  This is because "The absence of an anterolateral tuber is recognized only in lagerpetids and in Herrerasaurus (PVSJ 373) and Chindesaurus (PEFO 10395) among early dinosauriforms", "Herrerasaurus and Chindesaurus also lack the longitudinal groove on the proximal surface of the femur due to the over-expansion of the trochanteric fossa" and "Unlike TTU-P12531X and Herrerasaurus, Chindesaurus is missing the femoral ligament groove."
References- Sarigül, 2014. Anatomy of the Late Triassic dinosauromorphs from the Dockum Group of Texas: Their biostratigraphic, paleobiogeographic and evolutionary significance. PhD thesis. Texas Tech University. 300 pp.
Sarigül, 2017. New theropod fossils from the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, USA, and a brief overview of the Dockum theropod diversity. PaleoBios. 34, 1-18.

unnamed Herrerasauridae (Sarigül, 2014)
Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Patricia Quarry MOTT 3870, Upper Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
Material
- (TTU-P16789) incomplete posterior dorsal vertebra
Comments- Discovered in the 2000s, this was described as Herrerasauridae indet. by Sarigül (2017).  It was assigned to that clade because "The centrum is anteroposteriorly short and spool shaped" and unlike aetosaurs "Parapophyses are located on the neural arch of dorsal vertebrae."
References- Sarigül, 2014. Anatomy of the Late Triassic dinosauromorphs from the Dockum Group of Texas: Their biostratigraphic, paleobiogeographic and evolutionary significance. PhD thesis. Texas Tech University. 300 pp.
Sarigül, 2017. New theropod fossils from the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, USA, and a brief overview of the Dockum theropod diversity. PaleoBios. 34, 1-18.

Herrerasauridae indet. (Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012)
Mid-Late Norian, Late Triassic
Poręba, Zbaszynek Beds, Poland
Material
- (ZPAL V.39/35) partial scapulocoracoid (Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012)
?(ZPAL V.39/46) proximal fibula (Niedzwiedzki, Brusatte, Sulej and Butler, 2014)
?(ZPAL V.39/47) proximal femur (Niedzwiedzki, Brusatte, Sulej and Butler, 2014)
Comments- Discovered from 2008-2012, Sulej et al. (2012) first referred scapulocoracoid ZPAL V.39.35 to Coelophysoidea indet., but Niedzwiedzki et al. (2014) assigned it to Herrerasauridae instead based on the longitudinal ridge on the medial scapular blade shared with herrerasaurines but much weaker to absent in Tawa, the high-angled acromion absent in Tawa but also seen in Eodromaeus and Eoraptor, and the straight anterior blade margin also present in Tawa.  The femur ZPAL V.39/47 is stated to have "trochanteric shelf itself that is shaped like a crescent, such that the merged trochanteric shelf and anterior trochanter form something of a U-shape. This condition is also present in Chindesaurus (GR 226), but as far as we know is not seen in any other early dinosaurs or close relatives."  The fibula ZPAL V.39/46 is assigned to Herrerasauridae based on an anterior concavity proximally shared with Herrerasaurus and Staurikosaurus, but this is also present in Tawa (unpublished photo).  Note none of the specimens were associated, although the femur and fibula are both from horizon b (the scapulocoracoid is from horizon c).  Assuming multiple taxa instead of homoplasy it is possible the femur is more closely related to Chindesaurus (which may be herrerasaurian) than herrerasaurids, while the fibula could belong to either taxon.
References- Sulej, Niedzwiedzki and Bronowicz, 2012. A new Late Triassic vertebrate fauna from Poland with turtles, aetosaurs, and coelophysoid dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32(5), 1033-1041.
Niedzwiedzki, Brusatte, Sulej and Butler, 2014. Basal dinosauriform and theropod dinosaurs from the Mid-Late Norian (Late Triassic) of Poland: Implications for Triassic dinosaur evolution and distribution. Palaeontology. 57(6), 1121-1142.

unnamed herrerasaurid (Da-Rosa, Leal, Boelter and Dambros, 2006)
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
Cerro da Alemoa, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Material- (UFSM 11330; Big Saturnalia) (skull ~407 mm) partial snout, incomplete posterior mandible, incomplete ninth cervical vertebra (30 mm), incomplete tenth cervical vertebra (35 mm), proximal cervical rib, proximal dorsal rib, (femur ~448 mm) incomplete tibiae (385 mm), fibula (341 mm), partial astragalus, fragmentary metatarsal II, distal metatarsal III
Diagnosis- (after Garcia et al., 2021) horizontally oriented transverse processes on ninth cervical vertebra (unknown in Herrerasaurus); posterolateral process of tibia that surpasses the lateral limit of the astragalar articular surface; transversely thick astragalar ascending process (unknown in Staurikosaurus).
Comments- Discovered around 2000, this was initially known from a tibia and reported as "an indeterminate sauropodomorph morphologically similar to Saturnalia", nicknamed Big Saturnalia.  Ezcurra (2012) called it "a still undescribed fragmentary postcranium (UFSM 11330) of a sauropodomorph more derived and larger than Saturnalia."  Garcia et al. (2021) described the specimen as a herrerasaurid potentially diagnosable but which "should not necessarily be regarded as a new genus or species, as it is possible that it represents a variant (e.g. ontogenetic or intraspecific) of an already known taxon" due to incompleteness and poor preservation.  It was recovered in a polytomy with other herrerasaurids using the matrix of Müller and Garcia.
References- Da-Rosa, Leal, Boelter and Dambros, 2006. Um novo Sauropodomorpha para o Triassico Superior do sul do Brasil. V Simposio Brasileiro de Paleontologia de Vertebrados. 31.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.
Garcia, Müller, Pretto, Da-Rosa and Dias-da-Silva, 2021. Taxonomic and phylogenetic reassessment of a large-bodied dinosaur from the earliest dinosaur-bearing beds (Carnian, Upper Triassic) from southern Brazil. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 19(1), 1-37.

undescribed possible herrerasaurid (Kischlat and Barberena, 1999)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Botucarai, Caturrita Formation, Brazil

Material- (FZB coll.) dorsal vertebra
....(UFPel coll.) sacral vertebrae
....(UFRGS coll.) pubis, ischium
Comments- Stated by Kischlat and Barberena to be from the Botucarai outcrop of the Santa Maria Formation, this is actually part of the younger Caturrita Formation.
Kischlat and Barberena imply this specimen is a herrerasaurid, as they compare it to both Herrerasaurus and Spondylosoma (which they treat as a herrerasaurid, though it is recognized here as an aphanosaur). The pronounced pubic tubercle is said to be similar to Herrerasaurus and unlike the double tubercle of Spondylosoma, but the sacral vertebrae are stated to be similar to the third in Spondylosoma. As no herrerasaurid synapomorphies were mentioned and Spondylosoma is not referred to that family here, the specimen under consideration may belong to another kind of archosaur instead.
Reference- Kischlat and Barberena, 1999. Brazilian dinosaurs: New data. Paleontologia em Destaque, Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia. 14(26), 56.

undescribed possible herrerasaurid (Ezcurra and Novas, 2007)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Material- (MACN-PV 18.649a) (small) vertebrae, distal ulna, carpus, manus, pedal phalanges
Diagnosis- (after Ezcurra and Novas, 2007) articular surfaces of ulna and ulnare subequal in size; manual unguals with a posteriorly bifurcated lateral groove.
(after Ezcurra, 2010) manual phalanx II-1 with conspicuous longitudinal ridge on its proximolateral border.
Comments- This specimen was discovered in the 1960s, but not noted until an abstract by Ezcurra and Novas (2007). That paper and Ezcurra (2010) placed it in Herrerasauridae, the latter using a version of Yates' sauropodomorph analysis. It was a herrerasaur based on- distal carpal V enlarged; manual phalanx I-1 longer than metacarpal I; strongly curved manual unguals; metacarpals IV-V ventral to the others. While these are shared with Herrerasaurus, the unknown forelimb of Staurikosaurus makes the relationship between these three taxa uncertain. Problematically, the recently described basal theropod Eodromaeus also has all four characters, and is also small and from the same formation. Indeed, MACN-PV 18.649a may be Eodromaeus, as the latter has a marked proximolateral projection on II-1, but whether this is a ridge or not is not described. The new taxon will be described in more detail by Ezcurra and Novas (in prep.).
References- Ezcurra and Novas, 2007. New dinosaur remains (Saurischia: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Carnian) of NW Argentina. Ameghiniana. 44, 17R.
Ezcurra and Novas, 2008. A review of the dinosaur diversity of the Ischigualasto Formation (Carnian, NW Argentina): Insights on early dinosaur evolution. in Langer, Bittencourt and Castro (eds.). Boletim de Resumos, VI Simposio Brasileiro de Paleontologia de Vertebrados, Paleontologia, Edicao especial. Universidad de Sao Pablo: Ribeirao Preto. 88-89.
Ezcurra, 2010. A new early dinosaur (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) from the Late Triassic of Argentina: A reassessment of dinosaur origin and phylogeny. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(3), 371-425.
Ezcurra and Novas, in prep.

Staurikosaurus Colbert, 1970
= "Teyuwasu" Kischlat, 1999
S. pricei Colbert, 1970
= "Teyuwasu barberenai" Kischlat, 1999
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
Sanga Grande, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Holotype- (MCZ 1669) (~2.25 m, 18.5 kg CF04) mandibles (215 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (~33.4 mm), partial fifth cervical vertebra, incomplete sixth cervical vertebra, incomplete seventh cervical vertebra, eighth cervical vertebra, ninth cervical vertebra, first dorsal vertebra, fragmentary second dorsal vertebra, third dorsal vertebra, fourth dorsal vertebra, fifth dorsal vertebra, partial sixth dorsal vertebra (~31.9 mm), seventh dorsal centrum, partial eighth dorsal centrum, ninth dorsal vertebra, tenth dorsal vertebra, eleventh dorsal vertebra, twelfth dorsal vertebra, thirteenth dorsal vertebra, fourteenth dorsal vertebra, fifteenth dorsal neural spine, partial dorsal ribs, first sacral vertebra, second sacral vertebra (29 mm), incomplete third sacral vertebra, partial first caudal vertebra (28.5 mm), second caudal vertebra (24 mm), incomplete third caudal vertebra (22.5 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (23.5 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (24 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (25.5 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (31.5 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (28 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (28 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (28.5 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (29 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (29 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (29 mm), twenty-ninth caudal vertebra (30.5 mm), thirtieth caudal vertebra (30.5 mm), thirty-first caudal vertebra (30 mm), thirty-second caudal vertebra (26.5 mm), thirty-third caudal vertebra (29 mm), thirty-fourth caudal vertebra (28.5 mm), thirty-fifth caudal vertebra (28 mm), thirty-sixth caudal vertebra (27 mm), thirty-seventh caudal vertebra (27 mm), thirty-eighth caudal vertebra (22.5 mm), thirty-ninth caudal vertebra (22 mm), fortieth caudal vertebra (23.5 mm), forty-first caudal vertebra (23 mm), forty-second caudal vertebra (20 mm), forty-third caudal vertebra (20 mm), forty-fourth caudal vertebra (18.5 mm), forty-fifth caudal vertebra (21.5 mm), forty-sixth caudal vertebra (15.5 mm), forty-seventh caudal vertebra (16 mm), chevron (lost?), distal scapula, ilia (one incomplete; 98 mm), pubes (171 mm), incomplete ischia, femora (229 mm), tibiae (246 mm), fibulae, seventeen fragments
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
Cerro da Alemoa, Alemoa Member of Santa Maria Formation, Brazil

Referred- (BSPG AS XXV 53; intended holotype of "Teyuwasu barberenai" in part) femur (276 mm) (Huene, 1938)
....(BSPG AS XXV 54; intended holotype of "Teyuwasu barberenai" in part) tibia (264 mm) (Huene, 1938)
?...(BSPG AS XXV 56-59) dorsal centrum (40 mm), partial ilium, (?) distal ischium, femur (Huene, 1938)
Diagnosis- (after Colbert, 1970) no anterior trochanter.
(after Novas, 1993) distal bevel on anterior margin of pubis.
(after Bittencourt and Kellner, 2009) distal end of tibia subcircular in distal view; dorsoventrally oriented sulcus on medial surface of proximal third of fibula.
Other diagnoses- Almost all of Colbert's (1970) original diagnosis is true for all herrerasaurids- "bipedal saurischian of small size, with strong hind limbs and small forelimbs. The bones are hollow, but with rather thick walls. The lower jaws are long, about equal to the length of the femur, indicating a skull quite large in relation to the size of the body. The teeth are thecodont. There were probably about 23 to 25 presacral vertebrae (the anterior ones are missing), three sacrals and a long tail with perhaps 40 or more vertebrae. The centra of the vertebrae are platycoelous and constricted in their mid-portions. The vertebrae have strong diapophyses, with buttresses beneath them, and rather short, heavy neural spines. The ilium is deep and short, its iliac crest being abbreviated, and produced posteriorly. The acetabulum is deep within the ilium and its upper margin forms a shelf to take the thrust of the femur against it.  The pubis is long, about two-thirds as long as the femur, broad and platelike, and the two pubes are joined along their midlines by a long symphysis. The ischium is broad proximally, but narrows to a rodlike bone in its more distal portions. The bones of the pelvis seemingly do not unite firmly, but rather are joined by restricted facets, so that the central portion of the acetabulum is open. The femur is a curved, heavy bone, the head strongly set off from the shaft, ... with a strong fourth trochanter. The tibia is strong" and the proximal tarsals were "closely appressed to the limb bones."  The exception is the high tibiofemoral ratio is primitive compared to herrerasaurines, and the proximal tarsals are not known to be separate although they are in all other basal saurischians.
Comments- Staurikosaurus' holotype was discovered in 1936, but not described until 1970 by Colbert.  After this, the material was illustrated extensively though schematically by Galton (1977) and photographed by Galton again decades later (2000) before being redescribed by Bittencourt and Kellner (2009).  The scapula identified by Novas (1992; also Galton, 2000) is an ischium (Bittencourt and Kellner, 2009), and the proximal humerus identified by Colbert (1970) is unidentifiable (Galton, 1977).  A chevron listed by Colbert may be one of the seventeen undetermined bone fragments figured by Bittencourt and Kellner.
Relationships- Staurikosaurus was originally assigned to Palaeosauriscidae (Colbert, 1970), a defunct family based largely on Efraasia.  Galton (1973) suggested Staurikosaurus may be a theropod ancestor within Saurischia. He later (1977) erected the family Staurikosauridae for the genus, where it was placed by Brinkman and Sues (1987) and Paul (1988). These latter authors and Sues (1990) all viewed it as being a dinosauriform less closely related to dinosaurs than Herrerasaurus. Langer and Benton (2006) note the characters used to support this topology are invalid, though they find the poorly developed anterior trochanter could support it. Benedetto (1973) and Galton (1985) were the first to recognize Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus were more closely related to each other than to sauropodomorphs or neotheropods, placing them both in the Herrerasauridae and Herrerasauria respectively. This was confirmed by Novas (1992), and nearly every subsequent cladistic analysis agrees. One exception is Kischlat and Barbarena (1999) and Kischlat (2000), who find Staurikosaurus to be a basal sauropodomorph based on an unpublished phylogenetic analysis. This was due to the possible caudosacral vertebra, the lack of a trochanteric shelf, and a dorsolateral trochanter.
"Teyuwasu"- The material was originally described by Huene (1938) as possibly belonging to his new taxon Hoplitosaurus raui, from slightly higher in the formation. Huene later (1942) renamed it Hoplitosuchus, as Hoplitosaurus was preoccupied by an ankylosaur. The taxon was based on two supposed osteoderms described as aetosaurian, but more recently these have been found to be unidentifiable bones by Kischlat (2000) and Desojo and Rauhut (2008). Kischlat (1999) reinterpreted the femur and tibia as being dinosaurian, though only listed features identifying it to the level of Dinosauriformes. He provided a very brief description and named the taxon Teyuwasu barberenai, but as the publication is a symposium abstract, it is invalid under ICZN Article 9.10 ("materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters" do not constitute published work).  Contra Garcia et al. (2019), it does qualify under Article 13.1.1 since "but the distal process is so developed as to encompass the ascending process of astragalus; the femur has not a trochanteric shelf,m but only two parallel ridges proximodistally" counts cas "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon."  Kischlat's (2000) later article has similar information, but credits the name to the 1999 paper when ICZN Article 16.1 states "Every new name published after 1999 ... must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new."  Thus it remains a nomen nudum.  Ezcurra (2012) described the material in depth, finding it certainly belongs to Dracohors, but that the only dinosaurian character is the inturned femoral head. As the bones have been heavily altered taphonomically, Ezcurra was uncertain if the femoral head orientation was artificial. He notes Kischlat's "two paralell ridges running proximodistally" are fractures formed when the medial femoral head was sheared distally, and referred "Teyuwasu" to Dinosauriformes indet.. Garcia et al. reexamined the specimens, finding them to share a unique combination of characters with the similar-sized Staurikosaurus from the same deposits- "(i) femur without a trochanteric shelf; (ii) symmetric fourth trochanter of the femur; (iii) crista tibiofibularis poorly separated from the lateral condyle at the distal end of the femur; (iv) posterolateral flange of the distal end of the tibia of does not exceeds the lateral margin of the bone; (v) and rounded distal end of the tibia."   Thus Garcia et al. made "Teyuwasu" a junior synonym of Staurikosaurus, a conclusion followed here.
Besides the femur and tibia, Huene referred additional material to this individual. A centrum identified by Kischlat (2000) as dorsal was stated by Huene to be possibly but not certainly referrable to this specimen. It is 40 mm long, 45 mm tall and wide, rounded in section and barely amphicoelous to amphiplatyan. A ventral ilium was considered very likely to belong to this individual. It has a supracetabular crest and 'strongly recessed' acetabulum, and narrows to 70 mm between the peduncles and blade. An element tentatively identified by Huene as a distal ischium is much too large to belong to this individual, with the distal end 90 mm deep and 60 mm wide. At the proximal break, these dimensions are 53 and 30 mm respectively. The distal end is triangular in section, which is a saurischian character. Finally, Kischlat (2000) mentioned an additional femur which was not noted by Huene. These were all noted by Kischlat as supplementary material for Teyuwasu, though Desojo and Rauhut stated referred Hoplitosuchus material belongs to Rauisuchia and Dinosauria. The centrum, ilium and/or ischium may comprise the 'rauisuchian' material, or this may refer to the two non-ornithodiran calcanea also referred to Hoplitosuchus by Huene.
References- Huene, 1938. Ein grosser Stagonolepid aus der jungeren Trias Ostafrikas. Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie. 80(2), 264-278.
Huene, 1942. Die fossilen Reptilien des sudamerikanischen Gondwanalandes. Ergebnisse der Sauriergrabungen in Sudbrasilien 1928/29. Becksche Verlegbuchhandlung. 332 pp.
Colbert, 1970. A saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil. American Museum Novitates. 2405, 1-39.
Benedetto, 1973. Herrerasauridae, nueva familia de saurisquios triasicos. Ameghiniana. 10(1), 89-102.
Galton, 1973. On the anatomy and relationships of Efraasia diagnostica (Huene) n. gen., a prosauropod dinosaur (Reptilia: Saurischia) from the Upper Triassic of Germany. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 47(3/4), 229-255.
Galton, 1977. On Staurikosaurus pricei, an early saurischian dinosaur from the Triassic of Brazil, with notes on the Herrerasauridae and Poposauridae. Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 51(3/4), 234-245.
Galton, 1985. The poposaurid thecodontian Teratosaurus suevicus v. Meyer, plus referred specimens mostly based on prosauropod dinosaurs, from the Middle Stubensandstein (Upper Triassic) of Nordwurttemberg. Stuttgart Beitrage zur Naturkunde (B). 116, 1-29.
Brinkman and Sues, 1987. A staurikosaurid dinosaur from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina and the relationships of the Staurikosauridae. Palaeontology. 30, 493-503.
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Benton, 1990. Origin and interrelationships of dinosaurs. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 11-30.
Sues, 1990. Staurikosaurus and Herrerasauridae. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 143-147.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Kischlat, 1999. A new dinosaurian "rescued" from the Brazilian Triassic: Teyuwasu barbarenai, new taxon. Paleontologia em Destaque, Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia. 14(26), 58.
Kischlat and Barbarena, 1999. Brazilian dinosaurs: New data. Paleontologia em Destaque, Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia. 14(26), 56..
Galton, 2000, Are Spondylosoma and Staurikosaurus (Santa Maria Formation, Middle-Upper Triassic, Brasil) the oldest saurischian dinosaurs? Palaontologische Zeitschrift. 74(3), 393-423.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. In Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sol. 273-316.
Bittencourt and Kellner, 2004. The phylogenetic position of Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 from the Triassic of Brazil. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24(3), 23A-24A.
Bittencourt, 2004. Revisao descritiva e posicionamento filogenetico de Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert 1970 (Dinosauria, Theropoda). Masters thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. 158 pp.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 25-46.
Grillo and Azevedo, 2005. Reconstruction of the skeleton of Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 (Dinosauria, Theropoda): Use of 3D laser scanner and three-dimensional virtual modeling to reconstruct fossil vertebrates. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 66A.
Grillo and Azevedo, 2006. Pelvic and hind limb musculature of Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 (Dinosauria, Saurischia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(3), 70A.
Langer and Benton, 2006. Early dinosaurs: A phylogenetic study. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 4(4), 309-358.
Desojo and Rauhut, 2008. New insights on "rauisuchian" taxa (Archosauria: Crurotarsi) from Brazil. SVPCA 2008 Programme and Abstracts. 18-19.
Bittencourt and Kellner, 2009. The anatomy and phylogenetic position of the Triassic dinosaur Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970. Zootaxa. 2079, 1-56.
Grillo and Azevedo, 2011a. Recovering missing data: Estimating position and size of caudal vertebrae in Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 83(1), 61-71.
Grillo and Azevedo, 2011b. Pelvic and hind limb musculature of Staurikosaurus pricei (Dinosauria: Saurischia). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 83(1), 73-98.
Ezcurra, 2012. Comments on the taxonomic diversity and paleobiogeography of the earliest known dinosaur assemblages (Late Carnian-Earliest Norian). Historia Natural. 2(1), 49-71.
Garcia, Mueller and Dias-da-Silva, 2019. On the taxonomic status of Teyuwasu barberenai Kischlat, 1999 (Archosauria: Dinosauriformes), a challenging taxon from the Upper Triassic of southern Brazil. Zootaxa. 4629(1), 146-150.

Herrerasaurinae Benedetto, 1973 vide Novas, 1989
Diagnosis- (proposed) narrow, U-shaped antorbital fossa (unknown in Staurikosaurus; also in Tawa and Daemonosaurus); spine tables on posterior dorsal and first sacral vertebrae (also in Eoraptor and Chindesaurus); prominent acromion on scapula (unknown in Staurikosaurus); pubis with sinuous lateral margin in anterior view; longitudinal keel on anterior edge of proximal femur; anterolateral subcircular muscle scar on distal femur.
Comments- Novas (1989) proposed Herrerasaurinae in his unpublished thesis for a herrerasaurid subfamily containing Herrerasaurus and Ischisaurus but not Staurikosaurus or Frenguellisaurus. As Sanjuansaurus and Gnathovorax share several characters with Herrerasaurus to the exclusion of Staurikosaurus, the subfamily has merit.
References- Benedetto, 1973. Herrerasauridae, nueva familia de saurisquios triasicos. Ameghiniana. 10(1), 89-102.
Novas, 1989. Los dinosaurios carnivoros de la Argentina. PhD thesis. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 510 pp.

Gnathovorax Pacheco, Müller, Langer, Pretto, Kerber and Dias da Silva, 2019
G. cabreirai Pacheco, Müller, Langer, Pretto, Kerber and Dias da Silva, 2019
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
Marchezan, Santa Maria Formation, Brazil
Holotype- (CAPPA/UFSM 0009) incomplete skull (278 mm), incomplete mandibles, atlas, axis, third-ninth cervical vertebrae, first-sixteenth dorsal vertebrae, dorsal ribs, gastralia, first-second sacral vertebrae, seven proximal caudal vertebrae, twenty-two distal caudal vertebrae, several distal chevrons, scapula, coracoid, humerus (160 mm), radii (133 mm), ulna (148 mm), radiale, ulnare, centrale, metacarpal I (30 mm), phalanx I-1 (32 mm), manual ungual I (40 mm), metacarpal II (44 mm), phalanx II-1 (26 mm), phalanx II-2 (31 mm), manual ungual II (41 mm), metacarpal III (53 mm), phalanx III-1 (26 mm), phalanx III-2 (22 mm), phalanx III-3 (23 mm), manual ungual III (39 mm), metacarpal IV (26 mm), ilia, pubes, ischia, femora (303 mm), tibiae (275 mm), fibulae (260 mm), astragali, metatarsi I (86 mm), phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsi II (120 mm), phalanx II-1, phalanx II-2, pedal ungual II, metatarsi III (144 mm), phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, phalanx III-3, pedal ungual III, metatarsi IV (124 mm), metatarsi V (85 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Pacheco et al., 2019) three premaxillary teeth (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus); additonal fenestra (= oval fenestra) between the maxilla and premaxilla markedly smaller than the subnarial fenestra (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus); two well defined laminae in the antorbital fossa of the maxilla, with a depression between them; promaxillary fenestra absent; slender ventral ramus of the lacrimal extending posteriorly almost until the midpoint of the orbit (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus; also in Daemonosaurus); supraoccipital trapezoidal in posterior view (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus); anterior portion of the basioccipital articulates with the parabasisphenoid through a V-shaped suture (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus); transverse process of the last dorsal vertebra lacks contact with ilium (also in Staurikosaurus); distal end of scapula markedly expanded relative to the more proximal shaft (175% vs. 136% in Sanjuansaurus, 142% in Herrerasaurus; unknown in Staurikosaurus); distally extended ente- and ectepicondyle in the humerus (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus); preacetabular process of ilium with a pointed tip (unknown in Sanjuansaurus); pubis with ventrally oriented shaft in lateral view; obturator fenestra in ischium (unknown in Sanjuansaurus); proximal portion of femur which lacks caudomedial tuber; three phalanges in pedal digit V (unknown in other herrerasaurids except Herrerasaurus).
Other diagnoses- At least two proposed apomorphies of Gnathovorax (pubis with sinuous lateral margin in anteroposterior views; tibia equals 90% of femoral length) are herrerasaurine characters, while another (no depressed surface [= bevel] on the anteromedial region of distal pubis) is the absence of a Staurikosaurus apomorphy.
Comments- The holotype was discovered in 2014.  Pacheco et al. (2019) included it in a version of Cabreira et al.'s dinosauromorph matrix and recovered it as a herrerasaurid in a trichotomy with Herrerasaurus and Sanjuansaurus.
Reference- Pacheco, Müller, Langer, Pretto, Kerber and Dias da Silva, 2019. Gnathovorax cabreirai: A new early dinosaur and the origin and initial radiation of predatory dinosaurs. PeerJ. 7:e7963.

Sanjuansaurus Alcober and Martinez, 2010
S. gordilloi Alcober and Martinez, 2010
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Holotype- (PVSJ 605; adult) (skull ~384 mm) incomplete maxilla, axis (37 mm), third cervical vertebra (42.5 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (44 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (46.1 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (47.5 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (45.6 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (38.5 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (38 mm), first dorsal vertebra (33.6 mm), second dorsal vertebra (28.3 mm), posterior fifth dorsal vertebra, sixth dorsal vertebra (36.8 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (38 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (38.8 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (36.6 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (37.7 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (37.5 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (38 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (36 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (34.5 mm), eighth dorsal rib fragment, first sacral vertebra (38 mm), second sacral vertebra (48 mm), third sacral vertebra (46.2 mm), first caudal vertebra (35.8 mm), second caudal vertebra (36.8 mm), third caudal vertebra (35 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (37 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (33.2 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (32.3 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (38.5 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (38.5 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (37.8 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (37.8 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (36.5 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra, thirteenth caudal vertebra, fourteenth caudal vertebra, anterior fifteenth caudal vertebra, incomplete scapulocoracoids (scapula 185 mm), ulna (178.2 mm), incomplete manual ungual III, ilial fragment fused to pubes (260 mm), femora (395 mm), tibiae (260 mm), fibula, astragalocalcaneum (83 mm wide), metatarsal II (147.5 mm)
Diagnosis- (after Alcober and Martinez, 2010) shelf-like, posterolaterally directed transverse processes on the posterior cervical vertebrae; neural spines of the sixth to eighth dorsal vertebrae, at least, bearing acute anterior and posterior processes; everted lateral margins of the glenoid; short pubis (63% of the femoral length); pronounced, rugose scar on the medial surface of the femur at the level of the fourth trochanter.
(suggested) articular surface for ulnare on ulna convex; very short tibia (66% of femoral length).
Comments- This specimen was discovered in 1994 and later mentioned in an abstract (Martinez and Alcober, 2007). Alcober and Martinez (2010) officially described the taxon as a herrerasaurid in a trichotomy with Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus using a version of Langer and Benton's matrix.
References- Martinez and Alcober, 2007. Un nuevo herrerasaurido (Dinosauria, Saurischia) de la Formacion Ischigualasto (Triasico Superior, Craniano). Ameghiniana. 44, 28-29R.
Alcober and Martinez, 2010. A new herrerasaurid (Dinosauria, Saurischia) from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of northwestern Argentina. ZooKeys. 63, 55-81.

Herrerasaurus Reig, 1963
?= Ischisaurus Reig, 1963
?= Frenguellisaurus Novas, 1986
H. ischigualastensis Reig, 1963
?= Ischisaurus cattoi Reig, 1963
?= Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis Novas, 1986
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Holotype- (PVL 2566) (3.5 m, 210 kg) seventh dorsal vertebra (50 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (45 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (45 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (45 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (45 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (45 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (42 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (44 mm), dorsal rib fragments, first sacral vertebra (42 mm), second sacral vertebra (56 mm), incomplete third sacral vertebra (65 mm), incomplete first caudal vertebra (49 mm), incomplete second caudal vertebra (45 mm), incomplete third caudal vertebra (42 mm), incomplete fourth caudal vertebra (47 mm), incomplete fifth caudal vertebra (46 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (47 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (50 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (50 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (50 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (50 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra, twelfth caudal vertebra (47 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (56 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (46 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (53 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (47 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (47 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (45 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (46 mm), twentieth caudal vertebra (48 mm), twenty-first caudal vertebra (48 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra, twenty-third caudal vertebra (51 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (48 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (50 mm), twenty-sixth caudal vertebra (52 mm), twenty-seventh caudal vertebra (43 mm), twenty-eighth caudal vertebra (53 mm), twenty-ninth caudal vertebra (60 mm), thirtieth caudal vertebra (36 mm), thirty-first caudal vertebra (46 mm), thirty-second caudal vertebra (48 mm), thirty-fourth caudal vertebra (37 mm), thirty-fifth caudal vertebra (50 mm), thirty-sixth caudal vertebra (43 mm), thirty-seventh caudal vertebra (37 mm), thirty-eighth caudal vertebra (43 mm), thirty-ninth caudal vertebra (43 mm), fortieth caudal vertebra (43 mm), forty-first caudal vertebra (43 mm), forty-second caudal vertebra (43 mm), chevrons 1-39, ilia (240 mm), pubes (430 mm; one partial), ischia (330 mm), femur (473 mm), tibia (413 mm), fibula (415 mm), astragali (95 mm wide), calcaneum, metatarsal I (~134 mm), phalanx I-1 (~53 mm), metatarsal II (~195 mm), phalanx II-1 (~64 mm), metatarsal III (223 mm), phalanx III-1 (~75 mm), metatarsal IV (~203 mm), phalanx IV-1 (~67 mm), phalanx IV-2 (~42 mm), proximal phalanx IV-3, metatarsal V (~140 mm), phalanx V-1 (~31 mm)
Paratypes- ?(MLP 61-VIII-2-2) pelvises including ilium
(PVL 2054; PVL 2045 in Reig, 1963) (3.17 m, 114 kg) gastralia, fragments of pubes, femora (385 mm), tibiae (327 mm), fibulae, several metatarsals including metatarsal III (176.1 mm), pedal phalanges
?(PVL 2558a) manual ungual, fragments of femora (~440 mm), tibiae
Referred- (MACN 18.060; holotype of Ischisaurus cattoi; = MACN 18.090 of Holtz, 1994) (2.36 m, 47 kg) (skull ~250 mm) fragmentary premaxilla, maxillae, incomplete frontals, (mandible ~255 mm) dentaries, splenials, articular end of mandible, teeth, atlantal intercentrum, axis, fourth cervical vertebra (37 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (35 mm), dorsal vertebrae (27 mm), caudal vertebrae, humeri (154, 146 mm), proximal ulnae, radiale, partial ilium, pubis, femur (286 mm), tibiae (280 mm), astragalus (43 mm wide), calcaneum, proximal metatarsal I, metatarsal II, metatarsal III (134 mm), pedal phalanges (Reig, 1963)
?(MACN 18.688) (juvenile) partial pelvis including ilium and pubis (Novas, 1993)
?(MCZ 7063) incomplete skull (Sereno and Novas, 1993)
....(MCZ 7064) axis (~65 mm), five partial dorsal vertebrae including posterior dorsal centrum (~43 mm), partial scapulocoracoids (scapula ~194 mm), partial humeri (~266 mm), partial ilium, distal pubes, distal femur, partial tibia, proximal fibula, few partial pedal phalanges (Brinkman and Sues, 1987)
?(MLP 61-VIII-2-3; paratype of Ischisaurus cattoi) (2.77 m, 75 kg) maxillary fragments, partial mandibles, vertebral fragments, coracoid, humeri (197 mm), fragmentary ulnae, femur (335 mm), tibia (287.0 mm), pedal elements including metatarsal III (156 mm) (Reig, 1963)
(PVSJ 53; holotype of Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis) partial skull (560 mm), mandibles (~572 mm), axis, fragments of cervical vertebrae, partial dorsal neural spine, twentieth caudal vertebra (61 mm), twenty-first caudal vertebra (59 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra (61 mm), twenty-third caudal vertebra (60 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (59 mm), incomplete twenty-seventh caudal vertebra (60 mm), incomplete twenty-eighth caudal vertebra (55 mm), incomplete twenty-ninth caudal vertebra (56 mm), thirtieth caudal vertebra (60 mm), thirty-first caudal vertebra (60 mm), thirty-second caudal vertebra (59 mm), thirty-fourth caudal vertebra (55 mm), thirty-fifth caudal vertebra (55 mm), thirty-sixth caudal vertebra (55 mm), thirty-seventh caudal vertebra (55 mm), thirty-ninth caudal vertebra (55 mm), fortieth caudal vertebra (55 mm), forty-fifth caudal vertebra (46 mm), forty-seventh caudal vertebra (45 mm), incomplete scapulocoracoid (scapula 285 mm), distal humerus, ulnae (one partial, one distal), distal radius (Novas, 1986)
?(PVSJ 104) fragmentary pelvis, fragmentary sacrum, fragmentary hindlimb including tibia (373.0 mm) (Novas, 1993)
(PVSJ 373) cervical vertebrae, partial third dorsal vertebra (34 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra (34 mm), fifth dorsal vertebra (35 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (35 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (38 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (38 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (38 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (36 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (37 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (39 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (42 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (36 mm), first sacral vertebra (36 mm), second sacral vertebra (43 mm), third sacral vertebra (39 mm), partial scapula, partial humerus (~175 mm), radius (153 mm), ulna (167 mm), radiale, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I (37 mm), phalanx I-1 (42 mm), manual ungual I (~36 mm), metacarpal II (58 mm), phalanx II-1 (36 mm), phalanx II-2 (37 mm), manual ungual II (~38 mm), metacarpal III (62 mm), phalanx III-1 (34 mm), phalanx III-2 (~28 mm), phalanx III-3 (32 mm), manual ungual III (~38 mm), metacarpal IV (33 mm), phalanx IV-1 (10 mm), metacarpal V (15 mm), ischium, femora (345, 354 mm), tibiae (315, 318 mm), fibula (315 mm), astragalus (30 mm wide), calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (100 mm), phalanx I-1 (42 mm), pedal ungual I (30 mm), metatarsal II (142 mm), phalanx II-1 (50 mm), phalanx II-2 (40 mm), pedal ungual II (37 mm), metatarsal III (165 mm), phalanx III-1 (55 mm), phalanx III-2 (38 mm), phalanx III-3 (34 mm), pedal ungual III (35 mm), metatarsal IV (143 mm), phalanx IV-1 (40 mm), phalanx IV-2 (~25 mm), partial phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4 (24 mm), pedal ungual IV (30 mm), metatarsal V (85 mm), partial phalanx V-1 (Sereno and Novas, 1992)
(PVSJ 380) scapula, radiale, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I (44 mm), phalanx I-1 (56 mm), manual ungual I (42 mm), metacarpal II (66 mm), phalanx II-1 (47 mm), phalanx II-2 (51 mm), manual ungual II (47 mm), metacarpal III (74 mm), phalanx III-1 (44 mm), phalanx III-2 (35 mm), phalanx III-3 (40 mm) (Sereno, 1993)
(PVSJ 407) incomplete skeleton including skull (300 mm), several sclerotic ossicles, stapes, mandibles (~290 mm), proatlases (26 mm), atlantal intercentrum (10 mm), atlantal neurapophyses (34 mm), axis (44 mm), third cervical vertebra (40 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (~43 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (~44 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (~43 mm), seventh cervical vertebra, eighth cervical vertebra (31 mm), ninth cervical vertebra, tenth cervical vertebra, dorsal vertebrae, scapulocoracoid, humerus (170 mm), radius, ulna (168 mm), radiale, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, metacarpals (Sereno and Novas, 1992)
?(PVSJ 409) partial scapulocoracoid (Sereno, 1993)
?(PVSJ 461) incomplete skeleton including dorsal vertebrae (Novas, 1993)
Diagnosis- (after Reig, 1963) pubis proximally curved and ventrally oriented; prominent greater trochanter; tibia shortened (87-91% of femur).
(after Novas, 1986) maxilla strongly convex ventrally (also in Eodromaeus).
(after Novas, 1993) premaxilla-maxilla fenestra (unknown in other herrerasaurids); ridge on lateral surface of jugal (unknown in other herrerasaurids); dorsal part of laterotemporal fenestra less than a third as wide as ventral part (unknown in other herrerasaurids); deeply incised supratemporal fossa that extends across medial postorbital process (unknown in other herrerasaurids); subquadrate ventral squamosal process with lateral depression (unknown in other herrerasaurids); quadratojugal overlaps posterodorsal quadrate face (unknown in other herrerasaurids); pterygoid process of quadrate with inturned, trough-shaped ventral margin (unknown in other herrerasaurids); slender ribbed posterodorsal dentary process (unknown in other herrerasaurids); surangular with forked anterior process for articulation with posterodorsal dentary process (unknown in other herrerasaurids); humerus internal tuberosity proximally projected and separated from the humeral head by a deep groove (also in coelophysoids; unknown in other herrerasaurids); humeral entepicondyle ridge-like with anterior and posterior depressions (unknown in other herrerasaurids); enlarged hands (60% of humerus+radius) (unknown in other herrerasaurids); posterior border of ilial peduncle forms right angle with dorsal border of shaft on ischium (unknown in Sanjuansaurus).
(after Sereno and Novas, 1993) broad subnarial process of premaxilla (also in Ornithischia; unknown in other herrerasaurids); broad supratemporal depression (unknown in other herrerasaurids); basal tuber and occipital condyle subequal in width (unknown in other herrerasaurids).
(after Sereno, 1993) circular pit on humeral ectepicondyle (also in Saturnalia; unknown in other herrerasaurids); saddle-shaped ulnar condyle of humerus (unknown in other herrerasaurids); articular surface for ulnare on ulna convex; articular surface of ulnare smaller than that of ulna (unknown in Staurikosaurus and Sanjuansaurus); centrale placed distal to radiale (unknown in other herrerasaurids).
Other diagnoses- Reig (1963) listed numerous characters as being diagnostic of Herrerasaurus. Several refer to the skull of PVL 2558b, which is now excluded from the genus (premaxilla robust and high; three premaxillary teeth; maxilla tall; antorbital fossa widely separated from external nares; eight maxillary teeth; maxillary teeth robust with round alveoli; dentary symphysis dorsoventrally expanded and robust; twelve dentary teeth). The humerus being more than half of femoral length is also based on this specimen. Most of the others are plesiomorphic for saurischians- three sacral vertebrae; short, tall ilium; ischium similar to Plateosaurus and shorter than pubis; gracile and sigmoid femur; astragalus wide and calcaneum small; pes similar to plateosaurids; elongate metatarsus; metatarsal I >66% of metatarsal II; metatarsal V ~66% of metatarsal IV. The preacetabular process is not more robust than in Staurikosaurus. The fourth trochanter is prominent, aliform and as proximally placed in other herrerasaurids. The pubic boot in smaller specimens is only slightly longer than Sanjuansaurus. The pubis is longer than the tibia, not almost as long. The astragalus does not lack an ascending process.
Reig (1963) also listed numerous characters in Ischisaurus' diagnosis. Most of these are plesiomorphic for saurischians- four premaxillary teeth; slender dentary; ~15 dentary teeth; teeth laterally compressed and recurved; relatively short cervical vertebrae; relatively short dorsal vertebrae without ventral keel; short, rounded coracoid; gracile humerus; prominent deltopectoral crest; gracile and sigmoid femur; gracile tibia; astragalus and pes similar to Herrerasaurus. Other characters are vague- premaxillary teeth large; low maxilla; typical olecranon on ulna. The fourth trochanter is as proximally placed in other herrerasaurids, while the "laterally shortened proximal end of tibia" is also present in Sanjuansaurus though not some other Herrerasaurus specimens. The humerus is not a third of humeral length, being 51-59% as in some other basal saurischians. The calcaneum is not larger than the Herrerasaurus holotype. If true, the lack of ventral keels on the cervicals would be distinctive.
Novas (1986) listed a posterodorsal surangular process lateral to the glenoid as an autapomorphy of Ischisaurus, but this is also present in Staurikosaurus.
Novas (1986) listed several characters as apomorphies of Frenguellisaurus. A long and low skull is primitive for dinosauriforms. The anterior maxilla also has enlarged 'canine' teeth in Sanjuansaurus and Tawa. Having a maxilla lower under the antorbital fenestra than Dilophosaurus is plesiomorphic, as is having a smaller antorbital fenestra than that genus. Sanjuansaurus and Eoraptor both have rounder anterior margins on their antorbital fenestrae than Dilophosaurus. Tawa also has a tall jugal, which is also possibly primitive for neotheropods, while Eoraptor's jugal ventral margin is also placed at a high angle to the maxilla. The dentary is also about half mandibular length (52%; measured to tip of posteroventral process) in Staurikosaurus, and only slightly longer in Tawa (58%) than PVSJ 407 (56%), though all are longer than the Frenguellisaurus holotype (49%). Other herrerasaurids have distal caudal prezygapophyses over half of centrum length and with lateral ridges that also run along the centrum.
Novas (1993) listed many supposed autapomorphies of Herrerasaurus. A narrow, U-shaped antiorbital fossa is now known in Sanjuansaurus and Tawa. Posterior dorsal neural spine tables are also present in Sanjuansaurus and Eoraptor. The pubis also has a sinuous lateral margin in Sanjuansaurus. The femur also has an anteroproximal keel and distal anterolateral scar in Sanjuansaurus.
Sereno (1993) listed several additional pectoral and forelimb autapomorphies of Herrerasaurus. The acromion also exhibits an abrupt increase in width in Sanjuansaurus. Sereno claimed disatal carpal IV is enlarged, but this is actually distal carpal V, which is also enlarged in undescribed herrerasaurid MACN-PV 18.649a.
Comments- The holotype was discovered in 1961, while the paratypes were discovered between 1959 and 1961. MCZ 7064 was discovered in 1958 and described by Brinkman and Sues in 1987 as cf. Staurikosaurus sp., though it and an undescribed skull associated with the specimen were later assigned to Frenguellisaurus (Paul, 1988), excluded from Staurikosaurus (Novas, 1992), and finally referred to Herrerasaurus (Novas, 1993). Novas noted the bones described by Brinkman and Sues as proximal ischia are distal pubes. Sereno et al. (1988) reported new remains discovered that year, with PVSJ 373, 407 and 461 identified as herrerasaurid (incorrectly stating cervical epipophyses are absent) and PVSJ 380 as theropod. These were preliminarily described by Sereno and Novas (1992), and in detail in a series of monographs for the skull and neck (Sereno and Novas, 1993), pectoral girdle and forelimb (Sereno, 1993) and rest of the postcrania (Novas, 1993). The complete skull of PVSJ 407 and manus of PVSJ 373 now form much of the common perception of Herrerasaurus. Sereno (2007) noted that three sacral vertebrae are present in Herrerasaurus, with the first being identified as a dorsal by earlier authors. Ezcurra (2010) noted that a distal carpal I is present in PVSJ 380, making the carpals identified by Sereno (1993) as I-IV actually II-V.
Herrerasaurus a theropod? As a carnivorous dinosaur, Herrerasaurus has almost always been associated with theropods, though that group was often thought to be diphyletic (with separate origins for coelurosaurs and carnosaurs, both sensu Huene) and often contained prosauropods the first two decades after the genus was described. Bakker and Galton (1974) placed Herrerasaurus as a basal theropod in the sense recognized today, though without discussion. This hypothesis was common after Sereno and Novas' (1992) description of new material and was nearly always combined with placing Staurikosaurus in Herrerasauridae, so it will be discussed in more detail in the comments for that family. One exception is Kischlat (2000), who used an unpublished analysis to place Herrerasaurus as a theropod more derived than Eoraptor, while Staurikosaurus was a sauropodomorph.
Herrerasaurus a carnosaur sensu Huene? Reig (1963) assigned Herrerasaurus to the Carnosauria, noting most characters were similar to sauropodomorphs except the supposed reduction in tooth number (based on an incorrectly referred skull) and large pubic boot which resembled allosaurids and tyrannosaurids. The pubic boot has since been recognized as nonhomologous with that of neotheropods, as it involves folding of the pubic blade instead of anteroposterior expansion.
Herrerasaurus a sauropodomorph? Herrerasaurus has always been recognized as being similar to what are today considered basal sauropodomorphs. In the 1960s and 1970s, the taxonomy of that group was chaotic and hindered by their frequent misassociation with pseudosuchian jaw elements and teeth. Among the earliest referrals are Rozhdestvensky and Tatarinov (1964), who placed it in their Gryponychidae, a family traditionally viewed as including prosauropod-like basal carnosaurs but now known to be based on a massopod. Reig (1970) also placed it in Gryponychidae (or a related family), which in his scheme was a family of superficially carnosaur-like prosauropods. Similar was Colbert's (1970) referral of Herrerasaurus to Teratosauridae, which was thought to be a family of basal sauropodomorphs with macropredatory skulls but is now known to be based on prosauropod-grade sauropodomorphs associated with pseudosuchian cranial elements and teeth. Ignoring the large skull and teeth (which were incorrectly referred to both Herrerasaurus and sauropodomorphs), Colbert's suggested characters include robust hindlimb, tibia shorter than femur, and broad pes. Walker (1964) thought Herrerasaurus was similar in most respects to "Plateosaurus type" saurischians but viewed the pubic boot as indicating a relationship with Poposaurus and a pubis later referred to Postosuchus, two pseudosuchians. Both Romer (1966) and Steel (1970) listed it as a plateosaurid. Van Heerden (1978) placed Herrerasaurus as a basal sauropod, with prosauropods the sister taxon to Sauropoda. He later (1979) moved it to Prosauropoda (his Palaeopoda), which he viewed as basal carnosaurs sensu Huene. Cooper (1980, 1981) thought herrerasaurids were basal prosauropods, though also the grade from which theropods arose. While these historical comparisons of Herrerasaurus to sauropodomorphs were generally vague, unpublished analysis suggests herrerasaurids can be moved to a position as basalmost sauropodomorphs without adding many extra steps.
Herrerasaurus outside Dinosauria? Gauthier (1984) was the first to place Herrerasaurus outside Saurischia+Ornithischia, which in today's nomenclature would exclude it from Dinosauria (though he and other authors advocating this arrangement still viewed it as dinosaurian). However, this was in the context of it being a herrerasaurid along with Staurikosaurus so is discussed further under the comments for that family. Brinkman and Sues (1987) excluded Herrerasaurus from Dinosauria based on the incompletely perforated acetabulum and large pedal digit V. Benton (1990) excluded it based on less than three sacral vertebrae, anterior trochanter not a spike or crest, and distal tibia not transversely expanded. Sereno and Novas (1990) presented the results of an unpublished analysis in an abstract, citing a shorter preacetabular process as evidence for excluding Herrerasaurus from Dinosauria. Fraser et al. (2002) listed the rudimentary brevis fossa as evidence Herrerasaurus is non-dinosaurian. They also listed characters supposedly excluding it from Saurischia and Theropoda, but these actually only exclude it from Eusaurischia (manual digit I not offset; manual ungual I not enlarged; manual digit III longest) and Neotheropoda (short preacetabular process; five tibiotarsal characters listed by Novas, 1989a) and are thus congruent with placing Herrerasaurus as a basal saurischian or basal theropod as well. No recent cladistic analysis has excluded Herrerasaurus from Dinosauria.
Ischisaurus- The holotype of Ischisaurus cattoi was found in 1960 and only briefly described and illustrated, leading to general uncertainty regarding its relationships. Manual elements and parts of the right pes were reported by Reig, but not listed by Novas (1993). Ischisaurus was first thought to represent a taxon intermediate between coelurosaurs sensu Huene and pachypodosaurs (Huene's carnosaur+sauropodomorph clade) (Reig, 1963). Some authors placed it in families that were thought to be carnivorous prosauropods at the time (Gryponychidae- Rozhdestvensky and Tatarinov, 1964; Palaeosauriscidae- Colbert, 1970), while others placed it in families containing small standard prosauropods (Thecodontosauridae- Reig, 1970; Anchisauridae- Steel, 1970). Few provided evidence, though Colbert stated it was more similar to Staurikosaurus (which he also considered a palaeosauriscid) than Herrerasaurus in femoral curvature, the position of the femoral head, and the size and position of the fourth trochanter. Another common placement was as a theropod (Demathieu, 1970; Bakker and Galton, 1974; Galton and Cluver, 1976), with Bakker and Galton specifying a very basal placement in the clade. It was assigned to Herrerasauridae by Gauthier (1984, 1986), Novas (1986, 1989a, 1989b), Sues (1990), Olshevsky (1991) and Bonaparte (1997), and Staurikosauridae by Paul (1988).
The diagnosis of Ischisaurus contains several characters intended to distinguish the genus from Herrerasaurus, and Reig notes he initially considered the former a juvenile of the latter. Of these characters, the cranial ones (four premaxillary teeth; slender dentary; ~15 dentary teeth; teeth laterally compressed and recurved), supposedly short humerus and "normal olecranon" on the ulna are based on differences from PVL 2558b (Novas, 1993), which is no longer referred to Herrerasaurus. The smaller size and slightly larger tibiofemoral ratio are potentially ontogenetic. "Laterally shortened proximal end of tibia" is rather vague, but Novas' (1993) measurements do indicate Ischisaurus' tibia is only 6% wider proximally than distally, compared to 36% in the Herrerasaurus holotype and 58% in PVSJ 373. Contra Reig's diagnosis, Ischisaurus' calcaneum is actually smaller (37% of astragalar transverse width) than the Herrerasaurus holotype's (47%), though slightly larger than PVSJ 373's (32%). The cervicals are said to lack ventral keels, unlike PVSJ 407 (and Sanjuansaurus). Novas (1986) noted Ischisaurus differs from Frenguellisaurus in having a posterodorsal surangular process lateral to the glenoid (which he felt was an autapomorphy), but he later (1993) stated this was due to deformation and preparation differences (PVSJ 407 also has the process, so presumably Frenguellisaurus' condition is the deformed one). Romer (1966) and Cooper (1981) were the first to synonymize it with Herrerasaurus, though without stated evidence. Novas (1992) and Sereno and Novas (1992) synonymized it with Herrerasaurus based on unspecified information from the specimens found in 1988. Novas (1993) elaborated, stating that supposed differences from Herrerasaurus were due to PVL 2558b as noted above, that the two shared autapomorphies, and "do not show any differences." This has been accepted uncritically by most workers ever since. However, the tibial and calcaneal differences noted by Reig were based on PVL 2558a (still referred to Herrerasaurus by Novas) and Novas states on the same page that Herrerasaurus' holotype has shorter posterior dorsal centra than Ischisaurus' holotype or the specimens discovered in 1988 (PVSJ 373, 407 and 461). Bonaparte (1997) noted the latter and found the synonymy had not been convincingly demonstrated, retaining Ischisaurus as a distinct genus a decade later (Bonaparte et al., 2007). Langer and Benton (2006) stated Ischisaurus did not preserve either of the two apomorphies they diagnosed Herrerasaurus with (as it lacks a pubis or ischium) and has less compressed dorsals, but noted it resembles Herrerasaurus more than Staurikosaurus "in the longer ischiadic peduncle of the ilium, the more dorsally expanded cnemial crest and the square distal tibia." They also noted the holotypes of Ischisaurus and Herrerasaurus both have a platform anterior to the astragalar ascending process, but PVSJ 373 does not. They concluded it was probable Ischisaurus was synonymous with Herrerasaurus, but Langer et al. (2009) only considered it a possible synonym. Complicating matters is the recent discovery of Sanjuansaurus, which shares almost all the supposed Herrerasaurus autapomorphies listed by Sereno and Novas which it can be evaluated for. Unfortunately, the only valid Herrerasaurus apomorphy which can be evaluated for Ischisaurus in the literature is the comparatively large tibiofemoral ratio, which supports synonymizing the two. The lack of cervical ventral keels, more elongate dorsal centra and transversely narrow proximal tibia may suggest a taxonomic distinction, but this cannot be pursued further without access to the material given the meager description and illustration in the literature. Notably, the variation noted above and incompleteness of most specimens suggests that if Ischisaurus is valid, the referral of most known individuals to Herrerasaurus would be questionable.
Frenguellisaurus- Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis was discovered in 1975 and described by Novas (1986) as a primitive saurischian, probably with theropod affinities. It was later assigned to Herrerasauridae by Paul (1988), Novas (1989b) and Bonaparte (1997), and to Staurikosauridae by Olshevsky (1991), while Molnar (1990) suggested it might be a dinosaur outgroup related to Staurikosaurus and herrerasaurids. Paul viewed it as a basal herrerasaurid but placed it in that family instead of Staurikosauridae based on the dorsal centra of MCZ 7064, which has since been referred to Herrerasaurus.
Novas (1992) and Sereno and Novas (1992) synonymized Freguellisaurus with Herrerasaurus based on unspecified information from the specimens found in 1988. Novas elaborated in 1993, stating that the separation from Herrerasaurus was based on the incorrect assumption that genus had short distal caudal prezygapophyses (though Novas never noted distinguishing characters in his 1986 paper) and that the two genera share autapomorphies. Bonaparte (1997) felt the synonymy had not been demonstrated, though he did not provide supporting evidence. Langer and Benton (2006) state that while Frenguellisaurus does not preserve any of the Herrerasaurus apomorphies they recognized, it was similar to PVSJ 407 in having "a narrow U-shaped maxillary antorbital fossa, a lateral ridge on the jugal, a squared ventral ramus of the squamosal, a dorsally narrow laterotemporal fenestra and a mediocaudally expanded quadratojugal." However, they also noted it has a shorter dentary and stronger lateral ridges on its distal caudals than either Staurikosaurus or Herrerasaurus, as well as larger 'canine' maxillary teeth. These differences were said to be possibly autapomorphic, but also possibly ontogenetic due to Frenguellisaurus' large size. As with Ischisaurus, they consider Frenguellisaurus probably synonymous with Herrerasaurus, but Langer et al. (2009) only considered it a possible synonym. Similar to the situation noted above for Ischisaurus, Sanjuansaurus complicates the referral of Frenguellisaurus to Herrerasaurus. An additional issue is the lack of much overlap between holotypes, which share only a dorsal neural spine and caudal vertebrae. While Frenguellisaurus is more similar to PVSJ 407 than Sanjuansaurus in having a highly convex ventral maxillary margin, PVSJ 407 itself only shares dorsal vertebrae with the Herrerasaurus holotype (which differ from it and are like Ischisaurus in being relatively elongate). The variation described above between specimens is here viewed as interspecific, but if it is taxonomic the referral of Frenguellisaurus and other specimens like PVSJ 407 to Herrerasaurus is in question. Further analysis requires access to the specimens, especially the Ischisaurus types and MACN 7063, which all contain cranial material.
Not Herrerasaurus- PVL 2558 was a paratype of Herrerasaurus, but includes two individuals. Bonaparte (1970) first recognized the cranial elements were probably different. The individual they belong to was recatalogued as PVL 2558b, excluded from Herrerasauridae by Novas (1986, 1989a) and referred to Archosauria indet. by Novas (1993). It includes a premaxilla, maxillae, dentaries, presacral and caudal vertebrae, humeri, ulnae and proximal pubes. Subtracting the material Novas (1993) retains in Herrerasaurus, this leaves a posterior mandible, partial ilium, fibulae, partial metatarsals and proximal pedal phalanges unaccounted for. Note Novas (1989a) retains the humeri, ulnae and fibulae in Herrerasauridae, contra his later work.
PVL 2264 is a partial femur from the Los Colorados Formation that was another paratype of Herrerasaurus, but was referred to Archosauria indet. by Novas (1993) and later Theropoda indet. by Ezcurra (2017).
References- Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estratos de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico Superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (República Argentina). Ameghiniana. 3, 3-20.
Rozhdestvensky and Tatarinov, 1964. Order Saurischia. in Orlov (ed.). Osnovy Paleontologii. 529-552.
Romer, 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1-468.
Bonaparte, 1970. Annotated list of the South American Triassic tetrapods. Second Gondwana Symposium, Proceedings and Papers. 665-682.
Reig, 1970. The Proterosuchia and the early evolution of the archosaurs; an essay about the origin of a major taxon. Bulletin of The Museum of Comparative Zoology. 139, 229-292.
Steel, 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 1-87.
Benedetto, 1973. Herrerasauridae, nueva familia de saurisquios triasicos. Ameghiniana. 10(1), 89-102.
Bakker and Galton, 1974. Dinosaur monophyly and a new class of vertebrates. Nature. 248, 168-172.
Galton and Cluver, 1976. Anchisaurus capensis (Broom) and a revision of the Anchisauridae (Reptilia, Saurischia). Annals of the South African Museum. 69(6), 121-159.
van Heerden, 1978. Herrerasaurus and the origin of sauropod dinosaurs. South African Journal of Science. 74, 187-189.
van Heerden, 1979. The morphology and taxonomy of Euskelosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia; Late Triassic) from South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein. 4, 21-84.
Cooper, 1980. The prosauropod ankle and dinosaur phylogeny. South African Journal of Science. 76, 176-178.
Cooper, 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: Its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia (series B, Natural Sciences). 6, 689-840.
Gauthier, 1984. A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida. PhD thesis. University of California. 564 pp.
Novas, 1986. Un probable teropodo (Saurischia) de la Formación Ischigualasto (Triásico superior), San Juan, Argentina. [A probable theropod (Saurischia) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic), San Juan, Argentina.] [in Spanish, with English summ.]. Actas del Congreso Argentino de Paleontología y Bioestratigrafía. 4, 1-6.
Brinkman and Sues, 1987. A staurikosaurid dinosaur from the Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina and the relationships of the Staurikosauridae. Palaeontology. 30, 493-503.
Paul, 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York. A New York Academy of Sciences Book. 464 pp.
Sereno, Novas, Arcucci and Yu, 1988. New evidence on dinosaur and mammal origins from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic, Argentina). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 8(3), 26A.
Novas, 1989a. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1989b. Los dinosaurios carnivoros de la Argentina. PhD thesis. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 510 pp.
Benton, 1990. Origin and interrelationships of dinosaurs. in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolaska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. 11-30.
Molnar, 1990. Problematic Theropoda: "Carnosaurs". in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolaska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. 306-317.
Sereno and Novas, 1990. Dinosaur origins and the phylogenetic position of pterosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 10(3), 42A.
Sues, 1990. Staurikosaurus and Herrerasauridae. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria. University of California Press. 143-147.
Novas, 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of the basal dinosaurs, the Herrerasauridae. Palaeontology. 35, 51-62.
Sereno and Novas, 1992. The complete skull and skeleton of an early dinosaur. Science. 258, 1137-1140.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Sereno and Novas, 1993. The skull and neck of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 451-476.
Sereno, 1993. The pectoral girdle and forelimb of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 425-450.
Holtz, 1994. The arctometatarsalian pes, an unusual structure of the metatarsus of Cretaceous Theropoda (Dinosauria: Saurischia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 14(4), 480-519.
Carrano, 1998. The evolution of dinosaur locomotion: Functional morphology, biomechanics, and modern analogs. Volume One. PhD Thesis, The University of Chicago. 424 pp.
Franzosa, 2001 online. Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, Digital Morphology. http://digimorph.org/specimens/Herrerasaurus_ischigualastensis/
Fraser, Padian, Walkden and Davis, 2002. Basal dinosauriform remains from Britain and the diagnosis of the Dinosauria. Palaeontology. 45(1), 79-95.
Starck and Chinsamy, 2002. Bone microstructure and developmental plasticity in birds and other dinosaurs. Journal of Morphology. 254, 232-246.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 861 pp.
Sereno, 2007. The phylogenetic relationships of early dinosaurs: a comparative report. Historical Biology. 19(1), 145-155.
Paulina-Carabajal, 2009. El neurocráneo de los dinosaurios Theropoda de la Argentina: Osteología y sus implicancias filogenéticas. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 554 pp.
Ezcurra, 2010. A new early dinosaur (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) from the Late Triassic of Argentina: A reassessment of dinosaur origin and phylogeny. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(3), 371-425.
Ezcurra, 2017. A new early coelophysoid neotheropod from the Late Triassic of northwestern Argentina. Ameghiniana. 54, 506-538.

unnamed clade (Chindesaurus bryansmalli + Tawa hallae)
Diagnosis- (after Baron and Williams, 2018) sharp, well developed ridge that connects the midpoint of the supraacetabular crest to the preacetabular process.
(after Marsh et al., 2019) incomplete ligamental sulcus on the posterior side of femoral head, so that posterior edge is flat in proximal view; small semicircular excavation on posterior margin of medial posterior condyle of proximal tibia; cnemial crest makes up <35% of the total anteroposterior width of the tibia in proximal view; posterolateral process of the tibia tapers while projecting laterodistally; proximal outline of the astragalus is relatively short such that the anteroposterior-mediolateral width is >0.7; astragalus bearing prominent cleft anteriorly, which continues posteriorly across the distal astragalar surface as a groove.
Are Tawa and Chindesaurus synonymous?- In an abstract for their unpublished dinosauromorph analysis, Langer and Bittencourt (2014) first reported recovering "a clade including Tawa and Chindesaurus ... which share a unique tibial/tarsal anatomy".  This was first recovered in a published analysis by  Cabreira et al. (2016), and has since been recovered in versions of Nesbitt's (Marsh et al., 2019) and Baron's (Baron et al., 2017) dinosauromorph analyses.  While it's still more common to see Chindesaurus as a herrerasaur and Tawa closer to neotheropods, this is probably due to scoring inaccuracy and not including their proposed synapomorphies.  Whether these are theropods, non-eusaurischian saurischians or even herrerasaurians is unresolved.
Given that both genera are restricted to the Norian of the southwest United States and have even been found in the same localities (Kaye, Giving Site, Hayden but see Evans et al., 2018), Agnolin (2017) has proposed they are synonymous, but several characters have been put forth by Nesbitt et al. (2009) and Marsh et al. (2019) to distinguish them.  With the type specimens of Tawa smaller than Chindesaurus, the hypothesis is that differences that exist could be ontogenetic. 
Of Nesbitt et al.'s diagnostic characters that can be evaluated in Chindesaurus, the latter also has- incomplete ligamental sulcus on the posterior side of femoral head, so that posterior edge is flat in proximal view; and small semicircular excavation on posterior margin of medial posterior condyle of proximal tibia;  but does not have Tawa's semicircular muscle scar on the posterior face of the femoral head (GR 244; also seen in GR 235) or transverse step on the ventral surface of the astragalus (GR 242). Of additional characters listed in the supplementary information, the lateral tibial condyle is indeed much wider in Chindesaurus compared to GR 242, but the lateral edge of the lateral condyle is too broken in Chindesaurus to say that it's squared off from the posterior edge.  The posterolateral tibial process may be longer in Chindesaurus than Tawa (GR 242) but this is difficult to determine with the latter still articulated with the tarsus.  Contra Nesbitt et al., the cervical of Chindesaurus has a strong ventral keel and shallow pleurocoels as in Tawa, and the sharp acetabular edge doesn't reach the end of the pubic peduncle in Chindesaurus (same for NMMNH P-35995 and UMMP 8870).  The fourth trochanter is asymmetrical and rugose in Tawa femur GR 235 which is larger than the type specimens that reportedly have symmetrical trochanters, so this may be ontogenetic.  Finally, Nesbitt et al. state "All known femora of Chindesaurus possess a distinct trochanteric shelf, even in specimens (GR 226) that are significantly smaller than Tawa femora that lack a trochanteric shelf (GR 240)", but this is known to vary in basal saurischian species seemingly due to sexual dimorphism. 
Of Marsh et al.'s characters, the smooth proximal surface of the femoral head in Chindesaurus is different from a transverse groove in Tawa (GR 241), and the opposite trend exists ontogenetically in Pampadromaeus and Silesaurus where larger individuals have deeper grooves.  The dorsolateral trochanter is rounded in Chindesaurus but sharp in Tawa (GR 241).  Another character is not determinable for Tawa from figures in the literature- "relatively anteroposteriorly short dorsal centra (centrum length less than 1.33 times the height of the anterior articular surface)", as Tawa dorsals remain completely undescribed.  The authors do state Tawa has "relatively longer dorsal centra", so it is provisionally accepted.  Marsh et al. also stated Chindesaurus has shorter distal caudal prezygapophyses than Tawa, but the most distal element with a complete prezygapophysis in Chindesaurus has the structure 23% of centrum length, while the figured caudals of Tawa have a ratio of about 22%.  These vertebrae are also lower and thus more distally placed than any known for Chindesaurus, which would be expected to have longer prezygapophyses if anything if the pattern in Staurikosaurus is upheld.  Marsh et al. further state Tawa can be distinguished by "middle portion of ventral keel of cervical centra is ventral to the centrum rims", but this is not true in the one figured cervical.  If it is true in other cervicals, one would still have to establish the single known anterior cervical of Chindesaurus is from the same position as those ones.  Finally, they propose Tawa differs in that the "femoral head orientation is medial and the angle with respect to the transverse axis through the femoral condyles is less than 20°", but Chindesaurus' holotype femoral shaft is far too fractured and distorted to score for this, referred complete femora (GR 210, 226) have yet to be described or figured in a way to judge this, and the latter is also true of any Tawa femora.  This is also known to vary due to subtle taphonomic distortion, such as when Benson demonstrated of nine Cleveland-Lloyd Allosaurus femora, three had medially angled heads, three from 10-20 degrees and three from 30-40 degrees.  So while this may end up being a true difference between the taxa, I think far more work needs to be done before it can be justified.
Finally, reviewing previous diagnoses for Chindesaurus shows that Long and Murry (1995) proposed "astragalus with prominent posteroproximal projection beyond the proximal articular surface" which is different from GR 242 at least.  Nesbitt et al. (2007) proposed triangular rugosity on the postacetabular process, which is absent in Tawa specimen GR 1062 at least although also compatable with an ontogenetic explanation as smaller Silesaurus specimens have less rugose ilial scars.  Finally, Nesbitt et al. stated a posterior edge of the fibular condyle of the proximal tibia that is straight in proximal view is unique for dinosauromorphs, and indeed is different from Tawa specimen GR 242 at least.
This leaves us with eight characters that can be confirmed to be different from at least one Hayden Quarry Tawa specimen.  What will confirm or reject this hypothesis is further study of Tawa to determine if other specimens all share the same states and if differences proposed by Marsh et al. can be demonstrated.  Such a study was reported by Evans et al. (2018) in an abstract for Hayden Quarry femora, which found that "Generally, the smaller femora pertain to Tawa and the largest pertain to the Chindesaurus-like morphotype, however, there is a significant zone of overlap in the middle (i.e., there are larger Tawa femora and smaller Chindesaurus-like femora). In support of our hypothesis, we documented several femora with morphological features characteristic of both Tawa and Chindesaurus-like femora within the same individual, providing evidence of an intermediate stage between the more immature Tawa-like morphology and the more mature Chindesaurus-like morphology."  While this supports the absence of Chindesaurus in the Hayden Quarry, until tibiae and astragali from there are compared, it remains possible that e.g. Chindesaurus from Dinosaur Hollow is a different taxon.  Pending this and publication of Evans et al.'s study to show which femoral characters varied ontogenetically, the taxa are left separate here.
Not chindesaurs- Marsh et al. (2019) suggested tibia TTU-P11044 from the Cooper Canyon Formation of Texas "may be referred to this clade owing to the presence of two notches on the posterior margin of the proximal end", but the second concavity is far medial of Chindesaurus or Tawa, and the tibia otherwise differs in the long cnemial crest, fibular crest, anteriorly shifted lateral condyle, and concave posterolateral edge in distal view, which are all more similar to neotheropods.
References- Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Nesbitt, Smith, Irmis, Turner, Downs and Norell, 2009. A complete skeleton of a Late Triassic saurischian and the early evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 326, 1530-1533.
Langer and Bittencourt, 2014. New developments into early dinosaur phylogeny. 4th International Palaeontological Congress, Abstract Volume. 559.
Cabreira, Kellner, Dias-da-Silva, da Silva, Bronzati, de Almeida Marsola, Müller, de Souza Bittencourt, Batista, Raugust and Carrilho, 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology. 26(22), 3090-3095.
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. Baron et al. reply. Nature. 551, E4-E5.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Evans, Griffin, Smith, Turner, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2018. Ontogenetic changes in the femur of Tawa hallae and implication for species diversity of Late Triassic dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Program and Abstracts 2018. 123.
Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.

chindesaur indet. (Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Bowman Site PFV 089, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material- (PEFO 34875) proximal femur (Marsh et al., 2019)
Comments- Marsh and Parker (2020) refer proximal femur PEFO 34875 to the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade based on several characters, but it has poorly preserved proximal and posterior surfaces so that I cannot determine the presence of a transverse groove or semicircular scar as seen in Tawa but not Chindesaurus.  Previously, Marsh et al. (2019) had listed and figured it as excluded from Chindesaurus or a member of the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade.
References- Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

chindesaurs indet. (Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Material
-  (PEFO 34085) proximal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
(PEFO 34605) distal femur, proximal tibia, distal tibia (Marsh et al., 2019)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Black Knoll E PFV 451, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(PEFO 40754) proximal femur (Marsh et. al., 2019)
Comments- Marsh and Parker (2020) refer the proximal femora to the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade based on several characters, but each has poorly preserved proximal and posterior surfaces so that I cannot determine the presence of a transverse groove or semicircular scar as seen in Tawa but not Chindesaurus.  Previously, Marsh et al. (2019) had listed and figured them as excluded from Chindesaurus or members of the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade.  Marsh and Parker referred poorly preserved PEFO 34605 to that clade based on characters seen in those two taxa and Guaibasaurus
References- Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.

Chindesaurus Long and Murry, 1995
= "Chindesaurus" Long vide Miller, 1985
= "Holbrookosauras" Anonymous?, 1986
= Caseosaurus Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998
C. bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995
= "Chindesaurus smalli" Anonymous, 1985
= "Holbrookosauras smallii" Anonymous?, 1986
= "Chindesaurus bryansmalli" Murry and Long, 1989
= Caseosaurus crosbyensis Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Dinosaur Hollow PFV 020, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Holotype
- (PEFO 10395; = UCMP 138171; Chinde Point dinosaur; Gertie) (~2.4 m) (?)tooth (22 mm), incomplete anterior cervical centrum (~32 mm), partial cervical centrum, five posterior dorsal centra, dorsal neural spine fragment, rib fragments, first sacral vertebra (32 mm), second sacral centrum (38 mm), two partial proximal caudal vertebrae (27.5 mm), proximal caudal centrum, several mid-distal caudal vertebrae, chevron, fragmentary ilia, proximal pubis, pubic shaft, distal ischium, femora (one proximal; 265 mm), partial tibia, incomplete astragalus
Paratype- ?(UCMP coll.; lost) two sacral centra
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Chinde Point N2 PFV 018, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

Paratype- ?(PEFO 4849) dorsal centrum
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
Referred
- (PEFO 33982) nine vertebrae, ilium fragment, proximal femur, bone fragments (Stocker, Parker, Irmis and Shuman, 2004; described by Parker and Irmis, 2005)
(PEFO 33988) proximal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Rabbit Foot Hills PFV 302, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US

?(PEFO 38710) two anterior cervical vertebrae, posterior cervical vertebra, anterior dorsal vertebra, posterior dorsal vertebra, sacral vertebra (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Snyder Quarry NMMNH L-3845, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
(NMMNH P-35995) partial ilium (Nesbitt et al., 2007)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Kaye Quarry PFV 410, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(PEFO 39273; = UWBM 108212) proximal femur (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Bull Canyon NMMNH L-134, Bull Canyon Formation, New Mexico, US
Paratype
- (NMMNH P-4415) proximal femur (Hunt, 1994)
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Trilophosaurus Quarry 3 MOTT 2000 TMM 31100, Colorado City Formation of Dockum Group, Texas, US

Paratype- (TMM 31100-523) proximal femur
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Post Quarry MOTT 3624, Lower Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US

Referred- (TTU-P10082) partial ilium, incomplete pubis, ischial fragments (Lehane, 2005)
Norian-Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Crosby County, Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(UMMP 8870; holotype of Caseosaurus crosbyensis) partial ilium (140.5 mm) (Case, 1927)
Diagnosis- (after Long and Murry, 1995) astragalus with prominent posteroproximal projection beyond the proximal articular surface.
(after Nesbitt et al., 2007) triangular rugosity on the postacetabular process; proximal tibial intercondylar groove that is strongly situated medially; posterior edge of the fibular condyle of the proximal tibia that is straight in proximal view.
(after Marsh et al., 2019) relatively anteroposteriorly short dorsal centra (centrum length less than 1.33 times the height of the anterior articular surface) (unconfirmed absent in Tawa); smooth proximal surface of the femoral head; dorsolateral trochanter of femur rounded.
Other diagnoses- Long and Murry (1995) listed "astragalus bearing prominent cleft anteriorly, which continues posteriorly across the distal astragalar surface as a groove", but this is also true in Tawa.  They also listed distal astragalar surface with anterior margin much wider than posterior margin, but this is an illusion due to the broken lateral side of the element. 
Marsh et al. (2019) also listed "short prezygapophyses on the distal caudal vertebrae" compared to Tawa, but Tawa has equally long zygapophyses on caudals that are positioned more distally than those preserved in Chindesaurus, which should be the longest in the tail.
Comments- The holotype was discovered in Summer 1984, and as early as May 1985 Miller reported "Long says he may name the newly discovered dinosaur Chindesaurus."  It was then loaned to the UCMP to be prepared under specimen number UCMP 138171 before being shipped back to the PEFO permanently.  As reported by Parker (online 2011), the Holbrook Times in 1986 celebrated that "The oldest articulated dinosaur was named after Holbrook, according to Petrified Forest National Park Superintendent Ed Gastellum. Known affectionately as "Gertie," its official name was Holbrookosauras Smallii, honoring the community of Holbrook and Brian Small, the discoverer of the remains at the Petrified Forest."  "Chindesaurus smalli" was first used in the "San Diego Union, June 2, 1985" according to Olshevsky (1991), while the final name "Chindesaurus bryansmalli" was used in quoatation marks three times in Murry and Long (1989) before the official description by Long and Murry (1995).  While Miller reported "The number of thigh bones found indicate that the site actually contains more than one skeleton of the species", Marsh et al. (2019) note "a smaller partial pelvis and hind limb ... probably belong to a shuvosaurid, but those bones have been missing since the preparation of the block (T. Rowe, pers. comm., 2017; Rob Long field notes, 1985..."  Hunt et al. (1998) state "Long & Murry did not mention the teeth that are included in the holotype (PEFO 10395). The most complete tooth has a broken tip. It is laterally compressed and recurved with a concave posterior margin. As preserved, the height is 22 mm with a basal length of about 12.5 mm. The posterior and anterior margins are finely serrated with about 5 serrations per mm. We assume that this tooth pertains to Chindesaurus bryansmalli. Two other tooth fragments are, respectively, nondinosaurian and indeterminate."  Nesbitt et al. (2007) state "This assignment is questionable, given the lack of comparable material and the taphonomic tendency for isolated teeth to be deposited with unrelated remains during burial."  They redescribe some of the material, but Marsh et al. provide a more extensive osteology.  An additional partial cervical centrum, dorsal neural spine tip, and at least two more chevrons are recognized, while the tooth and rib fragments are not mentioned.  The authors also find that "Many centra originally assigned to the dorsal series of PEFO 10395 (e.g., Long and Murry, 1995:fig. 177d–h) actually are anterior caudal vertebrae, because the ventral portions of the preserved neural arches lack laminae."
Long and Murry (1995) list "UCMP, 2 co-ossified sacral vertebrae, larger individual than holotype" as a referred specimen from the type locality, but Angielczyk (2002) states "the specimen referred to could not be found in the UCMP collections."
Dorsal centrum PEFO 4849 was originally referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995), but removed by Hunt et al. (1996, 1998) as "not generically determinate."  Parker and Martz (2010) and Sarigul (2017) still regard it as Chindesaurus, so it is tentatively retained here.  It has never been figured or described.
PEFO 33982 was discovered in 2004 and first announced as "new material of the herrerasaur Chindesaurus bryansmalli" from "important new site from the Petrified Forest Member", later to be named the Giving Site.  Parker and Irmis (2005) mentioned it and figured the femur in one view, while Nesbitt et al. (2007) also mentions it (though note that their figures 4 and 7 claim to be PEFO 33982 but are actually the holotype).  The proximal femur was later figured in all views by Marsh et al. (2019) and in color by Marsh and Parker (2020).  The latter two references only refer it to the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade, but the lack of a proximal sulcus shows it is Chindesaurus.  Marsh and Parker also refer another Giving Site proximal femur (PEFO 33988) as the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade, but it lacks a semicircular scar on the posterior head, so is placed in Chindesaurus here.  Similarly, Marsh and Parker figure Sonsela Member proximal femur PEFO 39273 and refer it to the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade, but it also lacks a proximal groove so is referred to Chindesaurus here.  Marsh and Parker referred PEFO 38710 to Theropoda based on the cervical pleurocoels, but it is here provisionally specified to Chindesaurus based on the short dorsal centra (Elongation Index 0.99) although the longer dorsals of Tawa are unconfirmed and dorsals are unknown in Daemonosaurus.
Caseosaurus and other ilia- First identified as Coelophysis sp. by Case (1927), who wrote it "is very nearly the same size as that of C. longicollis Cope, as restored and figured by Huene, but is somewhat different in form."  Huene (1932) instead stated (translated) "On the whole, then, I think that the ilium belongs to the parasuchians as likely" based on the low number of sacrals, less projected ischial peduncle and postacetabular rugosities.  Murry (1989) wrote "R. A. Long (pers. comm., 1989) believes that the ilium collected by Case belongs to the same staurikosaurid taxon as collected by Berkeley parties off Chinde Point", referring to the then-undescribed Chindesaurus.  Long and Murry (1995) made UMMP 8870 a paratype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli when they described it, claiming "the posterior iliac blade and the pubic peduncle are preserved and virtually identical to Case's specimen". Hunt et al. (1998) later claimed Chindesaurus differed from UMMP 8870 "in possessing a deep brevis shelf that extends to the posterior margin, a lateral longitudinal ridge (for sacral rib articulation) that is placed more dorsally and a much thicker (more than twice) posterior blade in dorsal view."  He thus made the Texan ilium the holotype of a new taxon of herrerasaurid- Caseosaurus crosbyensis.  Subsequent authors (e.g. Nesbitt et al., 2017; Marsh et al., 2019) have confirmed neither ilium has a brevis shelf or even a ridge like Herrerasaurus.  Hunt et al. clearly meant the medial (not lateral) ridge for sacral articulation, which is actually positioned comparatively more dorsally in Caseosaurus by a slight amount (depth of bone under the ridge is 40% greater when the ilium is ~19% larger than Chindesaurus based on the distal pubic peduncle depth).  Similarly, adjusted for size Caseosaurus has the slightly thicker postacetabular process, at 28% thicker when the ilium is 19% larger.   Both of these ratios may be artificially smaller in Chindesaurus due to broken bone edges, especially below the medial ridge.  Thus none of Hunt et al.'s distinguishing characters hold up, a conclusion echoed by Nesbitt et al. who wrote "We cannot substantiate the differences between the holotype of Chindesaurus and Caseosaurus identified by Hunt et al."  Baron and Williams (2018) claim UMMP 8870 differs from herrerasaurids in "the absence of an acetabular antitrochanter* (which also distinguishes Caseosaurus crosbyensis from Chindesaurus bryansmalli)", but one is clearly visible in their stereopair figure 2 and in NMMNH P-35995, while the area in Chindesaurus is fragmentary with broken ventral edges (note the asterisks in their work indicate characters shared with ilium NMMNH P-35996).  It's also important that Chindesaurus shows all of the herrerasaur characters described by Baron and Williams for Caseosaurus- "a supraacetabular crest that extends down part of pubic peduncle as a ridge without reaching the distal end*; possession of extensive rugosities on the pre- and postacetabular processes*"; "absence of a brevis fossa", and shares the characters said to differ from other herrerasaurs- less extensive rugose areas on the postacetabular process; "the supracetabular crest ... describes a semicircle in lateral view*".  All of this combined with Nesbitt et al. finding that  "Caseosaurus and Chindesaurus appear to be united by a possible single synapomorphy, the presence of a triangular rugosity on the posterior iliac blade", and there seems to be no reason to keep them separate, contra Baron and Williams.  Thus I follow Long and Murry and Langer (2004) in synonymizing the species.
Contrary to what Nesbitt et al. (2007) claims, partial ilium NMMNH P-35995 from the Snyder Quarry was never mentioned by Heckert et al. (2000b, 2003) or any prior work I could find or ever referred to Eucoelophysis (Heckert et al. in both papers instead figure and describe coelophysoid-grade ilium NMMNH P-29047).  It was discovered on May 29 1999.  Both Nesbitt et al. and Baron and Williams (2018) noted this specimen and Caseosaurus differ from other taxa "in possessing a sharp, well developed ridge that connects the midpoint of the supraacetabular crest to the preacetabular process" plus the herrerasaur-like characters asterisked above and others unknown in Chindesaurus ("a preacetabular process of the ilium that expands mediolaterally towards its distal end* (also in silesaurids);", "an ischiadic peduncle that is less ventrally extensive than the pubic peduncle in medial and lateral aspect") that distinguish them from the few other archosaurs with a comparable ridge (e.g. silesaurs, poposaurs).  Baron and Williams note another character NMMNH P-35995 shares with Caseosaurus to the exclusion of other herrerasaurs- "a preacetabular process that is more than twice as long as it is deep*;", which combined with those asterisked above also shared with Chindesaurus were enough for them to officially refer the ilium to Caseosaurus crosbyensis.  Nesbitt et al. called it cf. Caseosaurus crosbyensis.  The couple differences noted by Baron and Williams (more extensive acetabulum and lower angle between preacetabular process and pubic peduncle in the Snyder ilium) are easily individual variation, so this ilium is also referred to Chindesaurus here.
Lehane (2005) briefly described and referred partial pelvis TTU-P10082 from the Post Quarry to Shuvosaurus (interpreted as a coelophysoid, since recognized as a poposaur) "because no other theropod has been found at Post Quarry and the material did not resemble any other known theropod."  Note his figure 26 shows the postacetabular process as a preacetabular process and uses coelophysoid partial ilium TTU-P10071 for the posterior half of the bone.  Lehman and Chatterjee (2005) figure the pubic portion as Coelophysis despite the mesopuby and greatly expanded distal end being dissimilar to that genus.  Nesbitt and Chatterjee (2008) redescribe the material as a "Saurischian similar to Staurikosaurus", but also note the unique combination of characters shared with Chindesaurus and Caseosaurus.  Martz et al. (2012) also evaluated the specimen, referring it to Herrerasauridae based on the absent brevis shelf, and stating "the absence of a pubic tubercle (ambiens process) and bevelling on the ventral side of the distal end of the pubis as in TTU-P10082 (Fig. 15B) are shared uniquely with Staurikosaurus (Bittencourt & Kellner 2005; Nesbitt & Chatterjee 2008); however, TTU-P10082 likely represents a new taxon closely related to Staurikosaurus with a unique combination of characters, including the possible possession of three sacral ribs."  Finally, Sarigul (2017) describes the postacetabular portion again, reinterpreting it as having been assembled from two pieces incorrectly in previous works.  The new interpretation has a more elongate and horizontal postacetabular process like Caseosaurus, but besides the sacral number Sarigul also notes it differs in that "the medial shelf of the reconstructed TTU-P10082 postacetabular process exhibits slight posteroventral deflection."  I don't believe any of these authors was correct about the sacral number however, as basal saurischians (e.g. Herrerasaurus, Saturnalia) have a second primordial sacral rib which extends along the entire ventral edge of the postacetabular process.  There's not necessarily any space between the anterior and posterior sacral rib segments in the Post specimen regardless if Sarigul's interpretation is correct, so they are more parsimoniously parts of the same second primordial sacral rib.  With the sacral number taken care of, the combination of elongate postacetabular process with triangular rugosity and completely absent brevis shelf is uniquely shared with Caseosaurus and Chindesaurus, and the postacetabular shape in lateral view is almost identical to the latter genus despite both being broken off.  Again, given the shared characters and close geographical and stratigraphic positions, TTU-P10082 is here referred to Chindesaurus.  Note too that Tawa (GR 1062) shows all of the above herrerasaur-like characters (except being unknown for the mediolaterally expanded preacetabular process given the absence of a figure in dorsal view) and Caseosaurus (= Chindesaurus) characters (including the supposedly autapomorphic ridge along the anteroventral preacetabular edge), except that it lacks any rugosities.
Colorado City femur- Proximal femur TMM 31100-523 was originally referred to Chindesaurus by Long and Murry (1995) without comment, but Hunt et al. (1998) believed "the femoral head of the Otis Chalk specimen and that of Chindesaurus are only similar in gross morphology and share no apomorphies" and placed it in Dinosauria indet..  Nesbitt et al. (2007) stated it was Chindesaurus after all, based on "the absence of a ligament sulcus, a rounded medial head, a weakly developed posterolateral condyle and a completely convex proximal articular surface with a facies articularis antitrochanterica", agreed upon by Stocker (2013). Nesbitt and Ezcurra (2015) disagreed, stating "the character states that are present in TMM 31100-523 do not differentiate this specimen from H. ischigualastensis and Ch. bryansmalli."  Yet Stocker correctly noted it and Chindesaurus differ from Herrerasaurus in the longer femoral head, and the latter taxon also lacks the rounded medial head.  Finally Marsh et al. (2019) included TMM 31100-523 in the list of specimens "not complete enough to preserve the unique combination of character states of the taxon as outlined in the revised diagnosis below (but they potentially belong to the Chindesaurus bryansmalli + Tawa hallae clade..."  However, one of the few characters Marsh et al. use to distinguish Chindesaurus from Tawa is the absence of the ligament sulcus, as seen in TMM 31100-523.  It is thus retained in Chindesaurus here.
Bull Canyon femur- NMMNH P-4415 was discovered June 1 1984, and first listed by Hunt (1994) in his thesis as Theropoda indet., though he suggested it and NMMNH P-4126 "do not pertain to Cryptoraptor [probable shuvosaurid] or Comanchesaurus [coelophysoid].  One conceivably represents Revueltoraptor [Gojirasaurus], which indicates that the other must represent an undescribed genus."  By 1998, Hunt et al. stated NMMNH P-4415 pertains "to the new herrerasaurid A", which corresponds to his thesis taxon "Revueltoraptor".  Long and Murry (1995) referred it to Chindesaurus without comment, while Heckert et al. (2000a) state its "characters compare readily to the holotype of Chindesaurus bryansmalli", figured the specimen and stated they "believe that Long and Murry's assignment of NMMNH P-4415 to Chindesaurus is reasonable."  Most recently, Marsh and Parker (2020) referenced "early-diverging theropod NMMNH P-4415", suggesting it falls in their Chindesaurus + Tawa clade.  As it lacks a proximal transverse groove, it is retained in Chindesaurus here.
Not Chindesaurus- Murry and Long (1989) mention Chindesaurus remains from the Placerias Quarry, which were specified as five dorsal centra in the UCMP by Long and Murry (1995). The latter publication figured them as UCMP A269, but this is the number of the Placerias Quarry locality, not the specimen itself.  Angielczyk (2002) notes "These specimens have the number UCMP 177316."  Hunt et al. (1998) stated they "are not generically determinate, but are herrerasaurid." They are similar to Chindesaurus, but less constricted transversely and are here tentatively placed in Herrerasauridae due to their shortnesss. 
NMMNH P-16656 consists of dorsal and caudal centra from the Bull Canyon Formation which were probably among those referred to "staurikosaurid (?"Chindesaurus")" by Hunt and Lucas (1989) and it were later officially referred to Chindesaurus Long and Murry (1995).  Hunt (1994) referred them to his supposed herrerasaurid "Revultoraptor lucasi" (whose holotype became Gojirasaurus), but later only called the specimen "a ?theropod", which Heckert et al. (2000a) agreed with.  Nesbitt et al. (2007) considered this among the material which cannot "be distinguished from those of Shuvosaurus or other archosaurs" and so placed it in Archosauria indet..  It has never been figured or described.
Hunt and Lucas (1989) mention "a staurikosaurid" from Barranca Creek in the Bull Canyon Formation that should be NMMNH P-17325, which Hunt (1994) assigned to his 'Herrerasauridae indet.' which he believed "to represent a distinct herrarasaurid taxon of the size of "Chindesaurus bryansmalli"."  Long and Murry (1995) referred to Chindesaurus once they described the taxon, but Hunt et al. (1998) instead called it "an indeterminate herrerasaurid" which was agreed upon by Heckert et al. (2000a).  It has never been figured or described.
Heckert et al. (2000a) figured a partial sacral vertebra (NMMNH P-4882; labeled as a dorsal in the figure) from Revuelto Creek in the Bull Canyon Formation of New Mexico as possibly being Chindesaurus.  However, comparison with dorsals and sacrals of Chindesaurus show the latter has transversely broader centra in both ventral and articular views.  Another Revuelto Creek specimen referred by the authors is a partial dorsal (NMMNH P-16844; also part of Hunt's herrerasaurid C), which is even more transversely compressed.  These are here placed as Archosauria indet. instead.
Chindesaurus was reported from the Hayden Quarry based on femur GR 226 (Irmis et al., 2007), and several femora have since been referred from that locality by Whiteside et al. (2015; GR 210, H2-001-080622) and Wynd et al. (2021 online; GR 355, 1054, 1058 and 1060).  However, Evans et al. (2018) in an unpublished study found that these graded into Tawa femora to form an ontogenetic sequence where the Chindesaurus-like femora were merely from older individuals.  Precisely which Chindesaurus-like characters are present in these femora is unknown as only GR 226 has been figured (and only in posterior view, which might show an absence of Tawa's semicircular scar).  While this might ultimately lead to Tawa being a junior synonym of Chindesaurus, until the details are published all Hayden Quarry femora are placed in Tawa while femora from other localities with Chindesaurus characters not demonstrated in Hayden Quarry material (smooth proximal surface of the femoral head; dorsolateral trochanter of femur rounded) are provisionally still assigned to Chindesaurus.
Relationships- Chindesaurus was first considered to be a sauropodomorph shortly after its discovery, with e.g. Miller (1985) quoting Long as saying "It seems to be a heavy-boned animal resembling a plateosaur."  Paul (1988) stated "There looks to be a staurikosaur present in the Arizonian Chinlo Formation;' it is neither a herbivore nor the world's oldest dinosaur as originally proposed" and indeed, Murry and Long (1989) calls it "a moderately large (3-4 m) staurikosaurid dinosaur" and states "The ilium is similar to that of Staurikosaurus pricei."  Long and Murry (1995) described the taxon as a herrerasaurid based on such characters as the reduced brevis fossa and short dorsal vertebrae, and this has continued to be a common place to recover it in phylogenetic analyses.  Within that family, Sereno (1999) found Chindesaurus to be the sister taxon of Staurikosaurus within Herrerasauridae, while Bittencourt and Kellner's (2004) analysis found it to be a non-herrerasaurid herrerasaurian. Note when Irmis (2005) states "the lack of both a distinct ventrolateral sulcus on the femoral head and a concave posterolateral margin of the distal tibia may exclude Chindesaurus from Saurischia", Tawa shares the former and herrerasaurids share the latter and were excluded from Saurischia by Irmis even at that late date.  Yates (2006) included Chindesaurus in a phylogenetic analysis of sauropodomorphs and found it to be closer to Neotheropoda than herrerasaurids, which is another position that continues to be popular based on characters like the presence of cervical pleurocoels and resemblence to Tawa.  A final distinct possibility than can work with a herrerasaurian or Tawa relationship or not is a non-eusaurischian saurischian, as in Cabreira et al. (2016) where it does group with Tawa.
References- Case, 1927. The vertebral column of Coelophysis Cope. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan. 10, 209-222.
Huene, 1932. Die fossile Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihre entwicklung und geschichte. Monographien zur Geologia und Palaeontologie. 1, 1-362.
Anonymous?, 1985. [title]. San Diego Union. June 2.
Miller, 1985. Ghost from the dawn of the dinosaurs - Oldest dinosaur skeleton found in Arizona. Science News. 127(21), 325.
Anonymous?, 1986. [title]. Holbrook Tribune. March 25. 
Paul, 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. 464 pp.
Hunt and Lucas, 1989. Late Triassic vertebrate localities in New Mexico. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 72-101.
Murry, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Dockum Formation (Upper Triassic), west Texas and eastern New Mexico. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 102-144.
Murry and Long, 1989. Geology and paleontology of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park and vicinity, Arizona and a discussion of vertebrate fossils of the southwestern Upper Triassic. In Lucas and Hunt (eds.). Dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the American southwest. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. 29-64.
Olshevsky, 1991. A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings. 2, 196 pp.
Hunt, 1994. Vertebrate paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Bull Canyon Formation (Chinle Group: Norian), east-central New Mexico with revisions of the families Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and Parasuchidae (Reptilia: Archosauria). PhD thesis, University of New Mexico. 403 pp.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Hunt, 1996. A new clade of herrerasaur-like theropods from the Late Triassic of western North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16(3), 43A.
Hunt, Olson, Huber, Shipman, Bircheff and Frost, 1996. A new theropod locality at Petrified Forest National Park with a review of Late Triassic dinosaur localities in the park. Fossils of Arizona Symposium, 4, 55-61.
Novas, 1997. Herrerasauridae. pp. 303–311. in Currie and Padian (eds). Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press, San Diego.
Hunt, Lucas, Heckert, Sullivan and Lockley, 1998. Late Triassic dinosaurs from the western United States. Geobios. 31(4), 511-531.
Sereno, 1999. The evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 284, 2137-2147.
Heckert, Lucas and Sullivan, 2000a. Triassic dinosaurs in New Mexico. In Lucas and Heckert (eds.). Dinosaurs of New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 17-26.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas, Rinehart and Harris, 2000b. Preliminary description of coelophysoids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian: Early-Mid Norian) Snyder Quarry, north-central New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 17, 27-32.
Heckert, Zeigler, Lucas and Rinehart, 2003. Coelophysids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Triassic (Revueltian) Snyder quarry. New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin. 24, 127-132.
Bittencourt and Kellner, 2004. The phylogenetic position of Staurikosaurus pricei Colbert, 1970 from the Triassic of Brazil. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24(3), 23-24.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 861 pp.
Stocker, Parker, Irmis and Shuman, 2004. New discoveries from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation as the result of the ongoing paleontological inventory of Petrified Forest National Park. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Program and Abstracts. 127.
Irmis, 2005. The vertebrate fauna of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in northern Arizona. In Nesbitt, Parker and Irmis (eds.). Guidebook to the Triassic Formations of the Colorado Plateau in Northern Arizona: Geology, Paleontology, and History. Mesa Southwest Museum, Bulletin. 9, 63-88.
Lehane, 2005. Anatomy and relationships of Shuvosaurus, a basal theropod from the Triassic of Texas. Masters thesis, Texas Tech University. 92 pp.
Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005. Depositional setting and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Journal of Earth System Science. 114(3), 325-351.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2005. Critical review of the Late Triassic dinosaur record, part 3: Saurischians of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 25(3), 96A.
Parker and Irmis, 2005. Advances in Late Triassic vertebrate paleontology based on new material from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. In Heckert and Lucas (eds.). Vertebrate Paleontology in Arizona. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 29, 45-58.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Nesbitt, Irmis and Parker, 2007. A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5(2), 209-243.
Yates, 2007 (online 2006). Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology. 19(1), 93-123.
Nesbitt and Chatterjee, 2008. Late Triassic dinosauriforms from the Post Quarry and surrounding areas, west Texas, U.S.A. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Abhandlungen. 249(2), 143-156.
Parker, online 2011. http://chinleana.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-north-american-triassic.html
Parker and Martz, 2010. 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(3-4), 231-260.
Martz, Mueller, Nesbitt, Stocker, Parker, Atanassov, Fraser, Weinbaum and Lehane, 2012. A taxonomic and biostratigraphic re-evaluation of the Post Quarry vertebrate assemblage from the Cooper Canyon Formation (Dockum Group, Upper Triassic) of southern Garza County, western Texas. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103, 1-26.
Stocker, 2013. Contextualizing vertebrate faunal dynamics: New perspectives from the Triassic and Eocene of western North America. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. 297 pp.
Nesbitt and Ezcurra, 2015. The early fossil record of dinosaurs in North America: A new neotheropod from the base of the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60(3), 513-526.
Whiteside, Lindstrom, Irmis, Glasspool, Schaller, Dunlavey, Nesbitt, Smith and Turner, 2015. Extreme ecosystem instability suppressed tropical dinosaur dominance for 30 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112(26), 7909-7913.
Cabreira, Kellner, Dias-da-Silva, da Silva, Bronzati, de Almeida Marsola, Müller, de Souza Bittencourt, Batista, Raugust and Carrilho, 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology. 26(22), 3090-3095.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Sarigül, 2017. New theropod fossils from the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, USA, and a brief overview of the Dockum theropod diversity. PaleoBios. 34, 1-18.
Baron and Williams, 2018. A re-evaluation of the enigmatic dinosauriform Caseosaurus crosbyensis from the Late Triassic of Texas, USA and its implications for early dinosaur evolution. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 63(1), 129-145.
Evans, Griffin, Smith, Turner, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2018. Ontogenetic changes in the femur of Tawa hallae and implication for species diversity of Late Triassic dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Program and Abstracts 2018. 123.
Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.
Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online. Including distorted specimens in allometric studies: Linear mixed models account for deformation. Integrative Organismal Biology. obab017. DOI: 10.1093/iob/obab017

Tawa Nesbitt, Smith, Irmis, Turner, Downs and Norell, 2009
T. hallae Nesbitt, Smith, Irmis, Turner, Downs and Norell, 2009
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Hayden Quarry, Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US

Holotype- (GR 241) (juvenile or subadult) skull (~173 mm), mandible (~161 mm), presacral column, ribs, gastralia, scapula (94.2 mm), humerus (79.8 mm), radius (73.7 mm), ulna (80.1 mm), pelvis including ilium, hindlimbs including femur, tibia, astragalus and metatarsal I
Paratypes- (GR 155) (juvenile or subadult) sacral vertebra, caudal vertebrae (mid caudals ~26, 22, 24 mm), incomplete ilium (~101 mm), incomplete pubes (~103 mm), proximal ischium, femora (142 mm), tibia
(GR 242) (juvenile or subadult) skull, cervical vertebrae, proximal caudal vertebrae, scapula (106 mm), humeri (102, 98.2 mm), radius (83.7 mm), ulna (88.4 mm), radiale, intermedium, ulnare, centrale, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I (17.8 mm), phalanx I-1 (17.8 mm), manual ungual I (23+ mm on curve), metacarpal II (27.3 mm), phalanx II-1 (16.2 mm), phalanx II-2 (20.0 mm), manual ungual II (25+ mm on curve), metacarpal III (33.2 mm), phalanx III-1 (16.7 mm), phalanx III-2 (15.3 mm), phalanx III-3 (17.5 mm), manual ungual III (29 mm on curve), metacarpal IV (9.9 mm), phalanx IV-1 (5.2 mm), phalanx IV-2 (2.0 mm), pelvis, hindlimbs including femur, tibia, fibula, astragalus (~24 mm wide), calcaneum (~6 mm wide), distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsal I (~62 mm), metatarsal II (~72 mm), metatarsal III (~78 mm), metatarsal IV (~68 mm) and metatarsal V (~35 mm)
(GR 243) (juvenile or subadult) incomplete skeleton including cervical vertebrae (anterior cervical ~33 mm)
(GR 244) (juvenile or subadult) femur (116.3 or 115.03 mm)
Referred- ?(GR 156) proximal femur (Downs, 2005)
(GR 210) femur (Whiteside et al., 2015)
(GR 226) femur (174.62 mm) (Irmis et al., 2007)
(GR 235) femur (241 or 227.85 mm) (Bennett, 2015)
(GR 240) (adult) incomplete femur (Nesbitt et al., 2009)
(GR 355) femur (150.05 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 359) humerus (Burch, 2013)
(GR 360) radius, ulna (Burch, 2013)
(GR 405) femur (121.47 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 455) femur (131.96 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 463) femur (144.36 mm) (Wynd, pers. comm. 2021)
(GR 480) femur (156.4 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 502) femur (117.55 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 504) femur (147.34 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 578) femur (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR coll.) (at least two individuals) skull, postcrania (Bradley et al., 2020)
....vertebral column, ribs, humerus (113 mm), radius, ulna, radiale, ulnare, metacarpal I, metacarpal II, metacarpal III, metacarpal IV
........(GR 1033) incomplete sternal plate (67 mm)
....(GR 1034) sternal plate (68 mm)
........(GR 1035) sternal plate (70 mm)
(GR 1040) femur (174.72 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1042) femur (211.91 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1043) femur (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1044) femur (145.63 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1045) femur (169.53 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1046) femora (172.44 mm, 175.18) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1047) femur (152.47 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1048) femur (184.28 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1049) femur (172.18 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1050) femur (209.25 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1051) femur (239.97 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1054) femur (206.7 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1058) femur (196.84 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1060) femur (242.92 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1061) femur (127.72 mm) (Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online)
(GR 1062) ilium, femur (214.29 mm) (Marsh et al., 2019)
(GR coll.) (adult) isolated elements (Nesbitt et al., 2009)
(H2-001-080622) proximal femur (Whiteside et al., 2015)
(H3-259-060609) tibia (Whiteside et al., 2015)
(H4-411-110819) partial skeleton (Whiteside et al., 2015)
(H4-460-11021; H4-460-11022) radius (102 mm), ulna (106 mm) (Burch, 2013)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Giving Site PFV 231, Petrified Forest Member of Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(PEFO 35382) proximal tibia (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Bowman Site PFV 089, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(PEFO 40753) astragalus (Marsh et al., 2020)
Middle Norian, Late Triassic
Kaye Quarry PFV 410, Sonsela Member of the Chinle Formation, Arizona, US
(PEFO 39422; = UWBM 108882) proximal tibia (Marsh and Parker, 2020)
Late Norian, Late Triassic
Headquarters Northwest MOTT 3899, Middle Cooper Canyon Formation of the Dockum Group, Texas, US
(TTU-P11175) tibia (Martz, 2008)
Diagnosis- (after Nesbitt et al., 2009) prootics meet on ventral midline of endocranial cavity (unknown in Chindesaurus); anterior tympanic recess greatly enlarged on anterior surface of basioccipital and extending onto prootic and parabasisphenoid (unknown in Chindesaurus); deep recess on posterodorsal base of paroccipital process (unknown in Chindesaurus); sharp ridge extending dorsoventrally on middle of posterior face of basal tuber (unknown in Chindesaurus); semicircular muscle scar/excavation on the posterior face of femoral head; transverse step on ventral surface of astragalus; metatarsal I similar in length to other metatarsals (unknown in Chindesaurus).
Other diagnoses- Nesbitt et al. (2009) also included other characters, which are also present in Chindesaurus- incomplete ligamental sulcus on the posterior side of femoral head, so that posterior edge is flat in proximal view; small semicircular excavation on posterior margin of medial posterior condyle of proximal tibia.
Marsh et al. (2019) proposed Tawa differed from Chindesaurus in having "middle portion of ventral keel of cervical centra is ventral to the centrum rims (shared with Effigia okeeffeae, Eocursor parvus, and Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis), femoral head orientation is medial and the angle with respect to the transverse axis through the femoral condyles is less than 20° (shared with tetanurans), and the absence of an anterior trochanteric shelf."  Yet as noted under the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade comments, the first is untrue of the only figured cervical, the second is undemonstrated and known to vary easily with taphonomic distortion, and the third varies within basal dinosaur species ontogenetically and dimorphically.
Comments- This taxon was discovered in 2004, and announced as "A small saurischian dinosaur (cf. Caseosaurus sp.) is represented by dorsal, sacral and caudal vertebrae, pelvic elements, three femora, one metatarsal, one pedal phalanx and one metacarpal" by Downs (2005) and as "a new basal dinosaur with an ilium similar to Chindesaurus and Caseosaurus" by Irmis et al. (2006). It was then analysed as the "Ghost Ranch saurischian" by Nesbitt (2009) in his thesis, and briefly described by Nesbitt et al. (2009).  Burch (2013) describes the scapula and forelimb in detail.  What she calls the pisiform is here interpreted as a distal carpal V as in Heterodontosaurus.  Bradley et al. (2020) describe three sternal plates from a field jacket "including a partial skull and much of the postcranial skeleton of at least two individuals", and find that "The position of GR 1033 in relation to an articulated right forearm suggests that they belong to the same individual" which also likely includes "the underlying ribs and axial column."  As GR 1034 and 1035 are right and left elements which match closely anatomically, they may belong to the same individual. 
Although no specimens have been referred to Tawa outside the Hayden Quarry in the literature, study of proposed differences from Chindesaurus suggests a few can be justified.  Proximal tibiae PEFO 35382 from the Giving Site and PEFO 39422 from the Kaye Quarry were referred to the Chindesaurus + Tawa clade by Marsh and Parker (2020), but both have a narrow lateral condyle with a rounded posterior edge unlike Chindesaurus.  Similarly, astragalus PEFO 40753 from the Bowman Site has a distal transverse step as in Tawa but not Chindesaurus, so can be placed in the former genus.  Marsh et al. wrote Cooper Canyon Formation tibia TTU-P11175 (described as Theropoda indet. by Sarigül, 2017, listed as Saurischia incertae sedis by Martz, 2008) "may be referred to this clade owing to the presence of two notches on the posterior margin of the proximal end", and its morphology fits, so that it is referred to Tawa here based on the narrow lateral condyle with a rounded posterior edge.  Note all Chindesaurus femora from Hayden Quarry are referred to Tawa here based on Evans et al. (2018) who in an unpublished study found that these graded into Tawa femora to form an ontogenetic sequence where the Chindesaurus-like femora were merely from older individuals.  Downs mentions "A larger dinosaur proximal femur (GR 156) with a width across the head of 5 cm may be from a different taxon or perhaps an adult of the taxon represented by GR 155", which is assumed here to be one of these femora although it has not been mentioned in the literature since.
Tawa was found to be the sister group of neotheropods by Nesbitt et al. (2009) based on characters like the presence of cervical pleurocoels. Martinez et al. (2011) recovered it as the basalmost coelophysoid which collapses in one step, while Novas and Ezcurra (2011) supported herrerasaurian affinities due to characters like the slender scapula and large pubic foot (published in Novas et al., 2021 online).  Another possibility that could work with a herrerasaurian identity is a non-eusaurischian saurischian as in Cabreira et al. (2016).
References- Downs, 2005. The Hayden Quarry, a new Upper Triassic fossil locality at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook. 56, 339-340.
Irmis, Nesbitt and Downs, 2006. A new Upper Triassic vertebrate quarry from the Chinle Formation of northern New Mexico with a unique and exceptionally diverse tetrapod fauna. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(3), 81A.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Padian, Smith, Turner, Woody and Downs, 2007. A Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage from New Mexico and the rise of dinosaurs. Science. 317, 358-361.
Martz, 2008. Lithostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of southern Garza County, west Texas. PhD thesis, Texas Tech University. 504 pp.
Nesbitt, 2009. The early evolution of archosaurs: Relationships and the origin of major clades. PhD thesis, Columbia University. 665 pp.
Nesbitt, Smith, Irmis, Turner, Downs and Norell, 2009. A complete skeleton of a Late Triassic saurischian and the early evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 326, 1530-1533.
Burch, Smith, Nesbitt, Irmis and Turner, 2010. Forelimb myology of the basal theropod dinosaur Tawa hallae from the Late Triassic Hayden Quarry of New Mexico. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2010, 67A.
Irmis, Nesbitt, Smith, Turner and Downs, 2010. Anatomy of the basal theropod Tawa hallae and its implications for early dinosaur phylogeny. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2010, 110A.
Martinez, Sereno, Alcober, Columbi, Renne, Montanez and Currie, 2011. A basal dinosaur from the dawn of the dinosaur era in southwestern Pangaea. Science. 331, 206-210.
Novas and Ezcurra, 2011. Phylogenetic relationships of basal theropods: Testing the evidence for the herrerasaurian affinities of Tawa. Reunión anual de comunicaciones de la Asociación Paleontológica Argentina. Ameghiniana. 48(4), R118-R119.
Burch, 2013. Osteological, myological, and phylogenetic trends of forelimb reduction in nonavian theropod dinosaurs. PhD thesis, Stony Brook University. 407 pp.
Burch, 2014. Complete forelimb myology of the basal theropod dinosaur Tawa hallae based on a novel robust muscle reconstruction method. Journal of Anatomy. 225(3), 271-297.
Bennett, 2015. An external mandibular fenestra and other archosauriform characters in basal pterosaurs re-examined. Historical Biology. 27(6), 796-814.
Whiteside, Lindstrom, Irmis, Glasspool, Schaller, Dunlavey, Nesbitt, Smith and Turner, 2015. Extreme ecosystem instability suppressed tropical dinosaur dominance for 30 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112(26), 7909-7913.
Cabreira, Kellner, Dias-da-Silva, da Silva, Bronzati, de Almeida Marsola, Müller, de Souza Bittencourt, Batista, Raugust and Carrilho, 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology. 26(22), 3090-3095.
Agnolin, 2017. Estudio de los Dinosauromorpha (Reptilia, Archosauria) de la Formación Chañares (Triásico Superior), Provincia de La Rioja, Argentina, sus implicancias en el origen de los dinosaurios. PhD thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 547 pp.
Müller, 2017. Are the dinosauromorph femora from the Upper Triassic of Hayden Quarry (New Mexico) three stages in a growth series of a single taxon? Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 89(2), 835-839.
Sarigül, 2017. New theropod fossils from the Upper Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, USA, and a brief overview of the Dockum theropod diversity. PaleoBios. 34, 1-18.
Bradley, Nesbitt, Burch, Irmis, Smith and Turner, 2018. Sternal elements of the early dinosaur Tawa hallae fill a critical gap in the evolution of the sternum in Avemetatarsalia (Reptilia: Archosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts, 95.
Evans, Griffin, Smith, Turner, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2018. Ontogenetic changes in the femur of Tawa hallae and implication for species diversity of Late Triassic dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Program and Abstracts 2018. 123.
Griffin, Bano, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2019. Integrating gross morphology and bone histology to assess skeletal maturity in early dinosauromorphs: New insights from Dromomeron (Archosauria: Dinosauromorpha). PeerJ. 7:e6331.
Marsh, Parker, Langer and Nesbitt, 2019. Redescription of the holotype specimen of Chindesaurus bryansmalli Long and Murry, 1995 (Dinosauria, Theropoda), from Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(3), e1645682.
Bradley, Burch, Turner, Smith, Irmis and Nesbitt, 2020 (as 2019). Sternal elements of early dinosaurs fill a critical gap in the evolution of the sternum in Avemetatarsalia (Reptilia: Archosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 39(5), e1700992.
Marsh and Parker, 2020. New dinosauromorph specimens from Petrified Forest National Park and a global biostratigraphic review of Triassic dinosauromorph body fossils. PaleoBios. 37, 1-56.
Novas, Agnolin, Ezcurra, Müller, Martinelli and Langer, 2021 online. Review of the fossil record of early dinosaurs from South America, and its phylogenetic implications. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. Pre-proof. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsames.2021.103341
Wynd, Uyeda and Nesbitt, 2021 online. Including distorted specimens in allometric studies: Linear mixed models account for deformation. Integrative Organismal Biology. obab017. DOI: 10.1093/iob/obab017

Daemonosaurus Sues, Nesbitt, Berman and Henrici, 2011
D. chauliodus
Sues, Nesbitt, Berman and Henrici, 2011
Early Rhaetian, Late Triassic
Coelophysis Quarry NMMNH L-3115, 'Siltstone Member' of the Chinle Formation, New Mexico, US
Holotype- (CM 76821) incomplete skull (~140 mm), scleral plates, incomplete mandibles, proatlas, atlantal neural arches, axial intercentrum, axis (20.5 mm), third cervical vertebra (30 mm), partial fifth cervical vertebra, fragmentary sixth cervical vertebra, cervical rib fragments
Diagnosis- (after Sues et al., 2011) skull proportionately deep and narrow, with short antorbital region; long posterior process of premaxilla that almost contacts anterior process of lacrimal; antorbital fenestra nearly the same size as external naris; ventral process of lacrimal with slender posterior projection extending along anterodorsal margin of jugal; dorsoventrally deep jugal with prominent lateral ridge; postorbital with anterolateral overhang over orbit; prefrontal large and occupies about 50 per cent of the dorsal margin of the orbit; alveolar margin of dentary downturned at symphysis; premaxillary and anterior maxillary teeth much enlarged relative to more posterior maxillary teeth; first two dentary teeth large and procumbent; third cervical vertebra with deep, rimmed, ovoid pleurocoel on the anterolateral surfaces of both centrum and neural arch.
(after Nesbitt and Sues, 2021) premaxilla with broad posterodorsal process; three premaxillary teeth increasing in length anteriorly; absence of a ridge on the ventral surface of the axis.
Comments- Block C-4-81 was collected in 1981, but the Daemonosaurus type was not discovered in it until 2004 while being prepared at the State Museum
of Pennsylvania. The taxon was announced in an SVP abstract (Sues et al., 2010) as "a new basal theropod dinosaur" and formally described the following year by Sues et al. (2011).
Sues et al. (2011) recovered it as the sister taxon to Tawa+Neotheropoda in their phylogenetic analysis based on characters like cervical pleurocoels.  It has since been recovered as a non-eusaurischian saurischian (Cabreira et al., 2016) based on characters such as the plate-like subnarial premaxillary process, and a non-herrerasaurid herrerasaurian by Novas et al. (2021 online) due to characters like the narrow antorbital fossa.  Baron et al. (2017) recovered it as the most basal ornithischian in their heterodox Ornithoscelida, but Nesbitt and Sues (2021) found "we could find no support for this position in the optimization of the character states or any potential character states that would clearly support this arrangement in this dataset."
References- Sues, Nesbitt, Berman, Henrici and Sullivan, 2010. A new basal theropod dinosaur from the Coelophysis quarry (Upper Triassic) of Ghost Ranch, New Mexico. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Program and Abstracts 2010, 172A.
Sues, Nesbitt, Berman and Henrici, 2011. A late-surviving basal theropod dinosaur from the latest Triassic of North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278(1723), 3459-3464.
Cabreira, Kellner, Dias-da-Silva, da Silva, Bronzati, de Almeida Marsola, Müller, de Souza Bittencourt, Batista, Raugust and Carrilho, 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology. 26(22), 3090-3095.
Baron, Norman and Barrett, 2017. Baron et al. reply. Nature. 551, E4-E5.
Nesbitt and Sues, 2021 (online 2020). The osteology of the early-diverging dinosaur Daemonosaurus chauliodus (Archosauria: Dinosauria) from the Coelophysis Quarry (Triassic: Rhaetian) of New Mexico and its relationships to other early dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 191(1), 150-179.
Novas, Agnolin, Ezcurra, Müller, Martinelli and Langer, 2021 online. Review of the fossil record of early dinosaurs from South America, and its phylogenetic
implications. Journal of South American Earth Sciences. Pre-proof. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsames.2021.103341

Eoraptor Sereno, Forster, Rogers and Monetta, 1993
E. lunensis Sereno, Forster, Rogers and Monetta, 1993
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina
Holotype
- (PVSJ 512) (~1.2 m young adult) incomplete skull (123 mm), mandibles (110 mm), proatlas, atlas, partial axis, incomplete third cervical vertebra, incomplete fourth cervical vertebra (24 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (24 mm), incomplete sixth cervical vertebra (23 mm), seventh cervical vertebra (20 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (18 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (17 mm), partial cervical ribs, first dorsal vertebra (17 mm), second dorsal vertebra (16 mm), third dorsal vertebra (16 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra (17 mm), fifth dorsal vertebra (~19 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (20 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (20 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (21 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (20 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (21 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (22 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (23 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (21 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (20 mm), fifteenth dorsal vertebra (18 mm), eleven partial dorsal ribs, gastralia, first sacral vertebra (~19 mm), second sacral vertebra (~19 mm), third sacral vertebra (20 mm), first caudal vertebra (17 mm), second caudal vertebra (20 mm), third caudal vertebra (22 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (20 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (20 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (21 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (20 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (19 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (19 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (18 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (18 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra (17 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (17 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (17 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (17 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (17 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (20 mm), eighteenth caudal prezygapophyses, fifteen partial chevrons (~20-35 mm), scapulae (81 mm; one fragmentary), coracoid (22 mm), humeri (85 mm), radii (63 mm), ulnae (64 mm), radiale, ulnares, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpals I (14 mm), phalanges I-1 (14 mm), manual ungual I (14 mm), metacarpals II (20 mm), phalanx II-1 (12 mm), phalanx II-2 (12 mm), manual ungual II (14 mm), metacarpals III (21 mm), phalanges III-1 (10 mm), phalanx III-2 (9 mm), partial phalanx III-3 (8 mm), incomplete manual ungual III (~12 mm), metacarpals IV (16 mm), metacarpals V (10 mm), ilia (82 mm), pubes (121 mm), ischia (114 mm), femora (152 mm), tibiae (156 mm), fibulae (154 mm), astragalus (27 mm transversely), calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, metatarsals I (45 mm), phalanx I-1 (21 mm), pedal ungual I (15 mm), metatarsals II (72 mm), phalanx II-1 (25 mm), phalanx II-2 (19 mm), pedal ungual II (17 mm), metatarsals III (81 mm), phalanx III-1 (27 mm), phalanx III-2 (22 mm), partial phalanx III-3 (18 mm), metatarsals IV (74 mm), phalanx IV-1 (18 mm), phalanx IV-2 (14 mm), phalanx IV-3 (12 mm), phalanx IV-4 (11 mm), pedal ungual IV (16 mm), metatarsals V (35 mm; one incomplete)
Referred- (PVSJ 559) (~1.3 m adult) first dorsal vertebra, second dorsal vertebra, partial dorsal ribs, incomplete femur, tibia (170 mm), distal fibula, astragalus, calcaneum, metatarsal fragments (Sereno et al., 2013)
(PVSJ 745) (subadult) basisphenoid, basioccipital, several partial cervical vertebrae, several partial dorsal vertebrae, partial ilia, ischial fragment, partial femora, proximal tibiae, proximal fibula, two proximal metatarsals (Sereno et al., 2013)
?(PVSJ 852) (subadult) femur (Sereno et al., 2013)
?(PVSJ 855) (adult) femur (Sereno et al., 2013)
?(PVSJ 860) (adult) proximal femur, distal femora, proximal tibiae, distal tibia, proximal fibula (Sereno et al., 2013)
(PVSJ 862) (subadult) proximal humerus, distal femora, distal tibia, proximal fibula, astragalus (Sereno et al., 2013)
?(PVSJ 876) (adult) partial femur (Sereno et al., 2013)
Diagnosis- (after Sereno et al., 1993) leaf-shaped premaxillary and anterior maxillary teeth (also in derived silesaurids, sauropodomorphs and partly in ornithischians).
(after Langer and Benton, 2006) extremely transversely compressed proximal fibula.
(after Sereno et al., 2013) premaxilla posterolateral process with tongue-shaped distal expansion; nasal with transversely broad, horizontal shelf with convex lateral margin that overhangs antorbital fossa; pterygoid process on posterior palate margin articulates laterally in synovial socket in ectopterygoid (possibly also in Pampadromaeus); narrow premaxilla-maxilla diastema approximately one crown in width; maxillary crowns with a prominent lateral eminence; accessory articular process on medial aspect of mid cervical prezygapophyses; extreme hollowing of dorsal centra and neural arches.
Differs from Panphagia in- shallow neurovascular groove on lateral aspect of dentary; less pronounced ridge on lateral aspect of surangular; less expanded distal scapular blade (approximately twice neck width); more perpendicular distal border on scapular bade; longer pubic blades (more than four times distal blade width); cnemial crest and opposing proximal condyles more anteroposteriorly expanded; tibial distal end more transversely expanded; ascending process and posterior fossa on astragalus much broader transversely (approximately one-third the width of the astragalus).
Differs from Chromogisaurus in- more strongly inturned femoral head; markedly asymmetrical shape of fourth trochanter; tibial cnemial crest and opposing proximal condyles more anteroposteriorly expanded; tibial distal end more transversely expanded.
Other diagnoses- Sereno et al. (1993) listed the "slightly enlarged" external naris as a diagnostic character, to distinguish it from the enlarged nares of sauropodomorphs, but Eoraptor's naris is actually smaller than Silesaurus, Herrerasaurus, basal ornithischians and Tawa compared to skull height. The slender subnarial process of the premaxilla is present in all basal dinosauriforms except Herrerasaurus and ornithischians.
Rauhut (2003) listed "ventral process of the postorbital flexed sharply anteriorly in its lower part", but this is no different from Heterodontosaurus or Herrerasaurus.
Comments- Eoraptor's holotype was discovered in 1991 and given a preliminary description two years later (Sereno et al., 1993). Martinez (pers. comm. 2010) confirms the detailed description was complete in 1995, which has finally been published as Sereno et al. (2013).
While Sereno et al. (1993) stated the holotype is an adult, Tykoski (2005) noted that the poorly sutured cranial elements (including frontals, parietals, basisphenoid, basioccipital and supraoccipital), large orbits and short snout, and unfused scapulocoracoid, might suggest it is young. Most recently, Sereno et al. (2013) confirm all the presacral and caudal neural arches are partially or completely fused to their centra. The sacral neurocentral sutures are open however, and the combined evidence led the authors to consider it a young adult.
Tykoski (2005) proposes that Eoraptor may have four sacrals because there is enough room posterior to the third to attach a fourth to the postacetabular process, but Sereno (2007) reiterates that only three are present. Sereno (2007) also notes the presence of pterygoid teeth and an intermandibular joint.
Eoraptor was originally described as a theropod basal to herrerasaurids and neotheropods (Novas, 1993; Sereno et al., 1993; Sereno, 1999; Kischlat, 2000; Rauhut, 2003; Ezcurra and Novas, 2007). Two subsequent hypotheses are that it's outside the sauropodomorph-theropod clade (Eusaurischia) (Langer, 2004; Langer and Benton, 2006; Yates, 2007; Smith et al., 2007) or sister to neotheropods (Tykoski, 2005; Ezcurra, 2006, 2010; Nesbitt et al., 2009). Recently, Martinez et al. (2011) has placed it as a basal sauropodomorph. None of the alternatives has strong support, leaving Eoraptor's relationships within Saurischia controversial. The sections below note the characters authors have claimed support each position (with a few notes when another author has claimed the character to be inaccurate), but a full analysis will appear here in the future.
Eoraptor basal to Eusaurischia? The first authors to propose excluding Eoraptor from Theropoda and (Eu)Saurischia were Padian and May (1993), who merely stated it lacked most theropod and saurischian synapomorphies listed by Gauthier and other workers, so was not a theropod and perhaps not a dinosaur.
Holtz (1995) had a similar conclusion in an unpublished analysis, finding Eoraptor to be sister to Eusaurischia or Dinosauria.
Padian et al. (1999) listed a few characters supporting it-
1. centra of posterior cervical vertebrae (6-8) subequal in length to those of anterior dorsal vertebrae (refined by Langer, 2004). This is untrue in Eoraptor, as cervicals 6-8 are 18-23 mm and the anterior dorsals are 16-17 mm.
2. third finger of the manus longer than second finger. As this is true in Eodromaeus and Tawa, the opposite condition in known sauropodomorphs and neotheropods is probably convergent. Herrerasaurus also has III longer than II, while Guaibasaurus is like sauropodomorphs and neotheropods. Though Tianyulong has an neotheropod-like condition, Heterodontosaurus and derived ornithischians have III longest, so this was more likely the basal condition in Ornithischia.
3. metatarsal I contacts tarsus. Since this is also true in Sauropodomorpha, the authors had no reason to list it. It only excludes Eoraptor from Neotheropoda.
Langer (2004)
4. subnarial premaxillary process extends posteriorly to the external naris. This is also true in Daemonosaurus, making the basal condition for Theropoda ambiguous. As Herrerasaurus has this state as well, it's even worse if herrerasaurids are theropods.
5. radius >80% of humerus length. This is untrue in Eoraptor, which has a ratio of 74%.
6. manual ungual I shorter than metacarpal I. This is untrue in Eoraptor, which has a ratio of 100%. Note even if the ratio is actually barely in agreement, Eodromaeus and Tawa have short unguals I too, so it would be another character convergent in neotheropods and sauropodomorphs.
7. metacarpal III longer than metacarpal II. Another character also present in Eodromaeus and Tawa, again making sauropodomorphs and neotheropods convergent. As with the digit length comparison, Guaibasaurus has longer II while Herrerasaurus has longer III. Also while heterodontosaurids have longer II, other ornithischians and Saltopus have longer III, suggesting the former is convergence.
8. distal end of ischium unexpanded. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
9. medial margin of distal tibia not broader than lateral margin. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
Smith et al. (2007)
10. maxillary tooth count 12-18. Eoraptor has 17, while basal theropods have (9/10)-11 (Daemonosaurus, Eodromaeus) and basal sauropodomorphs have at least 20 (Pampadromaeus; as it has about 20 dentary teeth as well, and Saturnalia and Panphagia have 17 and 23 dentary teeth respectively, their maxillary counts were probably within the 12-18 range or higher too). Thus there is no shared derived state to differ from, since theropods have less teeth and sauropodomorphs have more teeth.
11. lateral surface of anterior end of nasal along the posterior margin of the external naris flat. Pantydraco and Daemonosaurus also lack this narial fossa, though Panphagia has it. This means Theropoda is basally ambiguous while Sauropodomorpha is barely basally derived in having the fossa, so the character is not an unambiguous eusaurischian synapomorphy. For what it's worth, Herrerasaurus also lacks the fossa.
12. posteroventral dentary process far posterior to posterodorsal process. This is true in basal sauropodomorphs (Panphagia, Pantydraco) and basal theropods (Eodromaeus, Tawa). It's not true in ornithischians (Tianyulong, Heterodontosaurus, Eocursor) though, making the condition in Saurischia's outgroup ambiguous (given Silesaurus having the opposite condition). Again for what it's worth, Herrerasaurus has the same condition as ornithischians.
13. foramen in the ventral part of the splenial absent. This is difficult to code as the anterior splenial is thin and often broken. In Sauropodomorpha, Panphagia has a foramen, Lamplughsaura is illustrated without one (though by Chatterjee, whose drawings are often idealized), Plateosaurus is polymorphic, and Lufengosaurus and Adeopapposaurus have it. In Theropoda, Liliensternus lacks one, Dilophosaurus is illustrated as lacking one but seems to be anteriorly incomplete, and Ceratosaurus has one. Thus the basal condition in either saurischian clade is unclear though more probably present in sauropodomorphs. Ornithischians lack the foramen, as does Staurikosaurus though the latter has a poorly preserved mandible.
14. iliac supraacetabular crest shelf-like and short, extending primarily laterally. This is also true in basal sauropodmorphs (Panphagia, Pampadromaeus) and basal theropods (Eodromaeus, Tawa).
15. ridge on lateral side of tibia for connection with fibula absent. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
Yates (2007)
16. relationship between posterolateral process of the premaxilla and the anteroventral process of the nasal a broad sutured contact. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
17. size and position of subnarial foramen small (no larger than adjacent maxillary neurovascular foramina) and positioned outside of narial fossa. Basal theropods (Tawa, coelophysids, Dilophosaurus) lack a subnarial foramen, as do outgroups (ornithischians, Silesaurus). Thus there is no obvious ancestral condition for the subnarial foramen, nor evidence theropods ancestrally had one. Herrerasaurus does have this condition.
18. pointed posterolateral process of the nasal overlapping the lacrimal absent. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
19. length of middle to posterior cervical centra (6-8) no more than the length of the axial centrum. This is unknown in Eoraptor, as the axis is fragmentary.
20. laminae bounding triangular infradiapophyseal fossae on dorsal neural arches absent. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
21. transverse width of the first distal carpal less than 120% of the transverse width of the second distal carpal. This is unknown or untrue in Eoraptor, as distal carpal I is either unpreserved or diagenetically fused to the radiale in the left carpus and ~192% the width of distal carpal II. Notably, the basal theropods Eodromaeus and Tawa and basal sauropodomorph Efraasia have a small distal carpal I though, so this is not a eusaurischian character, though Heterodontosaurus does have a large distal carpal I so that ornithischians have an ambiguous basal state. Herrerasaurus has a small distal carpal I.
Martinez and Alcober (2009)
22. no caudosacral. This is also true in basal theropods (Eodromaeus and Tawa) and ambiguous in sauropodomorphs (true in Pampadromaeus but not Efraasia and more derived taxa). Guaibasaurus, Sanjuansaurus and Herrerasaurus also lack a caudosacral, though Staurikosaurus may have one. Ornithischians have a caudosacral.
23. width of metacarpal I shaft less than 35% of length. This is untrue in Eoraptor.
Bittencourt Rodrigues (2010) also placed it basal to Eusaurischia, but this paper has yet to be translated.
Almost half (10-11) of the characters are not even being present in Eoraptor. The others are basically all also found in taxa agreed to be basal theropods (11) and/or sauropodomorphs (7). The best character is the absent anterior splenial foramen, which depends on illustration inaccuracy of a poorly preserved and seldomly exposed element.
Eoraptor a sauropodomorph? Martinez et al. (2011) used several characters to place Eoraptor as a non-plateosaurian sauropodomorph- external naris size large, expanded narial margin (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Pampadromaeus); nasal posterolateral process present (true of all basal saurischians except Herrerasaurus); squamosal, ventral process a slender prong 3 or more times basal width (also in several basal ornithischians and neotheropods but not Tawa); dentary tooth 1 inset (also in Daemonosaurus, heterodontosaurids and silesaurids); maxillary and dentary crowns lanceolate (also in derived silesaurids and ornithischians); deltopectoral crest 45% or more of humeral length (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); manus phalanx I-1, rotation of axis through distal condyles 45 degrees ventromedially (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); preacetabular process subtriangular; M. iliotibialis 1 scar present on preacetabular process (also in herrerasaurids, Chindesaurus and basal dinosauriforms); ischial mid shaft cross-sectional shape subtriangular (also in Herrerasaurus and Heterodontosaurus, and absent in Panphagia); astragalus fibular facet primary orientation lateral (also in ornithischians and Herrerasaurus); astragalus anteromedial corner anteriorly projecting at least 25% width of the medial side of the astragalus. Additionally, Martinez et al. found Eoraptor to be closer to Panphagia and Saturnalia than plateosaurians based on- ventral acetabular flange of ilium present (primitive for dinosaurs); brevis fossa an arched ventrally-opening ovate or parallel-sided depression (a composite character also in present in Eodromaeus, Tawa and neotheropods, except some of the latter are further derived in having a posterior expansion); ischial antitrochanter, anteroposterior length less than adjacent length of the articular surface for the ilium (not present in Eoraptor [Sereno et al., 2013] or basal sauropodomorphs, though present in Heterodontosaurus).
Martinez et al. (2013)- length of quadrate occupied by pterygoid wing >70% (unknown- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in Eodromaeus); postparietal fenestra between supraoccipital and parietals (possible- Sereno et al., 2013); supraoccipital semilunate and wider than high (unknown- Sereno et al., 2013); serrations coarse and angled upwards at 45 degree angle (intermediate- Sereno et al., 2013, but similar to Panphagia and Pampadromaeus; absent in Saturnalia; also in derived silesaurids and ornithischians); postzygodiapophyseal lamina in cervical neural arches 4-8 absent (present but poorly developed in cervicals 7-8- Sereno et al., 2013; also in Eodromaeus and Heterodontosaurus); laminae of cervical neural arches 4-8 weakly developed low ridges or absent (includes previous character, and also the prezygodiapophyseal, anterior and posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae; also in Eodromaeus and Heterodontosaurus); minimum width of scapula <20% of its length (also in Eodromaeus, Tawa and heterodontosaurids); posterior end of fibular condyle on proximal tibia anterior to posterior margin of proximal articular surface (also in ornithischians; absent in Panphagia). They found it closer to plateosaurians than Panphagia based on- maxilla with strong inflection at base of ascending ramus (also in Eodromaeus and Tawa ; unknown in Panphagia); manual phalanx I-1 twisted ventrolaterally (more than the ~15 degrees of Herrerasaurus) (unknown in Panphagia); supraacetabular crest extended along entire pubic peduncle and contacts distal end as a well developed crest (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); distal outline of ischium triangular (also in Heterodontosaurus).
Eoraptor a theropod? Sereno et al. (1993)- vertebral centra extremely hollowed; cervical epipophyses prong-shaped (pointed, prominent, extend beyond postzygapophyses- Novas, 1993) (also in Heterodontosaurus); long bones extremely hollowed (also in Panphagia; Herrerasaurus has bones thicker than pterosaurs, Lagerpeton and Marasuchus- Novas, 1993; no significant difference from sauropodomorphs- Langer and Benton, 2006); manus >50% of humerus+radius length (only 41% in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; 57% in Heterodontosaurus); (asymmetrical- Sereno, 1999; and deep- Nesbitt et al., 2009) extensor pits on metacarpals I-III (also in heterodontosaurids and Plateosaurus- Langer, 2004; shallow in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013); manual digit IV vestigial (mcIV <50% of mcII, less than two phalanges- Novas, 1993; much narrower than I-III- Nesbitt et al., 2009) (80% in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; also 78-84% in Eodromaeus; Tawa has two phalanges; Heterodontosaurus has a narrow mcIV); manual digit V vestigial (no phalanges- Rauhut, 2003) (absent in Eodromaeus).
Novas (1993)- trochanteric shelf (also in Chromogisaurus, Saturnalia and Pampadromaeus; absent in Tawa); humerus <50% of femoral length (56% in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; 53% in Eodromaeus; ~67% in Tawa).
Sereno (1999)- ectopterygoid fossa (absent in Eoraptor and coelophysoids- Nesbitt et al., 2011); intermandibular joint (present but of opposite convexity than herrerasaurids- Sereno et al., 2013); intermetacarpal articular facets on I-III (also in sauropodomorphs and heterodontosaurids); arched brevis fossa (also in sauropodomorphs; not in herrerasaurids- Langer, 2004); distal width of pubic blade <65% of proximal width; obturator flange present (also in sauropodomorphs- Langer, 2004).
Rauhut (2003)- manual phalanx II-2 longer than II-1 (absent- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in heterodontosaurids).
Tykoski (2005)- posterior jugal process divided (also in Pampadromaeus).
Ezcurra and Novas (2007)- rostral process of jugal excluded from the internal antorbital fenestra (absent in Daemonosaurus and Tawa; also in Heterodontosaurus); sublacrimal part of jugal squared rostrally with a very small dorsally directed prong, slightly overlapping the lacrimal (also in Heterodontosaurus; tapers in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; large dorsal expansion in Tawa); ventral process of the squamosal length less than half of the caudal border of the infratemporal fenestra (also in Heterodontosaurus); humerus length subequal or shorter than 60% length of femur (also in Tianyulong, Pampadromaeus and Saturnalia; absent in Tawa).
Nesbitt et al. (2009)- maxillary teeth, posterior edge of posterior maxillary teeth concave or straight (also in Pampadromaeus); parabasisphenoid recess present; articular, glenoid of the mandible located level with dorsal margin of the dentary (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); tooth crowns not mesiodistally expanded (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); metacarpals, proximal ends abut one another without overlapping (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus; present in heterodontosaurids); ischium, cross-section of the distal portion rounded or elliptical (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; true in Panphagia); tibia, lateral condyle of proximal portion level with the medial condyle at its posterior border (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus).
Nesbitt et al. (2010)- The matrix supposedly has maxillary interdental plates separate and anterior tympanic recess as additional theropod characters of Eoraptor, but both are unknown in the taxon and it seems some characters in the matrix were placed incorrectly.
Ezcurra and Brusatte (2011)- longitudinal ridge on jugal present and sharp (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also in Pampadromaeus; absent in Tawa).
Langer et al. (2011)- Meckelian groove near dorsoventral center of dentary (unknown- Sereno et al., 2013); serrations small (intermediate- Sereno et al., 2013, as in Panphagia and Pampadromaeus; small in Saturnalia; polymorphic in heterodontosaurids); manus >40% of humerus+radius length (also in heterodontosaurids).
Eoraptor basal to Herrerasauridae+Neotheropoda? Sereno et al. (1993)- no intermandibular joint (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013); distal caudal prezygapophyses not elongate (unknown- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in Eodromaeus and Tawa); scapula not strap-shaped (distal end width >33% of scapular length- Sereno, 1999) (not in coelophysoids or probably Staurikosaurus- Langer, 2004; exactly 3 times in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; strap-shaped in heterodontosaurids); short(er than proximal phalanges- Novas, 1993) penultimate phalanges on manual digits II and III (phalanges on II equal in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; untrue in heterodontosaurids); non-trenchant unguals (not enlarged, compressed, sharply pointed, recurved, with enlarged flexor tubercles- Novas, 1993; II and III slightly curved- Ezcurra and Novas, 2007) on manual digits I-III (untrue in heterodontosaurids); pubis less than six times longer than broad (untrue in ornithischians); pubic boot absent (folded in herrerasaurids, not larger than sauropodomorphs in Eodromaeus and coelophysoids); proximal end of fibula <75% proximal width of tibia.
Sereno (1999)- metacarpal IV >50% width of metacarpals II or III (only true of mcIII- Sereno et al., 2013; also true in Eodromaeus); metacarpal V >50% width of metacarpals II or III (untrue in Heterodontosaurus); anterior attachment depression absent on distal femur (also true in Eodromaeus).
Rauhut (2003)- sublacrimal part of jugal not expanded (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in Daemonosaurus and untrue in heterodontosaurids); neural spines of posterior dorsals not significantly higher than long (also true in Eodromaeus and Tawa).
Ezcurra and Novas (2007)- height/length ratio of premaxilla below external naris 0.5-1.25; lacrimal antorbital fossa in lateral view only present in the ventral process of the bone (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; untrue in Heterodontosaurus); ventral process of squamosal tapering; dorsal ramus of the quadratojugal longer than the rostral ramus; mandibular joint approximately straight below the quadrate head (also true in Eodromaeus); constriction between tooth crown and root present in at least rostral maxillary teeth; caudoventral process of the coracoid rounded and not projected beyond glenoid fossa (projects beyond glenoid in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; untrue in Tianyulong); metacarpal IV with proximal portion set lateral to Mc III (untrue in Heterodontosaurus); ischial antitrochanter small (also in Tawa).
Eoraptor closer to Neotheropoda than Herrerasauridae? Tykoski (2005)- subnarial process of premaxilla narrow and rod-like (also in Pampadromaeus; absent in Daemonosaurus); maxilla anterodorsally concave (also in Pampadromaeus); nasal contacts antorbital fossa (absent in Daemonosaurus and Eodromaeus); lacrimal inverted L-shape (also in Pampadromaeus and Saturnalia); lacrimal at least equal to orbital height and reaches orbit's ventral rim (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Daemonosaurus and Tawa); antorbital fossa exposure on lacrimal large, with triangular fossa on ventral process (also in Saturnalia and Pantydraco); vertebra 25 (dorsosacral) incorporated into sacrum (also in Heterodontosaurus); humerus twisted; metacarpal I distal condyles strongly asymmetrical (absent in Tawa; also in Heterodontosaurus); preacetabular process thin and blade-like (also in Chromogisaurus and Pantydraco); postacetabular process longer than acetabulum (also in Panphagia, Saturnalia, Chromogisaurus and Heterodontosaurus); pubic fenestra (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; absent in Eodromaeus and Tawa); distal ischium <3 times minimum width of shaft (also in Panphagia, Pantydraco and Heterodontosaurus); subrectangular distal tibia with posterolateral extension (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in Panphagia, Saturnalia and ornithischians, and absent in Eodromaeus).
Ezcurra (2006)- lateral surface of premaxillary body pierced by a single neurovascular foramen above the second premaxillary tooth (a second foramen is present on one side- Sereno et al., 2013; also in Heterodontosaurus); maxillary antorbital fossa rostral to internal antorbital fenestra broad and rostrocaudally well extended (also in Pampadromaeus and Heterodontosaurus; absent in Daemonosaurus and Tawa); medial wall of the antorbital fossa extends through the entire ventral border of the internal antorbital fenestra as a very narrow lamina (also in Heterodontosaurus; absent in Tawa); lateral lamina of lacrimal with no interruption of the lacrimal antorbital fossa and restricted to the posterior margin of the ventral ramus along its dorsoventral extension (also in Heterodontosaurus); anterior process of jugal excluded from internal antorbital fenestra, bluntly squared anteriorly (tapered anteriorly- Sereno et al., 2013; also in Heterodontosaurus; contacts antorbital fenestra in Daemonosaurus and Tawa); ventral process of squamosal forms more than half posterior border of infratemporal fenestra (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; though present in Pampadromaeus and absent in Tawa); humerus length subequal or <60% length of femur (also in Pampadromaeus and Saturnalia; absent in Tawa); extensor pits on the dorsal surface of the distal end of metacarpals deep, well developed (shallow in Eoraptor- Sereno et al., 2013; also in Heterodontosaurus); shaft of metacarpal IV in relation to that of metacarpals I-III significantly narrower (also in Heterodontosaurus; untrue for IV vs. III in Eodromaeus); metacarpal IV and fourth digit, proximal portion set lateral to Mc III and with one or less phalanges (more ventrally set in Eodromaeus; more than one phalanx in Tawa); supraacetabular crest and lateroventral border of the postacetabular process (lateral brevis shelf) continuous as at least a weakly developed ridge (absent in Tawa); cnemial crest on proximal tibia moderately developed (also in Heterodontosaurus and Saturnalia; absent in Tawa?); posterior cleft between medial and lateral condyles on tibia (also in Heterodontosaurus, Panphagia, Saturnalia and Chromogisaurus).
Nesbitt et al. (2009)- premaxilla-maxilla, subnarial gap between the elements (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus; present in Heterodontosaurus); nasal possesses posterolateral process that envelops part of lacrimal (true of all basal saurischians except Herrerasaurus); ilium, ischiadic peduncle orientation well expanded posteriorly to the anterior margin of the postacetabular embayment (also in Panphagia, Chromogisaurus and Pantydraco; absent in Tawa).
Ezcurra (2010)- posterior part of premaxillary alveolar margin edentulous, resulting in an interruption of the upper tooth row (incorrect, the diastema is on the maxilla- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus; present in Heterodontosaurus); anterior margin of maxillary antorbital fossa squared (also in Pampadromaeus; absent in Daemonosaurus, Eodromaeus and Tawa); dorsoventrally compressed ridge on lateral surface of maxilla, forming ventral border of antorbital fossa (also in Heterodontosaurus; absent in Daemonosaurus and Tawa); orientation of lacrimal orbital margin erect and close to vertical (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Daemonosaurus and Tawa); supraacetabular crest of ilium flares lateroventrally to form hood-like overhang that hides anterodorsal half of acetabulum in lateral view (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus and Tawa); well developed brevis fossa with sharp margins on the ventral surface of the postacetabular process of the ilium present, being directly ventrally facing (also in sauropodomorphs); well developed tibiofibular crest on distal femur (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also absent in Eodromaeus).
Nesbitt et al. (2010)- As with the theropod diagnosis from this study, some characters in the matrix were seemingly placed incorrectly. Of these 'portion of maxilla anterior to anterior edge of antorbital fenestra equal or longer than posterior portion' is clearly absent in Eoraptor and meant to diagnose ornithischians as in the Tawa paper, 'lacrimal folds over posterior/posterodorsal part of antorbital fenestra' is a saurischian character meant to diagnose them as in the Tawa paper, (also in sauropodomorphs; absent in Daemonosaurus); and 'dorsal surface of frontal with longitudinal ridge along midline' is also not evident in Eoraptor and meant to diagnose Loricata.
Langer et al. (2011)- ilium, distal anteroposterior width of pubic peduncle (not considering the acetabular wall) more than half the total length of the peduncle (also in Pampadromaeus).
Nesbitt (2011)- trochanteric shelf absent (incorrect- Sereno et al., 2013; also wrong in Eodromaeus; true in Heterodontosaurus).
Sues et al. (2011)- external naris dorsal to a portion of maxilla (also in sauropodomorphs); posteroventral lacrimal process long and extending along dorsal edge of jugal (also in Pantydraco and some Heterodontosaurus; absent in Tawa); thin, anterolaterally expanded portion of postorbital that lies dorsal to orbit (also in Pampadromaeus and Pantydraco; absent in Tawa).
References- Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Padian and May, 1993. The earliest dinosaurs. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 3, 379-381.
Sereno, Forster, Rogers and Monetta, 1993. Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature. 361, 64-66.
Holtz, 1995. A new phylogeny of the Theropoda. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 15(3), 35A.
Gatesy and Middleton, 1997. Bipedalism, flight, and the evolution of theropod locomotor diversity. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 17(2), 308-329.
Sereno, 1997. The origin and evolution of dinosaurs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 25, 435-489.
Padian, Hutchinson and Holtz, 1999. Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous dinosaurs Dinosauria (Theropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 19(1), 69-80.
Sereno, 1999. The evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 284, 2137-2147.
Kischlat, 2000. Tecodoncios: A aurora dos Arcosaurios no Triassico. in Holz and De Rose (eds.). Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul. 273-316.
Middleton and Gatesy, 2000. Theropod forelimb design and evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 128, 149-187.
DigiMorph Staff, 2001 online. Eoraptor lunensis, Digital Morphology. http://digimorph.org/specimens/Eoraptor_lunensis/
Rauhut, 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology. 69, 1-213.
Langer, 2004. Basal Saurischia. In Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria Second Edition. University of California Press. 25-46.
Tykoski, 2005. Anatomy, ontogeny and phylogeny of coelophysoid theropods. PhD Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 553 pp.
Ezcurra, 2006. A review of the systematic position of the dinosauriform archosaur Eucoelophysis baldwini Sullivan & Lucas, 1999 from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA. Geodiversitas. 28(4),649-684.
Langer and Benton, 2006. Early dinosaurs: A phylogenetic study. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 4(4), 309-358.
Ezcurra and Novas, 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the Triassic theropod Zupaysaurus rougieri from NW Argentina. Historical Biology. 19(1), 35-72.
Sereno, 2007. The phylogenetic relationships of early dinosaurs: A comparative report. Historical Biology. 19(1), 145-155.
Smith, Makovicky, Hammer and Currie, 2007. Osteology of Cryolophosaurus ellioti (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic of Antarctica and implications for early theropod evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 151, 377-421.
Yates, 2007. Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: The identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology. 19(1), 93-123.
Martinez and Alcober, 2009. A basal sauropodomorph (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Triassic, Carnian) and the early evolution of Sauropodomorpha. PLoS ONE. 4(2), e4397.
Nesbitt, Smith, Irmis, Turner, Downs and Norell, 2009. A complete skeleton of a Late Triassic saurischian and the early evolution of dinosaurs. Science. 326, 1530-1533.
Bittencourt Rodrigues, 2010. Revisao filogenetica dos dinossauriformes basais: Implicacoes para a origem dod dinossauros. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Universidade de Sao Paulo. 288 pp.
Ezcurra, 2010. A new early dinosaur (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) from the Late Triassic of Argentina: A reassessment of dinosaur origin and phylogeny. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8(3), 371-425.
Martinez, Sereno, Alcober, Columbi, Renne, Montanez and Currie, 2011. A basal dinosaur from the dawn of the dinosaur era in Southwestern Pangaea. Science. 331, 206-210.
Martinez, Apaldetti and Abelin, 2013. Basal sauropodomorphs from the Ischigualasto Formation. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32(Supplement to 6), 51-69.
Sereno, Martinez and Alcober, 2013. Osteology of Eoraptor lunensis (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32(Supplement to 6), 83-179.

cf. Eoraptor (Reig, 1963)
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Material- (PVL 2559a; paratype of Triassolestes romeri in part) astragalus (31 mm trans), fragmentary metatarsal I, pedal ungual I, partial metatarsal II, metatarsal III (123 mm), phalanx III-1, incomplete phalanx III-3, proximal pedal ungual III, incomplete metatarsal IV, proximal phalanx IV-3, phalanx IV-4, proximal pedal ungual IV
Comments- Discovered in May 1961, PVL 2559 was initially described as a paratype of Trassolestes romeri by Reig (1963) despite sharing no reported elements in common and being discovered about 700 meters away.  Bonaparte (1982) quickly rejected the referral, stating Trialestes is "presently known by two specimens" which would be the holotype and PVL 3889.  Besides the astragalus and pes, Reig only lists "centrum of a posterior trunk vertebra, proximal portion of the fibula and other fragments" as being preserved, but provides measurements in Table 1 for a mid cervical, second sacral and pubis.  While it is possible these elements were meant to be the holotype PVL 2561 that was reported to preserve cervicals and later revealed to preserve incomplete pubes, the latter pieces are much shorter (103.8 mm) and don't preserve the distal end which is measured by Reig.  Novas (1989)  describes this as Herrerasauridae indet. "PVL 2559a: specimen represented by left astragalus (Figure 2.5-2.10), large portion of left foot" and notes "The remaining associated material cited by Reig pertains to a larger individual which lacks synapomorphies of Herrerasauridae, and now constitutes specimen PVL 2559b."  Novas (1993) later referred this to Dinosauria indet., stating it "shares all characters of Dinosauria ancestrally but lacks synapomorphies of Herrerasauridae."  Note Long and Murry (1995) tentatively considered the astragalus to be Herrerasaurus because it is "nearly identical, at least in anterior view to" PVSJ 373, but it differs more significantly in proximal view from the Herrerasaurus holotype.  Clark et al. (2000) reported "JMC could not locate these elements [cervical, sacral, pubis, astragalus] in the collections of the Instituto Miguel Lillo in 1985" so that "PVL 2559 now comprises a partial articulated pes", but the astragalus must have been rediscovered by 1989 for Novas' paper.  Lecuona et al. (2016) state that the material is saurischian, citing Ezcurra and Irmis pers. obs., again suggesting the astragalus is still observable.
Relationships- The specimen is a non-neotheropod saurischian based on the proximal astragalar fossa behind the ascending process, and moreover has an astragalus almost identical to the contemporaneous Eoraptor.  This is based on transverse elongation (159% vs. 162% compared to 131% Panphagia, 134-142% Saturnalia, 141% Herrerasaurus, 172% Eodromaeus); posterior extent of the ascending process (61% vs. 57% compared to 77% Panphagia, 57-78% Saturnalia, 64% Herrerasaurus, 45% Eodromaeus); anteromedial angle (67 degrees vs. 68 compared to 58 Panphagia, ~65-70 Saturnalia, 76 Herrerasaurus, ~90 Eodromaeus).  Additionally, Herrerasaurus differs in having a notably convex posterior margin, Eodromaeus in having a notably more laterally projected anterolateral process, Saturnalia in having a more laterally projected posterolateral process, and Panphagia in having a rounded anteromedial corner.  Anterior views are unfigured for Panphagia and Eodromaeus, but Herrerasaurus differs from the others in the extensive fossa laterodistal to the ascending process, Saturnalia differs from the others in the distocentral convexity and rounded unhooked ascending process, while both differ from PVL 2559a and Eoraptor in the rounded lateral body edge.  That being said, there are some differences from Eoraptor, such as an anteroposteriorly deeper astragalar body in medial view as in Saturnalia and a posterior ascending process.  The pes is less informative due both to conservatism of basal saurischian pedes and the figure being limited to anterior view.  Metatarsal IV has a proximolateral flange like Herrerasaurus and Saturnalia but unlike Eoraptor, and phalanx IV-4 seems much more robust than Saturnalia and Eoraptor but perhaps comparable to Herrerasaurus
References- Reig, 1963. La presencia de dinosaurios saurisquios en los "Estrados de Ischigualasto" (Mesotriasico superior) de las provincias de San Juan y La Rioja (Republica Argentina). Ameghiniana 3, 3-20.
Bonaparte, 1982. Faunal replacement in the Triassic of South America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2(3), 362-371.
Novas, 1989. The tibia and tarsus in Herrerasauridae (Dinosauria, incertae sedis) and the origin and evolution of the dinosaurian tarsus. Journal of Paleontology. 63, 677-690.
Novas, 1993. New information on the systematics and postcranial skeleton of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis (Theropoda: Herrerasauridae) from the Ischigualasto Formation (Upper Triassic) of Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(4), 400-423.
Long and Murry, 1995. Late Triassic (Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern Unites States. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. 4, 1-254.
Clark, Sues and Berman, 2000. A new specimen of Hesperosuchus agilis from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico and the interrelationships of basal crocodylomorph archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20(4), 683-704.
Lecuona, Ezcurra, Irmis, 2016. Revision of the early crocodylomorph Trialestes romeri (Archosauria, Suchia) from the lower Upper Triassic Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina: One of the oldest-known crocodylomorphs. Papers in Palaeontology. 2(4), 585-622.

Eodromaeus Martinez, Sereno, Alcober, Columbi, Renne, Montanez and Currie, 2011
E. murphi Martinez, Sereno, Alcober, Columbi, Renne, Montanez and Currie, 2011
Early Norian, Late Triassic
Valle de la Luna Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Holotype- (PVSJ 560) (~1.77 m; adult) partial skull (~120 mm), mandible (~126 mm), proatlantal arches, atlas, axis (19 mm), third cervical vertebra (24 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (26 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (30 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (30 mm), seventh cervical vertebran (30 mm), eighth cervical vertebra (27 mm), ninth cervical vertebra (22 mm), tenth cervical vertebra (~13 mm), several cervical ribs, first dorsal vertebra (~15 mm), second dorsal vertebra (17 mm), third dorsal vertebra (17 mm), fourth dorsal vertebra (17 mm), fifth dorsal vertebra (17 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (18 mm), seventh dorsal vertebra (21 mm), eighth dorsal vertebra (~21 mm), ninth dorsal vertebra (21 mm), tenth dorsal vertebra (~19 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (19 mm), twelfth dorsal vertebra (~19 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra, fourteenth dorsal vertebra, dorsal ribs, first sacral vertebra, second sacral vertebra (18 mm), third sacral vertebra (19 mm), first caudal vertebra (21 mm), second caudal vertebra (19 mm), third caudal vertebra (20 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (19 mm), partial fifth caudal vertebra, partial ninth caudal vertebra, tenth caudal vertebra (22 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (23 mm), twelfth caudal vertebra (25 mm), thirteenth caudal vertebra (~23 mm), fourteenth caudal vertebra (~21 mm), fifteenth caudal vertebra (20 mm), sixteenth caudal vertebra (20 mm), seventeenth caudal vertebra (21 mm), eighteenth caudal vertebra (21 mm), nineteenth caudal vertebra (21 mm), twentieth caudal vertebra (21 mm), twenty-first caudal vertebra (23 mm), twenty-second caudal vertebra (24 mm), twenty-third caudal vertebra (~25 mm), twenty-fourth caudal vertebra (25 mm), twenty-fifth caudal vertebra (25 mm), twenty-sixth caudal vertebra (26 mm), twenty-seventh caudal vertebra (26 mm), twenty-eighth caudal vertebra (26 mm), twenty-ninth caudal vertebra (25 mm), thirtieth caudal vertebra (25 mm), thirty-first caudal vertebra (24 mm), thirty-second caudal vertebra, thirty-third caudal vertebra, thirty-fourth caudal vertebra, thirty-fifth caudal vertebra, thirty-sixth caudal vertebra, thirty-seventh caudal vertebra (19 mm), fortieth caudal vertebra (16 mm), chevrons, proximal humeri, radius, ulna, radiale, centrale, ulnare, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal IV, distal carpal V, metacarpal I (12 mm), metacarpal II (19 mm), phalanx II-1 (~11 mm), phalanx II-2 (~14 mm), manual ungual II (11 mm), metacarpal III (21 mm), phalanx III-1 (9 mm), phalanx III-2 (8 mm), phalanx III-3 (10 mm), manual ungual III (~10 mm), metacarpal IV (16 mm), phalanx IV-1 (4 mm), metacarpal V (~7 mm), phalanx V-1 (~5 mm), ilia (60 mm), pubes (~139 mm), ischia (one proximal; ~110 mm), femora (141 mm), tibiae (154 mm), fibulae (132 mm), astragalus, calcaneum, distal tarsals III, distal tarsals IV, metatarsals I (~46 mm), phalanx I-1 (18 mm), metatarsal II, phalanx II-1 (23 mm), incomplete metatarsal III, phalanx III-1 (24 mm), phalanx III-2 (16 mm), metatarsal V
Paratypes- (PVSJ 561) maxilla, nasal, incomplete jugal, femur
(PVSJ 562) (~ 2.00 m; adult) posterior skull, proatlantal arches (13 mm), atlas (4 mm), axis (23 mm), third cervical vertebra (27 mm), fourth cervical vertebra (31 mm), fifth cervical vertebra (34 mm), sixth cervical vertebra (33 mm), seventh cervical vertebra, eighth cervical vertebra (33 mm), cervical ribs, fourth dorsal vertebra (18 mm), sixth dorsal vertebra (24 mm), eleventh dorsal vertebra (24 mm), thirteenth dorsal vertebra (24 mm), fourteenth dorsal vertebra (21 mm), second caudal vertebra (23 mm), third caudal vertebra (24 mm), fourth caudal vertebra (23 mm), fifth caudal vertebra (23 mm), sixth caudal vertebra (22 mm), seventh caudal vertebra (24 mm), eighth caudal vertebra (25 mm), ninth caudal vertebra (25 mm), tenth caudal vertebra (23 mm), eleventh caudal vertebra (26 mm), chevrons (3- 50 mm, 4- 46 mm, 5- 32 mm), scapulae (86 mm), coracoids (21 mm), humerus (85 mm), radius (66 mm), ulna (76 mm), radiale, centrale, ulnare, distal carpal I, distal carpal II, distal carpal III, distal carpal IV, metacarpal I (18 mm), phalanx I-1 (14 mm), metacarpal II (27 mm), phalanx II-1 (15 mm), metacarpal III (28 mm), phalanx III-1 (12 mm), metacarpal IV (21 mm), phalanx IV-1, metacarpal V (10 mm), phalanx V-1 (5 mm), proximal ischia (~116 mm), femur (160 mm), tibiae (one distal; 165 mm), fibulae (one distal), calcaneum, distal tarsal IV, distal metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1 (13 mm), phalanx IV-2 (11 mm), phalanx IV-3 (9 mm), phalanx IV-4 (8 mm), pedal ungual IV (15 mm)
Middle Carnian, Late Triassic
La Pena Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Paratype- (PVSJ 534) (~1.95 m) femur (155 mm), proximal tibia, astragalus (~23 mm wide), calcaneum, distal tarsal III, distal tarsal IV, proximal metatarsal I, proximal metatarsal II, proximal metatarsal III, proximal metatarsal IV
Late Carnian, Late Triassic
Cancha de Bochas Member of the Ischigualasto Formation, San Juan, Argentina

Paratype- (PVSJ 877) third cervical centrum
Diagnosis- (after Martinez et al., 2011) less than 12 maxillary teeth (unknown in Tawa); caniniform anterior maxillary teeth more than three times the basal mesiodistal width; fine mesial and distal serrations (~9 per mm) (unknown in Tawa); ventrally convex maxillary alveolar margin (also in Herrerasaurus); very shallow jugal suborbital ramus (also in Eoraptor); centrale in carpus between the radiale and distal carpal I (also in Tawa); large distal carpal 5 overlapping distal carpal 4 with a posteroventral heel (also in Herrerasaurus; unknown in Tawa); pubic apron with sinuous lateral margin (also in Herrerasaurinae; unknown in Tawa); pubic foot with squared posterior margin (unknown in Tawa).
Comments- PVSJ 534 and 877 were discovered in 1988, while PVSJ 560-562 were discovered in 1998 and first thought to be Eoraptor until 2000. This taxon was originally described in an abstract by Martinez et al. (2008), after being mentioned by Sereno (2007) as a closely related taxon to Eoraptor. PVSJ 563 was listed as a paratype, but this is a typo (Sereno, pers. comm.).
Barta et al. (2018) proposed "the bone identified as the fifth distal carpal of E. murphi by Martinez et al. (2011) may more plausibly be interpreted as a fourth distal carpal, given its position overlying the fourth metacarpal, its blocky, triangular shape, and that the specimen would otherwise lack a third distal carpal under the interpretation of Martinez et al.."
Martinez et al. (2011) find Eodromaeus to be a theropod more basal than Tawa, though their matrix has a small number of characters and taxa. The only other recovered phylogenetic position has been as a non-eusaurischian saurishian as in Cabreira et al. (2016).
References- Sereno, 2007. The phylogenetic relationships of early dinosaurs: A comparative report. Historical Biology. 19(1), 145-155.
Martinez, Sereno and Alcober, 2008. A new basal theropod from the Ischigualasto Formation of San Juan Province, Argentina. In Calvo, Valieri, Porfiri and dos Santos (eds.). Libro de Resumenes, III Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontologia de Vertebrados. Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Neuquen, Argentina. 153.
Martinez, Sereno, Alcober, Columbi, Renne, Montanez and Currie, 2011. A basal dinosaur from the dawn of the dinosaur era in southwestern Pangaea. Science. 331, 206-210.
Cabreira, Kellner, Dias-da-Silva, da Silva, Bronzati, de Almeida Marsola, Müller, de Souza Bittencourt, Batista, Raugust and Carrilho, 2016. A unique Late Triassic dinosauromorph assemblage reveals dinosaur ancestral anatomy and diet. Current Biology. 26(22), 3090-3095.
Barta, Nesbitt and Norell, 2018 (online 2017). The evolution of the manus of early theropod dinosaurs is characterized by high inter- and intraspecific variation. Journal of Anatomy. 232(1), 80-104.

Eusaurischia Padian, Hutchinson and Holtz, 1999
Definition- (Cetiosaurus medius + Passer domesticus) (modified from Langer, 2004)

Eusaurischia indet. (Hu, 1964)
Turonian, Late Cretaceous
Tashuikou, Ulanhsuhi Formation, Inner Mongolia, China
Material
- (IVPP V2884.X; paratype of Chilantaisaurus tashuikouensis) (large) distal caudal centrum
Comments- Hu (1964) collected this in 1960, apparently associated with Chilantaisaurus.  He said it was a carnosaurian posterior middle caudal vertebra and "most probably belong to the same species."  Noting only the ventral groove, his description was surpassed by Benson and Xu (2008) who stated it "is elongate, similar in proportions to the distal caudal vertebrae of theropods but comparatively large in size. The articular surfaces are subequally biconcave and the ventral surface is flat at one end, developing into a broad longitudinal groove flanked by prominent ventral ridges towards the other end."  While they considered it Dinosauria indet., no large ornithischians have elongate distal caudals, so this is either a neosauropod or an averostran.
References- Hu, 1964. Carnosaurian remains from Alashan, Inner Mongolia. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 8, 42-63.
Benson and Xu, 2008. The anatomy and systematic position of the theropod dinosaur Chilantaisaurus tashuikouensis Hu, 1964 from the Early Cretaceous of Alanshan, People’s Republic of China. Geological Magazine. 145(6), 778-789.

Sauropodomorpha

Theropoda