| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsIctidosaurus Broom, 1903 †
1158138 (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:1158138)
uncertain > nomen dubium
Genus
fossil only
Ann. S. Afr. Mus., 4
page(s): 151 [details]
Taxonomic remark From Kammerer, 2023: Broom (1903b) described Scylacosaurus sclateri and Ictidosaurus angusticeps in the same publication...
Taxonomic remark From Kammerer, 2023: Broom (1903b) described Scylacosaurus sclateri and Ictidosaurus angusticeps in the same publication and noted that they were very similar, but differentiated the latter taxon by its dorsoventrally deeper snout and lower incisor count (originally stated to be five). Subsequent authors have generally considered I. angusticeps to represent a valid taxon, but have differed in its familial attribution, variously placing it in Scylacosauridae (Williston 1925; Vjuschkov 1964), Pristerognathidae (Haughton 1924; Romer 1956; Watson & Romer 1956), Akidnognathidae (Haughton & Brink 1954), Ictidosuchidae (Huene 1956), Scaloposauridae (Romer 1945), or in its own family Ictidosauridae (Broom 1932; although confusingly Broom also included Scylacosaurus in this family, seemingly forgetting that he had already established the family Scylacosauridae for that genus). Most recently, van den Heever (1987) considered I. angusticepsto be a valid scylacosaurid taxon diagnosed by the presence of six incisors and one precanine in the upper dentition ... The relatively narrow snout is suggestive of Alopecognathus, but given the compression of this specimen, that is uncertain, and not enough of the skull is preserved to show other distinguishing features of the scylacosaurid species herein considered valid. At present, I. angusticeps must be considered a nomen dubium (Scylacosauridae indet.). [details]
IRMNG (2023). Ictidosaurus Broom, 1903 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1158138 on 2024-11-21
Date action by
original description
Ann. S. Afr. Mus., 4
page(s): 151 [details] basis of record Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. Previously at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ (URL no longer current). , available online at https://insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nomenclator_zoologicus_PDF.htm [details] name verified source Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. Previously at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ (URL no longer current). , available online at https://insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nomenclator_zoologicus_PDF.htm [details] Unreviewed
Taxonomic remark From Kammerer, 2023: Broom (1903b) described Scylacosaurus sclateri and Ictidosaurus angusticeps in the same publication and noted that they were very similar, but differentiated the latter taxon by its dorsoventrally deeper snout and lower incisor count (originally stated to be five). Subsequent authors have generally considered I. angusticeps to represent a valid taxon, but have differed in its familial attribution, variously placing it in Scylacosauridae (Williston 1925; Vjuschkov 1964), Pristerognathidae (Haughton 1924; Romer 1956; Watson & Romer 1956), Akidnognathidae (Haughton & Brink 1954), Ictidosuchidae (Huene 1956), Scaloposauridae (Romer 1945), or in its own family Ictidosauridae (Broom 1932; although confusingly Broom also included Scylacosaurus in this family, seemingly forgetting that he had already established the family Scylacosauridae for that genus). Most recently, van den Heever (1987) considered I. angusticepsto be a valid scylacosaurid taxon diagnosed by the presence of six incisors and one precanine in the upper dentition ... The relatively narrow snout is suggestive of Alopecognathus, but given the compression of this specimen, that is uncertain, and not enough of the skull is preserved to show other distinguishing features of the scylacosaurid species herein considered valid. At present, I. angusticeps must be considered a nomen dubium (Scylacosauridae indet.). [details]
|
