Eichstaettisaurus Kuhn, 1958

Evans, Susan. E., Raia, Pasquale & Barbera, Carmela, 2004, New lizards and rhynchocephalians from the Lower Cretaceous of southern Italy, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49 (3), pp. 393-408 : 394-396

Eichstaettisaurus Kuhn, 1958

Type species: Eichstaettisaurus schroederi ( Broili, 1938) .

Other species: Eichstaettisaurus gouldi sp. nov.

Distribution.— Late Jurassic (Tithonian), Germany, and Early Cretaceous (Berriasian, Albian), Spain and Italy.

Revised diagnosis.—Squamate genus characterised by the combination of a dorsoventrally compressed head; single frontal with distinct orbital narrowing, strong cristae cranii, and a wide posterior border; simple abutting frontoparietal suture with no overlap surfaces or interdigitation; short maxilla that does not extend beyond midpoint of orbital rim; small unicuspid teeth with labiolingually flattened tips; limbs short in relation to length of presacral column; epipodials shorter than propodials, but particularly so on the hind limb; manus and pes similar in length to their respective propodials, and without marked disparity in length between the inner and outer digits.

Differs from Ardeosaurus (Upper Jurassic, Germany: Mateer 1982) in having narrow conjoined frontals (rather than wide and paired), a more open upper temporal fenestra (constricted in Ardeosaurus ), and a simple rather than interdigitated frontoparietal suture; differs from Ardeosaurus and Meyasaurus (Lower Cretaceous, Spain: Evans and Barbadillo 1997) in lacking cranial sculpture; resembles Ardeosaurus , Bavarisaurus (Upper Jurassic, Germany: Hoffstetter, 1964), Scandensia (Lower Cretaceous, Spain: Evans and Barbadillo 1998), Huehuecuetzpalli (Lower Cretaceous, Mexico: Reynoso 1998), and Hoyalacerta (Lower Cretaceous, Spain: Evans and Barbadillo 1999), and differs from Meyasaurus , Chometokadmon (Lower Cretaceous, Italy: work in progress), and paramacellodids (Upper Jurassic– Lower Cretaceous, Laurasia and Africa: Evans and Chure 1998) in having paired, rather than fused, premaxillae; differs from Bavarisaurus , Meyasaurus , Chometokadmon , and Huehuecuetzpalli in having a relatively short symmetrical pes (rather than elongate and strongly asymmetrical), and from Bavarisaurus , Hoyalacerta , and Huehuecuetzpalli in having a broad squamosal; differs from paramacellodids in lacking bony osteoscutes; resembles Huehuecuetzpalli , Bavarisaurus , and Scandensia and differs from Hoyalacerta , Ardeosaurus , and paramacellodids in having amphicoelous rather than procoelous vertebrae; differs from Chometokadmon in the much shorter parietal; differs from Huehuecuetzpalli in having short, rather than elongated, premaxillae and larger postfrontals (vestigial in the Mexican form); differs from Meyasaurus in frontal morphology (that of Meyasaurus is exceptionally narrow); differs from Scandensia in lacking the slender, greatly elongated penultimate phalanges; differs from Sakurasaurus (Lower Cretaceous, Japan: Evans and Manabe 1999), Meyasaurus and Tarratosaurus (Lower Cretaceous, Morocco: Broschinski and Sigogneau−Russell 1996) in having a simple homodont dentition (wide durophagous teeth in Sakurasaurus , bicuspid teeth in Meyasaurus , few robust teeth in Tarratosaurus ); differs from the enigmatic Hodzhakulia (Lower Cretaceous, Central Asia: Nessov 1985, 1997) in having a longer jaw and smaller teeth; and differs from Hoyalacerta in having a broader skull (narrow in Hoyalacerta ). Yabeinosaurus (Lower Cretaceous, China: Endo and Shikama 1942) has never been redescribed in detail, while two new Chinese lizards from the same deposits ( Dalinghosaurus, Ji, 1998 ; Jeholacerta, Ji, and Ren 1999 ) have yet to be adequately characterised.

Eichstaettisaurus schroederi ( Broili, 1938) Kuhn 1958 Ardeosaurus schroederi Broili, 1938 Broilisaurus schroederi Hoffstetter, 1953

Holotype: BSPHM 1937 I 1, a complete skeleton in dorsal view.

Holotype locality, horizon, and age: Wintershof bei Eichstaett , Germany. Solnhofen Limestone, Upper Jurassic (Tithonian).

Revised diagnosis.—Species of Eichstaettisaurus in which traces of the mid−parietal and mid−frontal suture may remain after the rest of the suture has closed; interorbital frontal width roughly 32 per cent of the width at the frontoparietal suture; frontal and parietal equal in width at suture, in contact laterally, and with postfrontal applied to their lateral margins; frontoparietal suture smooth, with parietal margin broadly convex and frontal margin slightly concave.