SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
A diverse Campanian biota from the Bozeș Formation (Petrești, Romania): Insights into the paleontology and paleoecology of a transitional sequence
The Supplementary materials contain additional information that due to its excessive length and details is not included in the main text for reasons of clarity and brevity. This information primarily encompasses taxonomic discussions and detailed descriptions of the significant occurrences. References to the Supplementary materials from the main text follow the format “refer to Supplementary materials, Section XX”. Conversely, references to figures in the main text, when cited within the Supplementary materials, are worded as “Figure XX (in the main text)”.
A. Calcareous nannoplankton
The illustrated calcareous nannoplankton assemblage includes several biostratigraphically diagnostic species indicative of a Campanian age for the studied section. The presence of these taxa provides a robust basis for stratigraphic correlation and supports the chronostratigraphic framework applied to this interval (see Figure S1). See Table S1.
B. Ammonites
Order AMMONOIDEA von Zittel, 1884
Suborder AMMONITINA Hyatt, 1889
Superfamily DESMOCERATOIDEA von Zittel, 1895
Family PACHYDISCIDAE Spath, 1922
Genus PACHYDISCUS von Zittel, 1884
Subgenus PACHYDISCUS (PACHYDISCUS) Zittel, 1884
1884 Pachydiscus, Zittel, p. 466
1900 Parapachydiscus, Hyatt, p. 570
1955 Pseudomenuites, Matsumoto, p. 169
1958 Joaquinites, Anderson, p. 218
Type species. The lectotype of Ammonites haldemsis (Schlüter, 1867, p. 19), by subsequent designation of Kennedy and Summesberger (1984, p. 158).
Pachydiscus (Pachydiscus) cf. haldemsis
(Schlüter 1867) (M)
Figure 7A-L (in the main text)
Dimensions. See Table S2.
Description. In the present study, 2 specimens (Figure 7A-D and Figure 7E-H in the main text) are considered macroconchs, whereas the third (smaller) fragmentary specimen (Figure 7J-L in the main text) is considered as juvenile.
Specimen no. NHMS 57406/LV5 (Figure 7A-D in the main text). Shell large (Dmax = 237 mm), compressed (T/H = 0.51), evolute (U/D = 0.25), and with a shallow umbilicus. The maximum estimated shell diameter is 375 mm, assuming a body chamber of 3/4 of a whorl. Primary ribs are not visible due to the worn nature of the specimen. However, at the end of the middle whorl (at the exposed fragment at around 200 mm shell diameter), few, distant and moderately strong, feebly concave primary ribs with thin intercalatories are noted. The umbilical wall is feebly convex, the umbilical shoulder is broadly rounded, and the whorl section is compressed and oval. The whorl section is somewhat squarish in the inner whorl. The flanks are flattened and very feebly convergent, the ventrolateral shoulders broadly rounded, and the venter is very feebly convex. The flanks are corroded, and no ornament is noted on the outer whorl.
Specimen no. NHMS 56581/LV5 is a juvenile (Figure 7J-L in the main text). The other two septate specimens (Figure 7A-E and Figure 7F-H in the main text) are incomplete, fragmentary, and somewhat crushed. The larger one is 164 mm (Figure 7A-D in the main text) and the smaller one is 101 mm in shell diameter (Figure 7E-F in the main text). Coiling is moderately involute (U/D = 0.19‒0.20). The umbilicus is moderately deep with subvertical walls, undercut, and with no umbilical shoulder distinguishable from the flanks. The outer flank is slightly convex, converging to narrow rounded ventrolateral shoulders and venter. However, due to compression, the venter is slightly deformed (Figure7B, D in the main text). The smaller specimen shows (Figure 7E-F in the main text) broad, prorsiradiate ribs, concave on the outer flank with the gradual weakening of the ornamentation. The primaries divide into two prorsiradiate secondaries with an intervening single intercalatory (Figure 7E-F in the main text). The sutures are typical for the genus — deeply and intricately incised (see Figure 7E in the main text).
Geographic distribution. Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine and Iran; Turkey.
C. Fish
Class CHONDRICHTHYES Huxley, 1880
Subclass EUSELACHII Hay, 1902
Infraclass ELASMOBRANCHII Bonaparte, 1838
Division SELACHII Cope, 1871
Superorder GALEOMORPHII Compagno, 1973
Order LAMNIFORMES Berg, 1958
Lamniformes indet.
Figure 12A-C (in the main text)
Material. One tooth (NHMS 57427/LV5).
Description. The tooth is very small, measuring 3.3 mm in height. Only the main cusp is preserved with no lateral cusplets and only a very small part of the root. The lingual side of the cusp is very slightly convex and it has weak, irregular striations on its lower half. The labial side is flat and smooth. The contact with the root is almost straight labially, with a small chevron bump on the lingual side. A sharp cutting edge is preserved but it is chipped.
Remarks. The fragmentary stage and the relatively common shape of the crown make us cautious in allocating the tooth even at the order level. The few observable characters could broadly indicate the order Lamniformes. Several genera have this type of symmetrical crown for teeth in central positions, as well as striations on the lingual face.
Division BATOMORPHII Cappetta, 1980
Order RAJIFORMES Berg, 1940
Suborder RHINOBATOIDEI Fowler, 1941
Family RHINOBATIDAE Müller and Henle, 1838
Genus PARATRYGONORRHINA
Kriwet, Soler-Gijón, López-Martínez, 2007
Paratrygonorrhina amblysoda
Kriwet, Soler-Gijón, López-Martínez, 2007
Figure 12D-H (in the main text)
Material. One tooth (NHMS 57422/LV4).
Description. The crown of the tooth is slightly broader than long and it is almost rhombic in occlusal view. The occlusal surface is almost flat and smooth but a small transversal crest is visible. In apical view the labial margin is rounded and convex while the lingual margin is more angular, almost forming a triangle. In profile view the lingual side is very abrupt but not quite vertical with a central uvula and two lateral ones. The central uvula is quite short, barely descending below the level of the crown in lateral view. This central uvula is covered by longitudinal irregular striations. The lateral uvulae are very short and very little visible. Some very short striations are visible on the distal and mesial ends. Also, the labial part of the crown strongly overhangs the root in profile view. The root, although not completely preserved, has two lobes. Its height seems to be equal to the height of the crown. The root is displaced lingually. Unfortunately, the presence some adhering sediment particles does not allow observing the central part of the root, to see if it hides one or more central foramina.
Remarks. Although the analyzed tooth is not in the best state of preservation, it corresponds quite well to the diagnosis of the type specimens of P. amblysoda. Therefore, we confidently assign this tooth to that species.
The genus Paratrygonorrhina and its only known species, P. amblysoda, were described for the first time from the upper Campanian of the Orcau 2 locality, in the Tremp-Gaus Basin (lower part of the Tremp Formation), Northern Spain (Kriwet et al., 2007). Besides its locality of origin, the authors consider that several specimens previously described under the name of Rhinobatos sp. can actually be assigned to this species. Some of these specimens come from the same formation (Soler-Gijón and López-Martínez, 1995, 1998) but others come from the uppermost Cretaceous of Petites Pyrenees (Haute-Garonne and Ariege, France) and the Maastrictian “Marnes d’Auzas” Formation (from the same region) (Gheerbrant et al., 1997, Pl. 1, figure 3a-c). We are therefore dealing with a very rare species, which originates from formations which, as in our case, were formed on the edges of continental areas during the late Campanian-Maastrichtian time period.
Class ACTINOPTERYGII Klein, 1885
Order LEPISOSTEIFORMES Hay, 1929
Family LEPISOSTEIDAE Cuvier, 1825
Leaving little doubts regarding their allocation at the family level, Lepisosteidae teeth are rather easily recognizable by their sharp, conical shape and the presence of strong folds at their base. However, their more precise allocation to one of the two Upper Cretaceous genera is much more difficult. Indeed, for a while the difference between Lepisosteus and Atractosteus were not even recognized by Grande (1980) although later, in his monumental work on Lepisosteidae, he changed his previous opinion and recognized the genera Atractosteus and Lepisosteus as valid (Grande, 2010). However, this recognition had no direct impact on the methods of identifying isolated elements such as teeth or scales. In fact, Grande did not differentiate the two genera based on the morphology of their teeth, such a difference being noticed later by paleontologists trying to identify potential distinctive characters based on his very detailed descriptions and illustrations. One of the observed differentiating characters was the spear-like shape of the tip of the fangs of Atractosteus, a shape that is not found in any species of Lepisosteus. However, a closer look shows that although the difference mentioned above is perfectly valid, Atractosteus also has a series of secondary teeth where this character is not present. To solve this problem, an analysis — using images obtained with the electron microscope — of the ganoine ornamentation present on lepisosteid scales or hemitrichs recovered from the same sediment as the teeth was proposed as being useful. Since both teeth morphologies are present in the studied outcrop, we performed such an investigation, following a significant number of other authors who used the same method in order to differentiate between the two genera (see Gayet and Meunier, 2001; Gayet et al., 2002; Blanco et al., 2017; Szabó and Ősi, 2017; Ősi et al., 2021).
Genus ATRACTOSTEUS Rafinesque, 1820
Atractosteus sp.
Figure 12I-N (in the main text)
Material. Two teeth (NHMS 57439/LV3, NHMS 57442/LV3).
Description. Conical, pointed teeth, circular or slightly elliptical in cross-section. The acrodine cap has a spear-like shape. The base of the tooth is covered by strong and deep folds.
Genus Lepisosteus Lacepède 1803
Lepisosteus sp.
Figure S2A-F (in the Supplementary materials)
Material. Two hemitrichs (NHMS 57484/LV2, 57485/LV2) and one scale (NHMS 57486/LV3).
Description. The hemintrichs are very small elements of the fin ray skeleton of the fish. These elements exhibit an elongated morphology with a slightly arched transverse section. Their surface is covered by several elongated, ovoid regions of ganoin, arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis. The scale is about 4 mm long, tear shaped, and has a black and shiny surface.
Remarks. The presence of both Lepisosteidae genera in the same deposits is not uncommon. The same situation was found for example in Upper Cretaceous deposits of Spain (Blanco et al., 2017) or Alabama (USA) (Ikejiri et al., 2013). Remains of Lepisosteidae are often found in the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) continental deposits of Romania. On several occasions, they were left identified only at the family level (Codrea et al., 2013; Solomon et al., 2022) although sometimes they were referred either to Atractosteus or to Lepisosteus (Csiki et al., 2008), with the sharp, pointed teeth assigned to the genus Lepisosteus and the lanceolate ones to the genus Atractosteus. To confirm the presence of the genus Lepisosteus, however, in our opinion tubercle density analysis should be performed on associated scales or other fish remains that preserve ganoin. This call is also valid for other locations around the world where one or the other of these genera have been reported.
Order AULOPIFORMES Rosen, 1973
Family ENCHODONTIDAE Woodward, 1901
Genus ENCHODUS Agassiz, 1835
Enchodus petrosus Cope, 1874
Figure 12O-Q (in the main text)
Material. Three teeth (NHMS 57425/LV4, NHMS 57426 /LV4, and NHMS 57428/LV4).
Description. Asymmetric teeth with a straight to slightly concave lingual face and a convex labial face. The anterior cutting edge it is positioned rather anteromedially and is sharp and straight. The posterior part of the tooth has posterolateral carinae with parallel cutting edges, forming an unmistakable asymmetric cross-section (see Figure 12 in the main text). Some striations can be observed at the base of one of the specimens, but for the other specimens is unclear whether such striations were never present or just the teeth are very eroded.
Remarks. The isolated teeth of the different Enchodus species can be distinguished based on their shape (straight or sinusoidal), the presence of one or several (up to three) posterior or rather posterolateral cutting edges, cross-section (symmetrical, asymmetrical, degree of roundness), and the presence or absence of a postapical barb. Since the teeth from our sample do not preserve the apex, only their general shape and cross-section, as well as the number of cutting edges will be considered.
A tooth with an asymmetric cross section, very similar to that of our Petrești teeth is illustrated by Becker et al. (2010, figure 6i) under the name E. petrosus. This cross section is very different from that seen in other Enchodus species. For example, both E. ferox Leidy, 1855 and E. gladiolus (Cope, 1872) have a tooth cross section with both labial and lingual faces strongly convex, and only one posterior cutting edge. The species E. dirus Leidy, 1857 also has symmetrical teeth in cross-section, with only a single anterior cutting edge (Goody, 1976, p. 105). Considering the similarities with E. petrosus and the differences from the other three species of Enchodus, we assign the teeth from Petresti to the species E. petrosus.
The species E. petrosus has been extensively documented from the Upper Cretaceous of North America, with a range from Coniacian to Maastrictian (Goody, 1976; Becker et al., 2010). Notably, its presence has also been reported in Europe, in the Campanian Rybushka Formation of Russia (Ebersole et al., 2022).
In Romania, the only previous mention of the Enchodontidae family comes from the Cenomanian of Dobrogea where it was reported as Enchodontidae indet. (Trif and Codrea, 2022b).
Order ELOPIFORMES Sauvage, 1875
Family PHYLLODONTIDAE Sauvage, 1875
Genus PARALBULA Blake, 1940
Paralbula casei Estes, 1969
Figure 12R-T (in the main text)
Material. Five teeth (NHMS 57421/LV4, NHMS 57423/LV4, NHMS 57424/LV4, NHMS 57434/LV5, and NHMS 57438/LV5).
Description. The teeth are very small with a maximum diameter of 1.8 mm. In occlusal view their contour ranges from circular to subcircular. The profile is hemispherical. The crown’s enamel is thin and it has a rather strong radial rugosity radiating from center of the tooth towards the margins. The base is also circular with a central cavity.
Remarks. Several species of Paralbula have a similar ornamentation on their teeth, and distribution data indicate that their stratigraphical range could overlap (Estes, 1969; Schein et al., 2011; Ebersole et al., 2019). In his work on phyllodont fishes and their relationships, Estes (1969) underlines in his diagnosis of P. casei that the species has “crowns coarsely-sculptured in partially radiate or irregular pattern” and that this species differs from P. marylandica Blake, 1940 in having well-developed surface sculpture and a very thin enamel-like layer. The stratigraphic range of P. marylandica also seemed to exclude it from being confounded with P. casei that was reported usually only from the Eocene. Recent data indicate that P. marylandica might be also present in the uppermost Cretaceous-lowermost Paleocene basal Hornerstown Formation (USA) (Schein et al., 2011). However, a more thorough investigation of this material is still needed, including detailed description and better illustrations than those available in the poster presented by Schein et al. (2011). The species P. stromeri (Weiler, 1929) has a smooth crown that lacks ornamentation (Estes, 1969), while in P. salvani (Arambourg, 1952) the surface is weakly rugose or irregular (“surface légèrement chagrinée ou irrégulière”, Arambourg, 1952, p. 254). Furthermore, both P. stromeri and P. salvani also seem to be restricted to the Paleocene. Accordingly, we conclude that our specimens belong to P. casei.
Paralbula casei is a common species in the Upper Cretaceous but it was also reported from the Ypresian (Eocene) of London Clay Formation in Bognor Regis, Sussex (UK) (Estes, 1969) and from the lower-to-middle Eocene (Ypresian to Bartonian) of Claiborne Group in Alabama, USA (Ebersole et al., 2019).
In the Upper Cretaceous, P. casei has been reported from the Campanian uppermost Blufftown Formation, Georgia (USA) (Case and Schwimmer, 1988), the middle Campanian of the Aguja Formation in West Texas (USA) (Schubert et al., 2017), the upper Campanian of Demopolis Formation, Mississippi (USA) (Manning and Dockery, 1992), and the Campanian of Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, (Canada) (Beavan and Russel, 1999), but also from the Maastrichtian Fox Hill Formation, South Dakota (USA) (Becker et al., 2009). In Europe, P. casei occurs in the middle?-upper Cenomanian of the La Cabaña Formation (Spain) (Vullo et al., 2009), and most recently was also described from the Campanian Rybushka Formation (Russia) (Ebersole et al., 2022).
Actinopterygii indet.,
Figure 12U-W (in the main text)
Material. One tooth (NHMS 57430/LV1).
Description. The tooth is 1.2 mm high, 0.4 mm thick, and 1 mm in its widest part. Nonetheless, its base is broken and thus the complete height of the tooth remains unknown. The hook of the tooth makes an angle of 127° with its base. The tip of the hook is flat and covered with an irregular rugosity. The chewing surface is marked by four deep striations.
Remarks. The general shape suggests that this specimen is a pharyngeal tooth of unknown affinity. Pharyngeal teeth were encountered previously in the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Romania (Trif and Codrea, 2022a, figure 4A-E). The morphotype described by us in this work is, however, different from the Maastrichtian form.
D. Herpetofauna
Class AMPHIBIA, Gray 1825
Order ANURA Rafinesque, 1815
Family ALYTIDAE Fitzinger, 1843
?Alytidae indet.
Figure 14A-F (in the main text)
Material. One urostyle, NHMS 57446/LV1.
Description. The proximal (anterior) portion of a urostyle is available in the material. The urostyle gradually widens anteriorly (in dorsal and ventral views). At its anterior end, it is characterized by two distinct, elliptical and slightly depressed anterior cotyles (fossa condyloidea), with median notches on the dorsal and ventral sides. These cotyles have a short median contact and form a bicondylar articulation with the sacral vertebra. Two broken, but well-developed postsacral transverse processes are directed posterolaterally. In the posterior region, there is also one pair of posteriorly open spinal nerve foramina. The dorsal crest is damaged. The ventral region of the bone is smooth.
Remarks. The urostyle described here is characterized by the presence of distinctly bipartite cotyles and of transverse processes. Such features can be observed in several anuran taxa such as alytids, gobiatids, pelodytids, palaeobatrachids, leptodactylids, and bufonids (Špinar, 1972; Duellman and Trueb, 1986; Roček and Nessov, 1993; Sanchiz, 1998). Leptodactylids and bufonids have only vestigial transverse processes (Duellman and Trueb, 1986), unlike the well-developed processes of the urostyle from Bozeș Formation. A combination between a single pair of postsacral transverse processes, bicondylar sacro-urostylar articulation and a poorly developed neural crest on the urostyle suggests referral of the urostyle to Alytidae (Roček, 1994, 2013; Bailon, 1999). Unfortunately, the dorsal crest is damaged and thus its exact shape is unknown. Accordingly, the preserved morphology of the urostyle indicates that the specimens may belong to pelodytids, gobiatids or alytids. We allocate it tentatively to Alytidae, but caution is needed. In any case, this element does not allow an allocation to a generic or specific level. The Alytidae is a clade of frogs with many primitive features which consists of extant genera such as Alytes, Discoglossus, and Latonia. Historically, this group has been referred to as Discoglossidae, but the older name Alytidae has priority (e.g., Sanchiz, 1998; Dubois, 2005; Blackburn and Wake, 2011). This clade is well known from the Cretaceous of Romania (Venczel et al., 2016).
Anura indet.
Figure 14G-O (in the main text)
Material. Left dentary, NHMS 57447/LV3 (Figure 14G-J); urostyle, NHMS 57448/LV1 (Figure 14K-N); and fragment of a neural arch, NHMS 57449/LV1 (Figure 14O).
Description. Jaw. Only a fragment of a left dentary is preserved (Figure 4G-J). It is lightly built. The dental crest supports eight tooth positions (one tooth still has the neck preserved that reaches beyond the dental crest). The subdental shelf is thin and horizontal. It is well expanded medially, and its medial margin is rounded in cross-section and bent dorsally. The lateral surface is smooth, slightly weathered. The dentary protrudes ventrally to form a vertical wall. The distal section of this wall is slightly bent medially. Thus, the element is slightly convex laterally.
Dentition. The tooth implantation is pleurodont. At the tooth base, huge resorption pits are present. All tooth crowns are missing, possibly indicating the presence of pedicellate teeth in which the tooth crown and base (both composed of dentine) are separated by a layer of uncalcified dentine.
Vertebra. Only a small fragment of a left neural arch is preserved. It bears an anterodorsally wide root portion of the transverse process and prezygapohysis. The preserved portion of the process is roughly elliptical in a sagittal section, being anteroposteriorly compressed.
Urostyle. Only a proximal portion of a urostyle is preserved. It markedly widens anteriorly, being ended by two more-or-less oval distinct cotyles. These cotyles are not in median contact, however, instead a short gap is present between them. Two broken, but well-developed postsacral transverse processes are present. The ventral region of the element is not entirely smooth; it possesses a pair of bizarre, knob-like processes (or rugosities).
Remarks. The dentary most likely belonged to Alytidae (a group, to which the dentary might fit morphologically and which is documented here based on other elements). However, pedicellate teeth can be found in many amphibians (Davit-Béal et al., 2007), and the poor preservation of the specimen do not allow a reliable more specific identification.
The processes (or rugosities) on the ventral surface of the urostyle are atypical and thus can be diagnostic at some level. Unfortunately, the ventral morphology of the urostyle is poorly documented in the literature and thus this specimen is allocated here only to Anura indet. Although the transverse processes are present, several small differences between the urostyle described here and the urostyle referred to ?Alytidae described above exist, e.g., (1) presence of bizarre knob-like ventral processes, (2) the shape of the cotyles — oval vs. more elliptical (depressed); (3) median contact of the cotyles — absent vs. present; and (4) proximal region in dorsal (and ventral) view is markedly widened vs. moderately widened. These differences might indicate the presence of at least two frog taxa at the locality.
Class REPTILIA Laurenti, 1768
Clade DIAPSIDA Osborn, 1903
Clade LEPIDOSAUROMORPHA Benton, 1983
Superorder LEPIDOSAURIA Haeckel, 1866
Order SQUAMATA Oppel 1811
Scleroglossa Estes, de Queiroz and Gauthier 1988
Scleroglossa indet.
Figure 14P-Q (in the main text)
Material. A left dentary, NHMS 57450/LV1.
Description. Only a small fragment of the left dentary is preserved. It preserves three tooth positions; however, only one tooth is still attached to the bone. The tooth crown is heavily worn and its base has a large resorption pit. The dentition is pleurodont. The dental crest is distinctly high, reaching more than twice a height of the robust subdental shelf. The dental sulcus (sulcus dentalis) is absent, at least in the preserved portion. The ventral region of the dentary with the Meckelian canal is broken off and missing. The lateral side of the bone is weathered.
Remarks. Unfortunately, the poor preservation does not allow more precise determination of this specimen. The combination of the limited features that can be observed (e.g., pleurodont dentition, absence of the dental sulcus, and tooth replacement pattern) might likely indicate a scincoid rather than other lizards (e.g., Yadav et al., 2023 and references therein). From Maastrichtian deposits of Haţeg Basin, taxa such as the paramacellodid Becklesius (B. nopcsai and B. cf. hoffstetteri) and the polyglyphanodont Bicuspidon hatzegiensis have been documented (Folie and Codrea, 2005).
Clade CROCODYLOMORPHA Walker, 1970
Clade CROCODYLIFORMES Hay, 1930
Clade MESOEUCROCODYLIA Whetstone and Whybrow, 1983
Clade NOTOSUCHIA Gasparini, 1971 (sensu Pol et al., 2014)
Clade ZIPHOSUCHIA Ortega et al., 2000
Genus cf. DORATODON Seeley, 1881
Figure 14S-W (in the main text)
Material. One isolated tooth, NHMS 57451/LV3.
Description. Only one isolated small tooth (3.5 mm high, and 3.6 mm wide) is available in the material in which the crown together with the base of the root is preserved. The tooth crown is slightly stepped from the root and a constriction is present here. The crown is roughly triangular in shape, longer than high, giving it a low lanceolate morphology. It is markedly laterally compressed, having a lenticular cross-section. The labial side appears to be more or less oval, being slightly more convex than the lingual side. Both have a slightly bulged central region. The cutting edges are mostly damaged, but serration (ziphodonty) is clearly preserved in some places (mainly visible on the edge of the crown close to the tooth root). The denticles are rectangular in lingual view, gradually increasing their size apically (the more distal portion is, however, damaged). Surface ornamentation is fine, although its exact naure is partly concealed by the longitudinal cracks in the enamel. In the region where the enamel surface is exposed, the striation is formed by numerous very fine and tiny, discontinuous ridges that are aligned apicobasally (parallel or sub-parallel) rather than anastomized. However, the wrinkled appearance of the enamel surface is very weak here, being of low relief, especially on the lingual side. The ridges fade out as they draw close to the cutting edges (carinae); those located closer to the cutting edges are directed slightly towards these edges.
Remarks. Isolated crocodyliform teeth from the Haţeg Basin, such as the one described here, were sometimes described as Doratodon (Grigorescu et al., 1999), or as Sabresuchus (previously as Theriosuchus) sympiestodon (Martin et al., 2010, 2014). Rabi and Sebők (2015) stated (and figured) the presence of basal constriction in the teeth of Doratodon. The zyphodonty (in contrast, teeth of Sabresuchus are pseudoziphodont, see, e.g., Martin et al., 2014) and the constriction is present in the tooth described here, thus the allocation to Doratodon -like taxon is reasonable. However, this type of teeth also resembles those of Aprosuchus ghirai (see Venczel and Codrea, 2019).
Clade EUSUCHIA Huxley, 1875
Clade ALLODAPOSUCHIDAE Narváez et al., 2015
Figure 14X-Z (in the main text)
Material. One isolated tooth, NHMS 57452/LV1.
Description. The isolated tooth is preserved still in the rocky matrix, so only its lingual side and its base in cross-section is exposed. It is small (3.1 mm high and 2.1 mm wide) and conical, gradually narrowing towards the apical region, but the tip is damaged. The tooth has a rounded base, but starts to be more labio-lingually compressed in the apical region; here, the tooth is also slightly lingually curved. The tooth crown is roughly triangular and its margins protrude in the form of cutting edges (carinae), forming subtle concavities. The cutting edges are well developed, sharp, with no serrations observed. Besides the longitudinal cracks present in the enamel, the lingual surface is clearly ornamented with fine, but well-visible longitudinal striations. In the central region of the crown, these are parallel or sub-parallel, aligned more-or-less apicobasally, whereas those located close to the mesial/distal edges are slightly diverted towards these edges.
Remarks. The conical tooth with a rounded base is typical for Allodaposuchidae crocodylomorphs. It differs from the tooth described above by its conical shape rather than being labiolongually flat and absence of denticles (not ziphodont type). That indicates the occurrence of at least two taxa at the locality.
E. Statistical analysis data source
See Table S3.
F. Distribution chart data source
See Table S4.
REFERENCES
Arkhangelsky, A.D. 1912. Upper Cretaceous deposits of east European Russia. Materialien zur Geologie Russlands, 25:1–631.
Agassiz, L. 1833–1844. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, 1-5. Imprimerie de Patitpierre, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Anderson, F. M. 1958. Upper Cretaceous of the Pacific Coast. Memoirs of the Geological Society of America, 71:1–378.
https://doi.org/10.1130/MEM71-p1
Arambourg, C. 1952. Les vertébrés fossils des gisements de phosphates (Maroc–Algérie–Tunisie). Notes et Mémoires du Service géologique du Maroc, 92:1–372.
Bailon, S. 1999. Différenciation ostéologique des anoures (Amphibia, Anura) de France, p. 1–38. In Desse, J. and Desse-Berset, N. (eds.), Fiches d’ostéologie animale pour l’Archéologie, Série C: Varia, 1. Antibes, APDCA.
Beavan, N.R. and Russel, A.P. 1999. An elasmobranch assemblage from the terrestrial-marine transitional Lethbridge Coal Zone (Dinosaur Park Formation: Upper Campanian), Alberta, Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 73:494–503.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000028006
Becker, M.A., Chamberlain, J.A., Robb, A.J., Terry, D.O., and Garb, M.P. 2009. Osteichthyans from the Fairpoint Member of the Fox Hills Formation (Maastrichtian), Meade County, South Dakota, USA. Cretaceous Research, 30:1031–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2009.03.006
Becker, M.A., Mallery, C.S., and Chamberlain, J.A. 2010. Osteichthyans from an Arkadelphia Formation–Midway Group lag deposit (Late Maastrichtian–Paleocene), Hot Spring County, Arkansas, U.S.A. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30:1019–1036.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2010.483603
Berg, L.S. 1940. Classification of fishes, both recent and fossil. Transactions of the Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 5:85–517. (in Russian)
Berg, L.S. 1958. System der Rezenten und Fossilen Fischartigen und Fische. Hochschulbücher für Biologie, Berlin.
Benton, M.J. 1985. Classification and phylogeny of the diapsid reptiles. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84(2):97–164.
Blackburn, D.C. and Wake, D.B. 2011. Class Amphibia Gray, 1825, p. 39–55. In Zhang, Z.-Q. (ed.), Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa, 3148(1):39–55.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3148.1.8
Black, M. and Barnes, B. 1959. The structure of Coccoliths from the English Chalk. Geological Magazine, 96(5):321–328.
Blake, S.F. 1940. Paralbula, a new fossil fish based on dental plates from the Eocene and Miocene of Maryland. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 30:205–209.
Blanco, A., Szabó, M., Blanco-Lapaz, A., and Marmi, J. 2017. Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes from northeastern Iberia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 465:278–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.10.039
Bonaparte, C.L. 1838. Selachorum tabula analytica. Systema Ichthyologicum. Memoires de la Societe Neuchateloise des Sciences Naturelles, 2:1–16.
Bramlette, M.N. and Martini, E. 1964. The great change in calcareous nannoplankton fossils between the Maestrichtian and Danian. Micropaleontology, 10(2):291–322.
Bukry, D. 1969. Upper Cretaceous coccoliths from Texas and Europe. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Articles, 51(2):1–79.
Burnett, J.A. 1998. Upper Cretaceous, p. 132–199. In Bown, P.R. (ed.), Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy. Chapman and Hall, London.
Cappetta, H. 1980. Modification du statut générique de quelques espèces de sélaciens crétacés et tertiaires. Palaeovertebrata, 10:29–42.
Case, G.R. and Schwimmer, D.R. 1988. Late Cretaceous fish from the Blufftown Formation (Campanian) in western Georgia (USA). Journal of Paleontology, 62:290–301.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000029942
Codrea, V., Solomon, A., Fărcaș, C., and Barbu, O. 2013. On some restricted Maastrictian environments of the “Hațeg Island” (Transilvania, Romania). Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 47:82–91.
https://doi.org/10.12681/bgsg.10905
Compagno, L.J.V. 1973. Interrelationships of living elasmobranchs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 53:15–61.
Cope, E.D. 1872. On the families of fishes of the Cretaceous formations in Kansas. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 12:327–357.
Cope, E.D. 1871. Observations on the systematic relations of the fishes. The American Naturalist, 5(8/9):579–593.
https://doi.org/10.1086/270831
Cope, E.D. 1874. Review of the vertebrata of the Cretaceous period found west of the Mississippi River. U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories Bulletin, 1:3–48.
Csiki, Z., Ionescu, A., and Grigorescu, D. 2008. The Budurone microvertebrate fossil site from the Maastrichtian of the Haţeg Basin–flora, fauna, taphonomy and paleoenvironment. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae, 6:49–66.
Cuvier, G. 1825. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles, où l'on rétablit les caractères de plusieurs animaux dont les révolutions du globe ont détruit les espèces (3ème edition), Dufour et D’Ocagne Libraires, Paris.
Davit-Béal, T., Chisaka, H., Delgado, S., and Sire, J.-Y. 2007. Amphibian teeth: current knowledge, unanswered questions, and some directions for future research. Biological Reviews, 82:49–81.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2006.00003.x
Deflandre, G. 1959. Sur les nannofossiles calcaires et leur systématique. Revue de Micropaléontologie, 2:127–152.
Dubois, A. 2005. New lissamphibians and squamates from the Maastrichtian of Haţeg Basin, Romania. Alytes, 23:1–24.
Duellman, W.E. and Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of Amphibians, JHU Press, New York.
Ebersole, J.A., Cicimurri, D.J., and Stringer, G.L. 2019. Taxonomy and biostratigraphy of the elasmobranchs and bony fishes (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes) of the lower-to-middle Eocene (Ypresian to Bartonian) Claiborne Group in Alabama, USA, including an analysis of otoliths. European Journal of Taxonomy, 585:1–274.
https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2019.585
Ebersole, J.A., Solonin, S.V., Cicimurri, D.J., Arkhangelsky, M.S., and Martynovich, N.V. 2022. Marine fishes (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali, Actinopterygii) from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Rybushka Formation near Beloe Ozero, Saratov Oblast, Russia. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 128:369–409.
https://doi.org/10.54103/2039-4942/16954
Estes, R. 1969. Studies on fossil phyllodont fishes: interrelationships and evolution in the Phyllodontidae. Copeia, 1969:317–331.
Estes, R., de Queiroz K., Jacques G., 1988. Phylogenetic Relationships within Squamata. p. 119-281. In Estes, T. and Pregill G. (eds.) Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Redwood, California.
Fitzinger, L.J.F.J. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus Primus. Braumüller et Seidel, Wien.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.4694
Folie, A. and Codrea, V. 2005. New lissamphibians and squamates from the Maastrichtian of Haţeg Basin, Romania. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 50:57–71.
Fowler, H.W. 1941. The fishes of the groups Elasmobranchii, Holocephali, Isospondyli, and Ostariophysi obtained by United States Bureau of Fisheries Steamer ‘Albatross’ in 1907 to 1910, chiefly in the Philippine Islands and adjacent seas. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 100:1–879.
Gartner, S. 1968. Coccoliths and related calcareous nannofossils from Upper Cretaceous deposits of Texas and Arkansas. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Articles, 48(1):1–56.
Gasparini, Z. 1971. Los Notosuchia del Cretácico de América del Sur como un nuevo Infraorden de los Mesosuchia (Crocodilia). Ameghiniana, 8:83–103.
Gayet, M. and Meunier, F.J. 2001. À propos du genre Paralepidosteus (Ginglymodi, Lepisosteidae) de Crétacé Gondwanien. Cybium, 25:153–159.
Gayet, M., Meunier, F.J., and Werner, C. 2002. Diversification in Polypteriformes and special comparison with the Lepisosteiformes. Palaeontology, 45:361–376.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4983.00241
Gheerbrant, E., Abrial, C., and Cappetta, H. 1997. Nouveaux sites à microvertébrés continentaux du Crétacé terminal des Petites Pyrénées (Haute-Garonne et Ariège, France). Geobios, 30:257–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-6995(97)80031-9
Goody, P.C. 1976. Enchodus (Teleostei Enchodontidae) from the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale of Wyoming and South Dakota with an evaluation of the North American enchodontid species. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 152:91–112.
Grande, L. 1980. Paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a review of the fish fauna. Wyoming Geological Survey Bulletin, 63:1–333.
Grande, L. 2010. An Empirical Synthetic Pattern Study of Gars (Lepisosteiformes) and Closely Related Species, Based Mostly on Skeletal Anatomy. The Resurrection of Holostei. Copeia (Supl.) 10:1–871.
Gray, J.E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Annals of Philosophy, 10:193–217.
Grigorescu, D., Venczel, M., Csiki, Z., and Limberea, R. 1999. New latest Cretaceous microvertebrate fossil assemblages from the Haţeg Basin (Romania). Geologie en Mijnbouw/Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 98:310–314.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003890913328
Grün, W. and Allemann, F. 1975. The Lower Cretaceous of Caravaca (Spain): Berriasian Calcareous Nannoplankton of the Miravetes Section (Subbetic Zone, Prov. of Murcia). Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 68:147–211.
Hattner, J.G., Wind, F.H. and Wise, S.W. 1980. The Santonian-Campanian boundary: comparison of nearshore-offshore calcareous nannofossil assemblages. Cahiers de Micropaléontologie. 3:9–26.
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Band 2: Allgemeine Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen. George Reimer, Berlin.
Hay, O.P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, 179:1-868.
Hay, O.P. 1929. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Publications of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington D.C.
Hay, O.P. 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America, 2. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C.
Huxley, T.H. 1875. On Stagonolepis Robertsoni, and on the evolution of the Crocodilia. Quart J Geol Soc London. Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, 3:423–438.
Huxley, T.H. 1880. On the applications of the laws of evolution to the arrangement of the vertebrata and more particularly of the Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 43:649–661.
Hyatt, A., 1889. Genesis of the Arietidae. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 26:1–673.
Hyatt, A. 1900. Cephalopoda. p. 502–604, In von Zittel K. A. (ed.), Textbook of Palaeontology, Macmillan, London and New York.
Ikejiri, T., Ebersole, J.A., Blewitt, H.L., and Ebersole, S.M. 2013. An Overview of Late Cretaceous Vertebrates from Alabama. Bulletin of Alabama Museum of Natural History, 31:46–71.
Kennedy, W.J. and Summesberger, H. 1984. Upper Campanian ammonites from the Gschliefgraben (Ultrahelvetic, Upper Austria). Beiträge zur Paläontologie Österreich, 11:149–206.
Klein, E.F. 1885. Beiträge zur Bildung des Schädels der knochenfische. Jahreshefte Vereins Vaterländischer naturkunde in Württemberg, 42:205–300.
Kriwet, J., Soler-Gijón, R., and López-Martínez, N. 2007. Neoselachians from the upper Campanian and lower Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) of the southern Pyrenees, northern Spain. Palaeontology, 50:1051–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00695.x
Lacepède, B.G.E. 1803. Histoire naturelle des fossils, Tome Cinquieme. Plassan, Paris.
Laurenti, J.N. 1768. Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin reptilium emendatam cum experimentis circa venena et antidota reptilium Austriacorum. Joan Thomae, Wien.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.5108
Leidy, J. 1855. Indications of twelve species of fossil fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7:395–397.
Leidy, J. 1857. Notices of some remains of extinct fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 9:167–168.
Manning, E.M. and Dockery, D.T. 1992. A Guide to the Frankstown Vertebrate Fossil Locality (Upper Cretaceous), Prentiss County, Mississippi. Circular 4 of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, Jackson, Mississippi.
Martin, J.E., Rabi, M., and Csiki, Z. 2010. Survival of Theriosuchus (Mesoeucrocodylia: Atoposauridae) in a Late Cretaceous archipelago: A new species from the Maastrichtian of Romania. Naturwissenschaften, 97:845–854.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-010-0702-y
Martin, J.E., Rabi, M., Csiki-Sava, Z., and Vasile, Ş. 2014. Cranial morphology of Theriosuchus sympiestodon (Mesoeucrocodylia, Atoposauridae) and the widespread occurrence of Theriosuchus in the Late Cretaceous of Europe. Journal of Paleontology, 88:444–456.
https://doi.org/10.1666/13-106
Matsumoto, T. 1955. The bituberculate pachydiscids from Hokkaido and Saghalien. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Series D, 5(3):153–184.
Müller, J. and Henle, J., 1838-1841. Systematische Beschreibung der Plagiostomen. Veit und Co., Berlin.
Narváez, I., Brochu, C.A., Escaso, F., Pérez-García, A. and Ortega, F., 2015. New crocodyliforms from southwestern Europe and definition of a diverse clade of European uppermost Cretaceous basal eusuchians. PLOS One, 10: e0140679.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140679
Ortega, F., Gasparini, Z., Buscalioni, A.D. and Calvo, J.O. 2000. A new species of Araripesuchus (Crocodylomorpha, Mesoeucrocodylia) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 20(1):57–76.
https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0057:ANSOAC]2.0.CO;2
Oppel, M. 1811. Die Ordnungen, Familien, und Gattungen der Reptilien, als Prodrom Einer Naturgeschichte Derselben. Joseph Lindauer, München.
Osborn, H.F., 1903. The reptilian subclasses Diapsida and Synapsida and the early history of the Diaptosauria. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 1(8):449–519.
Ősi, A., Szabó, M., Tóth, E., Bodor, E., Lobitzer, H., Kvaček, J., Svobodová, M., Szente, I., Wagreich, M., Trabelsi, K., Sames, B., Magyar, J., Makádi, L., Berning, B., and Botfalvai, G. 2021. A brackish to non-marine aquatic and terrestrial fossil assemblage with vertebrates from the lower Coniacian (Upper Cretaceous) Gosau Group of the Tiefengraben locality near St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Austria. Cretaceous Research, 127:104938.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104938
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1968. Der Feinbau und die Klassifikation der Coccolithen aus dem Maastrichtien von Danemark. Biologiske Skrifter, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 16:1–96.
Pol, D., Nascimento, P.M., Carvalho, A.B., Riccomini, C., Pires-Domingues, R.A. and Zaher, H. 2014. A new notosuchian from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogeny of advanced notosuchians. PLOS One, 9(4): e93105.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093105
Spath, L. F., 1922. On the Senonian ammonite fauna from Pondoland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Africa, 10(1):113–147.
Rabi, M. and Sebők, N. 2015. A revised Eurogondwana model: Late Cretaceous notosuchian crocodyliforms and other vertebrate taxa suggest the retention of episodic faunal links between Europe and Gondwana during most of the Cretaceous. Gondwana Research, 28(3):1197–1211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.09.015
Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de Nature, ou Tableau de l’Universe et des Corps Organisés. Jean Barravecchia, Palermo.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.106607
Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis. Part 8. Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, 3(3):165–173.
Reinhardt, P. 1965. Neue Familien für fossile Kalkflagellaten (Coccolithophoriden, Coccolithineen). Monatsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 7:30–40.
Reinhardt, P. 1966a. Fossile Vertreter coronoider und styloider Coccolithen (Family Coccolithaceae Poche 1913). Monatsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 8:513–524.
Reinhardt, P. 1966b. Zur Taxonomie und Biostratigraphie des fossilen Nannoplanktons aus dem Malm, der Kreide und dem Alttertiär Mitteleuropas. Freiberger Forschungshefte, 196:5–109.
Risatti, J.B. 1973. Nannoplankton biostratigraphy of the Upper Bluffport Marl-Lower Prairie Bluff Chalk interval (upper Cretaceous) in Mississippi. Proceedings of the Symposium on Calcareous Nannofossils. Gulf Coast Section, Houston, Texas, p. 8–57.
Roček, Z. 1994. Taxonomy and distribution of tertiary discoglossids (Anura) of the genus Latonia v. Meyer, 1843. Geobios, 27:717–751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-6995(94)80058-8
Roček, Z. 2013. Mesozoic and Tertiary Anura of Laurasia. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 93:397–439.
Roček, Z. and Nessov, L.A. 1993. Cretaceous anurans from Central Asia. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 226:1–54.
Rosen, D.E. 1973. Interrelationships of higher euteleostean fishes. p. 397–513. In. Greenwood, P.H. Miles R.S. and Patterson, C. (Editors), Interrelationships of Fishes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, London
Sanchiz, B. 1998. Salientia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie (Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology). Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München.
Sauvage, H.E. 1875. Notes sur les Poissons fossils. IV. Sur le Cottus aries d’Aix-en-Provence. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 3:635–637.
Schein, J.P., Grandstaff, B.S., Gallagher, W.B., Poole, J.C., and Lacovara, K.J. 2011. Paralbula in North America, revisiting an enigmatic Campanian–late Paleocene Teleost with hope for new insights. The Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, p. 43.
Schlüter, C.A. 1867. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der jüngsten Ammoneen Norddeutschlands. 1. Heft. Ammoniten der Senonbildungen, Bonn.
Schubert, J.A., Wick, S.L., and Lehman, T.M. 2017. An Upper Cretaceous (middle Campanian) marine chondrichthyan and osteichthyan fauna from the Rattlesnake Mountain sandstone member of the Aguja Formation in West Texas. Cretaceous Research, 69:6–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2016.08.008
Seeley, H.G. 1881. The reptile fauna of the Gosau Formation preserved in the Geological Museum of the University of Vienna. The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 37:620–707.
Soler-Gijón, R. and López-Martínez, N. 1995. Selaceos y bateoideos (condrictios) del Cretacio Superior de la fossil de Tremp (Pirineo Central, Lleida), p. 173–176. In López, G., Obrador, A., and Vicens, E. (eds.), Comunicaciones de Las XI Jornadas de Paleontología. C. Casacuberta, Barcelona.
Soler-Gijón, R. and López-Martı́nez, N. 1998. Sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes) from the Upper Cretaceous red beds of the south-central Pyrenees (Lleida, Spain): indices of an India–Eurasia connection. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 141:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00007-8
Solomon, A., Codrea, V., Venczel, M., Bordeianu, M., Trif, N., and Fărcaș, C. 2022. Good or bad luck?–an “ox-bow” deposit from Oarda de Jos (Alba County, Romania): preliminary results. Brukenthal. Acta Musei, 17:447–464.
Špinar, Z.V. 1972. Tertiary Frogs from Central Europe. Academia, Prague.
Stover, L.E. 1966. Cretaceous coccoliths and associated nannofossils from France and the Netherlands. Micropaleontology, 12(2):133–167.
Stradner, H. 1963. New contributions to Mesozoic stratigraphy by means of nannofossils. Proceedings of the Sixth World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt am Main, Germany p. 167–183.
Szabó, M. and Ősi, A. 2017. The continental fish fauna of the Late Cretaceous (Santonian) Iharkút locality (Bakony Mountains, Hungary). Central European Geology, 60:230–287.
https://doi.org/10.1556/24.60.2017.009
Trif, N. and Codrea, V. 2022a. New data on Maastrichtian fishes of the “Hațeg Island”. Annales Geologiques de la Peninsule Balkanique, 83:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.2298/GABP220424001T
Trif, N. and Codrea, V. 2022b. Lower Cenomanian (Upper Cretaceous) marine fish fauna from Peștera (Dobrogea, Romania). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, 304:133–150.
https://doi.org/10.1127/njgpa/2022/1061
Venczel, M. and Codrea, V. 2019. A new Theriosuchus -like crocodyliform from the Maastrichtian of Romania. Cretaceous Research, 100:24–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2019.03.018
Venczel, M., Gardner, J.D., Codrea, V.A., Csiki-Sava, Z., Vasile, Ș., and Solomon, A.A. 2016. New insights into Europe’s most diverse Late Cretaceous anuran assemblage from the Maastrichtian of western Romania. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, 96:61–95.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-015-0228-6
Vullo, R., Bernárdez, E., and Buscalioni, A.D. 2009. Vertebrates from the middle?–late Cenomanian La Cabaña Formation (Asturias, northern Spain): Palaeoenvironmental and palaeobiogeographic implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 276:120–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.03.004
Walker, A.D. 1970. A revision of the Jurassic Hallopus victor (Marsh) with remarks on the classification of crocodiles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 257(816):323–372.
Weiler, W. 1929. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten Ägyptens. V. Tertiäre Wirbeltiere. 3. Die Mittel-und obereocäne Fischfauna Ägyptens mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Teleostomie. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Abteilung Neue Folge, 1:1–57.
Vekshina, V.N. 1959. Coccolithophoridae of the Maastrichtian deposits of the West Siberian lowlands. Trudyi Instituta Geologii i Geogiziki, Sibiriskoe Otlodelenie, Akademiya Nauk SSSR (Nauka) Moscow, 2:56–81.
Whetstone, K. and Whybrow, P. 1983. A “cursorial” crocodilian from the Triassic of Lesotho (Basutoland), southern Africa. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 106:1–37.
Woodward, A.S. 1901. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 4. Order of Trustees, London.
Yadav, R., Bajpai, S., Maurya, A.S., and Čerňanský, A. 2023. The first potential cordyliform (Squamata, Scincoidea) from India (uppermost Cretaceous–lowermost Paleocene): An African lizard clade brings possible implications for Indo-Madagascar biogeographic links. Cretaceous Research, 150:105606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2023.105606
Zittel, K. A. 1884. Handbuch der Paläaontologie, I. Abtheilung. Paläaozoologie, Band 2. Oldenbourg, Munich and Leipzig.
Zittel, K.A. 1895. Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeo-zoologie). Oldenbourg, Munich and Leipzig.
