Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 19;11:e15512. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15512

Table 1. Overview of the Kimmeridgian-Lower Tithonian metriorhynchids species and a few of their dental characteristics.

Species Age Country Teeth ornamentation Carinae Denticules Ziphodonty Denticules density (number of denticle/5 mm) Maxillary tooth count (absolute) Maxillary tooth count (estimated) Dentary tooth count (absolute) Dentary tooth count (estimated) Specimen description
Metriorhynchinae Rhacheosaurini Cricosaurus suevicus (Fraas, 1901, 1902, SMNS 9808) Upper Kimmeridgian Germany Smooth Yes, faint No / / 26 24 Complete specimen in limestone
Cricosaurus albersdoerferi (Sachs et al., 2021, BMMS-BK 1-2) Upper Kimmeridgian Germany Smooth Yes, faint No / / 23 23+ 22 22+ Complete specimen in limestone
Cricosaurus elegans (Wagner, 1852, BSPG AS I
504)
Lower Tithonian Germany Smooth Yes, faint No Skull in limestone
Cricosaurus bambergensis (Sachs et al., 2019, NKMB-P-Watt14/274) Upper Kimmeridgian Germany Smooth Yes, faint No / / 23 23+ 18+ 18+ Complete specimen in limestone
Cricosaurus rauhuti (Herrera, Aiglstorfer & Bronzati, 2021, SNSB-BSPG 1973 I 195) Lower Tithonian Germany Well-spaced, low longitudinal ridges Yes, at least unicarenate No / / / / / / Incomplete skull
Maledictosuchus nuyiviianan (Barrientos-Lara, Alvarado-Ortega & Fernández, 2018, IGM 4863) Kimmeridgian Mexico Smooth labial side. Discontinuous low apicobasal ridges on the lingual surface Yes No / / 17 26? / / Incomplete skull
‘Cricosaurus’ saltillensis (Buchy, Young & Andrade, 2013, MUDE CPC 487) Lower Tithonian Mexico Faint apicobasally aligned subparallel
ridges
Yes, faint No / / 12 17 15 ~15? Disarticulated skull
Metriorhynchus palpebrosus (Phillips, 1871; Grange & Benton, 1996, (OUMNH
J.29823)
Lower Tithonian United Kingdom ? ? ? ? ? 25 (OUMNH J.29823)-27 / 14 14+ Skull. No teeth remaining
Metriorhynchus geoffroyii (Metriorhynchus brevirostris) (Young et al., 2020a; MHNG V-2232) Lower Kimmeridgian France ? ? ? ? ? 14 20+? (half of the rostrum is easily missing) / / Anterior half of the rostrum, no teeth remaining
Geosaurinae Geosaurini ‘Metriorhynchus’ cf hastifer (Chouquet cf ‘hastifer’, Lepage et al., 2008; Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1867–1869) Kimmeridgian France Conspicuous apicobasal ridges Yes ? ? 20? 20+? / / complete skull
Dakosaurus maximus (Young et al., 2012b, SMNS 8203) Upper Kimmeridgian Germany Overall smooth Yes, prominent Yes Macro 16–18 13 12 Incomplete skull
Plesiosuchus manselii (Young et al., 2012a, NHMUK PV OR40103) Upper Kimmeridgian United Kingdom Low relief apicobasal ridges Yes, prominent Yes Micro ? 14 14 to 18 13 Incomplete skull
Geosaurus giganteus (Young & Andrade, 2009, NHM R.1229, NHM 37020) Lower Tithonian Germany Overall smooth Yes, prominent Yes Micro ? 12 (NHM 37020) 12+ 7 (NHM 37020) 7+ NHM R.1229 : middle portion of the skull and mandible, deformed. NHM 37020 : skull and mandible in limestone.
Geosaurus grandis (Young et al., 2012a, BSPG AS-VI-1) Lower Tithonian Germany Smooth Yes, prominent Yes Micro 28,1 14
Torvoneustes carpenteri (Grange & Benton, 1996, BRSMG Ce17365) Upper Kimmeridgian United Kingdom Conspicuous apicobasal ridges Yes, prominent Yes Micro ? 11 14 / / Heavily crushed, incomplete skull
Torvoneustes coryphaeus (Young et al., 2013b, MJML K1863) Lower Kimmeridgian United Kingdom Conspicuous apicobasal ridges Yes, prominent Yes Micro ? 11 17-19 / / Incomplete skull, half of the rostrum missing
Torvoneustes mexicanus (Barrientos-Lara et al., 2016, IGM 9026) Kimmeridgian Mexico Conspicuous apicobasal ridges Yes, prominent Yes Micro 30 5 4 Fragmentary rostrum
MJSN BSY008-465 Upper Kimmeridgian Switzerland Conspicuous apicobasal ridges Yes, prominent Yes Micro 30–40 15 Up to 21 16 Up to 17 Disarticulated skull

Note:

Gracilineustes acutus is excluded from the table due to the lack of information, the specimen was lost during WW2. The same goes for Rhacheosaurus gracilis NHMUK PV R 3948 for whom the teeth or alveoli are indistinguishable, while Rhacheosaurus cf gracilis LF 2426 skull is not entirely preserved. Therein the distinction between “true ziphodont” and “false ziphodont” condition as defined by Young et al. (2010) is not specified. The estimated tooth count is from the referred articles; the denticle density for D. maximus and Geo. grandis from Andrade et al. (2010) and for To. mexicanus from Barrientos-Lara et al. (2016).