The ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

are issued in parts at irregular intervals as material

becomes available

Obtainable from the South African Museum, P.O. Box 61, Cape Town

(Cash with order, post free)

Die ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

word uitgegee in dele op ongereelde tye na beskikbaarheid

van stof

Verkrygbaar van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum, Posbus 61, Kaapstad

(Kontant met bestelling, posvry)

OUT OF PRINT/UIT DRUK

I, 2(1; 3, 5, 7-8), 3(1-2; 5, t-pi.), 5(2, 5, 7-9);

6Ge i at:=p.1). 7(1, 3) 5 Osi (l—2)) 5) OUI 3) 5

I1(I-2, 7, t—p.i.), 21, 24(2), 31(1-3), 44(4).

Price of this part/ Prys van hierdie deel

15C

Printed in South Africa by In Suid-Afrika gedruk deur

The Rustica Press Pty., Ltd., Die Rustica-pers Edms., Bpk.,

Court Road, Wynberg, Cape Courtweg, Wynberg, Kaap

THE RUSSIAN DINOCEPHALIAN DEUTEROSAURUS

L. D. BoonstRA

South African Museum, Cape Town

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction . ; a Oe)

Deuterosaurus . 3 233

Mnemetosaurus . : : 235

Summary : l Pe 296

Acknowledgements . a 29 ©

References : : i) -BIXO)

INTRODUCTION

In recent compilative publications in English, German, French and Russian

the compilers Romer, von Huene, Piveteau and Orlov, in following the latest

views of our Russian colleagues Efremov and Orlov, have added the weight of

their authority to perpetuate some rather serious mistakes.

I have, during a four weeks’ stay in Moscow, had the opportunity of study-

nig the dinocephalian material housed in the Palaeontological Museum of the

Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. and feel that a preliminary note pointing

out these errors would be welcomed by those who have not had the opportunity

of seeing the material for themselves.

DEUTEROSAURUS

Orlov in 1954 gave a full account of all the material he considered warran-

ted inclusion under the appellation Deuterosaurus.

This material consists of parts of two skulls, teeth and many postcranial

bones of which there is little evidence of having been found in association. In

fact, except in the case of some postcranial bones, there is definite evidence that

they were not found in association. These separate finds have on various

grounds been considered to belong to one and the same genus.

This lumping together started on its false course seriously when Seeley in

1894 described specimen No. 2 and identified it as a second specimen referable

to Eichwald’s type (No. 1) of Deuterosaurus and produced a composite drawing

of a skull in which the type lower jaw, teeth and partial occiput were fitted to

the distorted partial skull of No. 2 and associated with this some vertebrae, a

femur, a radius, part of a humerus and scapula and parts of the pelvis.

Eichwald’s type specimen (No. 1) consists of a lower jaw from which the nature

of the incisors, canines and postcanines as well as that of the upper incisors and

canines can be determined and fitting on to this are the posterior part of the

lower jaw, suspensorium, parts of the occiput, braincase and subtemporal and

suborbital arches.

233

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 48 (12), 1965: 233-236.

234 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

This specimen (No. 1) constitutes the type of Eichwald’s Deuterosaurus

biarmicus.

The Diagnostic Characters of the Genus DEUTEROSAURUS:

1. Dentalformula: i SiWer pe caine

4 I 6+?

2. Incisors and canines of the upper and lower jaws intermesh.

3. Lower canine passes outward of upper jaw margin.

4. Incisors fairly long, with slight lingual step, unequally developed in the

different teeth and separated from the talon.

5. Postcanines with bulbous spatulate crown; series short, probably not more

than 8.

6. Quadratojugal no longer a bone of the outer lateral surface.

7. Quadrate posteriorly situated and lower jaw long.

8. No boss on the angular.

g. Slight indication of upward sweep of the premaxillaries.

o. Snout probably higher than broad.

1. Infra-temporal bar fairly weak with deep temporal fossa.

Taxonomic Position of DEUTEROSAURUS:

It is evident that the type is poor and important diagnostic features are

not preserved.

Of the determinable characters none are typically tapinocephalian, but

rather represent a mixture of anteosaurian and titanosuchian features.

The anteosaurian features are:

the short series of bulbously spatulate postcanine teeth;

the fairly long incisors, but the lingual step is more pronounced than

is usual in the better known anteosaurians:

the medial shift of the quadratojugal, which is no longer a lateral

surface bone;

the slight upward sweep of the alveolar border of the premaxillaries;

the snout probably higher than broad;

the weak infra-temporal bar and deep temporal fossa.

The titanosuchian features are:

the intermeshing of the upper and lower canines with the lower

canine passing outside the upper jaw;

the absence of the angular boss and the general little pachyostosis.

I would thus place Deuterosaurus in a separate family —Deuterosauridae—

in the Infra-order Anteosauria.

Postcranial Bones referred to DEUTEROSAURUS:

The femur is represented by a number of specimens (Nos. 59, 13, 1/1326,

294/20, 72). All indicate a slender curved femur quite distinct from the femur

of both Tapinocephalia and Titanosuchia, but strikingly similar to the few

known femora of the South African Anteosauria.

THE RUSSIAN DINOCEPHALIAN DEUTEROSAURUS 235

If the type jaws of Deuterosaurus are, as I am convinced, anteosaurian and the

femora also anteosaurian it may very well be that the above specimens are

correctly referred to Deuterosaurus, but they could equally well be referred to

one or other of the other known Russian anteosaurians as e.g. Titanophoneus,

Doliosauriscus, Syodon, Admetophoneus.

The distal end of a humerus (No. 33) and the tibia (No. 86) also appear

to be anteosaurian.

MNEMEIOSAURUS

Specimen No. 2, which Seeley (1894) mistakenly referred to Eichwald’s

Deuterosaurus, consists of an incomplete and distorted skull from which few

diagnostic features can be determined.

Diagnostic Characters of the Genus MNEMEIOSAURUS :

G I 1+ ?

meeWentaliormulas 7 —) | ¢— > pe ——

2. Crown of postcanine tooth spatulate.

3. Intertemporal width small, with high and sharp parietal crest flanked by

the postorbital.

4. Anterior to the temporal fossa proper there is a sloping surface, below the

level of the dorsal surface proper, which is formed by the postfrontal,

frontal and postorbital (cf. Phthinosuchus).

Pachyostosis moderate.

Skull and particularly the snout, high and apparently short.

Orbit large.

Postorbital bar slender, but forming a wide flange of bone forming the

posterior bony face of the orbit (cf. Phthinosuchus).

g. Vomers narrow, choanae short.

10. Pineal canal of moderate length.

11. Lacrimal with antero-dorsally directed process as in Ulemosaurus.

12. Vomers narrow and vaulted as in primitive gorgonopsians (Phthinosuchus) ,

but posteriorly spatulate.

Mnemeiosaurus, on the scanty evidence, is difficult to place taxonomically,

but is probably a tapinocephalian as suggested by Nopcsa. The presence of a

canine indicates a primitive form but otherwise it appears quite specialised.

Provisionally it may be placed with the moschopids, where a form like

Avenantia also has a narrow intertemporal region.

COM DEN

Teeth referred to DEUTEROSAURUS:

The teeth numbered No. 3, 4 and 5 and figured by Efremov (figs. 19, 20,

21) were not found in association with either specimens No. 1 or No. 2. _

They are quite distinct from the incompletely preserved incisors of the

type of Deuterosaurus (No. 1) and no comparison is possible with the one incisor

root preserved in Mnemezosaurus (No. 2).

236 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

The teeth in Deuterosaurus (No. 1) are slightly modified anteosaurian teeth.

Tooth No. 4 approaches most nearly to the incisor teeth of the Tapino-

cephalidae.

Teeth No. 3 and No. 4 may very well be of a form very close to Ulemosaurus.

The incisor teeth hitherto considered as deuterosaurian are thus really

typical of the Tapinocephalia and the real deuterosaurian incisors are really

anteosaurian incisors.

SUMMARY

The Russian dinocephalian Deuterosaurus, is discussed after study of the

material in Moscow and it is shown that some material has been erroneously

included in this genus. It is considered that the type species, Deuterosaurus

biarmicus Eichwald should be placed in the family Deuterosauridae, in the

infra-order Anteosauria. Mnemeiosaurus, which was referred to Deuterosaurus,

appears to be a tapinocephalian which might be placed provisionally with the

moschopids. The true affinities of postcranial bones and teeth that had been

referred to Deuterosaurus are considered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author’s visit to Moscow was in part made possible by a special grant

from the Department of Education, Arts and Science of the Government of the

Republic of South Africa. In Moscow my work was greatly facilitated by the

kind helpfulness of my colleagues Orlov, Tchudinov, Shishkin and Tatarinov.

To them my sincerest thanks.

The Trustees of the South African Museum are grateful to the Council

for Scientific and Industrial Research for a grant to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

Boonstra, L. D. 1954. The cranial structure of the titanosuchian Anteosaurus. Ann. S. Afr. Mus.

42: 108-148.

Boonstra, L. D. 1957. The moschopid skulls in the South African Museum. Ann. S. Afr. Mus.

44: 15-38.

Erremovy, I. A. 1954. [Fauna of terrestrial vertebrates in the Permian cuprous sandstones of the

western part of the Ural Mountains regions.] Trud. Paleont. Inst., Akad Nauk SSSR 54: 1-416

(In Russian).

EicHwaLp, E. von. 1848. Ueber die Saurier des kupferfiihrenden Zechsteins Russlands. Bull.

Soc. Nat. Moscou 21 (2): 136-204.

Nopcsa, F. 1928. Palaeontological notes on reptiles. Geol. hung. (Palaeont.) x (1): 1-84.

SEELEY, H. G. 1894. Researches on the structure, organization and classification of the fossil

Reptilia. VIII. Further evidences of the skeleton in Deuterosaurus and Rhopalodon from the

Permian rocks of Russia. Phil. Trans. (B) 185: 663-717.

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

“ MANUSCRIPTS

In duplicate (one set of illustrations), type-written, double spaced with good margins,

including TABLE oF CoNTENTs and Summary. Position of text-figures and tables must be

indicated.

ILLUSTRATIONS

So proportioned that when reduced they will occupy not more than 4? in. x 7 in. (73 in.

including the caption). A scale (metric) must appear with all photographs.

REFERENCES

Authors’ names and dates of publication given in text; full references at end of paper in

alphabetical order of authors’ names (Harvard system). References at end of paper must be

given in this order:

Name of author, in capitals, followed by initials; names of joint authors connected by &,

not ‘and’. Year of publication; several papers by the same author in one year designated by

suffixes a, b, etc. Full title of paper; initial capital letters only for first word and for proper

names (except in German). Title of journal, abbreviated according to World list of scientific

periodicals and underlined (italics). Series number, if any, in parenthesis, e.g. (3), (n.s.), (B.).

Volume number in arabic numerals (without prefix ‘vol.’), with wavy underlining (bold type).

Part number, only if separate parts of one volume are independently numbered. Page numbers)

first and last, preceded by a colon (without prefix ‘p’). Thus:

SmitH, A. B. 1956. New Plonia species from South Africa. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 9: 937-945.

When reference is made to a separate book, give in this order: Author’s name; his initials;

date of publication; title, underlined; edition, if any; volume number, if any, in arabic numerals,

with wavy underlining; place of publication; name of publisher. Thus:

Brown, X. Y. 1953. Marine faunas. 2nd ed. 2. London: Green.

When reference is made to a paper forming a distinct part of another book, give: Name of

author of paper, his initials; date of publication; title of paper; ‘In’, underlined; name of

author of book; his initials; title of book, underlined; edition, if any; volume number, if any,

in arabic numerals, with wavy underlining; pagination of paper; place of publication; name

of publisher. Thus:

Smitu, C. D. 1954. South African Plonias. In Brown, X. Y. Marine faunas. 2nd ed. 3: 63-95.

London: Green.

SYNONYMY

Arranged according to chronology of names. Published scientific names by which a species

has been previously designated (subsequent to 1758) are listed in chronological order, with

abbreviated bibliographic references to descriptions or citations following in chronological

order after each name. Full references must be given at the end of the paper. Articles and

recommendations of the International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the XV International

congress of zoology, London, July 1958, are to be observed (particularly articles 22 and 51).

Examples: Plonia capensis Smith, 1954: 86, pl. 27, fig. 3. Green, 1955: 23, fig. 2.

When transferred to another genus:

Euplonia capensis (Smith) Brown, 1955: 259.

When misidentified as another species:

Plonia natalensis (non West), Jones, 1956: 18.

When another species has been called by the same name:

[non] Plonia capensis: Jones, 1957: 27 (= natalensis West).