identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03F9879B324CFF88FC5CFC8FFC767C7D.text	03F9879B324CFF88FC5CFC8FFC767C7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iguanodon hollingtoniensis (Lydekker 1889)	<div><p>I. HOLLINGTONIENSIS</p> <p>Iguanodon fittoni was first announced in a short article that reported a series of (allegedly associated) specimens comprising a ‘... left ilium, part of a pubis [sic = ischium], and the imperfect sacrum (B.M. No. R.1635), which appear to indicate a distinct species’ (Lydekker, 1889: 354).</p> <p>These specimens were all collected from a site named Shornden or Shornden Quarry (Fig. 1; Brooks, 2011; Norman, 2011a). This site probably derived its name from Shornden Forest, the southern edge of which contained early settlements in medieval times and was little more than a mile (1.6 km) north of what was later to become the coastal town of Hastings. Today, one street name and Shornden Reservoir appear to be the last reminders of Shornden as an actual location. Areas of land were routinely surface-quarried: stone (Tilgate Stone) was used for road mending, walling, and simple building work, whereas clay (Wadhurst Clay) was fired to make bricks, roofing tiles, and chimney pots. The remnants of much older quarries seem also to have pock-marked the district, reflecting the widespread extraction of Weald ironstone for an iron industry that had its origin in Elizabethan times (Topley, 1875).</p> <p>During the period 1850–1880 this area became the focus of considerable development as Hastings’ population expanded rapidly. One particular problem created by population growth was the need to provide an adequate water supply; this led to the conversion of the large, but probably long-exhausted, Shornden and Buckshole quarries into reservoirs (Fig. 1). Abundant Wadhurst Clay would have been available to line these two sites and it seems that while these earthworks were being undertaken Dawson was on-hand to collect dinosaur remains. Other earthworks, associated with the construction of cuttings and embankments for the railway lines that extended to the coast from London; and, somewhat later, the creation of civic parkland during the 1880s [notably Alexandra Park, Coronation Wood, and Old Roar Ghyll (Gill) – Norman 2011a] provided further opportunities for fossil collection. Digging at the nearby Old Roar Quarry and Little Ridge Farm Quarry, as well as house building in and around the adjoining areas known as Hollington and Silverhill- Tivoli (Fig. 1), created further opportunities for collecting. It is a source of considerable regret that no correspondence or notes (particularly between the key players: Dawson, Beckles, Owen, and Lydekker) detailing the excavation of these dinosaurs, have been discovered to date. Indirect comments by Richard Lydekker (originating from discussions with Dawson) hint at details of some excavations, and the direct quotation from a letter from Beckles to Richard Owen (Owen, 1872) offers tantalizing snippets of information.</p> <p>It was stated in Lydekker’s (1889) original article that the sacrum and ilium of I. fittoni were found on the same horizon, but separated by a distance of about 50 yards (∼ 45 m) and that the ilium represented part of an animal that was smaller in size than Iguanodon dawsoni (= Barilium dawsoni – Norman, 2010, 2011a, b, 2012). The latter species included an ilium that had been found at a slightly lower stratigraphical level in the same quarry. The ilium of I. fittoni was distinguished from the type specimen of I. dawsoni because it had a preacetabular process that was transversely compressed and lacked the pronounced medial ridge seen in the latter species (Figs 3, 9, mr). The postacetabular portion of the ilium also differed significantly in shape: that of I. dawsoni having a deeper and more rounded profile, whereas in the new species the blade tapered to a rounded end that was expand- ed transversely, creating a pronounced brevis fossa (Figs 3, 9, brf). Differences of proportion included the depth of the iliac blade above the acetabulum and the shape of the acetabulum; these, although mentioned as being ‘distinctive’, were ill-defined.</p> <p>The preserved fragment of the sacrum exhibited transverse compression and fusion (both features found, according to Lydekker, in Iguanodon mantelli – based on comparison with NHMUK OR37685 – Owen, 1855: tables 3–6) but the latter species was reported to have a shallower iliac blade and to lack the pronounced brevis fossa seen in I. fittoni. The only other form to which this new species might be compared was Sphenospondylus gracilis Lydekker, 1888a [the generic name Sphenospondylus was originally proposed by Seeley (1883); Lydekker subsequently added the species name]. Sphenospondylus gracilis was based upon a series of dorsal vertebrae, so objective comparison was not possible, not that that fact inhibited Lydekker (1889: 354). In passing, Lydekker also noted that the ilium of I. fittoni bore some resemblance to those described as Camptonotus (= Camptosaurus) from the Late Jurassic of North America (Marsh, 1879); however, Lydekker also noted that the sacrum of I. fittoni could be distinguished from that of Camptosaurus because, unlike the latter, it had vertebrae that were fused together and bore ventral midline keels.</p> <p>Iguanodon hollingtoniensis was briefly named and described in addition to I. fittoni. Lydekker established I. hollingtoniensis, using a partial skeleton recovered from the Wadhurst Clay at a site referred to as Hollington Quarry (Fig. 1). He noted that some of this material had earlier been referred to either Iguanodon dawsoni, or as probable juvenile material of Iguanodon bernissartensis (Lydekker, 1888a, b). The type material of this new species was regarded as ‘[NHMUK] R.1148 together with others belonging to the same individual numbered R.1629, and also certain vertebrae numbered R.1632, which are also believed to belong to the same individual’ (Lydekker, 1889: 355). Additional material (NHMUK R811 and R604 – previously assigned by Lydekker to I. dawsoni) was also transferred to this new species and another specimen, comprising a portion of a skeleton collected also at Hollington (NHMUK R33) was also mentioned as being referable to either I. fittoni or I. hollingtoniensis (but he, perhaps tellingly, was unable to confirm its specific identity).</p> <p>Iguanodon hollingtoniensis was distinguished from I. mantelli by having a curved femoral shaft (Fig. 4) and a pendant [incorrect] ‘inner’ (= fourth) trochanter. Both of these anatomical features had been reported as present in the femur of the smaller Late Jurassic Camptosaurus (Marsh, 1879, 1885). The femur of I. hollingtoniensis was also described as ‘smaller and of different contour’ (Lydekker, 1889: 355) compared with a femur associated with a partial skeleton that he attributed to I. dawsoni (by inference he appears to be referring to NHMUK R1627, a partial skeleton collected from Brede, a small village north of the Ore- Fairlight Anticline: see Fig. 1). The sacral vertebrae of NHMUK R811 (originally referred to I. dawsoni), and those of NHMUK R1632 were described as ‘not anchylosed together’ (= unfused) and having flattened haemal (= ventral) surfaces; both of these features echoed those that had been described in Camptosaurus. An associated fragmentary ilium (NHMUK R811b) was described as having a preacetabular process of ‘the thin type of I. Fittoni, and therefore different from that of I. Dawsoni, while this ilium is decidedly different from that of I. Fittoni ’ (Lydekker, 1889: 355). (N.B. The evidence used by Lydekker to support such a definite statement was never revealed.) Although alleged similarities with Camptosaurus were over-emphasized, the presence of the ‘peculiar pollex of Iguanodon ’ was used to support Lydekker’s reference of this new taxon to the genus Iguanodon.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B324CFF88FC5CFC8FFC767C7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3247FF84FEB2FA05FD317886.text	03F9879B3247FF84FEB2FA05FD317886.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clypeodonta NOVUM	<div><p>INFRAORDER CLYPEODONTA NOVUM</p> <p>DIVISION IGUANODONTIA SERENO, 1986 (EMENDED)</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3247FF84FEB2FA05FD317886	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3247FF9EFF60F9C4FCC17F6B.text	03F9879B3247FF9EFF60F9C4FCC17F6B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hypselospinus fittoni (Lydekker 1889)	<div><p>HYPSELOSPINUS FITTONI (LYDEKKER, 1889)</p> <p>FIGURES 3–5, 7–10</p> <p>*1889 Iguanodon Fittoni Lydekker: 354</p> <p>v*1889 Iguanodon hollingtoniensis: 355</p> <p>v 1890 Iguanodon Fittoni Lydekker: 38, fig. 1C</p> <p>v 1890 Iguanodon hollingtoniensis: 40, figs 1E, 2</p> <p>v*2010 Hypselospinus fittoni (Lydekker, 1889); Norman, figs 5–9</p> <p>v.2010 Wadhurstia fittoni (Lydekker, 1889); Carpenter and Ishida, fig. 2.31</p> <p>v.2012 Huxleysaurus hollingtoniensis (Lydekker, 1889); Paul</p> <p>v.2012 Huxleysaurus fittoni (Lydekker, 1889); Paul</p> <p>v.2012 Darwinsaurus evolutionis (Lydekker, 1889); Paul, fig. 1B, b</p> <p>Holotype</p> <p>NHMUK R1635 (Figs 3–5, 7–10): incomplete left ilium, partial sacrum, midcaudal centrum, the eroded proximal end of an ischium (very dubious association). In addition, three isolated teeth (one stump of a dentary crown and two worn and rootless maxillary crowns) have the same registered number and may well have been part of the original accession.</p> <p>Referred material</p> <p>NHMUK R1148 (incorporating material registered as R1629 and R1632), R604, R604a (including bones registered as R811, R811a, R811b), NHMUK R33, R966, R1636 (ilium only), R1831 (incorporating specimens registered separately as R1832, R1833, and R1835), R1834, R4743 (scapula). N.B. NHMUK R1627 (a fragmentary skeleton collected from the village of Brede – see Fig. 1) is tentatively associated with the hypodigm of Hy. fittoni, pending further study. The specimens registered as NHMUK R2848 (an isolated femur and an associated scapula-coracoid), which were referred to B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a) may eventually prove to be referable to Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Stratigraphical horizon, age, and type locality</p> <p>Lower Cretaceous, Hastings Group, Wadhurst Clay Formation (Fig. 2). Age: Valanginian: 139−137 Mya (Allen &amp; Wimbledon, 1991; Gradstein, Ogg &amp; Smith, 2004; Rawson, 2006). Type locality: Shornden Quarry, Hastings (Fig. 1): originally an open-cast quarry site, the area where this quarry was located was landscaped and part converted into a reservoir in Alexandra Park during the late 19 th century, East Sussex, UK (Brooks, 2011; Norman, 2011a).</p> <p>Diagnosis</p> <p>Asterisks* signify apomorphies. Other characters listed below form a unique combination of characters that are apomorphic when considered together, even though they may occur sporadically within a plexus of morphologically similar ornithopods.</p> <p>Holotype diagnosis</p> <p>Ilium (Figs 3, 9). Preacetabular process (prp) with medial and lateral surfaces that are vertical, laterally compressed and shows little evidence of long-axis torsion*; ventral edge of the proximal portion of the preacetabular process thicker than dorsal edge, and its dorsal edge is narrow and flat-topped*; low-relief, curved, medial ridge on the medioventral surface of the preacetabular process associated with a shallow, irregular facet marking the area for attachment of the distal end of the first sacral rib*; central portion of iliac blade above the acetabulum is flat and stands more or less vertically (rather than having its lateral surface concave vertically and leaning outward so that it faces ventrolaterally); straight, narrow, transversely compressed, and flat-topped dorsal edge to the central portion of the iliac blade*; postacetabular process with an inflection point dorsally, after which the dorsal margin slopes posteroventrally before terminating at a transversely expanded and thick bar*; medial deflection of the ventral half of the postacetabular process creates an elongate, broad, low-arched, brevis fossa; brevis fossa bordered laterally by a thick horizontal ridge; the postacetabular process displays sacral rib facets that track the ventral margin of the postacetabular blade and rise obliquely toward the posterior tip, and merge with the dorsally positioned ‘transverse process’ facets that run horizontally along the midsection of the iliac blade.</p> <p>Vertebrae (Fig. 7). Ventral surfaces of posterior sacral centra are keeled; anterior-middle caudal subcylindrical with a transversely convex ventral surface.</p> <p>Supplementary diagnostic characters based</p> <p>on the hypodigm</p> <p>Cranial</p> <p>Dentary ramus elongate and gently arched anteriorly; diastema comparatively short: two to three crown widths; coronoid process short and orientated at an oblique angle to the long axis of the dentary (N.B. This latter feature may be the consequence of breakage and subsequent restoration of the original specimen).</p> <p>Dental</p> <p>Dentary crowns are large, shield-shaped, and thickly enamelled on the lingual surface; marginal denticles on the mesial and distal margins of the crown form curved, oblique ledges that are mammillated; welldefined primary ridge offset distally on the lingual surface; the mesial sector of the crown has a low, broad mound that runs parallel to the primary ridge and is traversed by numerous, irregular, and strand-like accessory (tertiary) ridges*.</p> <p>Axial</p> <p>Dorsal and anterior caudal vertebrae have narrow, very elongate and obliquely inclined neural spines; the bases of anterior caudal neural spines are flanked by buttresses on either side of median anterior and posteri- or ridges*; dorsal centra have unusually thickened articular rims*; midcaudal vertebrae exhibit a ventral midline sulcus*.</p> <p>Appendicular</p> <p>Sternal plates have a broad, apron-like posterior edge to the ‘blade’*; the ‘handle’ portion of the sternal plate is robust and dorsoventrally flattened; calcification of the intersternal cartilage (leading to co-ossification of the sternal bones) occurred in ontogenetically mature specimens*; pollex ungual large, pointed, triangular in lateral profile, laterally compressed (rather than conical) and curved slightly palmwards along its length*; pollex claw grooves present; pubic shaft has a circular cross-section; lateral surface of the proximal end of the ischial shaft (adjacent to the obturator process) forms an elongate flattened facet*; ischial shaft comparatively short, stout, J-shaped and terminates in an anteriorly expanded ischial boot.</p> <p>The holotype of Hypselospinus fittoni</p> <p>(Lydekker, 1889)</p> <p>Dentition</p> <p>Three partial teeth are included in the material registered as NHMUK R1635 (Fig. 5C). One appears to be a very heavily worn (shed and subsequently eroded) dentary tooth stump (Fig. 5C 1) whereas the other two are functional (worn) maxillary crowns of differing size. Figure 5C 2 appears to be a shed left crown in a state of advanced wear. The smaller right maxillary crown (Fig. 5C 3) probably comes from either the mesial or distal ends of the maxillary ‘magazine’ (where teeth are normally smaller than those positioned nearer to the centre of the array). The maxillary crowns offer little morphological information beyond a similarity to that seen in ankylopollexians generally (Norman, 1986: fig. 22): crowns are narrow and lozengeshaped; very prominent distally offset primary ridge (p); mesial sector of the labially enamelled face marked by a small number of narrow, subparallel accessory (tertiary) ridges (r); transversely thickened mesial and distal edges to the crown; and longitudinally channelled roots (ch).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>Sacrum: The sacral material comprises the eroded remains of three fused posterior sacral centra including portions of their sacral ribs (Fig. 7A–C). The specimen is iron-stained, poorly consolidated, and appears not to be heavily permineralized. The most posterior sacral centrum has a smooth, shallow, rounded, and concave posterior articular face; the main body of the centrum is spool-like, being mildly contracted around its midlength whereas its ventral surface is pinched transversely to form a smoothly rounded ventral keel. The keel, in lateral view, appears to be slightly arched. The base of the sacral rib is fused at midheight on the centrum alone, rather than having its base encroaching on the sutured articulation with the preceding centrum (as seen in more anterior sacral ribs). The neural arch is similarly confined to the dorsal surface of the centrum and the sacral rib is fused to the lateral wall of the neural arch as well as the centrum. These features (smooth posterior articular surface, positioning of the neural arch, and sacral rib relative to the centrum) confirm that this was the last in the sacral series. The penultimate sacral is badly eroded but similarly spool-shaped and it is clear that the sacral rib was more anteriorly positioned so that its base was fused across the junction between its own vertebra and that of the preceding vertebra; the base of the neural arch also overlaps the dorsal edge of the preceding centrum. The preceding vertebra displays the spoolshape of the centrum, a keel, and the eroded portions of the sacral rib and neural arch (which are similarly intervertebrally positioned). The three fused sacrals diminish progressively in overall dimensions anteriorly.</p> <p>Although difficult to interpret, this sacral block differs from a specimen attributed to B. dawsoni (NHMUK R3789 – Norman, 2011a) in the following characters: substantially smaller size, positioning of the last sacral rib on the side of the centrum rather than intervertebrally, reduced prominence of the ventral keel, lack of arching of the keel, and less pronounced thickening at the fused intervertebral junctions.</p> <p>Caudal vertebra: The anterior caudal centrum (Fig. 8A– C) is approximately commensurate with those of the sacrum (allowing for its more posterior position along the tail) and its general preservational state is similar. The vertebra is almost cylindrical and its sides only slightly contracted between the articular margins. The centrum is very slightly forwardly inclined and there is a prominent posterior haemapophysis (chevron facet), with little development of a discrete anterior facet (although such anterior facets are, as a general rule, less prominent). The ventral surface of the centrum is broadly convex, with no indication of either a midline keel or sulcus. The articular faces of the centrum display a swollen rim that encloses a very shallow central concavity. The caudal ribs (cr), broken at their bases on both sides, are positioned along the line of the neurocentral suture and appear to have been well developed: a feature seen specifically in anterior caudal vertebrae.</p> <p>This caudal could not be identified and compared with the direct serial equivalent of one of the caudals of the sympatric contemporary B. dawsoni, but it differs substantially in size, structure, and proportions from those of the latter taxon (Norman, 2011a).</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>Ilium: Although somewhat eroded and broken in places, and apparently lacking most of the preacetabular process that was illustrated by Lydekker (1890a: reproduced in Fig. 5), the ilium appears to be relatively little distorted (Figs 3A, B, 9). The general preservation is very similar to that described in the sacrum and caudal. The preacetabular process (prp) is laterally compressed and its dorsal edge is flattened, whereas the ventral border is slightly thicker and smoothly rounded transversely. The lateral surface of the preacetabular process is shallowly concave dorsoventrally, whereas the medial surface is equivalently convex and there is a low, oblique ridge (mr) medioventrally that is associated with a shallow rugose depression; this indicates a probable area of contact with the distal end of the ‘free’ rib of the sacrodorsal vertebra (not preserved). Compared with B. dawsoni, the preacetabular process differs substantially in size, shape, and proportions (Figs 3, 9). The main portion of the iliac blade stands essentially vertically and its lateral surface is shallowly concave; the dorsal edge is narrow and flattened (Fig. 9B, fdm). The dorsal edge and its muscle scar may have expanded slightly in the region above and behind the ischiadic peduncle, but this area is broken (Fig. 9A, cross-hatching) and interpreted by reference to NHMUK R1834 (Fig. 46). Posteriorly, the dorsal edge inclines posteroventrally before merging with a transversely thickened shelf at the posterior end of the iliac blade (Fig. 9C). This shelf reflects the abrupt medial deflection of the ventral portion of the iliac blade, which forms a shallow arched brevis fossa (brf) bounded by a distinct lateral ridge (lr). The medial edge of the brevis fossa curves ventrally and forms a thin sheet of bone that is visible in lateral view (Fig. 9A).</p> <p>The ventral margin of the postacetabular process is sinuous and oblique, merging with the expanded ischiadic peduncle anteriorly. The latter, although somewhat eroded, expands laterally to form a stepped boss: having a prominent posterodorsal eminence that is separated – step-wise – from a flatter bevelled area adjacent to the acetabulum. The ischiadic sutural surface is obliquely offset (facing posteroventrally – Fig. 9A). The dorsal margin of the acetabulum curves smoothly into the lateral surface of the iliac blade, although the remnant of the pubic peduncle (pp) shows that there was a distinct supra-acetabular crest (sac) developed as a ledge along the margin of that peduncle. The pubic peduncle has been sheared off, thereby obscuring its overall appearance and orientation. The medial surface of the ilium (Fig. 9D) has a midheight horizontal ridge punctuated by a line of thumbprint-like depressions; these mark the attachment points for the sacral transverse processes and dorsal parts of the sacral ribs. Beneath this ridge the surface is smooth before developing into a broader and more continuously scarred area (sy) for attachment of the sacral yoke (formed by the coalesced ventral portions of the sacral ribs). The posterior sacral rib scars are conjoined (srf), indicating the region where the sacral yoke and ventral portions of the sacral ribs have coalesced.</p> <p>The orientation of the articular surface for the ischium (posteroventral) and the positioning of the supraacetabular crest (restricted almost exclusively to the pubic peduncle) suggest that ‘in life’ the ilium was articulated against the sacrum and orientated such that its dorsal edge was inclined posterodorsally so that the pubic peduncle, supported medially by a very robust first sacral rib, formed the dorsal rim of the acetabulum.</p> <p>Ischium: Comprising the proximal end only of a (comparatively) small left ischium (Fig. 10), this bone is missing almost all of its features; both peduncles have been broken off and worn smooth, the obturator process (obt) can be inferred only from the curvature of the preserved bone, the shaft is almost entirely missing, and its stump is worn smooth. The preservation of this specimen is such that it is permineralized, appears not to be strongly iron-stained, and has been very waterrolled. The suggested association of this specimen with the earlier-described specimens is regarded as conjectural at best, but as it contributes nothing to the determination of this taxon it can be disregarded safely.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3247FF9EFF60F9C4FCC17F6B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B325DFF97FF03FDE5FC4D7B3C.text	03F9879B325DFF97FF03FDE5FC4D7B3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iguanodon hollingtoniensis (Lydekker 1889)	<div><p>IGUANODON HOLLINGTONIENSIS LYDEKKER, 1889</p> <p>Norman (2010) described, albeit briefly, the anatomical basis upon which Lydekker established the Wadhurst Clay Formation taxon (I. hollingtoniensis Lydekker, 1889) whose remains were collected from the same geographical area and horizon as B. dawsoni and Hy. fittoni. It was concluded that I. hollingtoniensis was a nomen dubium and its skeletal material could be assigned to Hy. fittoni. A detailed review and description of the original type and referred material of the latter species is now necessary. Norman’s proposal that a single taxon (incorporating I. fittoni and I. hollingtoniensis) be recognized under the binomial Hypselospinus fittoni (Lydekker, 1889) has been challenged firstly by Paul (2008) who later made specific taxonomic proposals (Paul, 2012), and secondly when an alternative set of taxonomic proposals were made by Carpenter &amp; Ishida (2010).</p> <p>History</p> <p>Between 1884 and 1889 Charles Dawson collected the major portion of an associated partial skeleton of at least one Iguanodon -like specimen from Ridge Farm Quarry near Hastings (Brooks, 2011); this location was referred to as either ‘Hollington’ or ‘Holllington Quarry’ (Fig. 1). The circumstances surrounding the original discovery of this material – its apparent piecemeal collection, as well as its phased acquisition by the Natural History Museum – add unwanted uncertainty to claimed associations. The brief formal descriptions and catalogue notes of Lydekker (1889, 1890a, b) help to clarify some of these matters, but errors and inconsistencies (even in Lydekker’s accounts) confirm to readers in the present day that an air of confusion must have been created by nonsystematic collecting procedures and (possibly) anecdotal recollections. As alluded to above, it was also the case that Dawson was taken on by Lydekker, to assist with the documentation of the remains from Hastings. The archives of the Natural History Museum contain no letters, site maps, or notes pertaining to the original excavations by Charles Dawson. Similar problems pertain in the case of B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a).</p> <p>The holotype NHMUK R1148 includes specimens allocated with the registered numbers R1629 and R1632, which were collected from the same quarry. As evidence of association, some specimens, for example the metatarsals of the left pes (MtIII: NHMUK R1148 and MtII: NHMUK R1629) fit together perfectly (Fig. 11A–H). Additional material assigned to registered numbers NHMUK R811, R811 a, b (including sacral and pelvic bones) as well as NHMUK R604 (cervical, dorsal, and caudal vertebrae, some imperfectly preserved ribs, and some broken tooth fragments) were also collected from this quarry and are, if not part of the type series, commensurate, and show the same preservational characteristics and almost no duplication of elements. It must be noted, however, that an ischial shaft fragment of NHMUK R1629 (Fig. 17) duplicates one of the two ischia associated with NHMUK R811 (Fig. 31B). This ischium fragment alone suggests that two commensurate and osteologically identical ornithopod skeletons must have been collected from a site that Dawson recorded as the same locality.</p> <p>A very flattened and broken left ilium NHMUK R811(b) (figured by Norman, 2010: fig. 8C, D – but as a reversed image – see Fig. 30B, C) was claimed to be associated with material assigned to NHMUK R811 and R604 (Lydekker, 1890b: 263) and this duplicates a small portion of the preacetabular process preserved in NHMUK R1629 (Fig. 15). However, the association of the material referred to as NHMUK R811, R811(a), and R811(b) is compromised because: (1) R811(a) – a partial right pubis was formerly assigned to ‘ I. ’ dawsoni (Lydekker, 1888b: 199–200); and (2) the flattened ilium (NHMUK R811b) was not mentioned in Lydekker’s (1888b) first catalogue but was later recorded as having been purchased separately in 1884 (Lydekker, 1890a: 264).</p> <p>NHMUK R1148</p> <p>Note. This specimen comprises four vertebral fragments from the dorsal column, a right femur, proximal right tibia, and right metatarsal III. This material was assigned to I. bernissartensis originally (Lydekker, 1888b: 217), with the cautionary note that ‘these specimens might belong to I. dawsoni ’.</p> <p>Vertebral column (Fig. 12)</p> <p>Two incomplete neural arches, each of which comprises a well-preserved platform and the sheared-off base of the neural spine. The first neural arch (Fig. 12A 1, A 2) shows details of the rib articulation and the transverse process. The capitular facet (parapophysis – par) is large and positioned on the anterior half of the pedicel (adjacent to the prezygapophysis); its facet extends posterolaterally along the edge of the transverse process; the latter is elongate, robust, and obliquely orientated when compared with the other example; its distal tip bears a diapophyseal facet. The postzygapophyses overhang the posterior margin of the neural arch and the neural spine is positioned posteriorly on the neural arch platform. All of these features suggest that this neural arch comes from a relatively anterior position in the dorsal series (d4−d6) because the combination of features (position and size of parapophysis, robust and oblique transverse process, and backward extension of the posterior zygapophyses) echoes the morphology in the posterior cervical−anterior dorsal section of the column.</p> <p>The other neural arch (Fig. 12B) has a more discrete, almost circular, parapophysis tucked into the recess between the prezygapophysis (prz) and the base of the transverse process. The posterior margin of the parapophysis stands clear of the side wall of the neural arch because there is a recess between it and the adjacent buttress for the transverse process. The trans- verse process is elongate, moderately robust and projects less obliquely from the neural platform; its distal tip forms a large, rugose facet (diapophysis – dia) for the tuberculum of its rib. The posterior edge of the transverse process forms a shelf that curves toward the base of the neural spine and merges with the anterolateral margin of the postzygapophysis (poz). The base of the neural spine rises from the midline and the anterior and posterior edges converge slightly before being abruptly truncated by breakage. The position of the parapophysis on the neural arch suggests that this was probably from a mid-dorsal vertebra (d7−d9).</p> <p>The centra (Fig. 12A, B) have had their neural arches sheared away, rather than their being separated along an imperfectly fused neurocentral suture. The centra are generally spool-shaped, but the sides are compressed and distorted. The ventral edge of the centrum forms a narrow keel (k). The articular faces are flattened with a central concavity; the margins of the articular surfaces are everted, thickened, and rugose as if for the attachment of powerful collateral ligaments. These centra appear, from their proportions, to have come from the anterior half of the dorsal series but probably never attached to the neural arches as shown here.</p> <p>Femur</p> <p>The majority of the right femur (Fig. 4B, C) is well preserved, although it is damaged proximally and shows evidence of having been crushed along the length of the shaft and there is a depressed fracture on the shaft above the medial condyle (cr). The proximal end preserves part of a large, medially offset, globular, femoral condyle. The anterior trochanter (at) is notably thickened along its anterior edge and has a bevelled, rugose, anterolateral facet that extends distally onto the base of a prominent ridge that runs diagonally across the shaft of the femur to merge with the medial side of the distal condyle (Fig. 4B). The thickness of the anterior trochanter suggests that it would have masked the anterolateral portion of the greater trochanter. The shaft of the femur is angular and bowed along its length. There is a very large, heavily muscle-scarred, fourth trochanter (4t); the distal tip of the trochanter is slightly eroded and may originally have been very slightly pendant (but not as suggested in Lydekker’s sketch; Fig. 4A). The overall shape of the femur and position on the shaft of the fourth trochanter are unlike those seen in camptosaur femora (Galton, 2009; pers. observ. USNM November 2010). The distal end of the femur is marked by a large extensor intercondylar groove (icg) that is nearly enclosed by overgrowth from the adjacent buttresses on the tibial condyles of the femur; again this morphology differs markedly from that seen in camptosaurs, in which the extensor intercondylar groove is deep, but broadly open (pers. observ. USNM November 2010).</p> <p>So far as this element can be compared with NHMUK R2848 (a femur that has been tentatively referred to B. dawsoni – Norman, 2011a), these two femora appear similar in their shape and proportions and it is considered possible that NHMUK R2848 (femur and scapula – Norman, 2011a) may be referable to Hy. fittoni. Tibia</p> <p>This bone is represented by its proximal portion only. It shows an expanded articular region with two asymmetric condyles posteriorly, and the base of a robust (but broken) cnemial crest projecting anterolaterally. The shaft is stout and angular-sided and bears a large rugosity on its lateral surface that probably represents anchorage for ligaments that stabilized the proximal end of the fibula.</p> <p>Metatarsal III (Fig. 11A–D)</p> <p>This element is well preserved and large (310 mm long), its proximal surface is very rugose, planar, and triangular in proximal view (Fig. 11C): the apex of the triangle is directed posteriorly. The proximal surface was undoubtedly cartilage covered and probably provided an area for attachment of a flattened distal tarsal. The medial surface of the shaft faces obliquely posteromedially and the upper two-thirds is covered with rugosities (lig) reflecting the presence of powerful ligaments that bound the shaft of metatarsal II (NHMUK R1629: Fig. 11E, F). Approximately halfway along the length of the metatarsal there is a distinct indentation (tab.sc) on its anteromedial edge for the attachment of a tab of bone that projects from the anterolateral edge of metatarsal II (Fig. 11E, tab). The proximal end of the shaft is also rugose laterally (for ligament attachment), and has a wedge-like form that fitted into a complementary recess that ran down the medial surface of the shaft of metatarsal IV. The anterior surface of the shaft of mtIII is concave along its length, and there is a distinct, anterolaterally positioned, thumbprint-shaped scar (sc). The distal portion of this metatarsal lacks ligament scars, which suggests that the metatarsal shafts diverged distally, allowing the toes to diverge when in extension. There is a smooth, slightly asymmetrical, pulley-like, articular surface (Fig. 11D), with depressed areas laterally and medially that are pitted and rugose from the attachment of collateral ligaments.</p> <p>NHMUK R1148 (R1629)</p> <p>Note. ‘An associated series of bones belonging to the same individual as the preceding [NHMUK R1148]; from the Wadhurst Clay of Hollington quarry’ (Lydekker, 1890b: 262). All elements are commensurate and none are duplicates; the femur is a good match for that of NHMUK R1148, and metatarsal II fits neatly against metatarsal III of NHMUK R1148.</p> <p>Pectoral girdle and forelimb</p> <p>Scapula: Portions of left and right scapulae are preserved. The right scapula comprises just part of the blade, the proximal and distal ends having been sheared away. The left scapula (Fig. 13) is reasonably well preserved, although the proximal (coracoglenoid) end is damaged and the distal portion of the blade is missing. The blade is curved posteriorly and bowed medially (following the contour of the ribcage). The preserved part of the acromial buttress (ar) is a thick ridge, which is rugose along its apex and clearly curved forward into the base of the acromion. The external surface of the proximal end of the blade is concave between the acromial buttress and a portion of another thickened buttress above the scapular glenoid. There is also a shallow depression (hr) adjacent to the margin of the glenoid (gl) that represents a ‘stop’ to limit the excursion of the lateral tuberosity of the humerus. The medial surface of the scapula is marked with ligament and muscle attachment scars (m/l.sc). The development of much of this scarring is probably related to the necessity for anchoring the shoulder girdle against the rib-cage in a facultatively quadrupedal animal. Along the scapulocoracoid suture (co.s) there is a wellmarked notch that represents the mediodorsal continuation of the channel associated with the coracoid foramen. The overall similarity in morphology of this partial scapula to that described in the near complete scapula (NHMUK R2848) formerly referred to B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a) is noted.</p> <p>Radius and ulna (Fig. 14): These two bones are nearly complete, although the ulna is crushed proximally. Both are similar in shape (although smaller and less robust) to those described in B. dawsoni (Norman 2011a). The radius (Fig. 14A, RA) is 380 mm long and the element is expanded at both ends and tapers in the middle. The proximal articular surface is subcircular, slightly concave, and has thickened margins. The ventral edge of the shaft, adjacent to this articular surface, has a distinct channel [seen also in the associated forelimb of NHMUK R1831 (Figures 38, 40), which was first described and figured by Owen (1872: pl. I)]. The main part of the shaft of the radius is roughly circular in cross-section and narrow, but becomes deeper and laterally compressed distally, where it articulates against the carpometacarpal block. The distal articular surface is convex and rugose. The adjacent surfaces of the shaft, particularly medially, are prominently ridged (rug). The ventral edge of the distal radius has an elongate facet (ul.f) for attachment to the dorsal edge of the ulna. There is another distinct rugose facet (m.sc) on the dorsal surface of the radial shaft about a third of the way from its proximal end and there is another distinct tubercle positioned more proximally on the medial surface of the shaft. The former tubercle may be the insertion site for m. biceps but, if so, it would be unusually distal in its location.</p> <p>The ulna (Fig. 14A, UL) is 480 mm long and is crushed and distorted, and so the olecranon and as- sociated articular areas for the humerus and radius are indistinct. A vertical ‘flange’ projects from the dorsolateral margin of the shaft proximally; this represents a displaced lateral shelf that formed the ventral part of an articular facet for the proximal end of the radius (ra.f). The originally medially positioned vertical wall of the ulna associated with this articular region has been crushed into the shaft of the ulna. Distally, a lateral ridge strengthens the ulnar shaft. The shaft tapers distally before re-expanding to contact the radius dorsomedially (part of this sutural surface is visible in Fig. 14C), and developing a convex distal surface that would have articulated against a recess in the proximal surface of the carpometacarpal block.</p> <p>Phalanges: An almost perfect and large (160 mm from base to apex) right pollex (Fig. 15) displays what might be termed a classic ‘ Iguanodon ’ morphology, in the sense that it is similar to the ‘nasal horn’ first identified and illustrated by Mantell (1827: pl. XX, fig. 8).</p> <p>Although generally conical in lateral/medial aspects (Fig. 15A, B), the anterior/posterior views (Fig. 15D, E) show that it was laterally flattened, although the extent of this may be exaggerated a little by post- mortem crushing. This morphology is unlike the more regularly conical pollexes reported in the geologically younger taxa I. bernissartensis (Norman, 1980) and Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis (Norman, 1986). It is also morphologically distinct from the abraded, but apparently truncated, pollex seen in the sympatric contemporary taxon B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a: text-figs 18 &amp; 19). The base of the pollex has a sinuous edge (Fig. 15A, B, C, F). The proximal ‘articular’ surface is concave and probably accommodated a disc-shaped proximal phalanx. Above its base, the sides of the pollex converge toward the tip; however, the posterior margin is longer than the anterior and the pollex was therefore naturally tilted forward, a feature that would have been exaggerated further by the oblique orientation of the distal articular surface of metacarpal I. The pollex is curved, slightly medially, along its length (Fig. 15D, E). An ungual (claw) groove is present along almost the entire length of its posterior margin (Fig. 15D, c.gr) and although a similar groove is present along its anterior edge (Fig. 15F, c.gr), the latter is not so clearly defined.</p> <p>A partial ungual phalanx of manus digit III is preserved in this collection. It is small (compared with the pollex) and relatively more symmetrical and more laterally compressed than the corresponding phalanx in the manuses of I. bernissartensis and M. atherfieldensis, but is identified as a potential manus digit III ungual because of the longer and more twisted form of a very similar-sized ungual (probably from manus digit II) associated with NHMUK R1632.</p> <p>A small phalanx possibly of digit II (ph. 2) is strongly asymmetrical, as is typically of this phalanx (taking for comparison the general form of manus phalanges seen in M. atherfieldensis: Norman, 1986, 2011b, unpubl. data) and might well be associated with this individual.</p> <p>Pelvic girdle and hindlimb</p> <p>Ilium: This element is represented by a small (230 mm long) fragment from the base of the preacetabular process of the left ilium (Fig. 16). This portion is transversely compressed, curves laterally, and there is a shallow rugose indentation (srf) for the presumed articulation of the sacrodorsal rib, and a low-relief, curved medial ridge (mr). The dorsal edge of the ilium is laterally compressed, flat-topped, and has a band of blisterlike rugae (m.sc) along its dorsolateral edge. Although extremely incomplete, this resembles the corresponding part of NHMUK R1635 (the holotype ilium of Hy. fittoni – Figs 3A, B, 9) and contrasts markedly with the corresponding region of the ilium of the sympatric contemporary B. dawsoni (Fig. 3C, D).</p> <p>Ischium: The ischium is represented by a part of the shaft (Fig. 17). This shows the broken base of the obturator process (obt) and an associated curved ridge (ri) that extends distally on the medial side of the shaft (creating the characteristic ‘twist’ to the shaft). The lateral surface of the ischial shaft is marked by some roughened areas (m.sc) that probably represent muscle scars.</p> <p>Hindlimb elements: These include the undoubted counterpart left femur (Fig. 18) to that of NHMUK R1148 (cf. Fig. 4). The differences in length (NHMUK R1148: 900 mm, NHMUK R1629: 860 mm) reflect the effects of breakage and compression in both specimens. The robust anterior trochanter (at), large, crested fourth trochanter (4t), curved, angular shaft, and enlarged distal condyles are well displayed. A poorly preserved proximal portion of the left tibia similarly complements that belonging to NHMUK R1148. A distal end of the right fibula is also preserved.</p> <p>A well-preserved right metatarsal II (Fig. 11E–H) is transversely compressed proximally; it has a tab-like flap on its dorsolateral edge (tab) and has an obliquely offset distal articular surface that is slightly bicondylar (pulley-like) ventrally (Fig. 11H). It fits snugly against the corresponding surface of the third metatarsal (NHMUK R1148). A well-preserved proximal pedal phalanx (probably pedal digit II – Fig. 11 I−N) resembles that of left pedal digit II (in comparison with I. bernissartensis and M. atherfieldensis – Norman, 1980, 1986) and articulates snugly with the metatarsal just described.</p> <p>Some rib fragments are preserved in this collection; these include proximal portions that exhibit the wide separation or neck (n) between capitulum (cap) and tuberculum (tub) and angulation between the articular portion and the main shaft of the rib typical of anterior dorsal ribs (Fig. 25A, B). More posterior members of the series (Fig. 25C, D) gradually lose the distinct neck region as the capitulum and tuberculum begin to merge, and the shaft of the rib does not show the strong curvature seen in the anterior dorsal series.</p> <p>NHMUK R1148 (R1632)</p> <p>Note. Lydekker (1889) incorrectly identified broken cervical centra as sacrals. No specimens duplicate the holotype and these specimens were collected from the same quarry at ‘a short distance from [NHMUK R1148 and R1629], and almost certainly belong to the same individual’ (Lydekker, 1890a: 263).</p> <p>Vertebrae</p> <p>Cervical vertebrae (Fig. 19) are mostly badly crushed and sheared, and their neural arches are separated and broken. Individually they retain some characteristic cervical features: strong opisthocoely; thick and rugose ventral keels (k); anteroposteriorly expanded parapophyses (par) close to the margin of the anterior articular condyle and positioned on a lateral ridge on the side of the centrum; broad neural canal; neural arches with no obvious neural spine; long, hooked, divergent postzygapophyses (poz). The prezygapophyses (prz) are widely separated from the midline and the diapophyseal facets (dia) lie above and lateral to the parapophyses.</p> <p>The dorsal vertebra is a crushed centrum that resembles in size and shape those associated with NHMUK R1148. The sacral vertebra comprises just a centrum (sheared off dorsally) and is somewhat crushed dorsoventrally. It was clearly a sacral, judged by its general shape and remnants of intervertebral sacral rib attachments, but little else can be gleaned. The caudal vertebrae are similarly poorly preserved, having been crushed, distorted, and broken (resulting in loss of the caudal ribs and neural arches). The more anterior in the series tend to have tall centra with subparallel sides, prominent haemal arch facets, and caudal ribs placed adjacent to the neurocentral suture. More posterior caudal centra have a lower profile and more angular sides, with a slight ridge dividing the external surface horizontally, just above midheight. Beneath this ridge, the sides converge upon a keeled area between the haemapophyses (chevron bone facets) that has a midline sulcus. The articular facets are oval and slightly depressed in their upper centre and the posterior haemapophysis is more prominent than the anterior. The posterior caudals are low, angular-sided cylinders with a prominent midline ridge laterally and the ventral surface is flattened, rather than sulcate.</p> <p>Metatarsal III</p> <p>Metatarsal III (right) is well preserved, but lacks its proximal half. It closely resembles the left metatarsal III of NHMUK R1148. This specimen is just slightly smaller than the latter (the width of the distal articular surface being 115 vs. 120 mm in R1148) but the details of the surface features are identical.</p> <p>Phalanges</p> <p>A manus ungual closely resembles in shape that of digit II of the manus of late Wealden taxa such as Iguanodon (Norman, 1980) and Mantellisaurus (Norman, 1986, 2012) in being elongate, but flattened and twisted distally.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B325DFF97FF03FDE5FC4D7B3C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3254FF90FC71F912FCC67A0A.text	03F9879B3254FF90FC71F912FCC67A0A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hypselospinus fittoni (Lydekker 1889)	<div><p>HYPSELOSPINUS FITTONI</p> <p>1. NHMUK R604 &amp; R604a</p> <p>A partial skeleton collected by Dawson from Hollington quarry (old specimen cards associated with this collection of bones indicate that it was collected at Ridge Farm quarry). Most of this collection represents the vertebral column: one cervical centrum and fragments of a neural arch, 12 dorsal vertebrae, 16 caudal vertebra, several fragmentary ribs, and the proximal end of a chevron bone. Other associated remains include: three worn and somewhat damaged maxillary crowns, a well-preserved pollex ungual, a partial ulna, and some bones of the pes. The specimen was initially referred to I. dawsoni by Lydekker (1888a, b), but a little later Lydekker (1889: 355) transferred it, without explanation, to I. hollingtoniensis.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical fragments exhibit typical features such as opisthocoely of the centrum, a thick ventral keel, and a parapophysis located, just posterior to the margin of the convex anterior articular surface, at midcentrum height on a raised ridge located.</p> <p>Dorsal vertebrae: The dorsal vertebrae are mostly well preserved and comprise a series of 12 (close to a complete dorsal vertebral count of 16). The numbering system adopted here is for guidance only.</p> <p>The most anterior of the preserved series is probably a first or second dorsal (d1/2; Fig. 20A–C). It retains a number of cervical morphological attributes: a low broad centrum, with a thick ventral keel and opisthocoely (and a modest convex anterior articular surface). Crucially (for positioning in the series), it has a large oval parapophysis (par) on the ventrolateral surface of the neural arch pedicel (clearly above the neurocentral suture – ncs). The transverse processes are robust and angled obliquely dorsolaterally. The prezygapophyses (prz) are separated from the midline by a shallow embayment and do not project forward; this is a standard configuration seen in cervicals (Fig. 19A, B). The pedicels that support the postzygapophyses (poz) are elongate and therefore overlap the succeeding vertebra substantially and the neural spine (ns) is posterodorsally inclined. Unfortunately, the spine is broken so its actual length is unknown. Neural spine length may have been substantial, judged by the shape of its base, and the spine length attained by succeeding dorsals).</p> <p>The next in the series is probably a third dorsal (d3; Fig. 21). It resembles the former in that the centrum is comparatively low and broad and it retains slight opisthocoely, although its anterior face is slightly concave (Fig. 21C). The ventral keel (k) is thick, albeit narrower than the previous example (Fig. 20). The parapophysis (par) is smaller and positioned higher on the neural arch pedicel above the neurocentral suture (ncs) than in the previous example. The prezygapophyses (prz) project anteriorly, are closer together on either side of the midline and the articular faces are more steeply inclined (Fig. 21C). The transverse processes are robust, elongate, and dorsolaterally directed, terminating in a well-developed tubercular facet (dia); the anteroventral surface of the transverse process is scarred (rs) by ligaments that helped to anchor the neck of the dorsal rib. The postzygapophyses (poz) do not overlap the succeeding vertebra so extensively as in the previous example and the neural spine (ns) is little damaged, showing it to have been remarkably tall, slender, and obliquely inclined (rising to a rugose, slightly expanded, apex).</p> <p>The fourth dorsal (d4; Fig. 22) is less complete, but continues the morphological transition: the centrum is taller than wide, the ventral keel (k) is narrower (Fig. 22B), and the anterior articular surface of the centrum is gently concave (Fig. 22C, the posterior half of the centrum is not preserved). The parapophysis is positioned higher on the pedicel, so that its upper border is now adjacent to the top edge of the prezygapophysis (Fig. 22A) and the transverse processes are massive and ligament scarred (rs) but less upswept than in the previous example.</p> <p>The seventh/eighth (d7/8) and ninth/tenth (d9/10) dorsals (Fig. 23) have centra of a more rectangular outline and smaller, more rounded parapophyses (par) compared with previous examples. The parapophysis (par) can also be seen to commence its lateral migration along the transverse process. These centra have a narrow keel and have shallowly concave articular surfaces [and the seventh/eighth example (Fig. 23A) is most similar to the dorsals of the holotype NHMUK R1148: Fig. 12]. Judged by their shape these centra (particularly d7/8) resemble ‘keystones’ at the centre of the span of an arched dorsal series. Centrum (d9/ 10 – Fig. 23B) leans more posteriorly and has rather thicker and more prominent articular margins.</p> <p>The ninth/tenth dorsal (Fig. 23B) includes a substantial portion of its neural spine. The transverse process is less robust. The centrum is has thickened, rugose articular margins.</p> <p>The most posterior dorsals (in the range d13−16: Fig. 24) have substantially larger, almost circular, articular faces; the anterior articular face of the centrum is shallowly concave, whereas the posterior face has become more obviously opisthocoelous. The articular margins of the centra form thickened rims that are more flared than previous examples. The centra also lean posteriorly. The last preserved dorsal (probably d16) has a more regular rectangular profile (Fig. 24 C−C3) and is anteroposteriorly compressed compared with the previous two examples, and has an almost circular articular face (C1). A ventral keel (k) is present in the first two examples, but is lost in the most posterior in the series (Fig. 24C 2). The parapophyses (par) are small, forming something akin to a ‘notch’ on the leading edge of the transverse processes. The transverse processes are less robust than earlier dorsals, horizontally directed as well as twisted along their length such that the dorsal surface faces anterodorsally (Fig. 24).</p> <p>Associated dorsal ribs: A few examples of partial dorsal ribs (NHMUK R604a) are illustrated (Fig. 25). The larger examples (Fig. 25A, B) are representative of those from the anterior of the dorsal series. They have robust shafts with a well-marked longitudinal ridge (ar) running down the anterolateral margin; this probably reflects the attachment area for the intercostal ligaments and musculature. The articular rib heads [the capitulum (cap) and tuberculum (tub)] are prominent and separated by a distinct ligament-scarred neck (n – reflecting the wide separation of parapophyses and diapophyses seen in the anterior dorsal series). Two more posterior dorsal ribs (Fig. 25C, D) are preserved and have more slender rod-shaped shafts and rib heads that are smaller and connected via a ligamentscarred ridge; this shows that the entire articular region (incorporating capitulum, tuberculum, and intervening neck) was securely fastened to its transverse process.</p> <p>Caudal vertebrae: The caudals in this collection include examples from the anterior, middle, and posterior sections of the tail, each of which have their own distinctive features that are generally indicative of progressive changes in shape along the length of the tail. The anterior caudals (Figs 26, 27) include one with an intact neural spine of considerable height.</p> <p>The most anterior caudal preserved (c2) has, when compared with others in the series, a relatively elongate centrum (Fig. 26A), which is slightly anteriorly inclined (more so dorsally). Its anterior articular face (Fig. 26A 1) exhibits a modest convexity dorsally and shallow concavity ventrally (which is similarly reflect- ed in the morphology of the posterior face: Fig. 26A 2). The centrum lacks an obvious haemal arch facet anteriorly, but a slight crease on the posteroventral rim (Fig. 26A 3) may indicate a haemapophysis (articular facet for a diminutive first haemal arch). The ventral surface of the centrum displays a pair of shallow sulci separated by a smooth midline keel and flanked lat- erally by similarly smooth ridges (Fig. 26A 3). The neural spine is broken off, but the prezygapophyses (prz) are anterodorsally directed prongs (Fig. 26A 4). The neural arch is squat and has very thick pedicels that enclose a relatively narrow neural canal. The pedicels flare laterally where they are fused to the bases of robust caudal ribs (cr), which are also sheared off.</p> <p>Succeeding caudals (Figs 26B – 28) show a graduat- ed series of changes: the centra become initially more axially compressed, the chevron facets (cf) become far more prominent on the anterior and posterior ventral rims, and the articular faces of the centrum tend to shift from an almost circular outline to more dorsoventrally elongate (Fig. 27). One of these caudals (?c5; Fig. 27) is well preserved, apart from relatively minor fracturing, displaying the full development of the caudal rib and structure of the neural spine. The latter is very elongate, slightly sinuous in profile and leans posteriorly; the lower half of the spine has thickened lateral flanks that are separated by grooves from midline ridges anteriorly and posteriorly (asr, psr).</p> <p>Farther behind the anterior caudals, the centra become more elongate, and have less oblique prezygapophyses (Fig. 28) and progressively less prominent caudal ribs. Later caudals become generally more rectangular in form and lose the prominent anterior chevron facet, as they also lose the caudal rib, which becomes reduced to a ridge on the side of the centrum. Posterior caudals (Fig. 29) become lower, lose the elongate neural spine, and, in proportion, their centra become more elongate and develop a hexagonal crosssection and a shallow ventral midline sulcus; these features are well displayed in NHMUK R1148 (R1632; Fig. 29B, C). The middle and posterior caudals of</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3254FF90FC71F912FCC67A0A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3278FFB8FC1FF941FBDB7EFE.text	03F9879B3278FFB8FC1FF941FBDB7EFE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hypselospinus fittoni (NHMUK R 1635)	<div><p>HYPSELOSPINUS FITTONI</p> <p>Figure 47 is a first attempt to develop a composite reconstruction of the skeleton of Hy. fittoni, based upon what is known of the type and referred material described above. Cranial material is unknown. The dentary is based upon NHMUK R1831 and R1834, the axial skeleton is based primarily upon NHMUK R33, R604, R1148, and R1834, the pectoral girdle and forelimb are based upon NHMUK R1831, R1834, and R604, and the pelvic girdle and hindlimb are based upon NHMUK R1635, R604, R811, R1834, and R1148.</p> <p>Hypselospinus is a large-bodied ornithopod with a body length that probably ranged up to 7 or even 8 m (judged from the largest fragmentary referred skeleton so far recovered: NHMUK R1627). Its general build would best be described as ‘mesomorph’: for example, this taxon was not as robustly constructed as the sympatric contemporary B. dawsoni. The forelimb and manus are constructed for weight support and locomotion, so the quadrupedal pose was probably normal, if not obligatory (the precise proportions of forelimb: hindlimb are not known). This pose is also echoed in the evidence of a massive, and reinforced, pectoral girdle. The term ‘reinforced’, is perhaps exaggerated in this instance because of the hyperostosis (in appearance similar to the medical condition diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis − ‘DISH’) visible in NHMUK R1831; this latter associated skeleton exhibits excessive bone growth adjacent to articular surfaces, e.g. across the sternocoracoid plate, antebrachium, carpus, manus, and unguals of the pes.</p> <p>The general pose and gait of this animal as reconstructed here is particularly influenced by the orientation of the pelvic girdle. This is shown tilted posteriorly (and this orientation also applies to the reconstruction of closely related taxa such as B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a: text-fig. 25), M. atherfieldensis (Norman, 1980: fig. 83), and I. bernissartensis (Norman, 1980: fig. 84). In each of these examples the ilium is notable for having a dorsal acetabular margin that is shallow and smoothly rounded (when the dorsal edge of the iliac blade is positioned horizontally – as it is in most illustrations). The pubic peduncle of the ilium is by contrast stout, triangular in cross-section, and bears a prominently lipped supra-acetabular crest. In addition, the pubic peduncle is sutured mediodorsally to the massive, ventrolaterally directed first sacral rib. It is clear from this structural arrangement that the primary weightbearing capacity of the entire pelvis is located on the pubic peduncle and the adjacent ‘keystones’ represent- ed by the first sacral ribs and sacral centrum, rather than the central section of the iliac acetabulum. In order to reflect these implied articular mechanics at the hip joint the ilium has to be rotated posterodorsally from the horizontal so that the pubic peduncle itself lies horizontally (in lateral view) and its supraacetabular crest is positioned so that it forms the dorsal margin of the acetabulum. Pelvic rotation affects the overall pose of the animal because of the way in which it alters the pattern of curvature along the vertebral column, especially insofar as it lowers the anterior caudal series.</p> <p>There has, in recent decades, been a near universal tendency to adopt by default ‘high-tailed’ and dynamic silhouette-style reconstructions for ornithopod dinosaurs [starting with Peter Galton’s (1970) ‘ Anatosaurus in a hurry’]. These artistic renderings are attractive to the eye and chime with the dynamic interpretation of dinosaurs promoted most notably by Robert T. Bakker during the 1970s. Although some of these reconstructions (notably those for theropod dinosaurs), seem biologically plausible, it has been realised that the anatomy portrayed in some dinosaur images has been compromised. The ‘cocked’ wrists and ‘rotating’ shoulder blades depicted in Gregory Paul’s earlier reconstructions of large-bodied ornithopods such as Iguanodon (Brett-Surman, 1997: fig. 24.6A) suggest the influence of Eadweard Muybridge’s stop-frame photographs of mammalian (horse) locomotion. The reorientation of the pelvis in Hypselospinus (and related ornithopods) has the visual effect of ‘cramping’ the pose and implied gait in these reconstructions because it removes some of the intrinsic dynamism of the pose of these dinosaurs.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3278FFB8FC1FF941FBDB7EFE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B327AFFB9FF5CFF6BFD647B1F.text	03F9879B327AFFB9FF5CFF6BFD647B1F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Barilium dawsoni (Norman 2011)	<div><p>BARILIUM DAWSONI (LYDEKKER, 1888A) NORMAN, 2010</p> <p>Although a sympatric contemporary of Hypselospinus this taxon can be readily distinguished anatomically (Norman, 2010, 2011a).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth of Barilium have a simpler ridge pattern on the enamelled lingual surface of the crown (Norman, 2011a: text-fig. 20): the primary and secondary ridges are clearly demarcated and subequal in size and there are very few strand-like accessory ridges The referred dentary of B. dawsoni (NHMUK OR28660 – see Kukufeldia tilgatensis below) is very large, robust, and straight and similar in shape to that seen in I. bernissartensis (see also discussion below), as noted by Lydekker (1888b), rather than being arched anteriorly as in the case of Hypselospinus.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The dorsal vertebrae of Barilium are large and cylindrical, and have wide and comparatively tall neural spines (when viewed laterally) compared with those of Hypselospinus; the latter are more slender and taller. The anterior caudal vertebrae of Barilium are low and angular sided, whereas those of Hypselospinus are more cylindrical, axially compressed, and bear very elongate, narrow, neural spines; the more posterior caudals of Barilium tend to have strongly amphicoelous articular faces to the centrum.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The shoulder girdle and forelimb in these two taxa are very similar. However, the pollex spine of Barilium is short, blunt, and transversely compressed whereas that of Hypselospinus is tall, inclined, and pointed. The pelves have distinctive ilia: unlike Hypselospinus, Barilium has a thick, axially twisted preacetabular process, and the dorsal edge of the ilium is transversely thick and rounded. The postacetabular portion of the iliac blade has a deep, medially curving surface with a posterior margin that is rounded in lateral view; it also lacks the well-developed brevis fossa demarcated by a prominent lateral ridge that is present in ilia of Hy. fittoni (Norman, 2010, 2011a). The hindlimb bones appear to be generally similar in these two taxa (although these elements are poorly represented in Barilium).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B327AFFB9FF5CFF6BFD647B1F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B327AFFB6FF1DF91AFD2E7EF9.text	03F9879B327AFFB6FF1DF91AFD2E7EF9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kukufeldia tilgatensis McDonald, Barrett & Chapman 2010	<div><p>KUKUFELDIA TILGATENSIS MCDONALD, BARRETT &amp; CHAPMAN, 2010 A</p> <p>This taxon is a potential sympatric contemporary of Hy. fittoni (Fig. 2) and was established upon an isolated, large, and robust dentary with two dentary teeth in place (NHMUK OR28660) that was collected from one of the historically important Whiteman’s Green Quarries near Cuckfield, West Sussex, England (Fig. 1). The quarry area is generally understood to expose lower Wealden strata [Hastings Group (Grinstead Clay Formation) Fig. 2, GC Fm] of middle−late Valanginian age.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are broad, shield-shaped, and the primary ridge is distally offset on the lingual surface of the crown; a slightly less prominent secondary ridge subdivides the mesial portion of the crown face into more or less equal sectors. Accessory (tertiary) ridges are either very few or entirely absent (poor preservation). These principal features differ markedly from those described in the dentary crowns of Hy. fittoni. The robust, straight dentary ramus of NHMUK OR28660 differs from the comparatively slender and anteriorly downturned dentary of Hy. fittoni (NHMUK R1831, R1834).</p> <p>Postcranial skeleton</p> <p>Unknown.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>This taxon is currently diagnosed on the basis of a single autapomorphy: an allegedly unique pattern of vascular openings seen on the external surface of the anterior end of the dentary. It should be noted that the pattern of vascular openings on the surface of any dinosaurian dentary can vary amongst individuals referred to the same taxon, and that such variation can also occur between left and right dentaries of the same individual. A single autapomorphy of this quality undermines the status of K. tilgatensis. Additional anatomical evidence used as supplementary support for this new taxon (McDonald, Barrett &amp; Chapman, 2010a) relied upon the mistaken reference of additional jaw material (NHMUK R1834) to B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a); this latter material is unambiguously referable to the Valanginian taxon Hy. fittoni (Norman, 2010, 2011b and herein).</p> <p>In reply to critical comments concerning the status of Kukufeldia, McDonald (2012b) accepted that the teeth referred to B. dawsoni (Norman, 2011a, b) resembled those seen in the dentary of Kukufeldia. However, he observed that similar dental morphologies are to be seen in the sympatric taxa Mantellisaurus and Iguanodon and that attribution of the teeth in the jaw of NHMUK OR28860 to B. dawsoni was therefore unsafe. Although the dental resemblances noted by McDonald are true, the two latter species are not Valanginian contemporaries of B. dawsoni (both are substantially younger, having a upper Barremian–Lower Aptian stratigraphical range – Fig. 2). There are at present two alternative explanations available for this unsatisfactory situation. Firstly, the jaw collected at Cuckfield might actually pertain either to the Hauterivian or the Weald Clay Formation (Barremian). Inliers of younger beds are known to occur as slivers in the western part of the Hastings Group outcrop area (Topley, 1875; Batten &amp; Austen, 2011). It is at least possible that the Weald Clay was exposed at Cuckfield at the time the original specimen was collected and that the dentary in question can be referred to I. bernissartensis. In this regard, it is interesting to note that within the Mantell Collection (NHMUK) there are several specimens, notably a sternal bone, pubis, and ischium, all labelled as having been collected from ‘Tilgate Forest’ that resemble the equivalent bones of the Barremian−Lower Aptian aged Mantellisaurus (Fig. 2; D. B. Norman, unpubl. data). Unfortunately, there is no more specific locality information associated with these specimens. If a range extension into the Hauterivian/Barremian is considered inadmissible, the balance of probability appears to favour the assertion that the dentary assigned to K. tilgatensis is from the Grinstead Clay Formation (Valanginian). The only specimen attributed to this latter taxon can be referred to B. dawsoni; this view is now supported by Andrew McDonald (pers. comm. 5 October 2013).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B327AFFB6FF1DF91AFD2E7EF9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3275FFB6FCF7FEFFFA857B8C.text	03F9879B3275FFB6FCF7FEFFFA857B8C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Delapparentia Ruiz-Omenaca 2011	<div><p>DELAPPARENTIA TUROLENSIS RUIZ- OMENACA, 2011</p> <p>This taxon is based upon a partial associated skeleton collected at Galve in the Province of Teruel in the Autonomous region of Aragon (Camarillas Formation: lower Barremian).</p> <p>Axial and appendicular skeletons</p> <p>The skeletal elements include an articulated series of anterior caudal vertebrae, a variety of cervical and dorsal rib fragments, and portions of all three pelvic bones. Suggested autapomorphies of this taxon include the ‘stepped’ form of the capitulum and tuberculum in posterior dorsal ribs, ossified sternal ribs, pneumatic foramina in dorsal ribs, a transversely expanded preacetabular process of the ilium, and a very large ischium. The posterior rib-head characters cannot be used to distinguish this taxon from Hy. fittoni, which has similarly ‘stepped’ posterior dorsal ribs (this is a feature common to all ornithopod dinosaurs); the presence of ossified sternal ribs and pneumatic dorsal ribs are unique and unexpected in ornithischian dinosaurs. The preacetabular process of the ilium differs significantly in shape from that seen in Hy. fittoni and, although the structure of the proximal end of the ischium is similar to that seen in ornithopods generally, its large size relative to the ilium is highly unusual.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>The stepped rib-head character is not a valid autapomorphy because it is widely seen in tetrapod vertebrates. The reported presence of ossified sternal ribs and pneumatic openings in some dorsal ribs would be unique. However, there is a pressing need to exclude the likelihood that these fragmentary elements belong to the large theropod whose remains were collected at the same locality (Ruiz-Omenaca, 2011: 85). The preacetabular process of the ilium closely resembles that described in I. bernissartensis (Norman, 1980) and the ischium (and pubis), judged by their comparative size, cannot belong to the same individual as the ilium; this suggests that there has been some mixing of skeletal elements from different individuals. Subject to further study this taxon is considered provisionally to be a nomen dubium.</p> <p>IGUANACOLOSSUS FORTIS MCDONALD,</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3275FFB6FCF7FEFFFA857B8C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3275FFB6FF54FC7EFBE67C7D.text	03F9879B3275FFB6FF54FC7EFBE67C7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fukuisaurus Kobayashi & Azuma 2003	<div><p>FUKUISAURUS TETORIENSIS KOBAYASHI &amp; AZUMA, 2003</p> <p>This taxon is based upon a disarticulated partial skull and an isolated sternal plate of a comparatively small (∼ 4 m long) ornithopod collected from Kitadani Quarry, Fukui Prefecture, Japan. The geological age of the material is late Hauterivian−Barremian.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary crowns (Kobayashi &amp; Azuma, 2003: fig. 5C, D) are similar in general shape to those described in Hy. fittoni. The published description (Kobayashi &amp; Azuma, 2003: 170–171) is at variance with the actual appearance of the teeth: a well-defined primary ridge is clearly distally offset on the lingual surface of the crown and there is a mesially positioned secondary ridge and minor accessory ridges are present extending thecally from the marginal denticles on the mesial edge of the crown. Details of the secondary ridge and accessory ridges differ from those seen in Hy. fittoni dentary crowns. The dentary (Kobayashi &amp; Azuma, 2003: fig. 4C, D) is robust and comparatively short, has an anterior end that is straight and somewhat tapered (rather than being arched), and there is a tall, perpendicular coronoid process; all these features are distinct from those seen in material referred to Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>A hatchet-shaped sternal, very similar in outline to that seen in M. atherfieldensis (Norman, 1986: figs 45, 46) and distinct from the robust, posteromedially ‘aproned’ form seen in Hy. fittoni is the only element so far reported in this taxon.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3275FFB6FF54FC7EFBE67C7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3274FFB7FF1AFB70FA4A7FA2.text	03F9879B3274FFB7FF1AFB70FA4A7FA2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hippodraco	<div><p>HIPPODRACO SCUTODENS MCDONALD, KIRKLAND, DEBLIEUX, MADSEN, CAVIN, MILNER &amp; PANZARIN, 2010 B</p> <p>This taxon is based upon a nearly complete skull and fragmentary skeleton of a single individual collected from a different locality and stratigraphical horizon to Iguanacolossus in Grand County, Utah, USA (McDonald et al., 2010b: 14). The material was recovered from the upper Yellow Cat Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation and is regarded as Barremian in age (Hunt et al., 2011).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are described as being too badly damaged or matrix-obscured for adequate description; they are evidently shield-shaped and bear a distally offset primary ridge, but no further details are available (McDonald et al., 2010b). The lower jaw appears to have a straight (not arched) dentary and a short diastema. The form of the coronoid process cannot be described because of overlying bones.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The dorsal vertebrae have comparatively short, ‘planklike’ neural spines (McDonald et al., 2010b: fig. 27), quite distinct from the form of those seen in equivalent vertebrae of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The scapula of H. scutodens (McDonald et al., 2010b: fig. 30C, D) is typically ornithopod, and very similar in shape to that seen in Hy. fittoni. The sternal bone (McDonald et al., 2010b: fig. 30A, B) is similar in morphology to that of Hy. fittoni with a broad, flattened ‘handle’ and a well-developed ‘blade’; however, there is no evidence of medial fusion into a conjoined sternal plate as seen in one specimen of Hy. fittoni. The remainder of the skeleton is poorly preserved and comparisons between these two taxa are uninformative.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3274FFB7FF1AFB70FA4A7FA2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3274FFB4FCD2FD52FE637E67.text	03F9879B3274FFB4FCD2FD52FE637E67.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iguanodon (Norman 1980)	<div><p>IGUANODON (? DAKOTADON) LAKOTAENSIS WEISHAMPEL &amp; BJORK, 1989</p> <p>This taxon was recovered from the Lakota Formation (Barremian) of Lawrence County, South Dakota and comprises a major portion of an articulated skull of a large (∼ 8 m long) ornithopod.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>Individual dentary crowns exhibit a distally offset primary ridge that is paralleled by a lower, mesially offset secondary ridge; there is little evidence of tertiary (accessory) ridges as seen in Hypselospinus. Dentary teeth are very similar in appearance to those seen in both B. dawsoni and I. bernissartensis. Maxillary teeth are narrower than those of the dentary and display a very prominent primary ridge that is slightly distally offset and few, if any, tertiary (accessory) ridges. The anterior half of the lower jaw exhibits a stout ramus with a buccal emargination posteriorly. The predentary has a denticulate oral margin and a bilobed ventral process. The dentary shares only generalized features with what is known of the dentary of Hypselospinus.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>The preserved skull of I. lakotaensis is similar in its proportions to that of I. bernissartensis (see below). Originally named I. lakotaensis in the description published by Weishampel &amp; Bjork (1989), Paul (2008) proposed the new generic name Dakotadon on the basis of an emended diagnosis (Paul, 2008: 199). The new diagnosis appears to contain a mixture of anatomy that is at variance with the original description and observations that are, at best, subjective in nature. As originally pointed out by Weishampel &amp; Bjork (1989), the anatomy of the skull and dentition closely resembles that seen in I. bernissartensis. Anatomical differences: the pattern of sutures between the lacrimal, jugal, and maxilla on the posterior border of the antorbital fenestra; the single (rather than double) opening for cranial nerve VII on the lateral wall of the proötic; the structure of the supraoccipital (the absence of a median ridge). An additional difference, although not alluded to by Weishampel &amp; Bjork (1989), is the comparatively low maxillary tooth position count (19). The structure of the supraoccipital was suspect- ed to be a preservational artefact and the incomplete nature of the neurocranial suturing further suggest- ed to the authors that this was a subadult individual; this latter factor may also explain the slightly reduced number of tooth positions.</p> <p>Paul (2008) did not offer a valid reason for the new generic assignment of the holotype of I. lakotaensis and, on the basis of what is currently known this specimen, it would seem preferable to refer to this as cf. Iguanodon lakotaensis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3274FFB4FCD2FD52FE637E67	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3277FFB4FF00FC97FB2878E2.text	03F9879B3277FFB4FF00FC97FB2878E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iguanodon bernissartensis BOULENGER 1881	<div><p>IGUANODON BERNISSARTENSIS BOULENGER, 1881 (IN BENEDEN, 1881) – (NORMAN, 1980)</p> <p>This upper Barremian–Lower Aptian (Fig. 2) sympatric taxon is large (10+ m long) with a robustly construct- ed skeleton that is reminiscent of that of the Valanginian B. dawsoni.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>Individual dentary crowns (Norman, 1980: fig. 19) lack the complex pattern of primary, secondary, and accessory ridges seen in Hypselospinus and are indistinguishable from those currently referred to Barilium. The lower jaw is deep, robust, and essentially straight [although some relatively uncrushed specimens (RBINS R56 (IRSNB 1680)) exhibit modest arching of the dentary ramus anteriorly]; this morphology contrasts with the more slender and arched dentary ramus morphology of the referred dentary of Hypselospinus (NHMUK R1834: Fig. 44). The coronoid process is also distinct in being tall and perpendicular to the long axis of the jaw in I. bernissartensis (Norman, 1980: pls I−IV) by comparison with the shorter and more obtuseangled coronoid process in the referred specimen NHMUK R1831 (Fig. 36). It should be noted that breakage and remedial reconstruction of NHMUK R1831 might account for some of the differences noted here.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical and dorsal vertebral centra are generally similar in shape and proportions, but are substantially larger and do not exhibit the extreme eversion of their articular rims seen in Hypselospinus. The dorsal neural spines of I. bernissartensis are typically thick and tall (‘plank-like’: Norman, 1980: figs 34–40) compared with the very slender and elongate neural spines seen in some of the better-preserved dorsals of Hypselospinus. Caudals of I. bernissartensis also lack the tall, narrow neural spines that are characteristic of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The robust shoulder girdle and forelimb of I. bernissartensis resembles that seen in Hypselospinus, except that in the former the proportions of the limb are overall more elongate. The former taxon has a deeply notched coracoid foramen (rather than a fully enclosed foramen) and a more elongate, curved, and conical (rather than laterally compressed) pollex ungual. The manus of I. bernissartensis is proportionally larger and it has more elongate metacarpals (Norman, 1980: figs 52– 62). Both taxa share a tendency to ossify the connective tissue of the median sternal area between the coracoids and sternals in a manner reminiscent of secondary cartilage ossification (this was referred to as an intersternal ossification – Norman, 1980: 47). One example of Hypselospinus (NHMUK R1831 – Fig. 43) exhibits co-ossification of the sternals and this pathology may have involved the coracoids (fusion between the sternal bones has not been observed in any specimens referred to I. bernissartensis, although coracoid articulation against the intersternal ossification appears probable). The pelvis is structurally distinct: the ilium of I. bernissartensis is notable for its thick, robust preacetabular process; the thickened and rolled posterodorsal edge of the iliac blade, and the extremely elongate, tapering postacetabular ramus with its pronounced lateral ridge and very broad brevis fossa (Norman, 1980: fig. 64). The pubis has a thick, but comparatively narrow, proximal prepubic process that expands abruptly distally; this is quite distinct in outline from what is known of the shape of the prepubic process of Hypselospinus. The hindlimb is similar in overall morphology in both taxa, although the femoral shaft appears to be less markedly angular-sided and less bowed along its length in I. bernissartensis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3277FFB4FF00FC97FB2878E2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3277FFB5FC23FA6DFE267B8D.text	03F9879B3277FFB5FC23FA6DFE267B8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis (HOOLEY 1925)	<div><p>MANTELLISAURUS ATHERFIELDENSIS (HOOLEY, 1925) – (NORMAN, 1986)</p> <p>This is an upper Barremian−Lower Aptian sympatric Wealden taxon (Fig. 2). It has a more gracile morphology than Hy. fittoni. Osteologically mature skeletons of M. atherfieldensis appear to range between 6 and 7 m in body length.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>Individual dentary crowns are smaller and lack the complexity of ridge patterning when compared with that of Hypselospinus (Norman, 1986: figs 19, 21). The dentary ramus is slender and arched anteriorly and the coronoid process rises perpendicular to the long axis of the jaw, rather than at an obtuse angle, as appears to be the case in NHMUK R1831 (Fig. 36).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The dorsal column of M. atherfieldensis reveals centra that are smaller and more gently waisted than those in Hy. fittoni; they do not show the pronounced thickening noted on the articular rims of the centra, the oblique inclination of the centra, or extreme slenderness and elongation of dorsal and caudal neural spines (Norman, 1986: figs 29–32).</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle is more lightly built in M. atherfieldensis than in Hy. fittoni. In the former taxon, the scapula has a narrow proximal portion and a flared distal blade. The coracoid has a completely enclosed coracoid foramen (Norman, 1986, 2011b: text-fig. 27.43). The proportions of the sternals also differ: there is a broader and more elongate posteromedial extension to the sternal ‘blade’ in Hy. fittoni compared with that in M. atherfieldensis (Norman, 1986: fig. 45) as well as a shorter, somewhat flattened, and more robust ‘handle’. The forelimb is slender and lightly built in M. atherfieldensis, reflected in the shorter, sinuously shafted humerus and the slender, bowed radius, the partial co-ossification of the carpals, and the comparatively short, conical pollex ungual. The metacarpals are also comparatively slender and elongate (Norman, 1986: figs 50, 51; 2011b: text-fig. 27.44). The pelves are distinct (Norman, 2011b: text-fig. 27.10): the pubis of M. atherfieldensis has a very thin and dorsoventrally expanded prepubic process; the shaft of the ischium is essentially straight, angular-sided (with a slight curvature apparently present in some specimens), and narrow with a small, distal, anteriorly expanded ‘boot’. The ilium resembles (in simple outline shape) that of Hy. fittoni. However, in detail (Norman, 1986: fig. 54) the blade is lower and the preacetabular process is narrower proximally and develops an expanded medial ridge, which is very different when compared with that seen in Hy. fittoni. The postacetabular process develops a much less extensive and more posteriorly positioned brevis fossa. The hindlimb of M. atherfieldensis is less robust than that of Hy. fittoni; the femur (Norman, 2011a: text-figs 27.11, 27.46) has a less angular-sided shaft, the anterior trochanter is positioned more laterally and is narrow and blade-like, and the fourth trochanter is more proximally positioned and proportionally smaller than that seen in Hy. fittoni. The more distal portions of the limb and pes differ only in their comparative gracility.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3277FFB5FC23FA6DFE267B8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3276FFB2FF6DF8B9FE477C5D.text	03F9879B3276FFB2FF6DF8B9FE477C5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Jinzhousaurus yangi	<div><p>JINZHOUSAURUS YANGI WANG &amp; XU, 2001</p> <p>This taxon is based upon the nearly complete skull and postcranial skeleton of an ornithopod, of about 5 m body length, collected from the Yixian Formation of Liaoning Province, China, and dated as early Aptian (Swisher et al., 1999). Following the initial brief description and naming of this specimen, two detailed papers describing the skull (Barrett et al., 2009) and postcranial skeleton (Wang et al., 2010) make this the best-illustrated and described Chinese derived ornithopod to date.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>Lateral crushing of the skull means that it is impossible to describe the structure of the lingual surface of individual dentary crowns. The lower jaw is robust and parallel-sided (Barrett et al., 2009: fig. 1) and shows no indication of arching of its ventral margin as seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical and dorsal series are typical and in general conform to those of typical derived (non-camptosaurgrade) ornithopods. In particular there is no evidence of pronounced thickening of the articular margins of the centra as noted in Hy. fittoni and the neural spines (Wang et al., 2010: figs 2, 3) are comparatively short and broad (and very distinct from the tall and slender form of spines described in Hy. fittoni).</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle and forelimb (Wang et al., 2010: figs 6–8) are similar in shape and proportions to those described for Hy. fittoni. The scapular blade appears to be more flared distally, but the sternals are very similar in shape and in both taxa there is a welldeveloped posteromedial apron on the blade; however, there is no indication of fusion or co-ossification of sternals in the skeleton of Jinzhousaurus (Wang et al., 2010: fig. 6). The radius and ulna are robust in J. yangi and closely resemble those of Hy. fittoni. The carpus is partially fused, block-like, and incorporates metacarpal I, which thus sets digit I off at an acute angle from the palmar metacarpals (II−IV). The principal manus elements resemble those seen in Hy. fittoni: the pollex ungual is spine-like, curved along its length, and laterally compressed; it also appears to retain remnants of the claw grooves (Wang et al., 2010: fig. 8). Metacarpals II−IV are subequal in length and appear closely appressed when articulated naturally. Digits II and III end in well-developed, flattened unguals (which are not present on digits IV and V). The pelvis and hindlimb are less well preserved and more difficult to interpret. The postacetabular process of the ilium bears a lateral ridge and brevis fossa that resembles that seen in Hy. fittoni. The ischium is robust and has a slightly curved shaft and modestly expanded ischiadic ‘boot’ at its distal end. The femur is also robustly constructed and, although crushed, the structure of the anterior and fourth trochanters and the form of the shaft are reminiscent of the structures seen in Hy. fittoni. Attention is drawn to the similarities between this taxon and Bolong (below).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3276FFB2FF6DF8B9FE477C5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3271FFB2FF0EFEC2FAAA7C11.text	03F9879B3271FFB2FF0EFEC2FAAA7C11.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bolong yixianensis	<div><p>BOLONG YIXIANENSIS WU, GODEFROIT &amp; HU, 2010</p> <p>This taxon is based on a partial skull and articulated skeleton of a medium-sized (3–4 m long) ornithopod that was collected at Bataigou, Toutai, Yixian County, western Liaoning Province, China (middle Yixian Formation: late Barremian−early Aptian). This specimen was first reported on the basis of its cranial remains (Wu et al., 2010), but a more complete description has now been published (Wu &amp; Godefroit, 2012).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth display a distally offset primary ridge and less prominent secondary ridge that divides the mesial sector of the crown; there are no multiple accessory ridges seen on these crown surfaces as are present in crowns of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial and appendicular skeletons</p> <p>The dorsal and caudal vertebrae display rectangular, slightly posteriorly inclined neural spines, but these are not narrow and elongate as in Hy. fittoni. The comparatively short and robust antebrachium resembles that seen in Hy. fittoni, but is capped distally by a group of six separate carpals, rather than a fused carpometacarpus. In the manus a flattened proximal phalanx is preserved at the base of the mobile, triangular, and laterally compressed pollex ungual. The metacarpals of digits II−IV are comparatively short and robust, and metacarpal II is typically shorter than the other two. The second and third digits have flattened, hoof-like unguals, the fourth digit has two small phalanges only, and the fifth digit seems to have been divergent. The pelvis is poorly preserved, but the postacetabular process of the ilium appears to form a narrow rectangular plate, unlike that seen in Hy. fittoni. In other respects what can be seen of the pelvic and hindlimb elements seems to resemble the morphology of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>Wu &amp; Godefroit (2012) reported that the caudal ribs of this specimen are unfused to their centra, which led them to suspect that this specimen had not attained adult size. The lack of co-ossification of the carpal elements may therefore also be a reflection of ontogenetic immaturity. Nevertheless, the dental morphology, structure of the dorsal and caudal vertebrae, as well as the structure of the postacetabular process of the ilium serve to distinguish Bolong from Hypselospinus. It is noted that these taxa share a number of anatomical similarities, despite their apparent incongruent stratigraphical (Valanginian vs. late Barremian) and geographical (Europe vs. Asia) distributions. It should also be noted, in passing, that Jinzhousaurus and Bolong, although they differ in size are sympatric, very similar anatomically, and approximately coeval.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3271FFB2FF0EFEC2FAAA7C11	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3271FFB2FCC8FB24FB8F7B82.text	03F9879B3271FFB2FCC8FB24FB8F7B82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ratchasimasaurus	<div><p>RATCHASIMASAURUS SURANAREAE SHIBATA, JINTASKUL &amp; AZUMA, 2011</p> <p>This taxon comprises an isolated, toothless, left dentary collected from Khok Kruat Subdistrict, Muang Hakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, northeast Thailand (Khok Kruat Formation: Aptian). It was diagnosed on the basis of its elongate and dorsoventrally shallow dentary ramus. This specimen displays the crown-shaped impressions in the replacement channels exposed in the medial view of the lateral alveolar wall (Norman, 2002); it also displays a low and oblique, but notably anteroposteriorly expanded, coronoid process. The lower and more elongate form of the dentary ramus, the lower and transversely expanded symphyseal region, and unusually thickened coronoid process distinguish this material from the dentary elements referred to Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>See Siamodon (above).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3271FFB2FCC8FB24FB8F7B82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3271FFB2FC22FE0CFAF77939.text	03F9879B3271FFB2FC22FE0CFAF77939.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Siamodon	<div><p>SIAMODON NIMNGAMI BUFFETAUT &amp; SUTEETHORN, 2011</p> <p>Siamodon is based upon a well-preserved isolated maxilla with some teeth still in place. In addition, an isolated tooth and partial neurocranium have also been referred to this taxon. The material was collected at Ban Saphan Hin, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, northeast Thailand, from the Khok Kruat Formation (Aptian – Buffetaut &amp; Suteethorn, 2011: 52). These specimens are based upon material that cannot be compared directly with the hypodigm of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>The diagnosis of this taxon does not include any autapomorphic states, which suggests that until more material is collected and described, this taxonomic name should be considered a nomen dubium. It is possible that this material is referable to Ratchasimasaurus, which was described (almost simultaneously) by another group of researchers (Shibata, Jintasakul &amp; Azuma, 2011). However, the latter authors suggest (based upon undescribed maxillae) that there may have been two distinct taxa in the Khok Kruat Formation.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3271FFB2FC22FE0CFAF77939	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3271FFB3FCCFF8B9FE6F7B26.text	03F9879B3271FFB3FCCFF8B9FE6F7B26.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ouranosaurus nigeriensis	<div><p>OURANOSAURUS NIGERIENSIS TAQUET, 1975</p> <p>Ouranosaurus is a well-described ornithopod from the Aptian (Taquet, 1976) or Aptian−Albian (Sereno et al., 1999) of Niger. Comparatively slender in build, this animal attained a length of 6–7 m when mature and is notable for the extremely elongate and expanded neural spines across its dorsal, sacral, and caudal series (Taquet, 1975, 1976).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth (Taquet, 1976: pl. XX), although similar in general shape to those of Hy. fittoni, do not show the complexity of morphology of secondary and accessory ridges seen in the latter taxon. The dentary of O. nigeriensis (Taquet, 1976: fig. 29) is extremely elongate, has a long edentulous region, and its ramus deepens anteriorly, and therefore differs in structure from that seen in material referred to Hy. fittoni, although the comparative size and oblique orientation of the coronoid process of the dentary is similar in both taxa.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>Ouranosaurus nigerienis and Hy. fittoni can be distinguished from others by the remarkable elongation of their dorsal, sacral, and caudal neural spines; however, those of O. nigeriensis are not only extremely elongate, but widen apically to create a completely different profile (Taquet, 1976: fig. 40) and have none of the complexity seen on the preaxial and postaxial edges in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The postcranial skeletons of both taxa are generally similar although that of O. nigeriensis is more lightly constructed. The forelimb is more slender, notably the radius and ulna, but the carpometacarpal block is well developed and the pollex ungual is tall, subconical, bluntly pointed, and exhibits little curvature (Taquet, 1976: fig. 57c). The pelvis differs from that of Hy. fittoni (Taquet, 1976: figs 58, 59). The femur is straighter than that of Hy. fittoni (Taquet, 1976: fig. 62) and has a less angular shaft, a laterally flattened anterior trochanter, and the extensor intercondylar groove may have been more open when compared with that of Hy. fittoni. The remainder of the hindlimb has no obviously distinguishing anatomy although the pedal unguals may be shorter, more blunt, and may lack claw grooves (Taquet, 1976: fig. 71d).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3271FFB3FCCFF8B9FE6F7B26	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3270FFB3FCD3FBF9FA437BD8.text	03F9879B3270FFB3FCD3FBF9FA437BD8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Jintasaurus You & Li 2009	<div><p>JINTASAURUS MENISCUS YOU &amp; LI, 2009</p> <p>Jintasaurus comprises an incomplete posterior skull roof and braincase. It was found in the Yujingzu Basin, Jinta County, Ganzu Province, China, and derives from the Xinminpu Group (Aptian−Albian).</p> <p>Cranium</p> <p>The skull roof is broad and flat, and the frontal contributes to the dorsal margin of the orbit. The skull profile (in occipital view) is low and broad and resembles that seen in Ouranosaurus (Taquet, 1976); the paroccipitals are elongate, curved, and taper to a blunt point.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>It is impossible to draw comparisons between the cranial elements of Jintasaurus (well described and illustrat- ed) and the remains of its sympatric contemporary Xuwulong (below). Doubts must be expressed over the validity of Jintasaurus and Xuwulong as separate taxa.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3270FFB3FCD3FBF9FA437BD8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3270FFB3FF2AF9D6FA927979.text	03F9879B3270FFB3FF2AF9D6FA927979.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lurdusaurus Taquet & Russell 1999	<div><p>LURDUSAURUS ARENATUS TAQUET &amp; RUSSELL, 1999</p> <p>Lurdusaurus is known from a partial articulated skeleton that has yet to be published in detail (Taquet &amp; Russell, 1999; see Chabli, 1988). The specimen was collected at Gadouafaoua, Niger, North Africa, from deposits that are dated as Aptian (Taquet, 1976; Taquet &amp; Russell, 1999) or Aptian−Albian (Sereno et al., 1999). The specimen represents an extremely large, robust- ly constructed ornithopod that was a sympatric contemporary of Ouranosaurus.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical and dorsal series are constructed similarly to those seen in other large-bodied ornithopods. The dorsal and caudal vertebrae appear to bear relatively short neural spines that are also thick; these are completely unlike those seen in either the sympatric contemporary O. nigeriensis or Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle and forelimb are extremely robustly constructed. There is evidence for the presence of an intersternal ossification (Chabli, 1988) similar in morphology to that reported in I. bernissartensis (Norman, 1980) but this has not led to fusion between the sternal plates as seen in Hy. fittoni. The humerus is considerably longer than the very short, stout radius and ulna. The carpometacarpus is heavily co-ossified and the pollex is conical, curved, and very large (similar to that seen in I. bernissartensis). The metacarpals are comparatively short and closely resemble those typical of camptosaurians, which implies that the digits of the hand could be widely spread (Gilmore, 1909; pers. observ., USNM October 2011). What is known of the pelvis and hindlimb also differs significantly from the equivalent elements in Hy. fittoni (Chabli, 1988).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3270FFB3FF2AF9D6FA927979	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3270FFB0FCD5F95BFB947D9F.text	03F9879B3270FFB0FCD5F95BFB947D9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xuwulong	<div><p>XUWULONG YUELUNI YOU, LI &amp; LIU, 2011</p> <p>Xuwulong is represented by a complete skull, most of the vertebral column, the ribcage, and the left pelvic girdle. The skeleton was collected from the Yujingzi Basin in Jinta County, north-western Gansu Province, China, and from the Xinminpu Group (Aptian−Albian), as does Jintasaurus (see above). The specimen has been described briefly, with some accompanying photographs and a simple interpretative outline of the skull.</p> <p>Cranium</p> <p>The skull, although slightly crushed, exhibits a flat skull roof and the frontal contributes to the dorsal margin of the orbit. A long, tapering palpebral crosses the orbit; the nasals form elongate rostral spines that are lodged against the mediodorsal premaxillary process; the external nares are enlarged; and the premaxilla appears to be ventrolaterally flared. The quadrate is pillarlike and its jugal wing is deeply notched to receive the quadratojugal (a paraquadrate foramen may be present).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>A single functional tooth and one replacement crown are present in each alveolus. The maxillary crowns are described as possessing a single prominent primary ridge that is slightly offset distally on the crown face; occasional smaller secondary ridges may also be present. The dentary crowns are described as bearing two low ridges, with some additional weak ridges. The margins of the maxillary and dentary crowns are denticulate. The dentary is robust and bears a prominent, laterally offset, and prominent coronoid process; the dentary ramus is robust and comparatively short, terminating in an obliquely positioned predentary, which bears a denticulate margin and a bifurcated ventral process.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>A complete series of 11 cervicals is preserved, and it has been suggested that there are 16 dorsals; the sacral region is obscured by the pelvic bones, but it has been estimated that at least six sacrals are present. Nineteen caudals from the anterior and middle portion of the tail are preserved, along with their haemal spines. The dorsal vertebrae appear to support oblique, rectangular spines that are considerably shorter than those seen in Hypselospinus. Caudal vertebrae support narrower and taller neural spines.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The ilium is well preserved and resembles in the details of its form and proportions that of Hypselospinus. The pubis has an extremely elongate, expanded, and downturned prepubic blade and an elongate rodshaped posterior pubic ramus. The ischium has an elongate, somewhat angular-sided, shaft that is arched dorsally and terminates in an anteriorly expanded boot; this bone appears to resemble the ischium of Hypselospinus in its general shape and proportions. Taxonomic note</p> <p>See Jintasaurus (above).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3270FFB0FCD5F95BFB947D9F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3273FFB1FCE3FE9FFDB87F2F.text	03F9879B3273FFB1FCE3FE9FFDB87F2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Proa	<div><p>PROA VALDEARINNOENSIS MCDONALD, ESPÍLEZ, MAMPEL, KIRKLAND &amp; ALCALÁ, 2012 B</p> <p>Proa comprises cranial and postcranial remains of several individuals of a medium-sized ornithopod (5– 6 m long) collected from the Escucha Formation (lower Albian) of Teruel, Spain. This taxon is only known from a preliminary description of some of the principal cranial bones, the pelvis, and femur (McDonald et al., 2012b).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The maxillary crowns are morphologically similar to those of Hy. fittoni in that they are typically lozengeshaped with a distally offset, high primary ridge flanked by a variable number of strand-like accessory ridges (McDonald et al., 2012b: fig. 7). The dentary crowns are broader and more shield-shaped but appear to lack the shoulder-like coronal margin seen in the crowns of Hy. fittoni, and have a rather more symmetrical (almost triangular) profile in lingual aspect. The primary ridge is distally offset and the secondary ridge (mesially positioned) is described as being of equal prominence, and faint multiple accessory ridges are also present. One functional tooth and one replacement crown is present in each alveolus. The dentary is well preserved and has a prominent, perpendicular coronoid process that has an expanded apex. The dentary ramus is arched along its length and is comparatively stout; its external surface of its distal end is modified to form a horizontal ridge and adjacent channel to accommodate the lateral arm of the large predentary bone. The alveolar recess is marked by replacement grooves for the teeth that do not form parallel grooves, but are shaped to accommodate the expanded crowns. The posterior alveoli extend posteriorly as far as the posteri- or margin of the base of the coronoid process.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The ilium has a prominent, thick preacetabular process that is twisted axially, terminating in a horizontally orientated flange. The dorsal margin of the ilium is convex and posterodorsal to the ischiadic peduncle there is a prominent bulbous facet. The dorsal edge of the postacetabular process is elongate and curves smoothly ventrally, with no obvious abrupt break in slope; the ventral edge of this process was not described. In the structure of the preacetabular process, the dorsal margin of the iliac blade, and the bulbous facet, this ilium is distinct from that of Hy. fittoni. The pubic peduncle appears to show a well-developed supra-acetabular crest that does not form a lip along the dorsal margin of the acetabulum. The pubis has a notably elongate prepubic process, which forms a parallel-sided, comparatively narrow plate that is not expanded toward its distal end; this morphology is unlike that seen in Hy. fittoni. The femur, although somewhat crushed and distorted, appears to have a straight shaft, and does not seem to display the angularity of the shaft seen in Hy. fittoni. The femoral head is globular and offset medially, but it is unclear whether the posterior side of the head was notched; the anterior trochanter appears to be robust and similar in form to that of Hy. fittoni, and the fourth trochanter is large and of the crested form. The extensor intercondylar groove is completely enclosed by expansion of the adjacent condyles, and unlike the morphology seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3273FFB1FCE3FE9FFDB87F2F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3272FFB1FF5CFD2FFBAE7E44.text	03F9879B3272FFB1FF5CFD2FFBAE7E44.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Altirhinus kurzanovi Norman 1998	<div><p>ALTIRHINUS KURZANOVI NORMAN, 1998</p> <p>Altirhinus includes the skull and partial skeleton of a medium-large sized ornithopod (∼ 8 m long) collect- ed from the lower Albian of Khuren Dhuk, Mongolia (Norman, 1998; Hicks et al., 1999).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth (Norman, 1998: figs 21, 22) have broad, shield-like lingual surfaces divided by ridges. There is a distally offset primary ridge and a mesial secondary ridge, but there is a consistent additional pattern: distally positioned accessory (tertiary) ridges give the crown a more symmetrical appearance. None of the mesially placed strand-like accessory ridges, seen in the dentary crowns of Hy. fittoni, is present on the crowns of A. kurzanovi. At least three teeth (two replacement and one functional) appear to be present in each alveolus of the dentary. In some instances two crowns within the same alveolus contribute to the occlusal surface of the dentary (Norman, 1998: fig. 22). The dentary has a generally similar form (Norman, 1998: fig. 16) to that seen in Hy. fittoni. However, the anterior portion of the dentary of A. kurzanovi is longer and more strongly arched near the symphysis and the coronoid process is both taller and more obviously perpendicular to the long axis of the jaw.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>This part of the skeleton is poorly represented in the original material. Short and broad neural spines are found on the anterior caudals (Norman, 1998: fig. 24) and distinguish these from those seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The forelimb resembles that which is seen in largebodied ornithopods, except that the radius and ulna are more slender and elongate (Norman, 1998: fig. 28). The carpals are not co-ossified (Norman, 1998: fig. 29) and the manus is notable for the elongation and close opposition of metacarpals II−IV. The pollex ungual (Norman, 1998: fig. 31A, B) is large, pointed, lateral- ly compressed, and retains paired claw grooves; it has a narrower base than that seen in Hy. fittoni. The pelvis is distinct from the latter species in having an ilium with a well-developed medial ridge on the preacetabular process, a pronounced eversion along the dorsal margin in the region just posterior to the ischiadic peduncle, and no obvious development of a lateral ridge-brevis fossa complex along the ventrolateral edge of the postacetabular process. The prepubic process is bladelike, laterally compressed, expands distally, and is arched ventrally along its length and quite distinct from that seen in Hy. fittoni. The ischium has a narrow, straight shaft, quite distinct from that seen in Hy. fittoni, but the form of its distal end is unknown (Norman, 1998: figs 32–34). The remainder of the hindlimb is poorly preserved (Norman, 1998), but the femur is reported to have had a curved (rather than straight) shaft, and what is known of the remainder of the hindlimb differs in no obvious way from what is known in medium to large-sized iguanodontians.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3272FFB1FF5CFD2FFBAE7E44	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3272FFB1FCEFFCF6FBF47BD9.text	03F9879B3272FFB1FCEFFCF6FBF47BD9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Penelopognathus	<div><p>PENELOPOGNATHUS WEISHAMPELI GODEFROIT, LI &amp; SHANG, 2005</p> <p>This taxon is based upon an isolated dentary, with some embedded tooth crowns, belonging to a medium-sized (∼ 3.5 m long) ornithopod. It was collected at Qiriga, Inner Mongolia, China, and was recovered from the Bayan Gobi Formation, which is dated as Albian (Godefroit, Li &amp; Shang, 2005).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary crowns appear to be remarkably similar to those seen in taxa such as M. atherfieldensis (compare Godefroit et al., 2005: fig. 3, with Norman, 1986: fig. 21), and are thus distinct from those referred to Hy. fittoni. The dentary ramus is straight, rather than arched anteriorly; the coronoid process is tall and perpendicular to the long axis of the dentary, rather than short and oblique as appears to be the case in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Taxonomic note</p> <p>The diagnosis of this specimen lacks any characters that might be considered unique amongst iguanodontian ornithopods, and this taxon is therefore considered a nomen dubium. Despite the claim that this is an Albianaged taxon, the morphology of the dentary and its teeth resemble those seen in the Barremian−Lower Aptian taxon M. atherfieldensis (e.g. NHMUK R5764 – D. B. Norman, unpubl. data).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3272FFB1FCEFFCF6FBF47BD9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3272FFCEFC83F95BFD1479F1.text	03F9879B3272FFCEFC83F95BFD1479F1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lanzhousaurus magnidens Norman 2015	<div><p>LANZHOUSAURUS MAGNIDENS YOU, JI &amp; LI, 2005</p> <p>Lanzhousaurus is known from some skull bones and teeth, parts of the vertebral column, and some individual appendicular elements. Collected from Zhongpu, Gansu Province, China, and reported as coming from the Hekou Group (‘Early Cretaceous’ – You et al., 2005: 786).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth resemble those described in Hy. fittoni quite closely in outline and in the details of the ridge pattern on the lingual enamelled surface of the crown. The teeth of Lanzhousaurus are substantially larger than those of Hy. fittoni (some reportedly being 75 mm wide across the enamelled face – You et al., 2005: fig. 2E) and there are far fewer tooth positions (14) in the dentary of L. magnidens. The dentary is arched anteriorly and there is a large, obliquely inclined coronoid process (You et al., 2005: fig. 1A, D).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The centra of cervical vertebrae are opisthocoelous and the anterior dorsal series exhibits tall, but comparatively thick, neural spines (You et al., 2005: fig. 3A) that are more closely comparable to those of B. dawsoni or I. bernissartensis than the slender and elongate morphology seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>A sternal plate (You et al., 2005: fig. 3B) is preserved and is similar in outline to that seen in Hy. fittoni in having a large ‘blade’ and a comparatively short, flattened ‘handle’. The pubis (You et al., 2005: fig. 3C) shows a deep, laterally compressed prepubic process that is strongly expanded distally; this is unlike the general form inferred in material assigned to Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3272FFCEFC83F95BFD1479F1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320DFFCEFF0EFB61FB39790F.text	03F9879B320DFFCEFF0EFB61FB39790F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Equijubus	<div><p>EQUIJUBUS NORMANI YOU, LUO, SHUBIN, WITMER,</p> <p>TANG &amp; TANG, 2003b (MCDONALD ET AL., 2014)</p> <p>Equijubus was collected from the ‘Middle Grey Unit’, Xinminpu Group (Albian: Tang et al., 2001), Gongpoquan Basin, Gansu Province, China (You et al., 2003b). The specimen consists of a nearly complete skull and a very incomplete postcranial skeleton comprising a series of articulated cervical and dorsal vertebrae, as well as some pectoral, pelvic, and hindlimb fragments (McDonald et al., 2014).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are broad and shield-shaped and similar in general outline to those of Hy. fittoni in having a distally offset primary ridge (but this is generally rather less prominent and poorly developed compared with Hy. fittoni), an indistinct secondary ridge, and multiple strand-like accessory ridges. The dentary crowns have a narrower coronal margin and a less pronounced mesial ‘shoulder’ than seen in Hy. fittoni. The marginal denticles form simple conical structures, but those found on the mesial and distal edges of the crown form curved ledges that wrap around these edges and are mammillate. Although two replacement crowns were reported to be present beneath each functional tooth (You et al., 2003b), this seems to be contradicted by McDonald et al. (2014) and a single replacement crown seems to have been present, as in Hy. fittoni (NHMUK R1831).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervicals and dorsals show no particularly distinguishing characters. The bases of some neural spines suggest that the neural spines were thick and robust, and not narrow and elongate as in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The sternal resembles that of Mantellisaurus in having an elongate, dorsoventrally compressed ‘handle’ and a relatively small ‘blade’ and small posterior process (unlike that of Hy. fittoni). The incomplete ilium is attached to the sacrum. In general outline the preserved central portion resembles, in its proportions, that of Hy. fittoni but the brevis fossa appears to be absent and there is a more strongly everted facet on the dorsal margin of the blade, posterodorsal to the ischiadic peduncle. A fragment of the prepubic process is preserved and this suggests that this bone formed a laterally compressed plate with a pronounced distal expansion. The remnants of the femur indicate that the extensor intercondylar groove was completely enclosed and the distal portion of the femoral shaft was probably straight, rather than bowed.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320DFFCEFF0EFB61FB39790F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320DFFCFFCF5FB36FDA47F49.text	03F9879B320DFFCFFCF5FB36FDA47F49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nanyangosaurus	<div><p>NANYANGOSAURUS ZHUGEII XU, ZHAO, LÜ, HUANG, LI &amp; DONG, 2000</p> <p>This taxon is based upon an incomplete postcranial skeleton of a medium-sized (∼ 4.5 m long) ornithopod collected from the Sangping Formation of Neiziang, Henan Province, China (Xu et al., 2000). This formation was described as ‘Early Cretaceous’ in age but the support for this dating is vague. Nanyangosaurus is incompletely described and will benefit from an accurate description so that its anatomy and relationships can be clarified.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>These elements are unknown for Nanyangosaurus.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>What little is known suggests that this ornithopod had dorsal vertebrae with neural spines (Xu et al., 2000: fig. 1) that were neither narrow nor very elongate as they are in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The forelimb was more lightly constructed than in Hy. fittoni, with the radius and ulna being comparatively slender and bowed along their length (Xu et al., 2000: fig. 2D). There is no evidence for the presence of a pollex spine, and the carpus was not described although it was mentioned in translation as being ‘reduced’ (this structure might be able to provide additional information on the presence/absence of digit I in the manus). The femur (Xu et al., 2000: fig. 2G, H) differs from that of Hy. fittoni in that it appears to have a straight shaft and the extensor intercondylar groove is deeply recessed. The intercondylar groove is not, however, completely tunnel-like because the bony lips developed from the edges of distal condyles fail to meet.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320DFFCFFCF5FB36FDA47F49	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320CFFCFFF75FDC9FC4B7884.text	03F9879B320CFFCFFF75FDC9FC4B7884.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eolambia Kirkland 1998	<div><p>EOLAMBIA CAROLJONESA KIRKLAND, 1998 –</p> <p>(MCDONALD ET AL., 2012A)</p> <p>Eolambia is represented by several partial skulls and postcranial material collected from the Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (lower Cenomanian) of eastern Utah, USA (Hunt et al., 2011). The material indicates a medium−large-sized ornithopod (∼ 7–8 m in length).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are narrower, more lanceolate, and more nearly symmetrical in lingual view (Kirkland, 1998: fig. 7B) than those described in Hy. fittoni. The primary ridge is dominant and only slightly distally offset on the crown surface and there is no obvious secondary ridge (although there is a slight thickening along the mesial edge that may represent a remnant of the secondary ridge; pers. observ. 1998). There is little evidence of strand-like accessory ridges. The dentary expands anteriorly and shows comparatively little evidence of a ventral arch (Kirkland, 1998: figs 5H, J, 6A, B); the coronoid process is also very tall and perpendicular to the long axis of the dentary (compared with the short, oblique coronoid process in the dentary referred to Hy. fittoni).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The vertebral column displays cervicals that resemble those of Hy. fittoni, but the dorsal series has comparatively short, plank-like neural spines and the centra do not have the expanded rims seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle displays a narrow-bladed, elongate scapula with a J-shaped acromial process. The coracoid has a fully enclosed coracoid foramen and the sternals are hatchet-shaped with an elongate, dorsoventrally flattened ‘handle’ that projects from the posterolateral edge and a comparative short ‘blade’. The humerus is sigmoid and resembles that of Mantellisaurus quite closely. Additionally, the radius and ulna are relatively slender and elongate com- pared with the short and robust morphology of Hy. fittoni. Carpal elements have not been described; nevertheless, many isolated manus elements are known (McDonald et al., 2012a: figs 29, 30). These include what appears to be a large pollex ungual that is laterally flattened and bluntly truncated (broken?) and bears a remnant of the claw groove (CEUM 5212; pers. observ. 1998). A smaller, conical pollex ungual was found by the author in the Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation of Utah in 1998 (CEUM 52962 – McDonald et al., 2012a: fig. 30A); this suggests that an abbreviated metacarpal 1 and ossified carpus may have been present. Individual manus elements (metacarpals) suggest that the manus was relatively slender and elongate: intermediate between the proportions of Mantellisaurus metacarpals (Norman, 1986) and the more elongate metacarpals of Probactrosaurus (Norman, 2002).</p> <p>Unlike Hy. fittoni, the preacetabular process of the ilium is elongate and expands distally to form an enlarged flange; near its base this process has a pronounced medial ridge. The dorsal margin of the ilium (Kirkland, 1998: fig. 10A; McDonald et al., 2012a: fig. 31A, B) bears an everted bevelled edge in the region posterodorsal to the ischiadic peduncle; this differs from the structure in this area in Hy. fittoni. There is no brevis fossa (McDonald et al., 2012a: 30), in contrast to Hy. fittoni in which this structure is very well developed. The pubis has a deep, narrow prepubic process that is expanded distally and has a very different profile to that seen in Hy. fittoni. The ischium has a narrow and straight shaft that terminates in an anteriorly expanded ‘boot’ (McDonald et al., 2012a: fig. 31E, F). The remainder of the postcranium has not been described in sufficient detail for further comparison. The femur has a shaft that is curved medially, but straight when viewed in lateral aspect, unlike the bowed femoral shaft of Hy. fittoni. The distal elements differ in no significant way from those seen in other large-bodied iguanodontians: there are three well-developed metatarsals, and the ungual phalanges have an arrowheadlike profile and prominent claw grooves when viewed dorsally.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320CFFCFFF75FDC9FC4B7884	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320CFFCCFC25F9B6FD3D7C95.text	03F9879B320CFFCCFC25F9B6FD3D7C95.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Protohadros Head 1998	<div><p>PROTOHADROS BYRDI HEAD, 1998</p> <p>Protohadros is represented by a partial skull and fragments of the postcranium collected from the Cenomanian of Texas (Head, 1998). This represents a comparatively derived ornithopod whose anatomy differs substantially from that of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth (Head, 1998: fig. 13) appear to be narrower in lingual view than those seen in Hy. fittoni and more symmetrical, exhibiting a prominent submedian primary ridge. The lower jaw is represented by a well-preserved dentary that is deeply expanded anteriorly, as well as being strongly arched along its length. The dentition was clearly borne in a deep alveolar trough and posteriorly there is a tall, perpendicular coronoid process (Head, 1998: fig. 11).</p> <p>Postcranial skeleton</p> <p>What little is currently known (Head, 1998) cannot be compared with that of the hypodigm of Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320CFFCCFC25F9B6FD3D7C95	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320FFFCCFF06FD85FB377D9F.text	03F9879B320FFFCCFF06FD85FB377D9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Probactrosaurus (Norman 2002)	<div><p>PROBACTROSAURUS GOBIENSIS ROZHDESTVENSKY, 1952 (NORMAN, 2002)</p> <p>Remains of this taxon indicate the presence of a medium-sized iguanodontian (attaining ∼ 6 m in length) collected from the Ulansuhai Formation (Turonian), Maortu, China (Kobayashi &amp; Lu, 2003).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary crowns of this taxon (Norman, 2002: figs 14–16) are narrower and less ornate than those described in Hy. fittoni (Fig. 37). The marginal denticles support mammillations, but these are less numerous than in the case of Hy. fittoni and the denticles do not form a curved shelf as they do in Hy. fittoni. The roots of the teeth are also fluted for the compaction of adjacent functional and replacement crowns that form the dental magazine. There are at least two replacement crowns in each alveolus in the deeper portions of the dentary and the occlusal surface is broad because it comprises at least two dentary crowns, unlike Hy. fittoni. The dentary of Prob. gobiensis is comparatively shorter and deeper than that of Hy. fittoni with a larger and deeper area devoted to the dental magazine as well as a tall, perpendicular coronoid process (Norman, 2002: fig. 12).</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>What is known of the dorsal vertebral series (Norman, 2002: fig. 17) shows neither the thickening of the articular margins of the centra, nor any clear indication of the narrow and very tall neural spines that are displayed in Hy. fittoni (this is confirmed by reference to the shape of the anterior caudals – Norman, 2002: fig. 18).</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>Most of the postcranial anatomy of Prob. gobiensis (Norman, 2002: figs 20–33) appears to be gracile and generally comparable to that seen in M. atherfieldensis (Norman, 1986) rather than Hy. fittoni. The forearm and manus are notably slender and lightly built in Prob. gobiensis, and the pollex ungual is small, narrow, and conical (Norman, 2002: figs 22–26), in marked contrast to these structures in Hy. fittoni. The ischial shaft is heavy, robust, and J-shaped (Norman, 2002: fig. 29) and resembles that seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320FFFCCFF06FD85FB377D9F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320FFFCDFC83FB00FD9279D4.text	03F9879B320FFFCDFC83FB00FD9279D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Levnesovia Sues & Averianov 2009	<div><p>LEVNESOVIA TRANSOXIANA SUES &amp; AVERIANOV, 2009</p> <p>Levnesovia comprises a partial skull roof and braincase, supplemented by a range of referred cranial and postcranial elements collected at Dzharakuduk, Uzbekistan, from the Bissekty Formation (middle−late Turonian).</p> <p>Teeth, jaws, and cranial skeleton</p> <p>Dentary teeth in lingual aspect are relatively narrow and diamond-shaped, and strongly resemble those described in Probactrosaurus (Norman, 2002) and Bactrosaurus (Godefroit et al., 1998). A prominent primary ridge is positioned slightly distally on the crown and there is an indistinct secondary ridge on the mesial portion of the crown; the coronal region possesses a distinct ‘shoulder’. Maxillary crowns are lanceolate and retain a remnant shoulder along the coronal margin with a very prominent primary ridge and no subsidiary ridges. The predentary has a crudely denticulate margin and a pair of large vascular foramina on either side of the midline, with broad, oblique vascular channels (the general configuration resembles that described in Probactrosaurus). The dentary ramus is comparatively slender and slightly arched anteriorly (as in Hy. fittoni); there is a short diastema and the alveolar wall is marked by inclined, parallel tooth grooves. The alveolar trough extends medial to the coronoid process, from which it is separated by a horizontal shelf and the tooth magazine is reported to terminate approximately level with the apex of the coronoid process. The surangular is reported to lack a foramen.</p> <p>The ventral half of the quadrate has a laterally expanded condylar region that is stepped so that it forms a rounded lateral condyle separated by a saddle-like region from the flatter medial articular surface. The quadrate embayment appears to be wide and the paraquadrate foramen is completely closed by the quadratojugal. The jugal is tapers anteriorly and has a broad, flat facet for its contact with the maxilla – there is no evidence of an ectopterygoid facet. The skull roof is broad and flat and a short section of the frontal is exposed in the upper rim of the orbit. In almost every respect, the skull roof and braincase resemble those seen in Probactrosaurus and Bactrosaurus.</p> <p>Postcranial skeleton</p> <p>The vertebrae are poorly preserved, but the dorsals have the low centrum profile that is typical of derived iguanodontians. The prepubic process is laterally compressed, deep, and distally expanded, unlike that seen in Hy. fittoni. The distal femoral articular condyle has an almost entirely enclosed extensor intercondylar groove and the pedal unguals are notably short and broadly rounded in plan view (Sues &amp; Averianov, 2009: supplementary material 1, fig. t); these features contrast markedly with those seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320FFFCDFC83FB00FD9279D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320EFFCDFF08FB44FC6179F6.text	03F9879B320EFFCDFF08FB44FC6179F6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Batyrosaurus rozhdestvenskyi	<div><p>BATYROSAURUS ROZHDESTVENSKYI GODEFROIT, ESCUILLIÉ, BOLOTSKY &amp; LAUTERS, 2012</p> <p>This taxon comprises a partial skeleton collected in Akkurgan, Kazakhstan, from the Bostobinskaya Svita (Santonian−Campanian).</p> <p>Dentition, jaws, and cranium</p> <p>Dentary crowns are broader than their maxillary counterparts and are broad and shield-like with a distally offset primary ridge, a well-defined secondary ridge, and a comparatively short tertiary (accessory) ridge that is present near the mesial edge of the crown; there is also a tertiary ridge on the distal portion of the crown. The structure of the crown suggests that a distinct mesial shoulder was present on the coronal margin. The marginal denticles form curved mammillated ledges down the sides of the crown, but are simple and coneshaped along the upper (coronal) margin). Tooth morphology is very similar to that described in Altirhinus (Norman, 1998). The dentary ramus is slightly arched anteriorly and comparatively narrow. The coronoid process is low and oblique and the alveolar trough is marked by tooth grooves that bear the remnant shape of broad tooth crowns (rather than parallel-sided slots). These structures are similar to those seen in Hy. fittoni. The alveolar trough extends medial to the coronoid process and may not have extended beyond the anterior margin of the base of that process (this is obscured by breakage). There is an abbreviated diastema and the predentary, which has a denticular oral margin and paired oblique vascular channels adjacent to the midline, also tapers anteriorly (in plan view) and resembles that which was described as a unique feature of Proa (McDonald et al., 2012b). A surangular foramen is present. The cranial roof is broad and flat, and the frontal forms a portion of the dorsal orbital rim. The quadrate has a narrow, semicircular embayment with facets, dorsally and ventrally, for the quadratojugal; this suggests that a paraquadrate foramen was present (this was also argued to be the pattern in Altirhinus, Probactrosaurus, Jayewati, Bactrosaurus, and Gilmoreosaurus – Godefroit et al., 2012). In most respects the anatomical similarities to those seen in the stratigraphically much earlier Hy. fittoni are close.</p> <p>Postcranial skeleton</p> <p>The sternal bones are hatchet-shaped with an elongate ‘handle’. The radius appears to be slender (and approximately of equal length to the humerus) although the distal articular end is dorsoventrally expanded. A somewhat eroded and conical (possible?) pollex ungual has been described (Godefroit et al., 2012: fig. 20.11F).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320EFFCDFF08FB44FC6179F6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320EFFCAFC80FB61FDEE79D7.text	03F9879B320EFFCAFC80FB61FDEE79D7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tethyshadros insularis Dalla Vecchia 2009	<div><p>TETHYSHADROS INSULARIS DALLA VECCHIA, 2009</p> <p>Tethyshadros comprises a nearly complete articulat- ed skeleton of a hadrosaur-like (hadrosauromorph – see Systematics section below) iguanodontian collect- ed near Villaggio del Pescatore, Trieste Province, Italy. The specimen was recovered from the Liburnian Formation (Upper Campanian−lower Maastrichtian).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth, although not exposed, are evidently small and lanceolate and bear a single median carina (primary ridge) flanked on either side by a single accessory ridge (Dalla Vecchia, 2009: fig. 3), and the marginal denticles form simple cones, rather than curved, mammillate ledges. By comparison, the dentary teeth of Hy. fittoni are broad and shield-shaped, have a distally offset primary ridge as well as several additional ridges, and the marginal denticles form ledges that are fringed with irregular mammillae. Tooth replacement patterns, the relative sizes of dentary and maxillary crowns, and the number of teeth in each alveolus and involved in the occlusal surface are all unknown at present. The lower jaw is elongate and slightly arched anteriorly, as is also the case in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>Most notably, the dorsal vertebrae of T. insularis (Dalla Vecchia, 2009: fig. 1) bear short, reclined, rectangular neural spines in sharp contrast to the tall, narrow spines seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle has a hadrosaur-like scapula with a straight acromion that follows the dorsal margin of the blade near its proximal end (unlike the J-shaped form seen in Hy. fittoni); the sternal plate is hatchetshaped and has a narrow, elongate, rod-like ‘handle’. The forelimb is gracile, with a slender, tapering radius and ulna, a reduced carpus, and slender, elongate metacarpals (this differs markedly from the robust form of these bones in Hy. fittoni). Digit I of the manus is not present (in striking contrast to Hy. fittoni). The ilium has a strongly everted dorsal margin in the region posterodorsal to the ischiadic peduncle; this area rather than forming a bevelled thickening is developed into a pendant, tab-like structure referred to as a pendule (Norman, 2014). The postacetabular process of the ilium forms a flat rectangular plate with the brevis fossa (if present) restricted to its medial surface. The prepubic process is deep, transversely compressed, and expand- ed distally. The ischial shaft is slender, slightly bowed, and tapers distally (there is no terminal boot at the end of the ischial shaft). The femur has a straight shaft. In all these pelvic and hindlimb features this taxon differs markedly from Hy. fittoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320EFFCAFC80FB61FDEE79D7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3209FFCAFF13FB47FBF87995.text	03F9879B3209FFCAFF13FB47FBF87995.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Telmatosaurus transsylvanicus (Nopcsa 1900)	<div><p>TELMATOSAURUS TRANSSYLVANICUS (NOPCSA, 1900) – (WEISHAMPEL, NORMAN &amp; GRIGORESCU, 1993)</p> <p>Telmatosaurus is represented by an associated, but crushed, skull and partial skeleton (∼ 3 m long) and assorted disarticulated specimens of a hadrosauromorph collected from the Sinpetru-Densus Ciula Formation (Maastrichtian) of the Hateg Basin, Romania.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary crowns are narrow and lenticular with an acutely pointed coronal margin. There appears to be as many as four replacement crowns and two or three worn crowns in the vertical succession. The dentary crowns are curved slightly distally. A median, primary ridge subdivides the enamelled surface but is less prominent than those seen on the maxillary crowns. Some crowns have an accessory ridge near the mesial edge of the crown. The crown margins are denticulate, and the denticles found mesially are buttressed by short enamel ridges. The dentary crowns are also not miniaturized (being approximately twice as broad as those in the maxilla). The dentary ramus is straight and the alveolar region occupies a substantial proportion of its vertical depth. The alveoli extend more posteriorly than the posterior of the coronoid process. The coronoid process is very prominent, rises vertically from the dentary, and has an anteroposteriorly expanded apex. These features differ markedly from those seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>Although not well preserved the axial skeleton exhibits opisthocoelous cervicals as well as dorsals. The neural spines of dorsals and caudals are comparatively short; there is no evidence of thickened articular rims to the dorsal vertebral centra. These features differ from those seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The scapular blade is elongate and flares distally; proximally, the acromion forms a promontory that is in line with the main axis of the scapular blade (rather than being J-shaped as in Hy. fittoni). The humerus is sigmoid with a prominent deltopectoral crest. The ulna is longer than the humerus and tapers distally, indicating the distal elongation of the forelimb, and a slender, gracile manus was probably present (this contrasts markedly with comparable bones in Hy. fittoni). The femur is elongate and straight along its entire length. The fourth trochanter is crested, triangular in profile (as in Hy. fittoni), and positioned on the proximal half of the shaft of the femur. The extensor intercondylar groove is entirely enclosed (in contrast to Hy. fittoni). The more distal elements of the hindlimb show no particular features beyond those normally associated with mediumsized iguanodontians.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3209FFCAFF13FB47FBF87995	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3209FFCBFCC6FA8AFC4E7F49.text	03F9879B3209FFCBFCC6FA8AFC4E7F49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bactrosaurus	<div><p>BACTROSAURUS JOHNSONI GILMORE, 1933</p> <p>(GODEFROIT ET AL., 1998)</p> <p>Bactrosaurus is represented by abundant skeletal remains of a medium-sized (6–7 m long) ornithopod collected from the Iren Dabasu Formation, Erenhot, China: Turonian−Coniacian (Sues &amp; Averianov, 2009). However, it should be noted that estimates of the age of these beds have ranged from Albian to Maastrichtian (Prieto-Márquez, 2011a).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are described as being leaf-shaped and ‘distinctly... wider’ (Godefroit et al., 1998: 27) than those of the maxillary dentition. The dentary teeth are slightly recurved distally (as in Telmatosaurus) and the primary ridge is less prominent than that seen on the maxillary crowns. The primary ridge is displaced slightly distally. A secondary ridge is present on the mesial sector of the crown, and some of the posterior teeth in the dentition are described as bearing a third longitudinal ridge. The dentary is robust, straight, and has a deep alveolar trough to accommodate the dentition. The coronoid process is tall and perpendicular to the long axis of the dentary and has an expanded apex. The dentition appears to extend posteriorly as far as the posterior edge of the base of the coronoid process.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The vertebral column conforms to that seen in medium−large-bodied iguanodontians. The cervicals are strongly opisthocoelous and have short, neural spines. Dorsals have spool-shaped centra that retain shallow opisthocoely throughout, and whose articular margins are not very thickened, in contrast to those of Hy. fittoni. The neural spines are elongate, but are thickened axially, and notably transversely toward the apex; they do not exhibit the extreme slenderness and elongation seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The scapular blade flares distally, and proximally the acromial process is developed into a promontory that is in line with the axis of the scapular blade (rather than being J-shaped as in Hy. fittoni). The sternal bones are hatchet-shaped and have an extremely elongate ‘handle’ and a comparatively short ‘blade’ (differing in proportion from those of Hy. fittoni). The humerus is strongly sigmoid and ‘stocky’, with a prominent deltopectoral crest. The ulna is subequal in length to the humerus and is comparatively slender and tapers distally before thickening slightly. The radius is comparatively slender and bowed along its length and again thickens where it articulates with the distal end of the ulna and carpal region. The manus elements (metacarpals) have been described briefly, but remain largely unillustrated (Godefroit et al., 1998) and have been described as resembling, in proportions, those of Mantellisaurus. Prieto-Márquez (2011a: pl. 4) provid- ed photographs of juvenile metacarpals that confirm Godefroit’s description (these are more slender than those of Hy. fittoni).</p> <p>The ilium has an elongate, untwisted preacetabular process that terminates in a modest flange and there is a prominent medial ridge near its origin on the main blade of the ilium. The ilium illustrated by Godefroit et al. (1998: fig. 30) is clearly a left ilium (rather than a right as stated) and all of the surface-related annotations are incorrect. There is a lateral expansion of the dorsal margin of the iliac blade posterodorsal to the ischiadic peduncle (‘supraacetabular process’ of Prieto-Márquez, 2011a) and the postacetabular process tapers to a blunt terminus and appears to lack a brevis fossa. The pubis has a thin, dorsoventrally flared prepubic process (cf. Gilmore, 1933: fig. 37 and Godefroit et al., 1998: fig. 32, pl. 12) and the ischium has a robust, thick, and straight shaft with a distal, anteriorly expanded, ‘boot’. The femur has a straight shaft, a triangular, crested fourth trochanter positioned at midshaft, and the extensor intercondylar groove is tunnel-like. The distal hindlimb elements do not show any unusual characters, being typical of medium−largebodied ornithopods generally, and the pedal unguals are arrow-head shaped in plan view, but have broadly rounded (rather than narrow and bluntly truncated) distal tips and weak development of the lateral claw grooves.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3209FFCBFCC6FA8AFC4E7F49	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3208FFC8FC94FDCEFED67B25.text	03F9879B3208FFC8FC94FDCEFED67B25.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gilmoreosaurus Brett-Surmann 1979	<div><p>GILMOREOSAURUS MONGOLIENSIS (GILMORE, 1933) – (PRIETO- MÁRQUEZ &amp; NORELL, 2010)</p> <p>Gilmoreosaurus comprises the partial remains of four individuals of a hadrosauromorph collected from the Iren Dabasu Formation, Erenhot, China: Turonian−Coniacian (Sues &amp; Averianov, 2009). However, it should (again) be noted that estimates of the age of these beds have ranged from Albian to Maastrichtian (Prieto-Márquez, 2011a).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The maxillary crowns are narrower than the dentary crowns, but have a more prominent median primary ridge. The dentary crowns have a single median (or submedian) lower primary ridge. Neither dentary nor maxillary crowns appear to have accessory ridges. The marginal denticles are also ledge-like and bear mammillae [these were also reported to be present in Protohadros, Lophorhothon, and some lambeosaurines (Prieto-Márquez &amp; Norell, 2010: 18)]. The dentary ramus is imperfectly known, but differs very little from that described in Bactrosaurus, its sympatric contemporary. This dental morphology is distinct from that seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The axial skeleton is very similar to that described in Bactrosaurus, and displays no distinct characters of significance.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle and forelimb are very similar in morphology to those described above for Bactrosaurus. The ilium differs in the more posterior positioning of the transverse expansion of the dorsal iliac blade when compared to that of Bactrosaurus, and in the development of a bar-like postacetabular process. The pubis has a prepubic process that is less expanded proximally, the distal expansion is less extreme, and the process overall appears to be longer than that seen in Bactrosaurus. The remaining elements of the pelvis and hindlimb seem indistinguishable in these two taxa; however, the unguals of the pes are notable narrower and taper to a bluntly truncated tip, rather than been broad and rounded as in the case of those described for Bactrosaurus (cf. Prieto-Márquez &amp; Norell, 2010: fig. 18 and Godefroit et al., 1998: pl. 14).</p> <p>SHUANGMIAOSAURUS GILMOREI YOU, JI, LI &amp; LI, 2003 A</p> <p>This taxon is represented by a few cranial elements collected from the Sunjiawan Formation (‘middle’ Cretaceous), Beipiao, Liaoning, China. The specimens, a maxilla plus articulated lacrimal and an edentulous dentary, were not associated and show evidence of post-mortem distortion, which may have contributed to the way in which its anatomy has been described and interpreted. In systematic analyses You et al. (2003a) placed this taxon as the sister taxon to the Hadrosauridae (= Euhadrosauria sensu Weishampel et al., 1993; Norman, 2014) and McDonald (2012b) placed it at just one further step removed.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>Only maxillary crowns are known and exhibit a lanceolate shape, have a single median primary ridge and no accessory ridges, and the mesial and distal margins of the crowns bear denticles. The dentary is very elongate and slightly arched along its length; it also appears to have had a relatively short diastema. The medial surface of the dentary ramus shows a deep and elongate alveolar trough that is backed by sets of alveolar grooves that appear to show the outlines of replacement crowns, rather than forming consistent parallel troughs (this is a nonhadrosauromorph characteristic). The alveolar trough extends back toward the posterior margin of the base of the coronoid process. The coronoid process is elongate but appears to form an obtuse angle to the long axis of the dentary ramus. The extent of post-mortem distortion in this specimen (which is clearly evident in the maxilla that is described) makes it difficult to discern genuine and unique anatomy from structures that may simply reflect postburial distortion.</p> <p>Axial and appendicular skeletons</p> <p>Unknown.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3208FFC8FC94FDCEFED67B25	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320BFFC9FCF4FE83FD727C5D.text	03F9879B320BFFC9FCF4FE83FD727C5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhabdodontidae	<div><p>RHABDODONTIDAE (E.G. WEISHAMPEL ET AL., 2003;</p> <p>BUTLER ET AL., 2008; GODEFROIT, CODREA &amp; WEISHAMPEL, 2009; OSI ET AL., 2012)</p> <p>Rhabdodontids are medium−large (3−8 m long) basal ornithopods (sensu amplo). The best-preserved and described examples of these taxa are Zalmoxes robustus (Weishampel et al., 2003) and the contemporary Zalmoxes shquiperorum (Weishampel et al., 2003; Godefroit et al., 2009) from the lower Maastrichtian of Romania. Rhabdodontids, as a group, appear to be restricted to the late Cretaceous but range geographically across western Eurasia: Rhabdodon spp. France (Matheron, 1869; Buffetaut &amp; Le Loeuff, 1991); Mochlodon spp. Hungary (Osi et al., 2012) and Austria (Seeley, 1881). Related taxa also occur in the late Lower Cretaceous of Australia (Muttaburrasaurus Bartholomai &amp; Molnar, 1981, and pers. observ. 1978) and South Africa (Kangnasaurus: (Cooper, 1985, and pers. observ. 1993) and the Late Cretaceous of Antarctica (unnamed taxon – A. C. Milner &amp; P. M. Barrett, unpubl. data and pers. observ. 2005).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentary teeth are unusually large, shieldshaped, and the lingual enamelled surface of the crown differs considerably in detail from that seen in Hy. fittoni. The dentary and maxillary crowns are typically clypeodont (Norman, 2014) in that they exhibit a very prominent primary ridge, flanked upon either side by divergent sets of accessory ridges, whereas the maxillary crowns lack a prominent primary ridge labially and have a tightly packed array of apicobasally orientated accessory ridges. This general crown morphology is common to a range of basal ornithopod (clypeodont) taxa: Hypsilophodon spp., Muttaburrasaurus langdoni, Rhabdodon spp., Zalmoxes spp., Mochlodon suessi, Mochlodon vorosi, Kangnasaurus coetzeei, Tenontosaurus spp., and the unnamed Antarctic taxon (A. C. Milner &amp; P. M. Barrett, unpubl. data). The lower jaw is dominated by a robust dentary with a complex predentary suture that is not seen in Hy. fittoni; however, the coronoid process of the dentary is comparatively short and reclines at an obtuse angle to the long axis of the dentary, similar to that in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The neural spines of the dorsal series are comparatively low and rectangular in lateral view, and are readily distinguished from the narrow and extremely elongate spines seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle, forelimb, pelvis, and hindlimb differ in detail from the comparable elements of Hy. fittoni (Weishampel et al., 2003; Godefroit et al., 2009).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320BFFC9FCF4FE83FD727C5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B320AFFC6FCD4FF6BFECC7C5D.text	03F9879B320AFFC6FCD4FF6BFECC7C5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dryosauridae MILNER & NORMAN 1984	<div><p>DRYOSAURIDAE MILNER &amp; NORMAN, 1984 (JANENSCH, 1955; GALTON, 1981, 1983,</p> <p>BUTLER ET AL., 2008)</p> <p>Dryosaurids are small−medium-sized (3–5 m long) and generally lightly built (cursorial) animals that exhibit a range of distinct characters that have been used to differentiate the clade Dryomorpha from more basal ornithopods. Dryosaurids are first recognized in Callovian deposits and are also represented by unnamed material that is sympatric and contemporary with Hypselospinus. Taxa such as Valdosaurus demonstrate that they persisted into the Barremian−Lower Aptian (Norman, 2004, 2011b; Barrett et al., 2011).</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The dentition exemplifies the dryomorphan configuration. The lingual surface of the dentary crowns bear less prominent crown ridges with a more or less centrally positioned low primary ridge that is flanked on either side by a variable number of accessory ridges. Maxillary crowns, in marked contrast to more basal taxa, have a labially enamelled surface that is dominated by a prominent, distally offset, primary ridge. Such teeth are distinguishable in overall size and surface detail from those of Hy. fittoni. The lower jaw (dentary) differs significantly, being comparatively short and straight, tapering anteriorly, and bearing considerably fewer tooth positions than in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical vertebrae are low and lack the strong opisthocoely exhibited in Hypselospinus. The dorsa vertebrae are lower, more cylindrical, and exhibit relatively short neural spines compared with Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The pectoral girdle exhibits short, flared scapulae and the sternal bones are reniform, rather than hatchetlike. Details of the forelimb and manus structure (notably the phalangeal count) are not known. In the pelvis, the ilium and pubis are distinctive: the ilium has an elongate preacetabular process that is laterally compressed, curves gently laterally toward its anterior end and, in Valanginian forms, bears a longitudinal trough medially; the postacetabular process is shallow in lateral aspect and strongly expanded transversely, creating a broad, shallow brevis fossa. The pubic shaft is elongate and equal in length to that of the ischial shaft, which is distinct from the abbreviated shaft that is proposed for Hypselospinus; the prepubic process is knife-like (comparatively narrow and laterally compressed) rather than deep, plate-like, and moderately distally expanded, as seen in Hypselospinus. The femur is bowed, slender, has a proximally positioned, pendant fourth trochanter and the extensor intercondylar groove is trough-shaped and open dorsally. The pes is functionally tridactyl, as in Hypselospinus, but the metatarsals and phalangeal digits are slender and the ungual phalanges are narrow and pointed.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B320AFFC6FCD4FF6BFECC7C5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3205FFC6FEBCFEC8FBA679F5.text	03F9879B3205FFC6FEBCFEC8FBA679F5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Camptosaurus dispar Marsh 1879	<div><p>CAMPTOSAURUS DISPAR MARSH, 1879 (GILMORE, 1909)</p> <p>Camptosaur-grade ornithopods have been systematically reviewed in recent years (McDonald, 2011) and include Ca. dispar, Cumnoria prestwichi (Hulke, 1880); Owenodon hoggii (Owen, 1874; Norman &amp; Barrett, 2002; Galton, 2009); Uteodon aphanoecetes (Carpenter &amp; Wilson, 2008; McDonald, 2011); and Osmakasaurus depressus (Gilmore, 1909; McDonald, 2011).</p> <p>Camptosaurus dispar is chosen as a representative medium-sized (5–7 m long) camptosaur-grade iguanodontian ornithopod that has been reasonably welldescribed (Gilmore, 1909) and one that is close to the size range exhibited by Hypselospinus. Remains attributed to Ca. dispar are stratigraphically distribut- ed between the Kimmeridgian and Tithonian stages and are thus substantially chronostratigraphically older than Hypselospinus.</p> <p>Teeth and jaws</p> <p>The maxillary and dentary crowns are similar in general morphology to those seen in dryosaurids and Hypselospinus, but the form of the dentary teeth (in particular) is distinctive. Unlike Hy. fittoni, the marginal denticles on the mesial and distal edges of the crown are not shelf-like and mammillate. The detailed structure of the primary, secondary, and strand-like accessory (subsidiary) ridges of dentary crowns are distinct in comparison with Hy. fittoni. The lingual surface of the dentary crowns in Camptosaurus displays a primary ridge that is offset distally on the crown surface but not strongly differentiated from a secondary ridge; the secondary ridge is not broad and mound-like and the accessory (tertiary) ridges are distributed more regularly across the crown and are straighter (apicobasally). The lower jaw (dentary) ramus is robust, straight, and is both proportionally shorter as well as containing fewer tooth positions than are present in the dentary of Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Axial skeleton</p> <p>The cervical centra are low (dorsoventrally compressed) and lack the strong opisthocoely seen in Hypselospinus. Dorsal vertebrae have low, cylindrical centra and short neural spines. Posterior dorsals and anterior caudals do not exhibit the extreme elongation of the neural spines seen in Hy. fittoni.</p> <p>Appendicular skeleton</p> <p>The principal shoulder bones are similar, in general shape, to those seen in Hypselospinus; however, the sternals are distinctive because they are reniform, rather than being hatchet-shaped (the classic ‘styracosternan’ condition). The forelimb is stout with the individual elements comparatively robust; however, the structure of the radius differs significantly in these two taxa when the proximal and distal condyles are compared (pers. observ., 2011). The carpus and manus show some similarity in overall anatomy and phalangeal count. The carpus is co-ossified and there is a spine-like pollex ungual in both taxa; however, the metacarpals are shorter and more obviously divergent producing a broadly splayed hand in Camptosaurus and the nonpollex unguals of digits 2 and 3 are more pointed and claw-like (this contrasts markedly with the structures seen in Hy. fittoni). The pelvis exhibits a range of differences from that seen in Hy. fittoni: notably the pubis of Camptosaurus has a pubic shaft that is equal in length to that of the ischial shaft, whereas the prepubic process is laterally compressed, blade-like, and has parallel dorsal and ventral margins, with no distal expansion. The femur in Camptosaurus is curved along its length; its shaft is stout, but its sides are not strongly angular; there is an elongate, finger-like, and genuinely ‘pendant’ fourth trochanter positioned midshaft; and the extensor intercondylar groove is deep, but very broadly open on the extensor surface. The pes in Camptosaurus appears to be functionally tridactyl, but digit 1 has a small, splint-like shaft that adheres to the medial surface of metatarsal II, and has an articular distal condyle, which supports a digit with three small phalanges; the unguals taper and terminate in narrow, but rounded, tips.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3205FFC6FEBCFEC8FBA679F5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
03F9879B3203FFDFFF6FFA4CFF237BE9.text	03F9879B3203FFDFFF6FFA4CFF237BE9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clypeodonta	<div><p>INFRAORDER CLYPEODONTA ‘SHIELD- TOOTHED’ NEORNITHISCHIANS (NORMAN, 2014; FIGS 50, 52).</p> <p>Phylogenetic definition (node-based)</p> <p>Hypsilophodon foxii, Edmontosaurus regalis, their most recent common ancestor, and all of its descendants.</p> <p>A consideration of the known range of more basal neornithischian taxa is beyond the scope of this analysis so a node-based definition acts as a general phylogenetic ‘place-holder’. Until the proximate sister taxa to clypeodontan ornithopods have been identified reliably, a stem-based definition cannot be proposed.</p> <p>Characters (with their numbers in parentheses so that they can be cross-referenced to Appendix 1) that</p> <p>are supported under ACCTRAN and DELTRAN optimizations are unremarked. Where only one optimization identifies a character this is recognized in parentheses.</p> <p>Character-based (Linnaean) diagnosis</p> <p>1. Antorbital fenestra small, subcircular with large fossa (10)</p> <p>2. Broad quadrate embayment shape (29) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>3. Frontals broad and roof orbits (34) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>4. Wear facets continuous across adjacent crowns (55)</p> <p>5. Dentary enamel asymmetrically distributed (57)</p> <p>6. Marginal denticles tongue-shaped (58) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>7. Tooth roots longitudinally grooved (59) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>8. Dentary crowns broad and shield-shaped (60) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>9. Dentary crown develops thickened, inrolled oblique shelves (62)</p> <p>10. Dentary primary ridge prominent (63) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>11. Dentary crown prominent ridge with subsidiary ridges on either side (64) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>12. Dentary crowns broader in lingual view than opposing maxillary crowns (65)</p> <p>13. Alveolar trough grooves reflect the shape of successional crowns (66)</p> <p>14. Maxillary crowns bear multiple labial ridges (68) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>15. Manus digit III with three phalanges (87) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>16. Postacetabular process tapers posteriorly (91) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>17. Preacetabular pubic process rod-shaped (93) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>18. Ischial shaft expanded laterally at distal end (97) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>19. Obturator process positioned midshaft (98) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>20. Femoral extensor groove broadly open (102) (ACCTRAN)</p> <p>Commentary</p> <p>This deceptively substantial list reflects the fact that this derived subgroup of ornithopods is being compared with the basal ornithischian condition represented by Lesothosaurus. The most important features within this listing highlight the form of the dentition: shield-shaped crowns with unevenly distributed enamel; crown margins fringed by tongue-shaped denticles; the development of discrete enamel ridge patterns on the lingual side of dentary crowns and the labial sides of maxillary crowns; and the differentiation in the form of the teeth seen in the maxillary and dentary dentitions. All of these characters combine to distinguish the clypeodont condition from that seen in more basal neornithischians.</p> <p>DIVISION HYPSILOPHODONTIA (COOPER, 1985;</p> <p>FIGS 50, 52)</p> <p>Included taxa in this analysis are: Hypsilophodon foxii, Zalmoxes robustus, and Tenontosaurus tilletti. However, this clade contains additional closely similar taxa: Zalmoxes shqiperorum, Mochlodon sp., Rhabdodon sp., Muttaburrasaurus langdoni, Kangnasaurus coetzeei, and the ‘Antarctic ornithopod’ (A. C. Milner &amp; P. M. Barrett, unpubl. data).</p> <p>Phylogenetic definition (node-based)</p> <p>Hypsilophodon foxii, Tenontosaurus tilletti, their most recent common ancestor, and all of its descendants.</p> <p>A node-based definition of Hypsilophodontia has been employed here until more detailed consideration has been made of a wider range of proximate taxa.</p> <p>Character-based (Linnaean) diagnosis</p> <p>1. Occiput with a trapezoidal outline (1)</p> <p>2. Premaxilla overlaps the nasal posterodorsally in the midline (9)</p> <p>3. Lacrimal overlaps the posteroventral margin of the prefrontal (14)</p> <p>4. Lateral surface of the rostral process of the maxilla modified by a large foramen and/or a boss (16)</p> <p>5. Jugal forms an anteroposteriorly abbreviated plate that forms a markedly dorsoventrally expanded plate beneath the infratemporal fenestra (18)</p> <p>6. Jugal−quadrate suture with a trough on the medioventral edge of the jugal (23)</p> <p>7. Fenestration of the quadratojugal (25) – secondarily lost in Zalmoxes (Weishampel et al., 2003)</p> <p>8. Lateral surface of the quadrate shaft bears a sinuous ridge (27)</p> <p>9. Quadrate (paraquadratic) foramen absent (28)</p> <p>10. Quadrate (jugal wing) embayment broadly open (29)</p> <p>11. Postorbital, squamosal process with a vertical indentation (37 − ACCTRAN) not present in Hypsilophodon (Galton, 1974)</p> <p>12. Dentary tooth primary ridge very prominent (63 − DELTRAN)</p> <p>13. Dentary crown dominant primary ridge flanked by variable number of subsidiary ridges (64 − DELTRAN)</p> <p>14. Maxillary crown covered by an array of subsidiary ridges (68 − DELTRAN)</p> <p>15. Caudal ossified tendons form a sheath (epaxially and hypaxially) around the distal caudal series (74) uncertain in Zalmoxes spp.</p> <p>16. Rod-like preacetabular process of the pubis (93 – DELTRAN) laterally compressed in Tenontosaurus, convergent with iguanodontians</p> <p>Commentary</p> <p>The hypsilophodontian clade, as defined here, marks a fundamental morphological (and implicitly phylogenetic) division within the Clypeodonta (Figs 49– 51). The most characteristic features of representatives of this clade are to be found in the dentary and maxillary tooth crowns; this is potentially valuable because teeth have a comparatively high preservational potential. The clade, if it proves to be robust when subjected to future systematic analysis, is of considerable evolutionary interest because hypsilophodontians (notably the large-bodied tenontosaurs and Muttaburrasaurus) exhibit convergent (homoplastic) postcranial morphologies when compared to those seen amongst large-bodied members of the sister-clade Iguanodontia.</p> <p>Hypsilophodontians form a clade that specifically exclude Th. neglectus and a wide range of more basal neornithischian taxa, e.g. Agilisaurus, Yandusaurus, Jeholosaurus, Hexinlusaurus, Othnielia, Gasparinisaura, Orodromeus, Parksosaurus, Thescelosaurus spp., Bugenasaura, and others (Butler et al., 2008). This fundamental change in clade composition necessitates the abandonment of previous phylogenetic definitions of the Iguanodontia (sensu Sereno, 2005) and prompts a repositioning and redefinition of that clade name (as follows).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9879B3203FFDFFF6FFA4CFF237BE9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Norman, David B.	Norman, David B. (2015): On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (1): 92-189, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12193, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/zoj.12193
