Allodaposuchus undefined-2

CF. ALLODAPOSUCHUS SP. 2

Localities: Molí del Baró-1, Serrat del Pelleu, Serrat del Rostiar-1, L’Espinau, Els Nerets (L2), Fontllonga-6, Peguera.

Material: MCD-5551, MCD-6906, MCD-6923, IPS-96643, IPS-96652, IPS-96656, IPS-96664, IPS-96666, IPS-96668, IPS-96685–87, IPS-96695, IPS-96697, IPS-48974, IPS-105944, IPS-105956.

Additional material: MCD-5552–54, IPS-85798, IPS-96632, IPS-96658, IPS-96660, IPS-96673, IPS-96681 ( Fig. 5D–F View Figure 5 ).

Description: Conical and pointed teeth with high crowns showing a faint basal constriction. They are 1.4‒51.0 mm high basiapically and 0.9‒20.4 mm wide mesiodistally. The labial surface is markedly convex and the lingual one is slightly convex. The cross-section is lemon-shaped ( Fig. 5 View Figure 5 AA). The crown is lingually inclined. They bear well-developed mesiodistal keels, without denticles. The lingual surface, delimited by both keels ( Fig. 5Z View Figure 5 –AD), bears longitudinal, basiapical ridges, whereas the labial surface is nearly smooth. The ridges of the lingual surface are parallel, oriented towards the apex and do not overhang the keels.

Remarks: Similar teeth are present in most neosuchians with generalist dentition. For example, tooth morphotype X resembles the teeth of Goniopholididae from La Cantalera site ( Puértolas-Pascual et al., 2015a). However, goniopholidid teeth also show ornamented labial surfaces and the transition between the crown and the root is unconstricted. Furthermore, goniopholidids are mainly restricted to the Early Cretaceous and a lack reliable European fossil record after the Middle Albian ( Puértolas-Pascual et al., 2015 a, 2015b, 2016). This morphotype also resembles teeth belonging to Allodaposuchus precedens ( Grigorescu et al., 1999; Delfino et al., 2008a) and the allodaposuchid from Velaux-La Bastide Neuve ( Martin et al., 2016), both of which bear ridges in the labial surface of the teeth.Teeth of other allodaposuchid species, such as A. hulki , A. subjuniperus , Ag. fontisensis or Lohuecosuchus , lack ornamented enamel ( Blanco et al., 2014, 2015a; Puértolas-Pascual et al., 2014; Narváez et al., 2015, 2016; Blanco & Brochu, 2017), whereas Allodaposuchus palustris developed false ziphodonty ( Blanco et al., 2014), features absent in the studied material. Furthermore, morphotype X also differs from other teeth from the studied sample (e.g. morphotype V) in the ornamental pattern. Several specimens of small size (MCD-5552–54, IPS-85798, IPS-96632, IPS-96658, IPS-96660, IPS-96673 and IPS-96681), likely belonging to juveniles ( Fig. 5 View Figure 5 AB–AD), show the same morphology and ornamentation that large teeth. It is evident that differences with other generalist morphotypes could not be a consequence of tooth size and ontogenetic stages. Because of its similarity to the teeth of some allodaposuchian taxa (e.g. A. precedens ), this morphotype is tentatively assigned to an indeterminate allodaposuchid. Moreover, identical teeth have been recovered in situ in a fragmentary dentary with allodaposuchid affinities, but differing from previously known allodaposuchid species (see below). This morphotype corresponds to morphotype 2 described by Marmi et al. (2016) from the Molí del Baró-1 site.