Gardner & Demar: Appendix 5 1

[Gardner & DeMar: Appendix 5] 1

Appendix 5. Sources for taxonomic identifications of Late Cretaceous (late Campanian–early Maastrichtian [“Edmontonian” NALMA] and Campanian and Maastrichtian not assignable to NALMA) lissamphibians listed in Table 5. Accounts are by localities and formations. Accounts are arranged north to south within each province and state. Arabic numbers denoting localities are the same as those used in the corresponding faunal list (Table 5) and locality map (Fig. 7).

“Edmontonian” (1–5)

1,KleskunHillPark,west-central Alberta,Canada; middle part of Wapiti Formation; late Campanian (“Edmontonian” NALMA).

Urodela indet.: Tanke (2004,p. 22) mentioned “salamanders” as being among specimens recovered from a vertebrate microfossil locality that had been discovered in 2003.Fanti and Miyashita (2009,table 4) reported a salamander quadrate (oddly under the heading “Squamata”) from the same locality. This occurrence has not been verified, because no voucher specimens were listed, figured, or described and we have not examined the relevant TMP and UALVP collections.

Remarks: Nydam et al. (2010,p. 1091) listed “amphibians” as part of the small-bodied vertebrate assemblage from Kleskun Hills. Whether that means non-urodele amphibians also are presentis uncertain.

2,RedWillowFalls, west-central Alberta,Canada; middle part of Wapiti Formation; late Campanian (“Edmontonian” NALMA).

?Lissamphibia indet.: Fanti et al. (2013,fig. 2A–C, respectively) described and figured three isolated footprints (TMP 2002.66.12, TMP 2003.66.02, and UALVP 53473). In the comparative section of their paper, Fanti et al. (2013,p. 7) suggested that the footprints “may represent ... salamanders”, yet elsewhere in the same paper thespecimens were variously stated to be “small tetrapod tracks” (fig. 2 caption), “amphibian or lacertilian tracks” (p. 12), from “amphibians” (p. 12), and from “dubious amphibians” (p. 11).Pending more detailed study of those intriguing, but problematic specimens,here we conservatively list that occurrence as questionable and indeterminate Lissamphibia.

3,Red Deer RiverValley, south-central Alberta,Canada; upper part of Horseshoe Canyon Formation; early Maastrichtian (“Edmontonian” NALMA) (Larson et al. 2010).

Urodela / Scapherpetontidae / Scapherpetonsp.: Larson et al. (2010) reported smaller scapherpetontid centra as being relatively common in the four vertebrate microfossil localities they sampled in the upper part of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation and they referred those specimens to Scapherpeton sp. We have not verified thoseoccurrences, because no specimens were described or figured and we have not examined the bulk lot of voucher specimens (TMP 2009.137.21) listed by Larson et al. (2010). Eberth et al. (2001, table 3) included Scapherpeton tectum in an earlier faunal list for the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, but without any further information.

Urodela / Scapherpetontidae indet.: Larson et al. (2010,fig. 8C) reported a large (centrum length ca. 14 mm) scapherpetontid trunk vertebra (TMP 99.50.131) that they suggested was more similar to Piceoerpeton than to Scapherpeton or Lisserpeton. Pending further preparation and study of this intriguing specimen and to highlight its potential distinctiveness, here we follow Larson et al. (2010) in listing this occurrence as Scapherpetontidae indet.

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / Opisthotritonsp.: Larson et al. (2010)reported moderate numbers of Opisthotriton centra in most of the vertebrate microfossil localities sampled for their study. We have not verified those occurrences, because no specimens were described or figured and we have not examined the bulk lot of voucher specimens (TMP 2009.137.22) listed by Larson et al. (2010).

Anura / Palaeobatrachidae / (?)Palaeobatrachus occidentalis: Larson et al. (2010,fig. 8A) referred a fragmentary ilium (TMP 2000.45.38) and, less certainly, a urostyle (TMP 2000.45.101) to (?)Palaeobatrachus occidentalis. Both identifications require verification.

Anura indet.: Abundant anuran jaws, other skull bones, and humeri (bulk catalogued as TMP 2009.137.23, 2009.137.24, and 2009.139.06) were reported by Larson et al. (2010). Those authors suggested that only one taxon was represented based on the observation that only one pattern of cranial ornament was present.Eberth et al. (2001, table 3) included “Anura gen. et sp. indet.” in a faunal list for the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, but without any further information.

4, Scabby Butte, southern Alberta,Canada; St. Mary River Formation; late Campanian–early Maastrichtian (“Edmontonian” NALMA).

Albanerpetontidae indet.: Dentary (UALVP 40044) listed by Gardner (2000a, p. 381).

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / Opisthotritonkayi: Langston (1975, 1976) reported this species based on a fragmentary dentary (NMC 21865) and a bulk lot of broken vertebral centra (NMC 21866). Langston’s (1975) brief description of the centra bearing prominent basapophyses and having the anterior cotyles mostly infilled with bone (= calcified cartilage of other authors) appears to corroborate his taxonomic identification of those specimens, but because we have not seen those and they have not been figured here we conservatively record the occurrence as unverified.

5, Unspecified locality(ies),RioBlancoCounty, northwestern Colorado,USA; Williams Fork Formation; late Campanian–early Maastrichtian (“Edmontonian” NALMA) (Archibald 1987).

Urodela indet.: Archibald (1987,table 1) recorded “2 species of salamander” in a preliminary faunal list for the formation.

Anura indet.: Archibald (1987,table 1) recorded “1 species of frog” in a preliminary faunal list for the formation.

Not assignable to NALMA (6–12)

6,Ellisdale, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; Marshalltown Formation; middle Campanian and possibly equivalent to Aquilan and Judithian NALMAs..

Albanerpetontidae indet.: Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 492) mentioned that some fragmentary fossils from Ellisdale might be assignable to Albanerpeton, but until the relevant specimens are described and figured that identification cannot be verified.

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / Parrisia neocesariensis: Holotype atlas (NJSM 16609: Denton and O’Neill 1998,figs. 2A, 3A, C) plus referred atlantes, post-atlantal vertebrae, and dentaries (all NJSM specimens), including the following figured specimens: atlas (NJSM 14690B: Denton and O’Neill 1998,fig. 2B–C);anterior trunk vertebra (NJSM 14027: Denton and O’Neill 1998,figs. 4A, 5B); trunk vertebrae (NJSM 16756: Denton and O’Neill 1998,figs. 4B, 7A; NJSM 16555: Denton and O’Neill 1998,figs. 4C, 5A); caudal vertebra (NJSM 15042A: Denton and O’Neill 1998,fig. 4D); and dentary (NJSM 14691: Denton and O’Neill 1998,fig. 6).

Urodela / ?Sirenidae/ cf. Habrosaurus sp.: Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 492) identified an atlas (NJSM 16622) and mentioned “assorted jaws and skull pieces” that they tentatively identified as “cf. Habrosaurus sp.”, but cautioned that more diagnostic material was needed to corroborate that identification.

Urodela / ?Amphiumidae / cf. Proamphiuma sp.: Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 492) indicated that other, unspecified specimens from Ellisdale might belong to Proamphiuma, but this possibility cannot be verified until the relevant specimens are described.

Anura /Discoglossidae sensu lato / gen. et sp. indet.: A fragmentary ilium (NJSM 15670) was figured and briefly described by Denton and O’Neill (1998,fig. 1A) as belonging to an indeterminate discoglossid sensu lato. This familial assignment seems doubtful, but pending further study of the specimen we retain the original identification.

Anura /Pelobatidae sensu lato / gen. et sp. indet.: Denton and O’Neill (1998) reported several pelobatid sensu lato ilia from Ellisdale and figured one example (NJSM 15035: by Denton and O’Neill 1998,fig. 1B). As for the above-listed specimen, we retain the original identification with the caveat that it requires verification.

Anura /Family incertae sedis / cf. Scotiophryne sp.: Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 485) mentioned an incomplete maxilla (NJSM 15918) bearing external sculpture reminiscent of Scotiophryne. We cannot corroborate this identification, because the relevant specimen has not been published on or examined by us, but to highlight the possibility that Scotiophryne may be present in the Ellisdale assemblage we retain the original identification.

Anura /Family incertae sedis / cf. Theatonius sp.Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 485) also mentioned “a number of squamosals … seem comparable to Theatonius”. For the same reasons given in the previous account, we retain the original identification in our faunal list.

Anura /Family incertae sedis / gen. et sp. indet.: Other fragmentary anuran skull and postcranial bones were mentioned by Denton and O’Neill (1998,p. 485).

7, Bladen CountyLandfill Annex,Bladen County,North Carolina,USA; Bladen Formation; Campanian.

Albanerpetontidae indet.: In the abstract for her MSc thesis, Crane (2011) reported a single amphibian taxon from the Bladen Formation; unfortunately, the rest of that document is embargoed until 2014 and, thus, the relevant account is not available for examination. In a subsequent conference abstract, she (Crane2012) listed that taxon as Albanerpeton sp. but did not indicate what material was used as the basis for that taxonomic identification.Pending further information about that material,here we conservatively record the occurrence as Albanerpetontidae indet. and unverified.

8,MeetinghouseCanyon, east-central Utah,USA; Blackhawk Formation; Campanian.

Anura indet.: Robison (1991,fig. 6) reported a slab (no institutional catalogue number given) bearing a pair a complete manus prints and a pair of incomplete pes prints that he interpreted as having been made by an anuran. This identification is difficult to evaluate based on the published description and photo, but it is tentatively accepted here.

9, Unspecified locality(ies) in AdobeCanyon area, southeastern Arizona,USA; Fort Crittenden Formation, late? Campanian and possibly equivalent to Judithian NALMA.

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / cf. Scapherpeton sp.: Ratkevich and Duffek (1996) listed a number of new occurrences of vertebrate taxa, including “cf. Scapherpeton sp.” and “cf. Opisthotriton sp.”,from the Fort Crittenden Formation. No specimens were described, figured, or listed for either of the urodele taxa. Ratkevich and Duffek’s (1996) identifications and the provenance of the specimens they reported on has been questioned by McCord et al. (2001) and Lucas and Heckert (2005). No other authors (e.g.,Heckert et al. 2003; Lucas and Heckert 2005; McCord et al. 2001) have reported any lissamphibians from unequivocal localities in the Fort Crittenden Formation. Here we consider both occurrences reported byRatkevich and Duffek (1996) as unverified.

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / cf. Opisthotriton sp.: Occurrence unverified—see preceding account.

10, Unspecified locality(ies), western BajaCalifornia,Mexico; “El Gallo Formation”, Campanian and possibly equivalent to “Edmontonian” NALMA.

Anura indet.: Lillegraven (1972,p. 2) noted the presence of numerous amphibian-bearing localities in the “El Gallo Formation” and subsequently mentioned the occurrence of “frog” specimens (Lillegraven 1976). We consider this occurrence unverified, because no voucher specimens (LACM collections) have been listed, described or figured and we have not seen any of the relevant specimens firsthand.

11, La Parrita,Coahuila, northeastern Mexico; Cerro del Pueblo Formation; late Campanian (Aguillon Martinez 2010).

Urodela / Scapherpetontidae / Lisserpeton sp.: Based on the published photographs, an incomplete trunk vertebra (SEPCP 9/741) reported and figured by Aguillon Martinez (2010,fig. 4A–E) appears to be diagnostic for Lisserpeton.

Anura indet.: Five incomplete and isolated postcranial bones reported by Aguillon Martinez (2010): three vertebral centra (SEPCP 9/588, 9/590 and 9/589: Aguillon Martinez 2010,fig. 5A B–C and D, respectively); a radioulna (SEPCP 9/583: unfigured); and a tibia-fibula (Aguillon Martinez 2010,fig. 5E–F).

12, Harebell vertebrate locality,TetonCounty, northwestern Wyoming; Bobcat Member, Harebell Formation; Maastrichtian.

Urodela / Batrachosauroididae / Prodesmodonsp.: First reported in a preliminary faunal list by Love (1973, p. A27), on the basis of undocumented specimens collected by AMNH field crews and stated to have been identified by Richard Estes and Malcolm McKenna.Identification subsequently repeated by in faunal lists by McKenna (1980, p. 323) and Breithaupt (1985, p. 167).