Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Saichangurvel davidsoni

Reptilia - Squamata

Taxonomy
Saichangurvel davidsoni was named by Conrad and Norell (2007). Its type specimen is IGM 3/858, a skeleton (complete skeleton), and it is a 3D body fossil. Its type locality is Ukhaa Tolgod (AMNH), which is in a Campanian eolian sandstone/mudstone in the Djadokhta Formation of Mongolia. It is the type species of Saichangurvel.

Synonymy list
YearName and author
2007Saichangurvel davidsoni Conrad and Norell p. 2

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Triploblastica
Nephrozoa
Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1847
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
Osteichthyes()
Sarcopterygii
subclassDipnotetrapodomorpha(Nelson 2006)
subclassTetrapodomorpha()
Tetrapoda()
Reptiliomorpha
Anthracosauria
Batrachosauria()
Cotylosauria()
RankNameAuthor
Amniota
Sauropsida
classReptilia
subclassEureptilia()
Romeriida
Diapsida()
Eosuchia()
Neodiapsida
SauriaGauthier 1984
Lepidosauromorpha(Benton 1983)
superorderLepidosauria()
orderSquamata
IguanomorphaSukhanov 1961
TemujiniidaeGauthier et al. 2012
genusSaichangurvel
speciesdavidsoni

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
J. L. Conrad and M. A. Norell 2007IGM 3/858 differs from Ctenomastax parva and Temujinia ellisoni (each monospecific; hereafter, Ctenomastax and Temujinia, respectively) in possessing an apparently uncalcified region of the skull roof around the pineal foramen; a parietal fontanelle (similar to that seen in some extant Crotaphytidae). It differs from Temujinia and Zapsosaurus sceliphros (hereafter, Zapsosaurus) in lacking the enlarged paired fossae for the spinalis capitis. It differs from Ctenomastax in lacking caniniform teeth; from Zapsosaurus by the absence of strongly flared marginal tooth crowns and the more robust shape of the retroarticular tubercle; and from Anchaurosaurus gilmorei, Isodontosaurus gracilis, and Polrussia mongoliensis (each monospecific; hereafter, Anchaurosaurus, Isodontosaurus, and Polrussia, respectively) in possessing light dermal sculpturing on the parietal and frontal and the anterolateral orientation of the ectopterygoid. It differs from Isodontosaurus in lacking a posteriorly spatulate nasal process of the premaxilla, which does not make contact with the frontal on the dorsal skull roof; in possessing a weakly inclined anterior margin of the maxillary nasal process; in possessing a jugal that lies mostly dorsal to the maxilla; in possessing a supratemporal; and in possessing a mediolaterally developed postfrontal. It differs from Polrussia in possessing a midline contact of the maxillae posteriorly to the premaxillary nasal process, an elongate supratemporal, a distinct postfrontal, and an anteriorly oriented ectopterygoid. It differs from both Isodontosaurus and Polrussia in possessing a forked medial margin of the postfrontal and in lacking a dorsal process on the squamosal.