Rhinesuchus, Broom, 1908

Marsicano, Claudia A., Latimer, Elizabeth, Rubidge, Bruce & Smith, Roger M. H., 2017, The Rhinesuchidae and early history of the Stereospondyli (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) at the end of the Palaeozoic, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 181, pp. 357-384 : 365-366

‘ RHINESUCHUS MAJOR’ BROOM, 1912

Holotype: MA 60c 1-1a, two fragments of a skull, one includes a ventral aspect of the skull table, and the another a fragment of the left side of the palate with a piece of the mandible attached.

Type locality and horizon: Collected from an unknown sandstone quarry just outside the town of Senekal, Free State Province, South Africa (see discussion in U. senekalensis ).

Remarks: The skull MA 60c 1-1a was originally sent to Broom by Dr. Mangold for description a month after the large temnospondyl specimens from Senekal were discovered ( Broom, 1912: 79). Thus, the brief description of R. major by Broom (1912) was preceded by a few months by van Hoepen original description of ‘ Myriodon ’ senekalensis ( van Hoepen, 1911) . Schoch & Milner (2000) considered R. major as a junior synonym of U. senekalensis ( van Hoepen, 1911) van Hoepen, 1917 .

Status: In the present revision we do not find any differences between the holotype specimens to justify Broom’s R. major thus, and in agreement with Schoch & Milner (2000), it is considered herein a junior synonym of U. senekalensis .

‘ PHRYNOSUCHUS WHAITSI’ BROOM, 1913 Holotype: SAM-PK-2357, a poorly preserved small skull associated with an incomplete, partially articulated, postcranial skeleton.

Type locality and horizon: Farm Droogvoetsfontein, Fraserburg District (Cape Province, South Africa) from the ‘ Endothiodon zone’ ( Broom, 1913: 6) later considered ‘ Tapinocephalus or Cistecephalus zone’ according to Chernin & Kitching (1977: 111); at present, these horizons correspond, respectively, to the Pristerognathus and Tropidostoma assemblage zones, Guadalupian–Lopingian ( Rubidge et al., 2013).

Remarks: Romer (1966) regarded P. whaitsi as a brachyopid, but it was later removed from this group by Welles & Estes (1969). Chernin & Kitching (1977) considered the specimen as Rhinesuchus sp. indet. Subsequently, Schoch & Milner (2000) listed it as an indeterminate rhinesuchid and Damiani & Rubidge (2003) as a Temnospondyl indet.

Status: In the present revision, and in agreement with Damiani & Rubidge (2003), the poorly preserved type specimen is considered Temnospondyli indet. and Phrynosuchus whaitsi nomen dubium.