Deinosuchus rugosus

[Fullux]

So, I'm curious. Is Deinosuchus rugosus still considered a species? Or is it now Deinosuchus schwimmeri? And the same for D. hatcheri and D. riograndensis.

 

Also, how many species of deinosuchus are currently accepted? As far as I know, it is only D. hatcheri/riograndensis and D. rugosus/schwimmeri, with the former living in Laramidia and the latter living in Appalachia.

 

One more question, I heard that there was D. rugosus/schwimmeri material found in a miocene deposit, is that true?

Edited September 13 by Fullux

[Tidgy's Dad]

The species pertaining to Deinosuchus since the resurrection of the generic name in 1979 have been traditionally recognized as D. rugosus from Appalachia and the larger D. hatcheri/riograndensis from Laramidia, characterized by differences in the shape of their osteoderms and teeth. However, based on the lack of distinctive enough differences beyond size, they have increasingly been considered all the same species.  In their overview of crocodyliform material from the Kaiparowits Formation of Utah, Irmis et al. (2013) noted that D. rugosus is dubious due to its holotype teeth being undiagnostic, and recommended using Deinosuchus hatcheri for Deinosuchus material from Laramidia, while stressing that cranial Deinosuchus material from Appalachia has not been described.^[In a 2020 study, Cossette and Brochu agreed that D. rugosus is dubious and undiagnostic, rendering it a nomem dubium, and alternatively named a new species D. schwimmeri (named after fellow paleontologist David R. Schwimmer) from Appalachia, which included several specimens previously ascribed to D. rugosus. They also noted that the highly incomplete D. hatcheri holotype can be distinguished by the unique shape of the edge of its indented osteoderms, although this may not be reliable because the osteoderms of the other species may simply not be as well preserved. However, due to the incomplete nature of the type species D. hatcheri, Cossette and Brochu proposed to transfer the type species to the better-preserved D. riograndensis, which would allow for improved identification and differentiation of the Deinosuchus species. 

( from Wiki)

See also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1767638

 

I think any claims of Deinosuchus from as late as the Miocene should be treated with extreme caution. Perhaps people are confusing it with Purussaurus brasiliensis which may have been nearly as big and is Micocene. 

 

 

[Fullux]

What I took from that and the paper you included is D. riograndensis is the only valid species. Is that correct?

[Kane]

What do your searches on Google Scholar say?