Hubbry Logo
IndosaurusIndosaurusMain
Open search
Indosaurus
Community hub
Indosaurus
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Indosaurus
Indosaurus
Indosaurus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Indosaurus
Temporal range: Late Cretaceous, 69–66 Ma
↓
Holotype Braincase
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Clade: Dinosauria
Clade: Saurischia
Clade: Theropoda
Family: †Abelisauridae
Subfamily: †Majungasaurinae
Genus: †Indosaurus
Species:
†I. matleyi
Binomial name
†Indosaurus matleyi

Indosaurus (lit. 'Indian lizard') is a genus of carnivorous theropod dinosaur that lived in what is now India, about 69 to 66 million years ago during the Maastrichtian division of the Late Cretaceous.[1][2]

Discovery and naming

[edit]
Indosaurus is located in India
Indosaurus
class=notpageimage|
Indosaurus type locality in Carnosaur beds, Bara Simla, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India


The now-lost holotype was discovered between 1917 and 1919 in Jabalpur, India (GSI K27/565), by Charles Alfred Matley.The type species, Indosaurus matleyi, was named by Huene and Matley in 1933 making Indosaurus the first majungasaurine to be discovered.[3] The generic name refers to India and the specific name honours Matley. This species now also includes Megalosaurus matleyi. Some paleontologists have speculated that Indosuchus, Lametasaurus and Indosaurus should be considered as nomina dubia.[4]

Description

[edit]

The parietal of the frontal-parietal region is broad whereas the lower surface of the frontal is wide, the transverse crest lies above and behind the orbit. The frontals are concave and decline in to the front of the cranium. The supratemporal fossa is short and broad as in Antrodemus.[5] The incomplete skull is of unusual thickness, although it lacked a dome on frontal bones as seen in Majungasaurus. It would have also lacked the paired frontal horns seen in Carnotaurus. Both Indosuchus and Indosaurus had a conservative skull roof which was dorsoventrally thickened but did not process prominences above the skull roof, similar to the condition seen in Abelisaurus.[6]

The species I. matleyi weighed roughly 700 kg (1,500 lb).[citation needed]

Classification

[edit]

Originally assigned by Huene to the Allosauridae, Indosaurus is today considered a member of the Abelisauridae family.[7] It shows similarities to the other Abelisaurids from India, such as Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus, and is hence usually placed within Abelisauridae, though the fragmentary nature for this taxon makes it difficult to recognize its exact taxonomic validity.[8]

In 2014 Thierry Tortosa erected the subfamily Majungasaurinae. This was to separate Arcovenator, Majungasaurus, Indosaurus, Rahiolisaurus, and Rajasaurus from South American abelisaurids based on physical characteristics such as elongated antorbital fenestrae in front of the eye sockets, and a sagittal crest that widens into a triangular surface towards the front of the head.

It was suggested that the abelisaurids migrated between Africa, Europe, India and Madagascar, which would isolate the South American abelisaurids. It is possible that migration occurred between Europe and India across Africa given its proximity to both, and the volcanic Dras-Kohistan island arc may have allowed island hopping and an indirect path to Asia, though these are still questionable explanations.[9][10]

The following cladogram was recovered by Tortosa (2014):[9]

Ceratosauria

Paleoecology

[edit]

Indosaurus lived in the Lameta Formation during the Maastrichtian age of the Cretaceous period. It is known to have lived alongside sauropods like Isisaurus, Jainosaurus and the dubious Titanosaurus, which it may have preyed upon. Other ceratosaurs such as the abelisaurid Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Indosuchus are known from the formation, along with the noasaurid Laevisuchus. The ichnogenus Deltapodus is also known from the formation, which may belong to the youngest know stegosaurid. The madtsoiid snake Sanajeh was also contemporaneous to Indosaurus.

The rocks of the Lameta formation appear to have been deposited in fluvial or lacustrine conditions. The environment at the time of deposition has alternatively been considered semi-arid, or tropical humid.[11][12]

The dinosaurs in India probably all went extinct due to volcanic activity around 350,000 years before the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Dinosaurs probably avoided areas with volcanic fissure vents and lava flows.[13]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Indosaurus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Indosaurus is a genus of large carnivorous theropod dinosaur belonging to the family Abelisauridae, known from fragmentary skeletal remains found in the Maastrichtian-age (approximately 69–66 million years ago) Lameta Formation of central India. The type and only species, I. matleyi, was named and described in 1933 by German paleontologist Friedrich von Huene and British geologist Charles Matley, honoring Matley's contributions to Indian paleontology. The holotype specimen (GSI K27/565, now lost) consists of a partial skull roof, including the right frontal bone and adjacent regions, along with a cast of the brain cavity, recovered from the "Carnosaur bed" at Bara Simla hill near Jabalpur. The preserved anatomy reveals diagnostic abelisaurid traits, such as a subtriangular frontal bone with an anterolateral notch for articulation with the lacrimal, a rugose surface for postorbital contact, and caudally positioned supratemporal fenestrae. These features align Indosaurus with other Gondwanan abelisaurids like Abelisaurus and Carnotaurus, including a broad interorbital region and robust cranial construction, though it lacks prominent features such as the frontal dome of Majungasaurus or the supraorbital horns of Carnotaurus. Additional postcranial elements, including large hindlimb bones (e.g., femora measuring 60–74 cm in length), have been tentatively referred to Indosaurus, suggesting a body length of around 7–8 meters and a weight of approximately 700 kg for a mature individual. As one of the few theropod taxa documented from the Indian subcontinent during the final stages of the Cretaceous, Indosaurus contributes to understanding the diversity and biogeographic connections of abelisaurids across Gondwana prior to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

Discovery and Naming

Initial Excavation

The fossils of Indosaurus were first discovered during excavations carried out by Charles Alfred Matley between 1917 and 1919 in the region of , central India, specifically within exposures of the at Bara Simla Hill. Matley, working under the , systematically explored dinosaur-bearing localities in the area as part of broader efforts to document the region's Mesozoic , recovering scattered theropod remains from surface scatters and shallow quarries in the calcareous sandstones of the formation. The key specimen from these efforts, designated as GSI K27/565, consists of a partial , including the right and a of the brain cavity. Additional postcranial remains from the same locality, including vertebrae, a , and a , have been tentatively referred to Indosaurus. These elements were collected from a single site known as the "Carnosaur Bed," a bone-rich horizon within the that has yielded multiple dissociated theropod remains. The excavation highlighted the fragmentary nature of the preservation, with bones often weathered and incomplete due to exposure and erosion. Tragically, the GSI K27/565 was lost during or shortly after , likely amid disruptions to Indian museum collections and transport during the conflict; today, only plaster casts, photographs, and detailed illustrations from the original study remain available for analysis. This loss has significantly hindered direct re-examination of the material, complicating efforts to resolve ambiguities in its anatomy and forcing reliance on historical documentation, which has implications for taxonomic stability and phylogenetic interpretations. Early assessments of the collected bones led to misidentification of certain postcranial elements as belonging to Megalosaurus matleyi, a provisional theropod taxon, before they were separated and formally erected as the distinct genus Indosaurus matleyi based on the unique cranial features.

Formal Description and Etymology

Indosaurus was formally named and described in 1933 by German paleontologist Friedrich von Huene and British geologist Charles Alfred Matley, who erected the genus for the type species Indosaurus matleyi based on a partial posterior skull (specimen GSI K27/565) collected from the Upper Cretaceous Lameta Formation near Jabalpur in central India. The generic name Indosaurus derives from "Indo-", referencing its Indian provenance, combined with the Greek sauros meaning "" or ""; the specific epithet matleyi honors Matley for his contributions to Indian , including the discovery of the material. The original appeared in the Geological Survey of India's Memoirs (Palaeontologia Indica, new series, vol. 21, no. 1), a comprehensive memoir on dinosaurs from the , which included preliminary illustrations of the skull elements and comparative analyses with contemporary theropods such as and . Indosaurus matleyi remains the sole valid species within the genus, with earlier informal referrals of the same material to Megalosaurus matleyi (noted by Matley in preliminary reports) now regarded as a junior synonym, as the 1933 publication provided the first valid diagnosis and nomenclature.

Anatomy

Cranial Morphology

The cranial morphology of Indosaurus matleyi is known primarily from fragmentary remains, including the holotype specimen GSI K27/565, which preserves the posterior portion of the skull encompassing the right frontal, parts of the temporal region, and the postorbital articulation. The frontal bone is subtriangular in outline, featuring a slightly rugose dorsal surface and an anterolateral notch for articulation with the lacrimal; it exhibits notable dorsoventral depth, measuring approximately 5 cm thick posteriorly near the postorbital contact and 3 cm thick rostrally, with a high posterior surface demarcated by a sharp border separating the dorsal and posterior faces. These features contribute to the overall robust construction of the skull roof, consistent with the thickened cranial architecture typical of abelisaurids. The parietals are broad and bear a markedly elevated , forming a reinforced midline structure along the roof that enhances structural integrity. The postorbital exhibits a rugose articular surface and is dorsoventrally deep, facilitating strong connections within the temporal region. Supratemporal fenestrae are anteroposteriorly short and positioned caudally, a configuration resembling that in Abelisaurus and Carnotaurus. The interorbital wall, interpreted as a vertically oriented parasphenoid rostrum hanging below the mid-frontal suture, further underscores the broad interorbital expanse, akin to the condition in Abelisaurus. Additional cranial elements attributed to Indosaurus or closely associated Lameta Formation abelisaurids include a left quadrate (GSI K27/684), which is robust and indicative of a powerful mechanism, though specific details are limited by preservation. Referred material, such as a thick, triangular, and anteroposteriorly short (GSI K27/1538, though primarily assigned to ), suggests similar proportions in Indosaurus, with thick-walled bones throughout the cranium providing reinforcement against torsional stresses during feeding. Notably absent are prominent ornamental features such as frontal domes (as in ), nasal bosses, or paired horns (as in ), resulting in a more conservative profile compared to these relatives and emphasizing Indosaurus as a basal member of with reduced cranial ornamentation. Dentition in Indosaurus is represented by isolated teeth that are transversely compressed and posteriorly recurved, displaying fine serrations along the margins and adapted for slicing flesh, much like those in Abelisaurus and Majungasaurus. These low-crowned, conical teeth align with the generalized abelisaurid pattern, prioritizing shear over puncture, and likely supported a predatory lifestyle involving rapid, tearing bites on prey. The overall skull robustness, including the massive frontals and elevated paralleling Carnotaurus, implies adaptations for handling large vertebrate prey, potentially with enhanced sensory capabilities inferred from the braincase , which shows similarities to Majungasaurus in , , and proportions.

Postcranial Skeleton

The postcranial skeleton of Indosaurus matleyi is known from fragmentary remains from the same locality ("Carnosaur bed") as the holotype, which have been tentatively referred to Indosaurus, limiting detailed reconstruction but indicating a medium-sized abelisaurid theropod with a robust build. Estimated total body length is approximately 7 meters (range 5–8 m based on comparisons to related abelisaurids), with a weight of approximately 700 kg, though these estimates are uncertain due to the fragmentary and tentatively referred nature of the material. This size suggests Indosaurus was comparable to or slightly smaller than contemporaries such as Rajasaurus narmadensis. The includes portions of cervical and dorsal vertebrae characterized by high neural spines, contributing to a tall, muscular neck and back for support during bipedal movement; these features align with the exaggerated spinal profiles seen in other abelisaurids, potentially aiding in balance and rapid maneuvers. The forelimbs are short and muscular, with reduced digits typical of abelisaurids, as inferred from comparable limb elements in the same assemblage, indicating limited grasping capability but sufficient strength for close-range interactions. The pelvic girdle and hindlimbs, represented by robust femora (60–74 cm long) and stout tibiae with prominent cnemial crests, support bipedal locomotion with powerful thighs enabling bursts of speed, consistent with the predatory of abelisaurids. vertebrae, though incompletely preserved, show elongated centra suggesting a long, flexible tail that provided counterbalance for the bipedal posture, further enhancing stability during agile pursuits. Overall, the incomplete nature of the postcranial material—lacking complete series of vertebrae, full limb sets, or girdle elements—precludes a comprehensive reconstruction, but the available bones underscore Indosaurus as a robust predator within its abelisaurid lineage.

Classification

Historical Interpretations

Upon its formal description in 1933, Indosaurus matleyi was classified by Friedrich von Huene as a carnosaur within the family , a placement based primarily on a fragmentary partial roof including the right (GSI K27/565) from the in . This initial interpretation emphasized resemblances to Jurassic allosaurids in the robustness of the roof and orbital features, such as short broad parietals and a transverse crest above the orbits, though the diagnosis relied heavily on photographs, drawings, and field notes provided by collector Charles Matley, as Huene did not examine the specimens firsthand. The fragmentary nature of the material, consisting of a thick posterior portion without lower jaws or , limited more precise comparisons at the time. Subsequent reinterpretations in the mid-20th century highlighted ongoing taxonomic uncertainty, exacerbated by the loss of the , which forced later researchers to depend on casts, Matley's original notes, and published illustrations for analysis. This separation reflected broader debates over whether Indian theropods represented primitive carnosaurs or more derived coelurosaurian forms, with Indosaurus viewed as a larger, more robust potentially synonymous with other Lameta theropods like Lametasaurus. By the 1970s, further linked to , suggesting they might represent growth variants or synonyms within a group of small to medium-sized tyrannosauroids or coelurosaurs, based on shared cranial and dental features observed in additional skull fragments from the same locality. Chatterjee's analysis, which included estimates of 14 maxillary teeth and a slender dentary, emphasized the challenges of working with incomplete, weathered material prone to misidentification as megalosaurids or allosaurids. Through the , the consensus treated as a large, indeterminate theropod , with imprecise family-level placement oscillating between carnosaurian and coelurosaurian affinities due to the absence of the and limited new discoveries.

Phylogenetic Relationships

Indosaurus matleyi is classified within the theropod family , specifically in the subfamily , as determined by cladistic analyses incorporating morphological data from cranial and postcranial elements. This placement was confirmed in a 2014 phylogenetic study that recovered 20 most parsimonious trees, positioning Indosaurus alongside other Indo-Madagascan taxa in a supported by synapomorphies such as an anteroposteriorly expanded and a parietal with an anteriorly widening triangular plate. Within Majungasaurinae, Indosaurus shares close phylogenetic relations with the Indian abelisaurids narmadensis and gujaratensis, forming a indicative of regional in the of the . It is potentially a sister taxon to crenatissimus from , reflecting Gondwanan dispersal patterns from to India prior to the final separation of these landmasses around 100 million years ago. Key synapomorphies supporting its abelisaurid affinities include markedly shortened forelimbs with reduced length relative to body size and a robust, deep skull lacking prominent ornamentation, features that distinguish from the more derived Abelisaurinae. The taxonomic validity of Indosaurus remains debated due to its fragmentary consisting of a partial roof, which limits comprehensive comparisons, with later researchers relying on casts and original descriptions. Some analyses question its distinction from the contemporary Indian theropod raptorius, suggesting possible synonymy or referral to a single based on overlapping but poorly preserved basicranial morphology; however, provisional separation is maintained pending new material.

Paleoecology

Geological Setting

The fossils of Indosaurus matleyi were recovered from the in , specifically in the region of , dating to the stage of the , approximately 69–66 million years ago. This formation underlies the extensive volcanic sequence and represents infratrappean sediments deposited prior to the main phase of continental flood basalt eruptions. The consists of intercalated , , and units, reflecting a influenced by fluvial, lacustrine, and minor volcanic processes. These lithologies include green sandstones at the base, overlain by nodular limestones and mottled beds, indicative of riverine channels, lake basins, and pedogenic (soil-forming) horizons developed on a regolith. The formation's thickness varies from 10 to 30 meters across outcrops, with such as and calcretes pointing to episodic flooding and pedogenesis in a continental setting. Paleoclimate reconstructions suggest a semi-arid to seasonally humid tropical , with of aridity from pedogenic carbonates and clays, interspersed with wetter phases supporting lacustrine deposition. The proximity to emerging volcanism introduced environmental stressors, including iridium enrichments in associated sediments attributed to volcanic emissions rather than extraterrestrial impact, signaling pre-Cretaceous–Paleogene (K-Pg) perturbations around 350,000 years before the boundary at 66 Ma. of underlying and overlying basalts, using ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar and U-Pb methods, confirms the Lameta's position in chron C29r, placing Indosaurus and associated fauna's in the wake of initial Deccan pulses.

Contemporaneous Biota and Interactions

Indosaurus matleyi inhabited a ecosystem in the of , characterized by a semi-arid with braided streams, palustrine flats, and sheet flood deposits that supported a environment conducive to large herbivores and their predators. The dominant herbivores were titanosaurian sauropods, including colberti and septentrionalis, whose remains are abundant in the formation and likely formed the base of the for carnivorous theropods. Other contemporaneous theropods included abelisaurids such as raptorius and narmadensis, suggesting competition among apex predators, while crocodylomorphs occupied aquatic and semi-aquatic niches, with evidence of their nests in sauropod hatcheries indicating spatial overlap in breeding sites. Basal snakes like Sanajeh indicus, a madtsoiid reaching 3.5 meters in length, coexisted and specialized in raiding titanosaur nests, preying on hatchlings as evidenced by fossils coiled around eggs and juveniles. As a large abelisaurid theropod estimated at around 7 meters in length based on tentatively referred postcranial elements, Indosaurus was carnivorous, with its robust cranium typical of abelisaurids, which had ziphodont teeth adapted for slicing flesh from prey. Inferred dietary habits point to predation on juvenile or subadult titanosaurs, similar to those of related abelisaurids like , which targeted large herbivores in Gondwanan ecosystems; scavenging may have supplemented its diet, facilitated by the build's strength for handling tough carcasses. The absence of direct gut contents limits confirmation, but the prevalence of subadult sauropod remains in the formation supports this predatory role. Behavioral inferences position Indosaurus as an apex predator in this floodplain setting, capable of ambushing or pursuing prey across varied terrains. Parallels with other abelisaurids, such as the gregarious bonebed of Mapusaurus roseae, suggest potential pack hunting to tackle larger prey, though direct evidence for Indosaurus is lacking. The ecosystem's stability was disrupted by the onset of Deccan Traps volcanism around 67.5 million years ago, which buried habitats under lava flows, induced climatic shifts, and likely contributed to prey decline and the local extinction of non-avian dinosaurs by the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.

References

  1. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76ad/66ba5a640885c8618ddca6e6d7574800b174.pdf
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288914603_Cretaceous_theropods_from_India_A_review_of_specimens_described_by_Huene_and_Matley_1933
  3. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/sp343.9
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1303959
  5. https://bioone.org/journals/acta-palaeontologica-polonica/volume-60/issue-1/app.2013.0037/The-Endocranial-Morphology-and-Inner-Ear-of-the-Abelisaurid-Theropod/10.4202/app.2013.0037.full
  6. https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/paulsereno/i/docs/03-UM-Rajasaurus.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291807131_Indosuchus_and_Indosaurus_Cretaceous_carnosaurs_from_India
  8. https://repository.si.edu/bitstreams/326fbdee-9197-4942-978f-dbaad3ba9f29/download
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259295271_A_new_abelisaurid_dinosaur_from_the_Late_Cretaceous_of_southernFrance_Palaeobiogeographical_implications
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S075339691300089X
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3385738/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263733418_Deccan_Continental_Flood_Basalt_Eruption_Terminated_Indian_Dinosaurs_before_the_Cretaceous-Paleogene_Boundary
  13. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/979901/spe505-09.pdf
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271627350_Lithofacies_architecture_and_depositional_environment_of_Late_Cretaceous_Lameta_Formation_central_India
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120303189
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667108000207
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018204006261
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313204257_A_Titanosauriform_Dinosauria_Sauropoda_axis_from_the_Lameta_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_Maastrichtian_of_Nad_Central_India
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4671694/
  20. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000322
  21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12038-009-0059-6
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.