| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
From Georgalis et al. 2016: No catalogue number formally designated (Owen 1857) and the original material is now lost (Rage 1984; Szyndlar 1991; Szyndlar and Rage 2002). Our attempt to relocate the type material of L. crotaloides was not successful as well: the type material is not listed in the catalogues of the Natural History Museum in London () and apparently it is not present in the collections (S. Chapman, pers. comm. to M.D.).
It was considered a nomen dubium by Rage (1984).
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1857 | Laophis crotaloides Owen |
| 2016 | Laophis crotaloides Georgalis et al. |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
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.
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| G. L. Georgalis et al. 2016 | L. crotaloides can be differentiated from all other viperid snakes by the combination of the following characters: very large vertebral size (CL equal or larger than 15 mm); centrum proportionally short and broad in ventral view; cotyle much wider than the neural canal; condyle stout and proportionally large, elliptical in shape and being slightly wider than tall; diapophyses probably more developed than the parapophyses; and well developed parapophyseal processes. |
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Source: f = family, c = class, subp = subphylum | |||||
| References: Hendy et al. 2009, Carroll 1988, Behler and King 1979 | |||||