Caudata ? indet.

(Fig. 11)

DESCRIPTION

Among the microvertebrates from Angeac-Charente, a specimen could be referred to Caudata. Indeed, the vertebra ANG M-71 (Fig. 11) is anteroposteriorly elongated, with a broad, almost circular cotyle (Fig. 11A) and with well-defined pre– and postzygapophyses. The posterior part of the centrum is abraded, but the vertebra is clearly procoelous. Two small subcentral foramina are present on the ventral face (Fig. 11F). The general shape, presence of transverse processes extending posterolaterally, and broad vertebral cotyle are reminiscent of Caudata (Rage et al. 1993) . In Caudata, the trunk vertebrae are, however, commonly opisthocoelous or amphicoelous and the procoelous condition is rare (see Estes 1981; Rage et al. 1993; Alloul et al. 2018 for examples of procoelous caudates). On the contrary, the procoelous condition is common within Squamata, to which this vertebra could be alternatively referred. Moreover, anterior basapophyses, which are present in many caudate groups (Estes 1981), are not discernable, and the presence or absence of a notochordal pit, which is usually observed on caudate vertebrae (Alloul et al. 2018), cannot be inferred because of the abraded condyle. However, the left transverse process (= rib-bearer), although broken, has an expanded head (Fig. 11C, E, F), indicating that it may be bilobed as in salamanders, and a ridge extending between the transverse process and the condyle seems to be present, as in Caudata (Alloul et al. 2018), but the preservation is too poor to reach a conclusion. Thus, this vertebra is tentively referred to Caudata?, although an assignment to Squamata cannot be excluded.