| Kangnasaurus | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Thigh bone ofcf. Kangnasaurus | |
Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Clade: | Dinosauria |
| Clade: | †Ornithischia |
| Clade: | †Ornithopoda |
| Clade: | †Elasmaria |
| Genus: | †Kangnasaurus Haughton,1915 |
| Species: | †K. coetzeei |
| Binomial name | |
| †Kangnasaurus coetzeei Haughton, 1915 | |
Kangnasaurus (meaning "Farm Kangnas lizard") is agenus ofelasmarianornithopoddinosaur found inLate Cretaceous rocks ofSouth Africa. It is known from a tooth and possibly somepostcranial remains dating between the middle-Campanian toMaastrichtianKalahari Deposits Formation.[1]
Kangnasaurus was named in 1915 bySidney H. Haughton. Thetype species isKangnasaurus coetzeei. The generic name refers to the Kangnas farm; thespecific name to the farmer, Coetzee.Kangnasaurus is based onholotypeSAM 2732, a tooth found at a depth of 34 metres in a well at Farm Kangnas, in theOrange River valley of northernCape Province,South Africa.[2] The age of these rocks,conglomerates in an ancientcrater lake, was once suggested to date to the Early Cretaceous (probably early-Aptian) due to the original phylogenetic position of the taxa as a dryosaurid.[3] But a Late Cretaceous age between the Campanian and Maastrichtian is more likely due to sedimentological analyses.[4] Haughton thought SAM 2732 was a tooth from theupper jaw, but Michael Cooper reidentified it as alower jaw tooth in 1985.[5] This had implications for its classification: Haughton thought the tooth was that of aniguanodontid,[2] while Cooper identified it as from an animal more likeDryosaurus, a morebasal ornithopod.[5]
Haughton described several other fossils as possibly belonging toKangnasaurus. These include five partialthigh bones, a partial thigh bone andshin bone, a partialmetatarsal, a partial shin and foot,vertebrae, and unidentified bones. Some of the bones apparently came from other deposits, and Haughton was not certain that they all belonged to his new genus.[2] Cooper was also not certain, but described the other specimens as if they did belong toKangnasaurus.[5] Like other basal iguanodontians, it would have been abipedalherbivore.[6]
Kangnasaurus was originally regarded as dubious,[7][6] although a 2007 review of dryosaurids by Ruiz-Omeñaca and colleagues retained it as potentially valid, differing from other dryosaurids by details of the thigh bone.[3]
The differences in interpretation between Haughton and Cooper regarding the placement of the tooth had implications for the taxon's classification: Haughton thought the tooth was indicative that of aniguanodontid when interpreted as a maxillary position,[2] while Cooper classified it as coming from an animal more likeDryosaurus based on his assignment of the tooth to the dentary.[5] However, more recent studies have separately uncovered a position nested within the elasmarian group.[8][9][10]
