Vitakridrinda sulaimani theropod overlapping features with most derived Abelisauroidea Ceratosauria are as broad, small and low crown teeth, large hollow cavity in the centre enveloped by thick peripheral limb bones and medium to large sized amphicoelous vertebrae. Because in Indo-Pakistan, the poripuchian (all caudals are procoelous except first biconvex in a few taxa [6] [7] [8]) the most derived or most advanced titanosaurs coexisted during latest Cretaceous which lack amphicoelous caudal vertebrae. Further Induszalim mesoeucrocodile have relatively very small vertebrae than Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus theropods. Vitakridrinda sulaimani shares with Vitakrisauridae as dorsal centrum with parapophysis on the upper part of anterior caudal centra and forwardly inserted anteriorly neural arch on the dorsal aspect of centra.

Vitakridrinda sulaimani is characterised by the following autapomorphies. Vitakridrinda teeth are anteroposteriorly broad with low crown and have triangular shape with triconvex cross section. Asymmetric convexity (one limb shorter than other limb showing one limb shorter than other limb with different angles) found on one side, and plain surface is found on other side. Vitakridrinda teeth cavity is enveloped by two layer enamel; the blue enamel layer and then outer white enamel layer, while in mesoeucrocodiles from Pakistan only one layer enamel is observed. The blue enamel layer is sandwiched between the teeth cavity and outer white enamel layer. The central cavity of teeth of Vitakridrinda is relatively large (Figure 1) than teeth cavity of mesoeucrocodile Induszalim bala (Figure 11). The theropod teeth are compared with mesoeucrocodiles because the Vitakridrinda theropod and Induszalim mesoeucrocodile are found in one and same locality and same horizon. Outer cover and envelope on central hollow cavity of teeth of Vitakridrinda is relatively very thin (Figure 1), than the teeth of mesoeucrocodile Induszalim bala (Figure 11) which have very thick bone enamel envelope or cover. Vitakridrinda have low crown, oval to D-shaped and typically triangular to triconvex teeth. Vitakridrinda have elongated, tall and ventrally expanded dorsal vertebrae while Vitakrisaurus have elongated cylindrical dorsal vertebrae and Rajasaurus [19] have short and tall dorsal vertebrae. Vitakridrinda have elongated and square shaped to cylindrical caudal vertebrae while Vitakrisaurus have elongated and tall caudal vertebrae. Anteroposteriorly elongated fossa on upper part of lateral side of dorsal centrum and extended into neural arch. This fossa also has neurocentral opening and suture. Further another upper fossa is present on the adjoining anterodorsal side which is again anteroposteriorly elongated while in Rajasaurus [19] both fossa are anteroposteriorly compressed and dorsoventrally tall. Vitakridrinda hyposphene articulation found as extended laminae on dorsal vertebra. The postzygapophyses are vertical (not horizontal) and anteroposteriorly oriented (Figure 2) while in Rajasaurus postzygapophyses are horizontal and laterally oriented. Vitakridrinda have groove bounded by lateral ridge in ventral view of dorsal (Figure 2) and also anterior caudal vertebra (Figure 3), while Vitakrisaurus have groove bounded by lateral ridge in ventral view of caudal centra (Figure 5), Rajasaurus [19] and Rahiolisaurus [20] have no groove and no lateral bonded ridges in ventral views of dorsal and caudal vertebrae. Vitakridrinda did not have ventral keel in dorsal (Figure 1) (Figure 2) and also caudal centra (Figure 3), while Rajasaurus [19] and Rahiolisaurus [20] have ventral keel on dorsal and caudal centra. Anterior caudal have ventrodorsally oval shaped transverse process situated on the posterior articular ring. This oval transverse process is relatively thin in the ventral and thick in the mid and dorsal parts. Further this transverse process is not contacted with neural arch while in Vitakrisaurus and also in Rajasaurus [19] the transverse process is extended from centrum to the neural arch. Vitakridrinda has asymmetric oval shaped transverse processes (Figure 3), while Vitakrisaurus has subcircular transverse process and Rahiolisaurus have triangular (cross-section) transverse process. Neural arch on anterior caudal is forwardly inserted while some posterior part is not covered (Figure 3). Vitakridrinda neural canal is dorsoventrally tall suboval shaped in anterior caudal vertebrae while Vitakrisaurus neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed, transversely oval shaped in anterior caudal and also in middle caudal vertebrae. Vitakridrinda have amphicoelous biconcave caudal vertebrae (Figures 1-3), while Rajasaurus [19] and Rahiolisaurus [20] have amphiplatyan or flat articular surfaces or feeble amphicoely. Distal caudal is anteroposteriorly elongated subcylinder type with long parallel ridges alternated by long grooves on all sides (Figure 3), except the anterior and posterior concave articular surfaces. This distal centrum has no apparent neural arch connection. Femur shaft is transversely broad (Figure 1) with thick peripheral bone enveloped on the central hollow cavity (Figure 1). Femoral anterior trochanter is vertically oriented but blunted at tip (Figure 1).

Associated Teeth: Holotypic 10 teeth are exposed in irregular shaped lump holotypic specimen MSM-61-19 (Figure 1) which is about 8cm long and 8cm wide, found with bones of Vitakridrinda theropod, Induszalim mesoeucrocodile and Gspsaurus titanosaurs from central Alam type locality. The teeth in lump cannot be assigned to Gspsaurus titanosaur because the teeth in the Gspsaurus skull [7] are circular and totally different than lump teeth. The teeth of Induszalim are circular and arced asymmetric D-shaped laterally slightly concave and medially convex but not triconvex. Further Induszalim have teeth with one enamel layer while the teeth in lump have two enamel; the blue and outer white enamel layer. So the third fauna found is the Vitakridrinda theropod. So these lumpy teeth were assigned to Vitakridrinda theropod. Further these teeth are broad with low crown, which is the typical feature of abelisaurian theropods. These teeth are diagnostic and assigned with holotypic postcranial materials of Vitakridrinda which is again diagnostic. One labial convexity show both limb at about 90˚ and other anterior and posterior convexities show limbs angle about 45˚. Holotypic specimen MSM-61-19 includes one large tooth mostly exposed while many others are exposed as cross section. The large tooth is reduced transversely. Tooth crown is extremely low (significant character) and the ratio of the crown height to rostro-caudal width is about 1 - 1.5. Tooth anteroposterior breadth is 2.2 cm, labial to lingual depth is about 1.3 cm. Teeth are found embedded in matrix so possible length seems to be low like 2.2 cm or slightly more as broad, this is interpreted due to seeing the decreasing tooth anteroposterior breadth. Teeth are heterodont and conical. About 5 teeth are short, asymmetrical triangular and triconvex, while others are oval and D-shaped teeth. D-shaped teeth have one side flat and other side convex. The large hollow of teeth covered by a thin blue enamel layer and finally outer thin white enamel layer cover (significant character), while the mesoeucrocodile Induszalim bala which show relatively thin hollow with thick enamel white cover. Further one tooth has another replacement tooth inside showing replacement of teeth phenomena (Figure 1). A few cranial bones like eye peripheral bone/lacrimal and other trirays star like bones are also found in association with teeth in lumpy specimen (Figure 1).

Teeth are slightly recurved and taper gradually. The ratio of the crown height to antero-posterior width of the tooth base in fully erupted teeth is 1 to 1.5 (like Indosuchus), where as the other carnosaurs this ratio is 3 to 4 [28]. Morphology of the tooth may vary with position. In Majungasaurus [29], the premaxillary teeth are more compressed labiolingually with stronger development of both the mesial and distal keels coarse serrations. However, these distal serrations are absent in the preserved teeth of Rahiolisaurus [20]. Theropod teeth are some of the most diagnostic fossils from dinosaur assemblages with taxonomic utility to the genus or even species level [30]. Theropod teeth are common because theropod have more than 50 teeth and majority of these lacks root and represent shed teeth upon replacements [31]. Theropod teeth are abundant in the fossil record and broadly used at distinct levels of taxonomic classification [31] [32] [33].

The teeth of Vitakridrinda are triconvex and triangular and slight to strongly compressed sidewise to oval, while Indosuchus teeth are subequal antero-posterior and transverse diameter and highly compressed sidewise and noasaurid theropod teeth from Brazil which are elliptical [34]. Vitakridrinda teeth are triconvex with core large core cavity enveloped by blue enamel and then outer white enamel layer make differentiation from Indosuchus teeth and theropod teeth from India. Further replacement of teeth is also found in one tooth having developed another small tooth in the core of large tooth (Figure 1). Some slender teeth may belong to last maxillary teeth because [28] mentioned that the last four maxillary teeth are more slender. The reference [35] reported six distinct teeth of theropod which may belong to one taxon [19]. The teeth of Vitakridrinda are broad and less crown than Arcovenator escotae [36] from France who has teeth high (3 - 5.5 cm). Further Vitakridrinda has forwardly inserted neural arch on caudal centra while the Arcovenator escotae [36] has neural arch contact with caudal centra on most of the dorsal aspect of centra. The reference [36] mentioned that the paleobiogeographic closer affinity with Indo-Pakistan and Madagascar than South America. They further reported Arcovenator escotae more closely related to taxa from India and Madagascar than to South American forms.

Dorsal Vertebrae: Two holotypic partial dorsal centra MSM-706-19, MSM-765-19 (Figure 1) from Alam, one referred dorsal vertebra MSM-56-1 (Figure 2) from Sangiali, and dorsal centra MSM-1040-16 and MSM-1048-16 (Figure 3) from Top Kinwa were found. The dorsal vertebra MSM-56-1 is 3.5 cm wide and 5.7 cm high while length is incomplete but seems to be elongate. The holotypic partial dorsal centra are tall (Figure 2) and their morphology provides clues to assign dorsal vertebrae (Figure 3) from Topkinwa and Sangiali localities. One vertebra MSM-56-1) from Sangiali include partial centrum and articulated neural arch (Figure 2) provide best information especially differentiation from Rajasaurus. The other centra only provide limited features especially of centrum. The dorsal centra are tall, amphicoelous, waisted and ventrally expanded and dorsally reduced. The dorsal view of posterior part of dorsal centrum is not covered by neural arch (Figure 2), it means the neural arch is inserted forwardly anteriorly. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus have elongated dorsal vertebrae (Figure 2) while Rajasaurus have short and tall dorsal vertebrae. Vitakridrinda centrum is devoid of double pleurocoels (Figure 2) unlike other abelisauroids (e.g. Carnotaurus, Majungasaurus, Laevisuchus) in which double pleurocoels are present. Vitakridrinda (and also Vitakrisaurus) did not have ventral keel (Figure 2) (Figure 3) on centra and in this regards differ from Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Nhandumirim which have longitudinal ventral keel on centra. Vitakridrinda have groove bounded by lateral ridge in ventral view of dorsal (Figure 2), while Vitakrisaurus has very feeble impression of groove and bounded lateral ridge (Figure 6), Rajasaurus [19] and Rahiolisaurus [20] have no groove and no lateral bonded ridges in ventral views of dorsal vertebrae. The anterior and posterior articular surfaces of the centrum of Vitakridrinda are subcircular and formed well developed amphicoelous concavity (Figure 2) (Figure 3) while the Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus have only slight concavity or mostly flat or feeble or gentle amphicoelous natures. Central core of centrum have sub circular hollow and peripheral thick bone known from the cross sectional view (Figure 1). The Vitakridrinda neural canal is vertically elongated suboval and transversely compressed (Figure 2) like Rajasaurus, and unlike Vitakrisaurus saraiki which has transversely elongated and dorsoventrally compressed neural canal (Figure 5).

Two large and lense shaped fossa like lower and upper fossa (Figure 2) are observed on the lateral side of dorsal vertebra. The lower fossa extended from dorsal margin of the centrum to the neural arch (Figure 2). The neurocentral opening suture is found close to the dorsal margin of fossa (Figure 2). Vitakridrinda has anteroposteriorly elongate lense shaped lower fossa (Figure 2) like Carnotaurus [37], and unlike Rajasaurus which has subtriangular shaped fossa [19]. The upper fossa is found just above lower fossa on lateral view (Figure 2) and bounded by dorsal and ventral laminae which trends anteroposteriorly. The upper fossa started just anterior of postzygapophysis. There are a number of small pneumatic diverticulae and several laminae that separate larger pneumatic fossae. On lateral view two postzygapophyseal laminae (postzygodiapophyseal lamina) started from postzygapophysis toward anteriorly and their divergence forms the dorsal fossa (Figure 2). In posterior view, paired laminae (spinoprezygapophyseal, spinopostzygapophyseal) enclose a narrow median fossa as they extend dorsally from the postzygapophyses to the neural spine (Figure 2). The postzygapophyses are longer anteroposteriorly than broad transversely and have an inclined orientation in Vitakridrinda while this orientation is horizontal in Rajasaurus. Short and vertical intrapostzygapophyseal laminae join each postzygapophysis to the hyposphene (Figure 2). The neural arch is highly pneumatic.

Anterior Caudal Vertebrae: Two anterior caudals MSM-58-15 and MSM-282-15 found from Mari Bohri. The anterior caudal centrum MSM-58-15 (Figure 3) is 7.9 cm long, 5.6 cm wide and 6.2 cm high. The anterior caudal vertebrae are relatively short, slightly tall with subcircular articular rings, amphicoelous, slightly waisted and lack pleurocoel (Figure 3). In Vitakridrinda the neural arches are inserted anteriorly on dorsal surface of anterior caudal centra (Figure 3) while in Rajasaurus [19] the neural arch covers the most of dorsal surface of centrum. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel on the centra and in this regards differ from Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Nhandumirim which have longitudinal keel present on ventral surface of centrum. Vitakridrinda (and also Vitakrisaurus) have groove bounded by lateral ridge in ventral view of anterior caudal vertebra (Figure 3) (Figure 5), while Rajasaurus [19] and Rahiolisaurus [20] have no groove and no lateral bonded ridges in ventral views of caudal vertebrae. The cranial rim of the centrum is slightly more than the caudal articular surface. The centrum is in the shape of a subrectangular (Figure 3) and not show parallelogram in side view, however the anterior articular ring on the dorsal part is forwardly extended or offset. The transverse process is dorsoventrally oval shaped oriented on upper half of articular rim (Figure 3). The transverse process is found only on centrum and not connected with neural arch (Figure 3) in Vitakridrinda, while the transverse process is located laterally at base of neural arch and not located on centrum in Vitakrisaurus, it is partly on centrum and partly on neural arch in Rajasaurus. Vitakridrinda has asymmetric oval shaped transverse processes (Figure 3), while Vitakrisaurus has subcircular transverse process and Rahiolisaurus have triangular (cross-section) transverse process. Vitakridrinda have transverse process with dorsoventrally oval shaped while the thickness is increasing in the mid and dorsal portions (Figure 3). Because their distal ends are broken, it is not possible to infer if they were fan-shaped, a feature that occurs in most (e.g. Carnotaurus, Ilokelesia, Ekrixinatosaurus) but not all (e.g. Majungasaurus) abelisauroids. In Vitakridrinda the transverse process is separated from neural arch (Figure 3) while in Rajasaurus it is attached to neural arch. Well developed chevron facets (Figure 3) are observed in anterior and middle caudal centrum of Vitakridrinda, while Rajasaurus have no obvious chevron facets, although the ventral margins of the centrum are weathered [19]. Vitakridrinda have deeply concave amphicoelous caudal vertebrae (Figure 3), while Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus have almost flat or amphiplatyan or gently or feebly developed amphicoelous surfaces.

Distal Caudal Vertebra Showing Distal Whiplash Tail Nature: One distal caudal centrum MSM-149-16 (Figure 3) found from Topkinwa. This vertebra is 11 cm long and 3 - 4 cm wide. This vertebra is amphicoelous (biconcave, having concave both ends), sub cylindrical long, slender and lack pleurocoel (Figure 3) and also lack articular surface for neural arch (Figure 3) revealing position in distal tail. There are no any neural arches or chevron facets. It is simple whip lash type distal caudal vertebra. It has parallel longitudinal ridges/fibrous/laminar structures alternated by long grooves trending anteroposteriorly located on all sides except the anterior and posterior concave articular surfaces (Figure 3).

Femur: Holotypic proximal left and right femora MSM-59-19 and MSM-60-19 and a distal femur shaft MSM-1039-19 (Figure 1) from Alam were collected. The preserved portions are the proximal shaft, anterior trochanter and subcircular head joint with shaft while interned head is broken. A pair of proximal femora shows hollow in the core and thick walled bone on the periphery. It shows evidence of inturned head with a distinct neck. Anterior trochanter is well developed and slightly blunted (Figure 1). Anteroposterior and transverse diameter of the central hollow cavity is about 5 and 5.5 cm. Thickness of peripheral bone is 1 cm on the ventral side and 2.5 cm just below the inturned head (Figure 1). The femoral cross section just below the inturned head is slightly oval (Figure 3) having the anteroposterior and transverse maximum width as 7.5 and 9.5 cm respectively. Distal femur MSM-1039-19 (Figure 3) is transversely longer than anteroposteriorly like proximal femur. The transversely longer hollow and shaft and thick peripheral bone of distal femur matches with proximal femur show the same with originally one femur parts. The distal femur has core hollow cavity same as proximal part. This core cavity is enveloped by thick peripheral bone dorsal side but on ventral side fibrous bone network replaced the hollow, revealing close approach to fibular and tibial condyles. The femur shaft is compressed anteroposteriorly and longer transversely than anteroposteriorly (Figure 1). This animal may be 7 - 10 m long and weighed 5 - 10 tons. Huene distinguished two types of femur and tibia like stouter to Indosaurus and slender to Indosuchus. This division is also found in Pakistan like Vitakridrinda has stouter limb bones with thick bone envelope on hollow cavity (Figure 1) and Vitakrisaurus has slender limb bones with thin bone envelope on hollow cavity (Figure 6). A low but slightly blunted anterior trochanter on femora (Figure 1) share with the femora of Carnotaurus, Ekrixinatosaurus, and Xenotarsosaurus.

Metatarsals: Referred partial metatarsal II (MSM-41-16 and MSM-42-16) and metatarsal III (MSM-1043-4) from Top Kinwa (Figure 3) were collected with the distal whiplash caudal vertebra MSM-149-16. Metatarsal II (MSM-41-16 and MSM-42-16) is relatively thicker than metatarsal III (Figure 3). These have central hollow cavity which is surrounded by thick peripheral bones (Figure 3). Its end is slightly inflated or expanded. Metatarsal II is a robust metapodial similar to that in Ceratosaurus [38] and basal tetanurans such as Allosaurus [39] and Sinraptor [40]. The proximal shaft is broader as in noasaurids [41]. The lateral view of proximal metatarsal II is convex and medial side is concave (Figure 3). Metatarsal III (MSM-1043-4) is relatively less thick than metatarsal II. This has central hollow cavity which is surrounded by thick peripheral bones (Figure 3). This is the reason for referring to Vitakridrinda because Vitakridrinda have thick peripheral bone and Vitakrisaurus have relatively thin peripheral bones. Its end is slightly inflated or expanded. This end has also some rugosity. Metatarsal III is a relatively slender metapodial. The end of metatarsal III is convex, asymmetric and rugose.

The Vitakrisaurus saraiki [26] is a medium sized theropod dinosaurs sharing with the most derived Abelisauroidea, Ceratosauria as moderate to large limb bones with relatively large hollow cavity in the centre enveloped by relatively thin peripheral bones, amphicoelous nature of vertebrae and slightly recurved claw/ungual of hand. Further the amphicoelous vertebrae are medium sized, highly larger than mesoeucrocodiles, and slightly smaller than titanosaurian. In Indo-Pakistan the titanosaurs found so far are poripuchian in which anterior, mid and distal caudal vertebrae are procoelous (while in lithostrotian the anterior and mid caudals are procoelous) the most derived titanosaurs which have no amphicoelous vertebrae. So these amphicoelous vertebrae belong to abelisauroid ceratosaurian theropods. Vitakrisauridae (definition) is the clade containing Vitakrisaurus saraiki and Vitakridrinda sulaimani. Vitakrisauridae have the same characters as Vitakrisaurus saraiki.

Vitakrisaurus saraiki [26] has the following autapomorphic characters. Vitakrisaurus saraiki has cylindrical elongated dorsal centrum (Figure 6) jointed with neural arch on all dorsal view anteroposterior length, while Vitakridrinda has tall and anteroposteriorly elongated dorsal centra (Figure 1) (Figure 2) and Rajasaurus has tall and short dorsal centrum. Vitakrisaurus has circular or subcircular transverse process on lateral basal neural arch of anterior caudals, while Rajasaurus has transverse process which extended into neural arch, Vitakridrinda has oval shaped transverse process did not contacted with neural arch and located on upper part of posterior articular ring on anterior caudal centrum, and Rahiolisaurus has triangular transverse process. Vitakrisaurus has circular transverse process on base of neural arch (not found on centrum) of anterior caudals, while Rajasaurus have dorsoventrally elongated transverse process on centrum and also contacted with neural arch. Neural arch on anterior caudal is forwardly inserted (Figure 5) while in Rajasaurus the neural arch cover all along the dorsal surface of caudal centrum. Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel in dorsal centra (Figure 6) and also caudal (Figure 5) centra, while Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus have ventral keel on dorsal and caudal centra. Vitakrisaurus neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed, transversely oval shaped in anterior caudal and also in middle caudal vertebrae (Figure 5), while Rajasaurus neural canal is circular shaped in anterior caudal vertebrae. Vitakrisaurus anterior and midcaudal vertebrae have posterior yard (Figure 5) on the posterior vacant/uncover part of dorsal aspect of centrum. This yard is surrounded by laterally and posteriorly by thin boundary wall. Vitakrisaurus saraiki mid caudal centra did not have a longitudinal ridge on its lateral surface, and also did not have ventral keel in mid caudal centra (Figure 5) while Rajasaurus centrum bears a reduced longitudinal ridge on its lateral surface, and its ventral surface is keeled. Vitakrisaurus have leg bones like femur with thin peripheral bone on the central hollow cavity in cross section while Vitakridrinda have relatively thick peripheral bones on central hollow cavity of leg bones. Articulated and associated elements of manus/hand (Figure 4) (Figure 6) have thick bones. Metacarpal I is short and relatively narrow, metacarpal II is thickest and longest, and metacarpal III are thick and long but slightly less than metacarpal II. Manual phalange I of digit I is longest, phalange II-I and phalange II-II are thick and long, phalange III-I, phalange III-II and phalange III-III are short and expanded on proximal and distal ends. Manual ungual or claw I is thick, robust and slightly recurved downward (Figure 4).

Dorsal Vertebra: One referred dorsal vertebra MSM-57-3 (Figure 10) from Shalghara 3 is being referred to Vitakrisaurus. This circular dorsal centrum being different than Vitakridrinda, Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus dorsal centra, and its location Shalghara 3 is close to holotypic locality of Vitakrisaurus, so it is being assigned to Vitakrisaurus. This vertebra MSM-57-3 include complete centrum (Figure 6) and provide information especially differentiation from Vitakridrinda, Rajasaurus and Rahiolisaurus. This dorsal centrum is amphicoelous, slightly waisted and has lateral feeble fossa or pleurocoel (Figure 6). The centrum length is 6.6 cm, width 6.6 cm and length 8.3 cm (Figure 6). This dorsal centrum is elongated cylindrical with circular shaped articular surfaces (Figure 6), while dorsal centra of Vitakridrinda is tall and elongated (Figure 6), and the dorsal centrum of Rajasaurus is tall and short. Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel (Figure 2) (Figure 6) and in this regards differ from Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Nhandumirim which have longitudinal keel on ventral surface of centrum. The proximal and posterior articular surfaces of the centrum are circular and concave (Figure 6). They have slightly constriction and slight concave profiles of the ventral margin of centra in side view (Figure 6). The dorsal centrum is not spool-shaped, with its articular faces not deeper than broad while Rajasaurus dorsal centrum is spool-shaped, with its articular faces deeper than broad [19]. Vitakrisaurus have well developed amphicoelous concave articular surfaces (Figure 11) while the Rahiolisaurus [20] and Rajasaurus [19] have flat or gentle or faint amphicoelous nature. Vitakrisaurus has elongated dorsal centrum (Figure 6) jointed on all dorsal view anteroposterior length with neural arch.

Anterior Caudal Vertebra: A holotypic anterior caudal centrum MSM-53-2 (Figure 6) found from mid Bor locality. This centrum is 6.4 cm wide and 7.5 cm high. The anterior caudal vertebrae are relatively short, slightly tall to squarish, amphicoelous, slightly waisted and lack pleurocoel and ventral keel (Figure 6). The neural arches are inserted forward toward the anterior side on the dorsal aspect of anterior caudal centra (Figure 6). Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel (Figure 2) (Figure 6) on ventral surface of centrum, and in this regards differ from Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Nhandumirim which have longitudinal ventral keel. The cranial and proximal surfaces of the centrum are slightly tall. The transverse process is located above the centrum and at the base of neural arch of Vitakrisaurus (Figure 5), while in Vitakridrinda it is found close to posterior rim of centrum and not extended into neural arch (Figure 3). The centrum has waisted concave profiles of the ventral margin in side view (Figure 5). The neural canal is transversely wide and dorsoventrally compressed in Vitakrisaurus (Figure 5), while in Vitakridrinda the neural canal is tall and transversely compressed (Figure 2). Chevron facets are well developed in anterior and also posterior end of centrum (Figure 6) of Vitakrisaurus saraiki, while Rajasaurus have no obvious chevron facets, although the ventral margins of the centrum are weathered [19].

Mid-Caudal Vertebrae: Two holotypic mid-caudals MSM-54-2 and MSM-55-2 (Figure 5) found from mid Bor locality. Further one mid-caudal vertebra K20/316 and two chevrons (K20/318) (Figure 6) from Bara Simla hill, Jubbulpore, India [21] are being referred to Vitakrisaurus saraiki due to its similarity with holotypic caudal vertebrae shape and characters from Pakistan and considering India and Pakistan as one land during latest Cretaceous. The reference [21] assigned this amphicoelous (biconcave) caudal vertebra K20/316 of [42] and two chevrons K20/318 to Titanosaurus indicus [43] titanosaur. It is necessary to mention that Titanosaurus indicus [43] can not be used synonym because of dual affinity, one vertebra to Titanosaurs due to procoelous nature and another vertebra to theropods due to amphicoelous biconcave nature. But now we know that the titanosaurs from the latest Cretaceous of Pakistan are Poripuchian in which all tail vertebrae are procoelous (except first biconvex first caudal in a few taxa), while not lithostrotian in which anterior and mid caudals are procoelous. Poripuchians are most derived titanosaurs having full caudal row as procoelous (except first biconvex caudal of a few taxa) while the said vertebra K20/316 (Figure 6) is amphicoelous biconcave. Its characters like tallness, strong amphicoely, occurrence of well developed chevron facets, ventral groove (without sagital keel) and size matches with Vitakrisaurus saraiki midcaudal vertebrae (Figure 5). Further chevrons are different than titanosaurs and their size is small, so this vertebra and small sized chevrons are being referred to Theropod Vitakrisaurus saraiki. Further this amphicoelous vertebrae with well developed biconcave nature) and its forwarded inserted neural arch on centrum (Figure 6) similar to midcaudal of Vitakrisaurus saraiki (Figure 5). The caudal centrum MSM-54-2 is 8.2 cm high. The caudal centrum MSM-55-2 is 8.7 cm long, 5.5 cm wide and 7.0 cm high. The mid caudal vertebrae are amphicoelous, slightly waisted and lack pleurocoel and lack ventral keel (Figure 5). The caudal centra are long and tall (Figure 5). On dorsal centra the neural arches cover the most of the whole length (Figure 6) while in caudal centra the neural arch is anteriorly forwardly inserted (Figure 5). Vitakridrinda and Vitakrisaurus did not have ventral keel (Figure 3) (Figure 5) on ventral surface of centrum, and in this regards differ from Rajasaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Nhandumirim which have longitudinal keel. The mid caudals have waisted or concave profiles of the ventral margin of centra in side view (Figure 5). The lateral surfaces are flat (Figure 5). The Vitakrisaurus saraiki mid caudal centra did not have a reduced longitudinal ridge on its lateral surface (Figure 5) and also did not have ventral keel in mid caudal centra (Figure 5), while Rajasaurus centrum bears a reduced longitudinal ridge on its lateral surface, and its ventral surface is keeled. Both cranial and caudal articular surfaces of the centrum are concave (Figure 5), while Rajasaurus have amphiplatyan or gentle or feeble amphicoelous concavity. The mid caudals have feeble chevron facets as compared to anterior caudals which have well developed chevron pair of facets located on anterior and posterior articular rings ventral view (Figure 5). The proximal chevron of mid caudal vertebra shows very shallow haemal canal forming broad gentle limb of haemal arch (Figure 6). The proximal chevron is anteroposteriorly compressed (Figure 6. However the mid chevron is becoming single subcircular (Figure 5) and distal parts was broken. Neural arch on anterior caudal is forwardly inserted (Figure 5) while in Rajasaurus the neural arch cover all along the dorsal surface of centrum. Vitakrisaurus neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed, transversely oval shaped in anterior caudal and also in middle caudal vertebrae (Figure 5), while Vitakridrinda have tall and transversely compressed neural canal (Figure 3) and Rajasaurus neural canal is circular shaped in anterior caudal vertebrae. Vitakrisaurus anterior and midcaudal vertebrae have posterior yard (Figure 5) on the posterior vacant/uncover part of dorsal aspect of centrum. This yard is surrounded by laterally and posteriorly by thin boundary wall (Figure 5) and it is not found in caudal vertebra of Rajasaurus.

Limb Bones: Vitakrisaurus have leg bones with relatively thin peripheral bone on the central hollow cavity in cross section (Figure 4, Figure 6) while Vitakridrinda have thick peripheral bones on hollow cavity of leg bones (Figure 1).

Humerus: Holotypic humerus cross sections MSM-1044 -2, MSM-984-2 and MSM-1027-2 (Figure 4) found from mid Bor. The distal humerus cross section show transversely broad humerus and anterior part section shows posterior convexity. Central hollow cavity enveloped by relatively thin bone (Figure 4), while Vitakridrinda have thick peripheral bone in limb elements (Figure 1).

Ulna: A proximal right ulna just adjoining/below the proximal end MSM-1076-2 (Figure 4) is collected mid Bor locality. It has central cavity which is subparallel to the outer morphology (Figure 4). The central cavity is trirays (Figure 4) and also shows diverticulums. The outer morphology represents trirays structures. Its medial portion is relatively flat while the lateral portion has one ray extended lateroanteriorly for the attachment of radius. Its shaft is transversely broad and flattened medially (Figure 4). This element has no parallel in Rajasaurus [19].

Hand/Manus: Holotypic right hand/manus specimen MSM-303-2 was collected from mid Bor. It is best preserved with its some elements articulated and some elements have impressions (Figure 4). The manus is tridactyl. Manus/hand has thick bones. The digit I has carpal, metacarpal I (robust), phalanx I, and hand ungual I/claw I/toe I (Figure 4). The digit II has preserved carpal, metacarpal II, phalange II-1, phalange II-II and possibly ungual II/claw II/toe II). This ungual/claw II is found in the matrix (Figure 4). The digit III has bones and impression of bones like carpal, metacarpal III, phalange III-I, phalange III-II, phalange III-III and ungual III or claw III or toe III. Only one phalange is preserved in the relevant digit III row while other phalanges, toes and carpal found in the matrix just below the digit 1 (Figure 4) and also may be in the matrix. The metacarpal III impression is preserved. The sample preparation will clear the remaining elements. The carpal I is anteroposteriorly thin plate and has anterior concavity. The metacarpal I is the smallest while Metacarpal II is largest (Figure 4) and metacarpal III is relatively intermediate (Figure 4). The metacarpal I is expanded at proximal and distal ends while in the middle it seems to be constricted (Figure 4). The metacarpal II is the longest and also thickest (Figure 4) but middle constriction is not clear. The metacarpal III is intermediate in length and also in thickness than metacarpal I and metacarpal II. The width of metacarpal I is about 7 mm (millimeter) while length is about 21 mm. The phalanges are robust and elongated having expanded articular surfaces/condyles (Figure 4). The width of phalange of digit I is about 7 mm while length is about 21 mm (Figure 4). The manus elements were preserved in articulation with their position in the foot and provide the possible Phalangeal formula for Vitakrisaurus saraiki.

The possible manual Phalangeal formula 1-2-3 including manual ungual/claw/toe formula 1-1-1. The central digit (digit II) is longest and also broadest while the left digit (digit I) is short or reduced than other digit II and digit III (Figure 4).

The right digit (digit III) is intermediate than other digit I and digit II. It means the digit III is smaller than digit II and longer than digit I (Figure 4). The phalange of digit I is elongated. The phalanges of digit II are relatively less elongated. Phalanges of digit III are short and also expected short recurved claw. The non-ungual phalanges have expanded proximal articulation and concave nature while the distal articulation is ginglymoid, with separated condyles, although there is variation in shape.

The ungual/claw of manus is robust. Manual ungual or claw I is thick, robust and slightly recurved downward. The ungual/claw I is three time long than its transverse width and also ventrodorsal height (Figure 4). The thickness and width of claw is becoming less toward posteriorly and show a rounded asymmetrical recurved nature (Figure 4). The ungual phalange is curved, with their tips projected well beneath the base of the proximal articulation (Figure 4) but not as raptorial as in later theropods [44]. Manus elements are robust in Vitakrisaurus (Figure 4) than oviraptorid Khaan [45] [46] which have slender manus elements.

Crocodiles are commonly recognized on teeth morphology and orientation and patter and variations in mandible and jaw bones and morphology of skull, etc. Fortunately from Pakistan three diverse and distinct teeth morphology and their occurrences are recognized in Induszalim, Pabwehshi and Sulaimanisuchus. Induszalim bala secondary plate, butt suture lines and age shared with mesoeucrocodiles. Induszalim bala (and also Pabwehshi pakistanensis) medium sized crocodyliform sharing with the Induszalimidae as a reduced anterior portion of the rostrum retaining only three premaxillary teeth; diastematic fossa positioned just posterior to the second maxillary tooth; a prominent premaxillary lip overhanging the external nares, high and deep snout, maximum depth of snout is 3/4 of maximum width, symmetrical horizontal sagital torus of palatine bone and splenial contact all along the dentary. The Induszalim and Pabwehshi have a sagital torus on its maxillary palatal shelves and third premaxillary circular tooth which is not reported in baurusuchids [52]. So both Pabwehshi and Induszalim belong to Induszalimidae. Induszalimidae based on Induszalim bala genus and species.

Induszalim bala is characterized by the following autapomorphies. Induszalim bala medium sized crocodyliform has third premaxillary circular tooth (Figure 11) while the Baurusuchus Baurusuchid has third premaxillary enlarged and transversely strongly compressed tooth. Induszalim bala has first premaxillary alveolus and tooth on the jaw axis (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has a dorsally inset first premaxillary alveolus (Figure 12). Induszalim bala has first premaxillary circular/subcircular tooth (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has strongly transversely compressed first premaxillary tooth (Figure 12). Induszalim bala has second premaxillary asymmetric D-shaped tooth with plain side is slightly concave and other side is asymmetrical convexing (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has strongly transversely compressed oval second premaxillary tooth (Figure 12). Induszalim bala has third premaxillary circular tooth (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has strongly transversely compressed oval third premaxillary tooth (Figure 12). Induszalim bala has one large D-shaped fenestra between the second and third premaxillary teeth which may accommodate the third dentary tooth (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has a large fenestra but medially oriented and off set from teeth axis [47]. Induszalim bala has a diastematic fossa just lateral to a large D-shaped fenestra between the second and third premaxillary teeth (Figure 11) which is trended anterolaterally, while Pabwehshi has a large fenestra but medially oriented and off set from teeth axis [47]. Induszalim bala has subrectangle shaped vomer (Figure 11). Induszalim bala has two pair of relatively small parasaggital fenestrae located between the jaw axis and mid line, however one pair of fenestra is just close to midline (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has only a pair of large fenestra. Induszalim bala has maxillary diastematic fossa probably between maxillary second and third teeth for the accommodation of possibly large dentary tooth 6. Induszalim bony secondary plate is formed by premaxilla, maxilla and palatine, while Pabwehshi secondary plate is formed by premaxilla and maxilla only. External nare is sub terminal. Anterior rostrum is moderately inclined, while it is vertical in Pabwehshi. Stepped premaxilla strip has found anterior to narial fossa, while Pabwehshi have no step. Induszalim has twice deep palatal cavity than Pabwehshi. In Induszalim the suture of nasal with premaxilla and maxilla is generally straight line with fine zigzag butt suture. The contact of maxilla and premaxilla is butt and wavy line. Splenial and dentary are united as concavo-convexo style with axis in mid while its axis is shifted ventrally in Pabwehshi. In Induszalim the diverticulum in wall of internal naris is negligible while diverticulum is well developed in Pabwehshi. Tooth bearing maxillary ramus is twice away from internal naris cavity in Induszalim than Pabwehshi. Dorsoventrally oriented elongated large pneumatopores are found in maxilla. Dentary is thick with large pneumatopores in Induszalim while small pneumatopores in Pabwehshi dentary. Induszalim has relatively small internal naris cavity than Pabwehshi. In Induszalim the palatine ramus show elongated contact with maxilla while not found in Pabwehshi. Neurocentral straight suture is open in dorsal centrum. Caudal centra are strongly waisted. Humerus has dorsoventrally elongated oval shaped proximal epiphysis and a prominent lateral ridge continued from epiphysis to downward in Induszalim, while epiphysis is subcircular in Sulaimanisuchus kinwai. Humerus has prominent lateral ridge started from proximal epiphysis to run downward to midshaft, while this lateral ridge is feeble in Sulaimanisuchus kinwai. Ulna is proximally expanded and has prominent olecranon process. Femoral shaft is elliptical. Tibia is flattened type, transversely compressed and has laterally directed cnemial crest. The fibula is strip or belt like, elongated anteroposteriorly and transversely compressed. Metapodials (metacarpals and metatarsals) are broad to strongly broad with central hollow cavity.

Three mesoeucrocodiles are recognised from Indo-Pakistan subcontinent based on dentition and cranial fossils. The first recognised mesoeucrocodile is Induszalim bala which have circular to subcircular, D-shaped and arced and oval shaped teeth with slight transverse compression. The second recognised mesoeucrocodile is Sulaimanisuchus kinwai which have moderately transversely compressed teeth with a few circular to subcircular, D-shaped and oval shaped teeth. The third recognised mesoeucrocodile is Pabwehshi pakistanensis which have strongly compressed teeth (transversely compressed) oval shaped teeth.

Snout, Jaw and Dentary Ramus from Shalghara and Dentary Ramus from Bor: The outer profile and in general the snout GSP/MSM-4-3 (Figure 11) from Shalghara was matching in morphology with the holotypic snouts of Induszalim bala (Figure 7) (Figure 8) and Pabwehshi pakistanensis. Further the slightly compressed teeth on left lateral side of rostrum (Figure 8) provided criteria for referral of this snout to Induszalim, but it is possible that these possible teeth may be pneumatic marks on dentary or dentary fragments. But the teeth size, shape and occurrence pattern of snout GSP/MSM-4-3 (Figure 11) are strongly contrasted from Pabwehshi pakistanensis holotypic snout. Further the snout GSP/MSM-4-3 (Figure 11) with teeth features and compression is different than Sulaimanisuchus kinwai snout MSM-140-3 (Figure 12). So snout GSP/MSM-4-3 is referred to Induszalim bala. Further the snout GSP/MSM-4-3 teeth features especially circular or subcircular or negligible or slight transverse compressed teeth matches with the teeth of dentary ramus (with four spaced teeth) GSP/MSM-5-3 (Figure 11) and jaw fragment (having two teeth sandwiched with diastema) MSM-139-3 (Figure 11). This is the reason the dentary ramus GSP/MSM-5-3 and jaw fragment MSM-139-3 are being referred to Induszalim bala. Because the Pabwehshi [47] has strongly compressed oval shaped teeth.

Induszalim bala shows anterodorsally directed external nares (Figure 7) (Figure 8) high/deep and narrow rostrum (Figure 7), the circular or subcircular teeth with no compression or slight compression, asymmetric D-shaped arced teeth with lateroposterior side concave and anteromedial side is convex (Figure 11). Induszalim bala has non-compressed or slightly compressed teeth (Figure 11), while Sulaimanisuchus has moderately compressed teeth (Figure 12), and Pabwehshi has strongly compressed teeth (Figure 12). Induszalim bala has asymmetric concavo-convexo arced teeth (Figure 11), while Sulaimanisuchus and Pabwehshi has no any teeth like this (Figure 11). Induszalim bala has reduced premaxilla with only three teeth. The first premaxillary tooth in snout GSP/MSM-4-3 is about 8 mm long anteroposteriorly and 7 mm wide transversely, the second premaxillary tooth is about 7 mm long anteroposteriorly and 6 mm wide transversely and third premaxillary tooth is almost equal to size and shape with first premaxillary tooth. The dentary ramus GSP/MSM-5-3 has about 4 teeth/alveoli (Figure 11). One tooth of dentary ramus GSP/MSM-5-3 is D-shaped and arced like the referred snout GSP/MSM-4-3, the second preserved tooth of has about 1 cm diameter and other two teeth are relatively small but seem to be circular/subcircular (Figure 11). The dentary ramus GSP/MSM-5-3 teeth nature closely resemble to snout GSP/MSM-4-3. The jaw ramus MSM-139-3 from Shalghara locality consists of two teeth sandwiched between a diastematic fossa (Figure 11). Its one tooth is 7 mm long and 6 mm wide and it’s another tooth is 5 mm long and 4 mm wide. Both these teeth are separated by a well developed diastematic fossa (Figure 11). These jaw ramus with two teeth and intercalated diastematic fossa show affinity to snout GSP/MSM-4-3. The teeth nature and diastematic fossa of jaw ramus GSP/MSM-139-3 shows same taxon of snout GSP/MSM-4-3. Like this the dentary ramus GSP/MSM-143-2 from Bor locality shows spaced and circular to subcircular large 3 teeth and distal one relatively small tooth. Its large 3 teeth are 7 mm long and 5.5 mm wide and one small tooth which is 6 mm long and 4.5 mm wide (Figure 11). This dentary ramus with teeth MSM-143-2 may shows affinity to the snout GSP/MSM-4-3 taxon. From this it is clear that the snout GSP/MSM-4-3 and dentary ramus GSP/MSM-5-3, and jaw ramus with two teeth interbedded with diastematic fossa MSM-139-3 from Shalghara locality and dentary ramus with 4 teeth MSM-143-2 from Bor locality show that all these may belongs to same taxon of mesoeucrocodile.

The first premaxillary tooth is circular to subcircular in Induszalim (Figure 11), while the first premaxillary tooth in Pabwehshi is strongly transversely compressed (Figure 12). The first premaxillary tooth is oriented on jaw axis in Induszalim (Figure 11), while it is off set from jaw axis in Pabwehshi. The second premaxillary teeth are asymmetric D-shaped arced (lateroposteriorly slightly concave and anteromedially convex) in Induszalim, while the second premaxillary tooth in Pabwehshi is strongly transversely compressed. In Induszalim the first and third premaxillary tooth are relatively large than premaxillary tooth second. In Induszalim, the size of teeth from premaxillary tooth 1 to tooth 2 decreasing and then again increases to premaxillary tooth 3. While in contrast in Pabwehshi the size of teeth from premaxillary tooth 1 to tooth 3 is increasing. The anterolaterally oblique fenestra seems to be found between the premaxillary tooth 2 and tooth 3 in Induszalim, while it is trended laterally between the premaxillary tooth 2 and tooth 3 in Pabwehshi. The one preserved maxillary tooth is large and circular to subcircular like premaxillary third tooth, and another tooth is arced asymmetric D-shaped with one side slightly concave and other side is convex like premaxillary second tooth. Both these maxillary teeth are separated by diastematic fossa. The posterior maxillary and posterior dentary teeth are relatively small and relatively more spaced than premaxillary teeth (Figure 11). Induszalim has two sagital pair of relatively small fenestra on palatal which is relatively close to mid line (Figure 11), while Pabwehshi has relatively large and away from mid line. One pair of small fenestra is found close to midline while second pair is relative away from midline (Figure 11). The vomer is subrectangular shaped and located on midline. These fossils show two diastematic fossae in jaws for the adjustment of opposite ramus large two teeth.

Rostrum/Snout articulated with dentary symphysis from Alam: The rostrum/snout MSM-155-19 is ornamented with pitted and sculptured grooves and ridges that are distributed most densely on the lateral side of left dentary and also on maxilla. These sculptures are mostly found as anteroposteriorly elongate, discontinuous, pitted, rope like structure especially on the maxilla and nasal (Figure 8). This rostrum is D-shaped at cross section. The height of the rostrum is 3/4 (three-quarters) its width (Figure 7) like Pabwehshi. Toward the tip of the rostrum, these dimensions are nearly same. In Induszalim the external nares are sub terminal and not terminal (Figure 7) (Figure 8) while in Pabwehshi [47] it is terminal. The external narial fossa faces anterolaterally and laterodorsally. The external naris bordered anteroventrally by a broad, smooth fossa which is ventrally bounded by an elevated strip of premaxilla (Figure 7). This elevated premaxillary strip is found in Induszalim, while it is not found in Pabwehshi. The rostrum has many small and large internal pneumatic cavities.

The premaxilla is sub-quadrangular in left lateral and right lateral views (Figure 8). It contacts with nasal posterodorsally and the maxilla posteriorly. The premaxilla and nasal enclose the external nares. The nasal forms the posterodorsal margin of external nares (Figure 8), and dorsal and some lateral margin of internal naris upto the available cross section of snout. The premaxilla forms the lateral and ventral wall and anterior and mid parts of dorsal premaxillary lip of external naris. Laterally the suture of maxilla and premaxilla is a butt joint (Figure 8). Dorsally the premaxillae contact with each other to form the midline contact and forms the lip which inclined at about 45˚ in Induszalim, while in Pabwehshi it is terminal. This preserved premaxillary lip forms more than 3/5 of anteroposterior length of dorsal roof of external nares. Ventrally, the premaxillae may contact one another at the midline to form the anterior portion of the secondary palate. A diastema is found on the contact of maxilla and premaxilla (Figure 8).

The preserved anterior maxilla is sub-quadrangular/sub rectangular in lateral views (Figure 8). The maxilla and premaxilla form side wall of rostrum (Figure 8). The palatine is separated bones from maxilla and has a well developed contact line (Figure 8). In Induszalim the palatine torus have elongated contact with the maxilla (Figure 8). It represents that secondary palate formed by separate bones in Induszalim, while the palatine and maxilla contact is not distinguished in Pabwehshi which revealed maxilla formed the secondary palate. Dorsally the maxilla meets with nasal forming contact subparallel to midline (with zig-zag fine tuning) in the anterior portion while non-parallel in the posterior part (Figure 8). The maxilla, nasal and palatine bones enclose the internal naris (Figure 8). The nasal forms the dorsal and some dorsolateral margin of internal naris (observed at the available cross section of snout). Laterally the upper half of internal naris is bounded by maxilla while lower half of internal naris is bounded by palatine. The maxilla has a small anterodorsal process but it seems that it does not participate in the boarder of external naris. A prominent and exceptionally very large elongated internal coel (dorsoventrally elongated) is found in the maxilla (observed on posterior view of available cross section). The outer surface of maxilla show some rugose, pitted and anteroposteriorly aligned discontinuous lineations (Figure 8).

The belt/strap like nasal forms the roof of rostrum (Figure 7) (Figure 8). It is mostly flat/straight with rugose surface texture. The nasals formed a posterodorsal or distal part of internarial lip. The nasals contact with maxilla as butt or zig-zag type contact. In general this butt contact line is straight (with fine tuning of zig-zag structures) in the anterior part of butt contact in Induszalim, while this contact line is open wavy or open folded (with fine tuning of zig-zag structures) structures in the Pabwehshi. Open folded structure means low dip syncline and anticline. The nasals are slightly arched posteriorly and also anteriorly in Induszalim, while the nasals are slightly arched posteriorly but nearly flat anteriorly in Pabwehshi. The Induszalim nasals form the upper two fifth of the margin of the narial fossa as well as a two fifth portion of its overhanging lip, while the Pabwehshi nasals form the upper one-third of the margin of the external naris as well as a small portion of its overhanging lip [47]. The lower portion of internarial bar is clearly formed by palatine while mid portion is slightly preserved and tilted right side (of observing man) and dorsal portion of internarial bar is damaged. Internal bar is separated bilaminae (Figure 7).

The dentary symphysis is preserved in interlocking with maxilla and premaxilla (Figure 7). The both rami of dentary also articulated with the relevant splenial. The exposed left lateral dentary shows rugose and pitted surfaces, some of which are aligned anteroposteriorly and some are random. The right and left dentary rami have a large and some small internal cells/cavity and some found in the central part of dentary (Figure 7). The splenial joined with relevant dentary by the concave structure while the dentary have convex structure to fit the suture (Figure 7). The splenial contacts the medial aspect of the dentary along its height from the base of the jaw ramus to alveolar margin by concavo-convexo style (Figure 7). The axis of concavo-convexo shaped joint is found in the dorsoventrally centre of bones in Induszalim, while its axis is shifted downward (close to ventral portion) in the Pabwehshi (Figure 7). Further thick and deep dentary ramus with subcircular to D-shaped teeth and alveoli found from Sangiali locality 3 is being referred to Induszalim bala (Figure 11). Only the portion of the splenial is being observed at the preserved cross sectional view (Figure 7). The general shape of the splenial observed at cross section is thick robust four limbs X shaped or four rayed star shaped. The two limbs with concave shaped join the dentary while medially formed vertical straight mid contact. Splenial extends medially to the midline and participates in the symphysis. Splenial contacts the medial aspect of the dentary along its height from the base of the jaw ramus to the alveolar margin. The splenial bones are relatively more massive than dentary i.e. there are small pores in the splenial while dentary have coarse spongy pores. Splenial have relatively small subcircular, elongated to lense type spongy cavities. Splenial form a significant part of symphysis, it is robust, however lateromedial width is significantly less than dorsoventral width (Figure 7). The dorsoventral depth of both fellow of splenial is more than the transverse width (Figure 7).

The ventral and dorsal surfaces of each fellow of palatines are concave which meet on midline formed secondary plate. Palatine covers the ventral and lower half of lateral part of internal naris. The upper half of internal naris is laterally mostly bounded by maxilla and dorsal part of internal naris is capped by slightly concave nasal. The Induszalim (like Pabwehshi) have sagital torus on palatal shelves (Figure 7) while baurusuchids have no sagital torus. The reference [53] mentioned that “the intermediate ‘mesosuchian’ crocodilians were common during the Jurassic and Cretaceous and were characterized by a bony secondary palate composed of premaxillae, maxillae, and palatines, among other features” and this statement is true for Induszalim but not for Pabwehshi. The Pabwehshi follows the [54] statement that “a bony secondary palate formed by these same two bones the premaxilla and maxilla” while Induszalim did not follow this.

One dorsal vertebra (Figure 11) and two caudal vertebrae (Figure 9) are described here. One dorsal centrum from Mari Bohri 15 is referred to Induszalim due to size and same horizon. The dorsal centrum (Figure 11) is relatively robust, thick and big in size than caudal vertebrae. Its centrum is long, slightly tall and slightly waisted. Its width is 1.7 cm, height is 1.9 cm and length is 2.9 cm. The anterior and posterior articular surfaces of centrum are amphicoelous. The joint of neural arch and dorsal centrum cover most of the dorsal surface while in caudal vertebrae the neural arch is found in the anterior and mid part of dorsal aspect of centrum. The neurocentral suture opens (Figure 11) in dorsal vertebrae of Induszalim bala. The neurocentral suture line found on the lateral side of centra is generally straight (Figure 11) in Induszalim while it is wavy in dorsal vertebrae of Campinasuchus dinizi [55]. A partial distal rib 3 cm long and more than 1 cm wide is preserved in the holotypic materials. It is strip and belt like slightly tapering to distal ends. This rib is transversely compressed and anteroposteriorly elongated. This holotypic rib of Induszalim bala matches with the holotypic rib of Khuzdarcroco zahri [15] found from Khuzdar. This is the reason the Khuzdarcroco zahri rib is here being referred to Induszalim bala. The referred mid rib is belt like slightly recurved and seems to be massive (Figure 11). This preserved partial mid rib length is 6 cm, width is 2.5 cm and depth is 1 cm (Figure 11).

The caudal vertebrae (Figure 9) are long, waisted and arced. Its centra are long and highly strongly waisted. The centra formed the arc shape on lateral view; the ventral view is concave while the dorsal surface is convex. The anteroposterior length of ventral view of centrum is 2/3 of anteroposterior length of dorsal view. In this way the dorsal length is significantly more than ventral length. Further the anterior and posterior articular surfaces are not equal. The anterior articular surface or ring is larger than posterior articular ring. This vertebra has anterior prezygapophyses. Some parts of postzygapophysis and neural spine are preserved. Neural spine is slightly directed posteriorly. Neural spine is broad transversely. The neural spine is concave anteriorly and convex posteriorly. Neural canal is dorsoventrally compressed and transversely elongated oval shaped. Its transverse process is triangular. Its centrum MSM-65-19 width is 1.3 cm, height is 1.5 cm and length is 2.3 cm. The caudal centra forming arc along with ventral length is highly reduced than dorsal length, triangular transverse process and transversely elongated oval shaped neural canal seem to be autapomorphies of Induszalim.

The proximal humerus (Figure 9) is expanded and very wide in the proximal surface which is more than twice of shaft diaphysis. Its diaphysis is suboval. The deltopectoral crest is laterally directed and prominent. The humerus shaft seems to be straight. The humerus proximal epiphysis is dorsoventrally long oval shaped (while it is subcircular in Sulaimanisuchus kinwai) and high and inclined lateromedially. An anterior prominent ridge started from proximal epiphysis to travel downward mid shaft. This dorsoventrally oriented anterior ridge is prominent in Induszalim bala (Figure 9), while it is feeble in Sulaimanisuchus kinwai (Figure 12). The transverse width is being reduced to the diaphysis. Cross section of shaft is transversely oval to elliptical and have oval hollow cavity in the centre enveloped by thin peripheral bone (Figure 9). This holotypic humerus of Induszalim bala is different than the holotypic humerus of Sulaimanisuchus kinwai.

The proximal ulna is tri-rays (Figure 9). This is significantly expanded proximally. The proximal extremity of the ulna is more than three times wider than the diaphysis. The cnemial crest is prominent. The preserved cross section of shaft is subtriangular to oval shaped. One side of cross section is thick and another side is thin (Figure 9).

The iliac plate is partially preserved (Figure 10). It is slightly arced and thick plate. On one ventral side, it has the arc type shaped acetabulum for the adjustment of femur head and anteroposterior rotation of femur during locomotion.

The distal femur (Figure 10) shows preserved distal length 7 cm, distal condyles width 3.5 cm and depth 2.5 cm. The complete femur may be 20 cm long. The femur is moderately robust and expanded distally. The tibial condyle is greater in size than fibular condyle. The tibial condyle transverse width is 2.6 cm and depth is about 2 cm while fibular condyle width is 1.8 cm and depth is 1.5 cm. Cross section of shaft is elliptical and maximum on the distal condylar part and decreasing proximally. The shaft seems to be slightly curved/sigmoid. The Intercondylar fossa between the fibular and tibial condyle of distal femur is prominent (Figure 10). The prominent dorsoventrally elongated convexities exposed anteriorly on the medial and lateral diaphysis margin (of distal femur) and join the respective tibial and fibular condyles. Induszalim has elliptical femoral shaft like Campinasuchus dinizi [55], while in contrast the Adamantinasuchus navae [56] and Mariliasuchus amarali [57] have oval femoral shaft.

The holotypic proximal tibia (Figure 9) is generally flattened type, transversely compressed and elongated anteroposteriorly. Its anteroposterior length of proximal tibia is strongly more than its transverse width. The cnemial crest is laterally directed. Its preserved shaft cross section is elongated anteroposteriorly. The tibia is articulated with fibula (Figure 9). The proximal fibula is strip or belt like, anteroposteriorly elongated and transversely compressed (Figure 9). Fibula has almost same anteroposterior length all along the reserved portion.

The collected metapodials (metacarpals and metatarsals; Figure 10) which are transversely wide and broad to strongly broad, and dorsoventrally compressed (Figure 10) showing planatar or semiplanatar locomotion style. Their cross section shows oval to subcircular hollow cavity in the core which is enveloped by peripheral bone. The metacarpals and metatarsals shaft cross section are thick and long (Figure 10). Any metacarpals/metatarsals collected did not show fused phalanges, revealing that the phalanges are unfused.

Further the egg (Figure 11) collected from late Cretaceous strata of Karkh locality, Khuzdar District, Balochistan (in the western Kirthar Range) is being assigned to a large turtle or crocodile due to its size. The egg (Figure 11) is oval shaped with white thin outer spongy layer and fine muddy amorphous internal core may be preserved after hatching or before the development of infant. The outer shell cover is porous with white and grey colors. Preserved half egg length is 4 cm, diameters are 3.8 and 4.2 cm (Figure 11).

Induszalim and Pabwehshi have relatively deep rostrum, and divided anterolaterally facing external nares exclude these from Neosuchia, which is characterized by a dorsoventrally compressed rostrum and confluent, dorsally facing external nares [54]. Induszalim and Pabwehshi has a smooth narial fossa surrounding the ventral and lateral portions of the external naris, as in baurusuchids (Baurusuchus), peirosaurids (Peirosaurus, Stolokrosuchus), and Araripesuchus. Chimaerasuchus but differs in this respect from other notosuchids (Notosuchus, Malawisuchus, Simosuchus). The reference [52] mentioned that Pabwehshi has a sagital torus on its maxillary palatal shelves – a character that is absent in baurusuchids.

Induszalim bala ornamentation and sculptures on dentary and external narial position matches closely with Gondwanasuchus scabrosus [59]. Induszalim bala parallel sculptures on dentary matches with Uberabasuchus terrificus [60]. Induszalim bala have subterminal nares with 45˚ dorsal profile and in this respect distinct from Pabwehshi pakistanensis [47], Mariliasuchus amarali [57], Caipirasuchus [61] and Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi [62] which have terminal external nares. The position of external nares and 45˚ inclination of Induszalim bala matches to Adamantinasuchus navae [55]. Induszalim have more deep rostrum than Morrinhosuchus luziae [63], Baurusuchus salgadoensis [64], Gondwanasuchus scabrosus [59] and many others. Induszalim bala dorsal centrum have neurocentral suture open on lateral view like Campinasuchus dinizi [55]. The neurocentral suture line found on the lateral side of centra is generally straight but with butt type in fine tuning in Induszalim bala while it is wavy in dorsal vertebrae of Campinasuchus dinizi [55]. A partial rib is belt like slightly recurved and seems to be massive.

Induszalim bala have deep rostrum while Malagasy crocodiles Mahajangasuchus insignis [65] ; Simosuchus clarki [66] ; Araripesuchus sp. have relatively broad rostrum. Induszalim matches with the Majungatholus atopus [67] on the inclined position of external nares. Induszalim bala have circular or subcircular teeth and differ in this respect from Sebecosuchian which have laterally compressed and very thick teeth [68].

Although basal mesoeucrocodiles are common in Gondwana and rare in Laurasia (Asia, Chimaerasuchus; [69] ; Europe, Iberosuchus; [70] [71], Induszalim closely correlated with both Brazilian and Argentinean mesoeucrocodiles and Majungatholus atopus [67] from Madagascar, which revealed the early common seed radiation during Early Cretaceous when these lands united or connected with land bridges. In this way latest Cretaceous mesoeucrocodiles, theropods and titanosaurs showed more affinity to Gondwana lands (Southern Earth), and titanosaurs showed also some affinity to Europe and South America (Laurasia, Northern Earth).