terrestrial crocs

I believe that the general acceptance of a terrestrial lifestyle for ziphodont crocodilians is, at best, the product of very tenuous extrapolation, particularly with respect to the supposedly land-lubbing plethora of Australian mekosuchines. The only ziphodont croc for which post-cranials have been described is the Early Tertiary Pristichampus. A terrestrial habitus was deduced for this taxon largely based on the presence of 'hooves'. I am told by a trusted source who has recently observed the specimen in question, that these were most likely a preservational artefact.

Whatever with the hooves, there is a good biomechanical study (in a German journal, in German...) on Pristichampsus rollinatii. The tail is round in cross-section and tapers into a tip. The legs are relatively long and strong -- and badly capable of sprawling. The well-developped osteoderms practically worked as an exoskeleton. The author thinks this species was a fully terrestrial ambush predator, capable of tremendous acceleration (not long-distance running), gallopping and (for short distances and only above a stalling speed because the center of gravity was in front of the hips) bipedal running on a regular basis. There's a bit more (especially the full ref) at and around http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2000Sep/msg00622.html.

My German isn't good - so all I can say is that a German-speaking, croco-philic colleage of mine has observed the same specimen, read Rossmann's paper, and come to a different conclusion. But with respect to my own position - but to put my comment back in its original conext - the real point is that whether or not Pristichampus was aquatic, semi-aquatic, or a card-carrying, terrestrial long distance pursuit predator - it is incorrect to assume that Australian mekosuchines (unrepresented by any postcranial material) must have pursued lifestyles similar to that of Pristichampus (whatever that was), simply because they had similar tooth and cranial morphology.