"Unfortunately the word “Nyasasaurus” does not appear in my notes. The work is in two volumes: the illustrations: 53 plates, each with a facing page of titles; and the volume of text of just over 500 pages.
Notes on: Charig, A. J. 1957. New Triassic archosaurs from Tanganyika, including Mandasuchus and Teleocrater. Dissertation Abstracts, Cambridge University. [My comments in […] brackets.] Mandasuchus longicervix, known from 3 specimens, and Teleocrater tanyura, known from 2 specimens; in both genera, skull poor and post-cranial good. General notes: Both have closed acetabula. Mandasuchus differs from Prestosuchus (from the upper Rio do Rasto beds) in that Mandasuchus’s cervical vertebrae are elongated (Prestosuchus’ are not, as far as is known). The dermal armour differentiates the family [presumably Mandasuchus’s family] from Stagolepidae (from the upper Tr of Laurasia). There are no good grounds for considering the acetabulum of Spondylosaura[?] to be open. The neck of Spond. is more elongated than Mandasuchus. Teleocrater has greatly elongated cervicals, unlike any other pseudosuchian described, but closely resembling Coelophysis, yet it has a closed acetabulum, and limbs like other pseudosuchians. Diagnosis of Mandasuchus: A pseudosuchian tending to large size. The skull is unknown, except for fragments of the maxilla and dentary, the former showing a large antorbital vacuity; jaws long. Dentition thecodont; teeth recurved, laterally somewhat compressed, with anterior & posterior borders crenulated. Vertebrae with the length of centrum never much less than the diameter and usually greater than diameter. Centra lightly amphicoelus; floor of neural canal deeply concave in each centrum, except in posterior caudal region; zygapophyses moderately oblique; tops of neural spines, especially in anterior part of column, flattened and expanded to bear dorsal scutes. Axial and caudal intercentra only. More than 25 pre-sacral vertebrae present. Eight cervical vertabrae (by arbitrary definition) including atlas; axis slightly elongated, other cervical vertebrae much elongated (up to 50% over typical dorsals), elongation being greatest in 5th; axis and 3rd cervical with prominent keel, faint ventromedial ridge in others; neural spines low; axial and cervical ribs present, the later crocodiloid. Seventeen or more dorsal vertebrae, centra mostly rounded beneath, some slightly flattened; typical archosaurian shift in position of rib articulation, parapophysis borne entirely on centrum in 2nd dorsal, on both centrum and neural arch in 3rd & 4th, and on neural arch only on 5th; diapophysis supported by oblique radiation buttress in anterior dorsals; parapophysis and diapophysis tend to form “spectacles-shaped” rib articulations then fuse in posterior dorsals; most if not all dorsal vertebrae with hyposphene. Two sacral vertebrae [in life probably]. Caudal verts, except most anterior members, flattened ventrally and with haemopophyses (absent in first three); distal caudals with small median pre-neural spine between prezygapophyses, anterior to neural spine proper; rami of proximal end of each haemopophysis joined by bridge, at least in distal part of tail. Major limb bones long and slender, with hollow shafts; propodials longer than epipodials; bones of forelimb about two-thirds as long as hindlimb. Scapula broad both dorsally and ventrally, only moderately inflected; coracoid with small foramen; dermal elements of pectoral girdle not known. Humerus with high deltopectoral crest, well-marked supinator process and ectepicondylar groove, no entepicondylar foramen or groove; ulna without olecranon; no manus. Acetabulum closed. Ilium with short anterior spine, long posterior spine, well-developed supra-acetabular crest, forming most of the acetabulum; pubis long, with small obturator foramen, twisted proximally in typical pseudosuchian manner, distally plate-like and directed steeply downwards, thickening of lateral corner of distal end; ischium also elongate, peduncle flattened laterally and with sharp anteroventral edge, possibly not meeting its fellow in mid-line but diverging from it distally, distal end slightly thickened. Femur slightly sigmoidal, with prominent 4th trochanter high on shaft; fibula with anterior muscle process; fibulare crocodyloid, pes otherwise unknown. Paramedian dorsal scutes, not corresponding in number with verts but more numerous, keeled externally, each notched posteriorly and overlapping anterior spine of scute behind it, without ornament. Teleocrater: First impression is a vertebral column of a saurischian type, associated with the ilium and limb bones of a pseudosuchian. The verts resemble a coelurosaur very closely; long, especially anterior, cervicals, and generally lightly constructed. But the acetabulum certainly closed; humerus has supinator process and ectepicondylar groove; femur has no well-defined head set at an angle to the shaft, and is without a 4th trochanter; tibia shorter than femur; fibula has lateral trochanter. This specimen was found in a heterogeneous field-collection [but other material easily distinguished from the Teleocrater stuff]. It seems most unlikely that 28 verts from a saurischian, without any corresponding limb bones, would be found together with 9 well-preserved pseudosuchian girdle and limb bones lacking any corresponding verts, and the dimensions of the two sets of bones being strictly comparable. The genus must be referred to the pseudosuchians because of the apparently closed acetabulum. Neither specimen has known dermal scutes, but then the type lacks the top of every neural spine, and the other specimen is too incomplete. The ilium and limb bones of Teleocrater, though typically pseudosuchian in form, resemble no other known particularly, though not widely different from Mandasuchus, despite great differences between the vertebrae of the two. On the other hand, the vertebral column *does* resemble coelophysis. There is a general resemblance between Teleocrater and Coelophysis in their hollow, thin-walled bones. Teleocrater is a little smaller on average than Coelophysis. In both, verts are long and slender, especially in the neck and tail, and the centra are usually amphicoelous. Von Heune’s axis [his Coelophysis one] resembles the Teleocrater vertebra in extreme elongation and in the marked and asymmetric concavity of its ventral profle, the apex of which lies in front of the middle of the vertebra. It seems that in both animals the anterior face of the centrum must have lain more dorsally than the posterior, showing the head was held above the level of the body. There is further resemblance in the nature of the ventral surface of the centrum: concave or flattened in front between a pair of sharp edges, bearing a medial ridge in the middle part (much longer in Coelophysis) and rounded behind. The posterior face is roughly circular, and fairly deeply concave in both. The most striking similarity is between the flange-like diapophyses and zygapophysial ridges of the two verts, giving both a highly characteristic appearance. The detailed arrangement of the flanges and ridges is almost exactly the same. .. .. .. Dorsal Vertebrae: In both [Coelophysis and Teleocrater] still slender and rather elongate, but a little stouter towards the sacrum. There is also a resemblance in the gradual change in position of [the?] parapophysi… .. .. .. Caudal region: There is also a general similarity here between [_T_ and _C_]. _C_ however differs from Teleocrater in having no facets or intervertebral spaces for haemapophyses (though Case opines chevrons would be expected), and their ventral surfaces are rounded without traces of longitudinal grooves or ridges. In Teleocrater only the last 4 of the 15 caudals preserved have rounded ventral surfaces without haemapophysial facets. In both Teleocrater and _C_ the centra are weakly amphicoelous, the flattened transverse processes, the bases of which are axially long in the anterior cuadals, diminish down the series and disappear; the zygapophyses remain, even in the smallest vert, and the anterior pair project in front of the centrum; and the neural spines, which also diminish and disappear, have an anterior edge rising obliquely backwards, and a posterior edge rising almost vertically. .. .. .. The lilum of _C_ and Teleocrater is utterly different. In Teleocrater the acetabulum is almost certainly closed. The anterior spine in Teleocrater is extremely short. The posterior spine in Teleocrater is broken off but seems to have been long, and the beginning of a strong medial crest is preserved. Case ’27 described an isolated ilium from Texas, similar in size to _C_ longicollis but “somewhat different in form.” It was actually very different, and is definitely not from _C_, but rather similar to Teleocrater though about twice as large; any acetabular perforation must have been very small. Extremely long anterior spine and correspondingly long, very heavy posterior spine, bearing a high medial crest. The fumur of _C_ and Teleocrater differ mainly in the head in Teleocrater being not at all bent towards the median side. Teleocrater’s femur more powerfully built but relatively even longer (compared to _C_’s equivalent to 5 of its dorsal verts) in Teleocrater equivalent to six or seven anterior dorsal verts. The shaft is sigmoidally curved and there is no ext. trochanter. The only similarities between femur of _C_ and Teleocrater are the absence of a properly developed fourth trochanter, and the form of the broadened, club-shaped distal end with its weakly developed condyles. Tibia: Not the remotest resemblance between the two animals. Fibula: in _C_ “but little expanded.” This differs from Teleocrater. Summary: _C_ and Teleocrater only similar in their vertebral columns. This similarity is no more than might be expected between any two coelurosaurs. However there is a particularly close resemblance in the anterior cervicals, with their highly elongate centra and characteristic flanges; this form is most unusual and yet almost identical. .. .. .. General Taxonomics: Both Mandasuchus and Teleocrater are from the “upper bone bed” of Tanganyika, and share a common tendency to resemble the saurischia to an unusual extent. This tendency, particularly in Teleocrater, is more pronounced in the vertebral column than the girdle and limbs. The two genera are strikingly different: Mandasuchus (and other prestosuchids) generally reminiscient of pachypodosaurs, Teleocrater very like coelurosaurs. [He considers the vert. column similarities between Teleocrater and Mandasuchus enough to suggest acet. perforation occurred independently in the two saurischian groups (and between 4-6 times overall).] His thesis also deals with other archosaur bits from the Maleri beds of India, all of which were described in Von Heune (‘40c): Palaeont. Indica (n.s.) 32 memoir no. 1, 1-42. From the Summary: The only important difference between Mandasuchus and Prestosuchus is Mandasuchus’s cervical verts are elongated while the latter’s (as far as is known) are not. It is proposed to erect a new family: Prestosuchidae for th e two, the most diagnostic feature of which would be the dermal armour, clearly distinguishing it from the Stagonolepidae."
Thanks to John for this interesting look at an obscure document.