Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:04:06.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rostriamynodon grangeri n. gen., n. sp. of amynodontid (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotoidea) with comments on the phylogenetic history of Eocene Amynodontidae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

William P. Wall  and
Earl Manning
William P. Wall
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Georgia College, Milledgeville 31061
Earl Manning
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new genus and species of amynodontid rhinoceros, Rostriamynodon grangeri, from the early Late Eocene of Inner Mongolia, People's Republic of China, is the most primitive amynodontid recognized to date. Rostriamynodon exhibits the major diagnostic characteristics of amynodontids: quadratic M3, preorbital fossa, and loss of upper and lower P1. It differs from more advanced members of the family in its long preorbital region and lower cheek tooth morphology. Comparisons with other Eocene ceratomorphs show the crucial position Rostriamynodon has in determining phylogenetic relationships between rhinocerotoids and tapiroids. Evidence is presented for the monophyly of the Rhinocerotoidea, including amynodontids.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , July 1986 , pp. 911 - 919
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beliajeva, E. I. 1971. Novye dannye po aminodontam SSSR. (New data on the amynodonts of the USSR.) Akademiya Nauk USSR Paleontological Institute, 130:39–61.Google Scholar
Chow, Min-Chen and Xu, Yu-Xuan. 1965. Amynodonts from the Upper Eocene of Honan and Shansi. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 9(2):190–204.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. 1938. Fossil mammals from Burma in the American Museum of Natural History. Bulletin American Museum Natural History, 74(6):255–436.Google Scholar
Gromova, V. 1954. Boltany nosorogi (Amynodontidae) Mongolic. Trudy Paleontological Institute Akademia Nauk USSR, 55:85–189.Google Scholar
Kretzoi, M. 1942. Auslandische saugetierfossilien der Ungarischen Museum. Foldtoni, Kozlony, 72(1–3):139–148.Google Scholar
Li, Chuan-Kuei, and Ting, Su-Yin. 1983. The Paleogene mammals of China. Bulletin Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 21:1–98.Google Scholar
Lucas, S. G., Schoch, R. M. and Manning, E. 1981. The systematics of Forstercooperia, a middle to late Eocene hyracodontid (Perissodactyla: Rhinocerotoidea) from Asia and western North America. Journal of Paleontology, 55(4):826–841.Google Scholar
Matthew, W. D. 1929. Critical observations upon Siwalik mammals. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, 56(7):437–560.Google Scholar
Matthew, W. D. and Granger, W. 1925. New mammals from the Shara Murun Eocene of Mongolia. American Museum of Natural History, Novitates, 196:1–11.Google Scholar
Matthew, W. D. 1926. Two new perissodactyls from the Arshanto Eocene of Mongolia. American Museum of Natural History, Novitates, 208:1–5.Google Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. 1965. Evolution of the tapiroid skeleton from Heptodon to Tapirus . Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zoology, 134:69–106.Google Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. 1966. The families of the Rhinocerotoidea (Mammalia, Perissodactyla). Journal of Mammalogy, 47(4):631–639.Google Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. 1969. The early evolution of the Perissodactyla. Evolution, 23:308–328.Google Scholar
Wall, W. P. 1980. Cranial evidence for a proboscis in Cadurcodon and a review of snout structure in the family Amynodontidae (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotoidea). Journal of Paleontology, 54(5):968–977.Google Scholar
Wall, W. P. 1981. Systematics, phylogeny, and functional morphology of the Amynodontidae (Perissodactyla: Rhinocerotoidea). Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 307 p.Google Scholar
Wall, W. P. 1982a. Evolution and biogeography of the Amynodontidae (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotoidea). Third North American Paleontological Convention, Proceedings, 2:563–567.Google Scholar
Wall, W. P. 1982b. The genus Amynodon and its relationship to other members of the Amynodontidae (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotoidea). Journal of Paleontology, 56(2):434–443.Google Scholar
Wood, H. E. 1934. Revision of the Hyrachyidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 67(5):181–295.Google Scholar
Xu, Yu-Xuan. 1966. Amynodonts of Inner Mongolia. Vertebratica Palasiatica, 10(2):123–190.Google Scholar
Xu, Yu-Xuan, Yan, De-Fa, Zhou, Shi-Quan, Han, Shi-Jing and Zhang, Yong-Cal. 1979. The subdivision of the Red Beds of South China, p. 416–432. In The Mesozoic and Cenozoic Red Beds of South China. Science Press Beijing, 432 p.Google Scholar
Xu, Yu-Xuan, Yan, De-Fa, Zhou, Shi-Quan, Han, Shi-Jing and Chiu, Chan-Siang. 1962. Early Tertiary mammalian fossils from Lunan, Yunnan. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 6(4):313–332.Google Scholar
You, Yu-Zhu. 1977. Note on the new genus of early Tertiary Rhinocerotidae from Bose, Guangxi. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 15(1):46–53.Google Scholar