Neodolodus Hoffstetter & Soria, 1986
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/geodiversitas2023v45a15 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B826F25C-33D7-4AEF-9FF8-8B1CBAC28823 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8319186 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F7748797-067D-FFE9-FF2D-FD676E949AB4 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Neodolodus Hoffstetter & Soria, 1986 |
status |
|
Genus Neodolodus Hoffstetter & Soria, 1986
EMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — The dental formula is I 1/2 C 0/1 P 4 / 4 M 3/3. Small, brachydont and bunodont megadolodine litoptern. Neodolodus differs from Megadolodus in its smaller size and having labial and lingual cingulids on m1-3. Neodolodus differs from Bounodus in its smaller size, the P4 being of similar size (not smaller) than M1, and the P4-M1 with a quadrangular outline (not elongated mesiodistally).
REMARKS
In comparison with other Laventan litopterns, Neodolodus differs from Mesolicaphrium sanalfonense ( Cifelli & Guerrero 1997; McGrath et al. 2020a) in the absence of a connection between the protocone and metaconule, having well-developed styles on the upper molars, and the absence of a mesostyle on P3. It differs from Villarroelia totoyoi in that P3-4 are not fully molariform lacking an hypocone, the absence of a mesostyle on P3 and P4, and the presence of a hypocone on M3 ( Cifelli & Guerrero 1997).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |