Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Included Taxa
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Pliolagostomus

Osteichthyes - Rodentia - Chinchillidae

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1887Pliolagostomus Ameghino
1894Pliolagostomus Ameghino p. 72
2019Pliolagostomus Rasia and Candela p. 74
2022Pliolagostomus Vizcaíno et al.

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Bilateria
EubilateriaAx 1987
Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1874
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
classOsteichthyes
subclassSarcopterygii()
subclassDipnotetrapodomorpha(Nelson 2006)
subclassTetrapodomorpha()
Tetrapoda
Reptiliomorpha
Anthracosauria
subclassAmphibiosauriaKuhn 1967
Cotylosauria()
Amniota
subclassSynapsida
Therapsida()
infraorderCynodontia()
RankNameAuthor
Mammaliamorpha
Mammaliaformes
classMammalia
Cladotheria
Zatheria
subclassTribosphenida()
subclassTheria
Eutheria()
Placentalia
Boreoeutheria
EuarchontogliresMurphy et al. 2001
GliriformesWyss and Meng 1996
Glires()
Simplicidentata()
orderRodentiaBowdich 1821
CtenohystricaHuchon et al. 2000
infraorderHystricognathi(Tullberg 1899)
Caviomorpha(Wood and Patterson 1955)
familyChinchillidaeBennett 1833
genusPliolagostomusAmeghino 1887

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

G. †Pliolagostomus Ameghino 1887
show all | hide all
Pliolagostomus friasensis Vucetich 1984
hide
Invalid names: Prolagostomus lateralis Ameghino 1889 [synonym]
Pliolagostomus notatus Ameghino 1887
hide
Invalid names: Prolagostomus amplus Ameghino 1894 [synonym]
Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
L. L. Rasia and A. M. Candela 2019Small to medium size, similar to Prolagostomus pusillus Ameghino, 1887; bilophodont P4-M2 and p4-m3 like in Eoviscaccia, Prolagostomus and Lagostomus; trilophodont M3 like in Prolagostomus and Lagostomus; narrow hypoflexus/flexid like in Prolagostomus, with a thicker cement layer than in Lagostomus; lower cheek teeth with a well-defined lingual face, forming a marked obtuse angle with the mesial face; labial face of each lophid more straight than in Prolagostomus; upper cheek teeth with the hypoflexus and labial face of each loph with the same characteristics than in the hipoflexids and lingual face of the
lophids; third loph of the M3 lingually oriented and with a transverse flexus separating it from the second loph as in Lagostomus, and differing from Prolagostomus with the third loph of the M3 disto-lingually or distally oriented (modified from Vucetich, 1984).