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

Phanomys

Osteichthyes - Rodentia - Eocardiidae

Taxonomy
Phanomys was named by Ameghino (1887). It is not extant. Its type is Phanomys mixtus.

It was assigned to Eocardidae by Ameghino (1894); to Eocardiinae by Wood and Patterson (1959); to Eocardiidae by McKenna and Bell (1997), Kramarz (2006); and to Cavioidea by Pérez and Vucetich (2011).

Species
P. mixtus (type species), P. vetulus

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1887Phanomys Ameghino
1894Phanomys Ameghino p. 75
1959Phanomys Wood and Patterson
1997Phanomys McKenna and Bell
2006Phanomys Kramarz p. 774
2011Phanomys Pérez and Vucetich

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()
—Mammaliamorpha
RankNameAuthor
—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)
superfamilyCavioideaFischer de Waldheim 1817
familyEocardiidae
genusPhanomysAmeghino 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. †Phanomys Ameghino 1887
show all | hide all
†Phanomys mixtus Ameghino 1887
†Phanomys vetulus Ameghino 1891
Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
A. G. Kramarz 2006Eocardiid differing from Asteromys, Chubutomys, and Luantus in having higher crowned cheek teeth, more ephemeral fossettes and fossettids, enamel absent along most of the labial wall of the upper cheek teeth and the lingual wall of the lowers, and cement present beginning at earlier stages of wear. Also differs from Chubutomys in having uninterrupted enamel at the base of the anterior wall of the lower molars. Differs from Eocardia, Schistomys, and Matiamys in having rooted cheek teeth. Also differs from Schistomys in having P4 without a labial flexus.
M. E. Pérez and M. G. Vucetich 2011Phanomys is diagnosed by the fol- lowing unique combination of characters (autapomorphies marked with an asterisk): protohypsodont molariforms, with the crown slightly higher than in Luantus toldensis Kramarz, 2006; in young-adult ontogenetic stages, enamel interrupted along the entire lingual, anterolingual, and posterolingual walls of lower teeth and labial, anterolabial, and posterolabial walls of the upper teeth; fossettes/ids less persistent during ontogeny than in any other protoh- ypsodont species of Cavioidea s.s.; hypoflexus/id narrow, extending transversely more than half of the crown and bearing cement since early ontogenetic stages, as in Eocardia and Schistomys; *p4 with double-heart shaped occlusal surface with the anterior lobe transversely smaller than the posterior one, anterior surface obliquely oriented facing anterolingually and with a vertical furrow well developed, the labial apex of the anterior lobe is rounded and anteriorly directed; P4 unilobed. Differs from Eocardia, Schistomys, Matiamys, Microcardiodon, and Guiomys in having rooted cheek teeth. Also differs from Schistomys, and Guiomys in having P4 without a lingual flexus.