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

Miohippus gemmarosae

Osteichthyes - Perissodactyla - Equidae

Taxonomy
Miohippus gemmarosae was named by Osborn (1918). Its type specimen is AMNH 13808, a partial skull (Upper teeth and skull fragments), and it is a 3D body fossil.

Sister species lacking formal opinion data
M. assinoboiensis
Entered
by J. Alroy on 2003-01-23; modified by J. Marcot on 2017-12-21

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1918Miohippus gemmarosae Osborn p. 66 figs. Plates 3.7, 4.1,2,3,4,9. Text Figs. 46, 47
1940Miohippus gemmarosae Stirton p. 172
1998Miohippus gemmarosae MacFadden p. 544

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
—Laurasiatheria
—Scrotifera
—Euungulata
—Panperissodactyla
superorderPerissodactylamorpha
orderPerissodactyla()
superfamilyEquoidea
familyEquidae
subfamilyAnchitheriinae()
genusMiohippus
speciesgemmarosae

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.

†Miohippus gemmarosae Osborn 1918
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
H. F. Osborn 1918(Matthew, 1913) (1) Same size as Miohippus annectens and M. anceps. (2) Premaxillary alveoli
indicate incisors and canine of exceptionally large size; (3) p2 of less transverse but greater antero-posterior diameter than M. anceps and M. annectens; (4) p2 relatively narrow and elongate, p1 relatively large; (5) metaloph not united with ectoloph; (6) premolars with somewhat larger parastyle, especially on p2, than in M. annectens; (7) no internal cingula, no intermediate basal cusps; (8) hypostyle better developed on true molars.