Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi
Taxonomy
Propachyrucos schiaffinoi was named by Kraglievich (1932). Its type specimen is MNHN-DP-186, a maxilla (partial left maxilla with P2-M2), and it is a 3D body fossil. Its type locality is Santa Lucía Basin, which is in a Deseadan fluvial sandstone in the Fray Bentos Formation of Uruguay.
It was recombined as Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi by Reguero and Cerdeño (2005), Seoane et al. (2017), Seoane et al. (2019).
It was recombined as Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi by Reguero and Cerdeño (2005), Seoane et al. (2017), Seoane et al. (2019).
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
Year | Name and author |
---|---|
1932 | Propachyrucos schiaffinoi Kraglievich |
1947 | Prohegetotherium carettei Minoprio pp. 371-374 figs. 3-5 |
1949 | Prohegetotherium carettei Simpson and Minoprio |
1962 | Ethegotherium carettei Simpson et al. |
2002 | Ethegotherium carettei López pp. 298-303 figs. 1-3 |
2005 | Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi Reguero and Cerdeño |
2017 | Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi Seoane et al. |
2019 | Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi Seoane et al. |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
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.
†Prohegetotherium schiaffinoi Kraglievich 1932
show all | hide all
Invalid names: Prohegetotherium carettei Minoprio 1947 [synonym]
Diagnosis
Reference | Diagnosis | |
---|---|---|
G.M. López 2002 (Ethegotherium carettei) | Hegetoterine similar to Prohegetotherium, but 20% smaller. Upper and lower incisors and canines directed mesially, originating with 10s P1/1, which are oriented backwards, a false diastema. Upper canine with arched crown; upper jugals poorly imbricated, without development of parastylar areas and with discontinuous enamel, with a characteristic distribution on each tooth; P1/1 slightly reduced and similar in size to 10s P2/2. Unlike Prohegetotherium, P1 lacks labial groove and parastyle, P2 has a deep lingual groove and M3 is very large. i1-2 enlarged and procumbent; lower jugals not imbricate; p2 with a median lingual groove; p4 much smaller than ml. Trigonid of lower molars rounded in outline and not cordate as in Prohegetotherium. The m3 does not hint at the formation of a third lobe as in Prohegetotherium and has a band of dentin in a postlingual position. | |
M. A. Reguero and E. Cerdeño 2005 | Smaller than Prohegetotherium sculptum and S. altiplanense, with shorter and wider nasals. I3, c, and p1 more reduced than in P. sculptum. Lower cheek teeth not im- bricated. Lobes of lower cheek teeth rounded rather than angu- lar, as in P. sculptum and Hegetotherium. Anterior lobe of p3 relatively more elongated than in S. altiplanense. Talonid of m3 without labial groove and with lingual groove fainter than in P. sculptum. |