| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Mesoprocta
Taxonomy
Mesoprocta was named by Croft et al. (2011). Its type is Mesoprocta hypsodus.
It was assigned to Dasyproctidae by Croft et al. (2011).
It was assigned to Dasyproctidae by Croft et al. (2011).
Species
M. hypsodus (type species)
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2011 | Mesoprocta Croft 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.
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| D. A. Croft et al. 2011 | Mesoprocta, like other Miocene and younger dasyproctids, is a relatively large rodent with high-crowned, lophate cheek teeth and thick enamel (Walton 1997) (Figs. 4, 5). It resembles Neoreomys Ameghino, 1887 (Fig. 5e–f) but clearly differs in its much greater hypsodonty and possession of cement. It further differs in having less oblique crests (especially the hypolophid), a less pronounced anterofosset- tid, and a more persistent metaflexid (Kramarz 2006b). It differs from “Neoreomys” huilensis (Fig. 5b–c) in the characters noted above for Neoreomys (= N. australis) as well as in its much larger size (40% larger than the holotype based on AP length of m1), its large, triangular i1 (as opposed to small and oval), and probably in its larger p4, as estimated from the portion that is preserved (Fields 1957; Walton 1997). Mesoprocta is approximately 30% smaller than poorly characterized Megastus Roth, 1898. Mesoprocta differs from Australoprocta Kramarz, 1998 (Fig. 5d) and the small dinomyid “Scleromys” (sensu Walton 1997) in pos- sessing a metaflexid that does not join the hypoflexid. Mesoprocta also has a smaller anterofossettid than Austral- oprocta (Kramarz 1998), and its buccal flexids do not extend as far lingually as in “Scleromys.” Mesoprocta differs from Alloiomys Vucetich, 1977 (Fig. 5g) in having lophids that are nearly perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth (as opposed to markedly oblique) and a straighter lingual face. Meso- procta superficially resembles some early Miocene eocar- diids (e.g., Luantus Ameghino, 1899), but is about 30% larger, has a much more robust mandible, and has a metaflexid that persists after isolation of the mesoflexid (see Kramarz 2006a). |
Measurements
No measurements are available
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Source: f = family, subc = subclass, c = class, subp = subphylum | |||||
| References: Ji et al. 2002, Lillegraven 1979, Carroll 1988, Nowak 1991, Hendy et al. 2009 | |||||