| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Mesoprocta hypsodus
Taxonomy
Mesoprocta hypsodus was named by Croft et al. (2011). Its type specimen is UF 26915, a set of teeth (Partial right dentary bearing m1), and it is a 3D body fossil. It is the type species of Mesoprocta.
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2011 | Mesoprocta hypsodus Croft et al. pp. 248-250 figs. 3b, 4, 5a |
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.
†Mesoprocta hypsodus Croft et al. 2011
show all | hide all
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: Nowak 1991, Ji et al. 2002, Lillegraven 1979, Hendy et al. 2009, Carroll 1988 | |||||