| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Taxonomy
Gunnelltarsius was named by Atwater and Kirk (2018). It is not extant.
It was assigned to Omomyinae by Atwater and Kirk (2018).
It was assigned to Omomyinae by Atwater and Kirk (2018).
Species
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Gunnelltarsius Atwater and Kirk |
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.
G. †Gunnelltarsius Atwater and Kirk 2018
show all | hide all
†Gunnelltarsius randalli Atwater and Kirk 2018
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| A.L. Atwater and E.C. Kirk 2018 | Omomyine primate that differs from all other North American omomyoids except Diablomomys, Ekwiiyemakius, Macrotarsius, Omomys, and Rooneyia in lacking an M1 postprotocingulum. Length and width measurements of the upper and lower dentition are absolutely smaller than Diablomomys, Macrotarsius, Mytonius, Ourayia, and Yaquius, similar in size to Stockia and Omomys, and larger than Chumashius, Ekwiiyemakius, Utahia, and Washakius. Differs from Diablomomys, Macrotarsius, Omomys, Ourayia, Stockia, and Utahia in having m2-3 trigonid lingual cusps that are lower in height relative to the protoconid. Differs from Diablomomys, Ekwiiyemakius, Macrotarsius, Omomys, Stockia, and Utahia in having an m3 talonid that is similar in width relative to the trigonid. Differs from Diablomomys, Ekwiiyemakius, Omomys, and Utahia in lacking an m3 distobuccal cingulid. Differs from Diablomomys, Ekwiiyemakius, and Omomys in having moderate levels of upper and lower molar occlusal surface crenulation. Differs from Ekwiiyemakius, Macrotarsius, and Omomys in having an M1-2 with a narrow stylar shelf. Differs from Macrotarsius and Omomys in having a P4 with a postprotocrista, and in having an M3 with a variably small or absent metacone. Differs from Omomys in having upper molars that are buccolingually broader in occlusal profile, in lacking overlapping premolars, and in having a small P3 protocone and P4 parastyle. Differs from Mytonius in having a mesiodistally longer p4 and a buccolingually narrower m2 with a more lingually positioned protoconid. Differs from Macrotarsius in having an M1 with a waisted distal margin and in having m1-2 metaconids that are relatively smaller than the protoconid. Differs from Washakius in having molars with weaker crenulation, and upper molars with smaller conules, smaller hypocones, a continuous lingual cingulum, and a continuous postprotocrista between the protocone and metaconule. Differs from Ekwiiyemakius in having an M1 with a continuous lingual cingulum, M2 lacking a waisted distal margin, a mesiodistally longer M3, and m1-3 with more lingually positioned paraconids. Differs from Stockia in having less crenulated lower molar occlusal surfaces, m1-3 trigonids that are mesiodistally longer, m2-3 paraconids that are positioned mesial to the metaconid, a smaller m3 hypoconulid, and an m3 entoconid that is weak and crestiform. Differs from Chumashius in having more lingually positioned lower molar paraconids, an M2 with a more distinct hypocone, pericone, and buccal cingulum, and a buccolingually wider M3 with a more similar-sized paracone and metacone. |
Measurements
No measurements are available
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Source: f = family, c = class, subp = subphylum | |||||
| References: Ji et al. 2002, Hendy et al. 2009, Carroll 1988 | |||||
Collections
No collection or age range data are available