| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Brucemacfaddenia
Taxonomy
Brucemacfaddenia was named by Hitz et al. (2008). Its type is Brucemacfaddenia boliviensis.
It was assigned to Interatheriinae by Hitz et al. (2008).
It was assigned to Interatheriinae by Hitz et al. (2008).
Species
B. boliviensis (type species)
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2008 | Brucemacfaddenia Hitz 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.
G. †Brucemacfaddenia Hitz et al. 2008
show all | hide all
†Brucemacfaddenia boliviensis Hitz et al. 2008
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| R. B. Hitz et al. 2008 | Distinctly bilobed p3–4* identify Brucemacfad- denia as member of Interatheriinae (sensu Hitz et al., 2000; see Hitz et al., 2006, for discussion of emendation of characters as- sociated with this clade). Derived characters setting Brucemac- faddenia apart from basal interatheriines Santiagorothia (Hitz et al., 2000) and Proargyrohyrax (Hitz et al., 2000) are hypselodont cheek teeth* (P2–M1 of a few of the highly worn specimens of Brucemacfaddenia do show roots but the posterior molars and lower cheekteeth do not) and completely persistent lingual sulcus on upper molars (except in cases of extreme wear) with rapidly disappearing fossettes*. Cheekteeth of Santiagorothia and Proar- gyrohyrax, in contrast to Brucemacfaddenia, have much less persistent lingual sulci (anterior and posterior lobes of upper molars merge into a continuous coronal surface early in wear), longer lived fossettes, and are rooted, although clearly hypsodont. Brucemacfaddenia is smaller than either Santiagorothia or Proargy- rohyrax.
Relative to more derived interatheriines, P3–4 of Brucemac- faddenia is rectangular in outline (significantly longer than wide ‘‘molarized’’). P3–4 of Protypotherium, Miocochilius, and Progaleopithecus (Ameghino, 1904) in contrast are close to equidi- mensional; none show significant anterior expansion. This differs from other interatheriines with ‘‘molarized’’ P3–4 [Plagiarthrus (Ameghino, 1897), Cochilius (Ameghino, 1902), Interatherium (Ameghino, 1887), Archaeophylus (Ameghino, 1897)] in having weakly developed talonid on p2, talonid on p3 distinctly smaller than the trigonid (this condition persists through moderate wear states only), and p4 with subequal trigonid and talonids (Plagiar- thrus, Cochilius and Interatherium conversely all have enlarged talonids on p2–4*). Brucemacfaddenia differs from Archaeophy- lus in having smoother ectoloph on the upper premolars and mo- lars, smaller anterior lobes on upper premolars and molars, straighter lingual margin of upper premolars and molars, and small posteroexternal extension on M3. Proargyrohyrax has somewhat ‘‘molarized’’ P3–4 also but differs from Brucemacfad- denia as outlined above. Brucemacfaddenia superficially resembles Plagiarthrus most closely (but see above paragraph for major distinguishing characters). More subtle features that Brucemacfaddenia has in con- trast to Plagiarthrus are: I1 relatively smaller compared to other incisors; P1 narrower with more distinct anteroexternal ridge and more rectangular in dimensions; P2 more rectangular with a deeper anteroexternal inflection; P3–4 relatively broader and not as elongate and boxy; molars have more pronounced parastyles and M3 displays distinct metastyle. Brucemacfaddenia differs markedly from specimens of Federicoanaya sallaensis n. gen. and sp. of similar size in having ‘‘molarized’’ P3–4, and in details of deciduous dentition: dp4 has a straight posterior margin, angled lingually, and dP3–4 have anteriorly extended parastyle. |