| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Iberictis
Taxonomy
Iberictis was named by Ginsburg and Morales (1992). Its type is Iberictis azanzae.
It was assigned to Gulonini by Valenciano et al. (2018).
It was assigned to Gulonini by Valenciano et al. (2018).
Species
I. azanzae (type species), I. buloti
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Iberictis Ginsburg and Morales |
| 2018 | Iberictis Valenciano 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. †Iberictis Ginsburg and Morales 1992
show all | hide all
†Iberictis azanzae Ginsburg and Morales 1992
†Iberictis buloti Ginsburg and Morales 1992
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| A. Valenciano et al. 2018 | Medium-sized gulonine mustelid with wrinkled enamel and a robust P4 that displays a concavity between parastyle and protocone; P4 with high and enlarged protocone, and variably developed lingual cingulum that thickens distally to protocone; M1 with distolingual enlarge- ment of lingual platform (which possesses a concavity on its middle portion) and without hypocone; p4 with lingual bulge and entirely surrounded by stout cingulid with thickened me- sial and distal cristids; m1 with protoconid higher than paraconid, pronounced metaconid (not entoconid as in origi- nal diagnosis), and beveled lingual wall of hypoconid; m2 plesiomorphic, with very pronounced metaconid and hypoconid, and with trigonid and talonid roots incompletely fused (resulting in a marked notch in the single m2 alveolus).
Differential diagnosis: Iberictis differs from the other gulonines Plesiogulo, Gulo, and Ischyrictis in having a small- er size, and more robust and higher P4 protocone that trends to form a lingual shelf. From Plesiogulo and Gulo in the pres- ence of a P4 protocone mesially located, a higher and more massive M1 metacone, and in the presence of both metaconule and postprotocrista. It differs from Plesiogulo in the elongated P2; relatively higher and more slender lower premolars; a less developed m1 hypoconulid; and a more primitive m2 with hypoconid. It differs from Gulo in longer and slender premolars; shorter P4; longer M1 lingual platform with a small concavity on the middle part of the lingual plat- form; slender m1 trigonid, presence of m1 metaconid and longer talonid with more massive hypoconid; and less reduced m2. Compared to Ischyrictis and Dehmictis it differs in more developed M1 lingual platform. It differs from Ischyrictis in the presence of lingual concavity on M1 lingual platform; in more massive cingulids and cristids in lower premolars, with- out distal accessory cuspids; m1 with more developed metaconid and hypoconid, and relatively shorter talonid. It differs from Dehmictis in higher and robust P4 protocone that trends to form lingual shelf and shorter and less basined m1 talonid; and in bigger size. It differs from the basal mellivorine Hoplictis in the shorter P4; larger M1 with both a more devel- oped metacone and lingual platform; in absence of accessory cuspids in the lower premolars; in more developed m1 metaconid and in longer m1 talonid. Besides, it differs from the primitive lutrines Paralutra Roman and Viret, 1934, Lartetictis Ginsburg and Morales, 1996, and Siamogale Ginsburg et al., 1983, in relatively longer P4 with lesser de- veloped P4 lingual shelf and without hypocone; in M1 more mesiodistally constricted below paracone-metacone, with lesser mesiodistal expansion of lingual platform and absence of hypocone; and in more massive and beveled m1 hypoconid. It differs from Paralutra in wider M1 with less basined m1 talonid. It differs from Lartetictis and Siamogale in having smaller size, in shorter talon and talonid in M1 and m1, higher m1 crown, lesser m1 metaconid, and narrower m2. It differs from Siamogale in less bunodont and slenderer lower premolars; much smaller m1 metaconid and in smaller talonid with much slenderer and shorter m1 entocristid. |
Measurements
No measurements are available
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
| Source: f = family, subc = subclass, c = class, subp = subphylum | |||||
| References: Nowak 1991, Carroll 1988, Hendy et al. 2009, Ji et al. 2002, Lillegraven 1979 | |||||