| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Taxonomy
Ekwiiyemakius 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 | Ekwiiyemakius 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. †Ekwiiyemakius Atwater and Kirk 2018
show all | hide all
†Ekwiiyemakius walshi Atwater and Kirk 2018
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| A.L. Atwater and E.C. Kirk 2018 | Omomyine primate that differs from other North American omomyoids except Diablomomys, Macrotarsius, Omomys, and Rooneyia in lacking a postprotocingulum on the upper first molar. Differs from all other North American omomyoids except Rooneyia and Washakius in the presence of a deep sulcus between the protocone and hypocone of the M1-2. Length and width measurements of the upper and lower dentition are absolutely smaller than Chumashius, Diablomomys, Macrotarsius, Mytonius, O. carteri, Ourayia, Stockia, Utahia, and Yaquius, similar in size to W. woodringi and specimens attributed to Omomys lloydi, and larger than Dyseolemur. Differs from Omomys in having an M1 that lacks a pericone, having a discontinuous lingual cingulum, and in having larger conules. Further differs from Omomys in having a more waisted distal margin of the M1-2, and in lacking a lingual cingulid on the p3-4. Differs from Stockia and Utahia in having a lingually positioned m2 paraconid that is lower in height relative to the metaconid, in having lower molar trigonids that are less mesio-distally constricted, and in having m2-3 trigonids that are more open lingually. Further differs from Stockia in having a well-developed p4 metaconid. Differs from Yaquius in having a p3 that lacks a buccal or mesiobuccal cingulid, and in having a relatively mesiodistally longer p4 with a cuspate paraconid. Further differs from Yaquius in having an m1 paraconid that is buccolingually positioned between the protoconid and metaconid. Differs from Diablomomys in the presence of the postmetaconule crista on the M1-2, in having a larger M1 hypocone, and in having an M2 with a waisted distal margin. Also differs from Diablomomys in having a p4 with a mesiodistal length similar to that of the m1 and a p4 metaconid height that is much lower relative to the height of the protoconid. Differs from Macrotarsius and Ourayia in lacking crenulated enamel and in having upper molars that lack a mesostyle and exhibit weakly developed distal and mesial cingula. Differs from Mytonius in having a mesiodistally longer p4, a greater height difference between lower molar trigonids and talonids, less bunodont lower molar cusps, and a more lingually positioned M2 paraconid. Differs from Washakius in having upper molars with smaller conules and a continuous postprotocrista between the protocone and metaconule. Differs from Rooneyia in having smaller upper molar conules and hypocones. Differs from Chumashius in having a p4 with a larger paraconid and metaconid, an M2 with a prominent hypocone, and an M3 that is buccolingually wider.
|