| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Ictopidium
Taxonomy
Ictopidium was named by Zdansky (1930) [Type: phragmentary right lower jaw with P3, P4, M2 and part of M3. The fossil is from China and is (or was) strored in the paleontological institute of the university of Upsala, Sweden.].
It was synonymized subjectively with Tupaiodon by Wang and Li (1990).
It was assigned to Creotarsinae by Van Valen (1967); to Adapisoricidae by Sulimski (1970); to Insectivora by Novacek et al. (1985); to Leptictidae by Zdansky (1930), Carroll (1988); to Changlelestidae by Tong and Wang (1993); and to Tupaiodontinae by Tong (1997), Storch and Dashzeveg (1997).
It was synonymized subjectively with Tupaiodon by Wang and Li (1990).
It was assigned to Creotarsinae by Van Valen (1967); to Adapisoricidae by Sulimski (1970); to Insectivora by Novacek et al. (1985); to Leptictidae by Zdansky (1930), Carroll (1988); to Changlelestidae by Tong and Wang (1993); and to Tupaiodontinae by Tong (1997), Storch and Dashzeveg (1997).
Species
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1930 | Ictopidium Zdansky pp. 7-9 figs. I: 1-2 |
| 1967 | Ictopidium Van Valen |
| 1970 | Ictopidium Sulimski p. 54 |
| 1985 | Ictopidium Novacek et al. p. 8 |
| 1988 | Ictopidium Carroll |
| 1993 | Ictopidium Tong and Wang |
| 1997 | Ictopidium Storch and Dashzeveg p. 438 |
| 1997 | Ictopidium Tong |
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.
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| O. Zdansky 1930 | Dental formula: I ?/? C ?/1 P ?/4 M ?/3. Frontal teeth flat, with cheek teeth in a straight line. Presumable two or more incisivae present. Canines probably weak, one root. Lower P1 has a strong root, posterior increasing in thickness, lower P2 has two roots, the frontal one is robuster. Lower P3 has one big main cusp and fore- and hind-cusp at the talonid. Lower P4 molarised, with robust outer and weak inner main cusp. Fore- and hind-cusp at the talonid well developed. Trigonid of lower M2 and M3 composed of paraconid, protoconid and metaconid: paraconid reduced in size, metaconid as robust as the protoconid, but a bit higher. Talonid of lower M2 remarcably lower than the trigonid, but equal in width, surrounded by three cusps. Among them endocoid weaker, but higher than hypoconid. Hypoconulid small, close to endoconid. Among the molars lower M1 is the longest, lower M2 and M3 approximately equal in size. | |
| A. Sulimski 1970 | Three incisors in size arrangment i1>i2>i3, single-rooted, obliquely situated. c large, single-rooted. p1 lacking, p2, single or double-rooted. p3 double-rooted with subtrigonid-like crown, bearing high coniform protoconid, upwards directed, weak posterior heel, and small basal paraconid. p4 double-rooted with trigonid-like crown, and three cusps, posterior heel or transversal crest. Metaconidd lower or higher than protoconid. Protoconid high, backward bent. m1-m3 double-rooted, as a rule five-cusped. Hypoconulid wear or lacking. Trigonids higher than talonids, both parts of crowns antero-posteriorly compressed, width and length nearly equal. Protoconid in trigonid and entoconid in talonid are the highest of the cusps. Entoconid wide at base, blunt. Labial cingulum well developed, disappearing below hypoconids. m1 equal in length of longer than m2. m3 equal in length or shorter than m2. Mental foramen between roots of p3 or below posterior root of p3. Horizontal ramus of jaw of even height, slender. Lower dental formula 3.1.3.3. |