| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Taxonomy
Leptocyon was named by Matthew (1918). It is not extant.
It was synonymized subjectively with Vulpes by Gregory (1942).
It was assigned to Canidae by Matthew (1918), Webb (1969), Carroll (1988) and Munthe (1998); and to Caninae by Wang et al. (2008), Wang and Tedford (2008), Tedford et al. (2009), Smith et al. (2016) and May (2019).
It was synonymized subjectively with Vulpes by Gregory (1942).
It was assigned to Canidae by Matthew (1918), Webb (1969), Carroll (1988) and Munthe (1998); and to Caninae by Wang et al. (2008), Wang and Tedford (2008), Tedford et al. (2009), Smith et al. (2016) and May (2019).
Species
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1918 | Leptocyon Matthew |
| 1963 | Neocynodesmus Macdonald |
| 1969 | Leptocyon Webb |
| 1988 | Leptocyon Carroll |
| 1988 | Neocynodesmus Carroll |
| 1998 | Leptocyon Munthe |
| 2008 | Leptocyon Wang et al. |
| 2009 | Leptocyon Tedford et al. p. 14 |
| 2016 | Leptocyon Smith et al. |
| 2019 | Leptocyon May |
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. †Leptocyon Matthew 1918
show all | hide all
†Leptocyon delicatus Loomis 1932
†Leptocyon douglassi Tedford et al. 2009
†Leptocyon gregorii Matthew 1907
†Leptocyon leidyi Tedford et al. 2009
†Leptocyon matthewi Tedford et al. 2009
†Leptocyon mollis Merriam 1906
†Leptocyon tejonensis Tedford et al. 2009
†Leptocyon vafer Leidy 1858
†Leptocyon vulpinus Matthew 1907
Invalid names: Neocynodesmus Macdonald 1963 [synonym]
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| R. H. Tedford et al. 2009 | Leptocyon differs from Vulpes in possession of the following primi- tive characters: greater postorbital constriction; I1–I3 with medial cusplets; M1 and M2 with stronger parastyle; m1 hypoconulid absent, its entoconid relatively smaller and enlarged only in most derived species; m2 with weaker anterolabial cingulum and meta- conid smaller than or equal in size to protoconid in less derived species, postpa- rietal foramen still present in early species; humerus with entepicondylar foramen; ulna and fibula short and more robust with larger distal articular facets for radius and tibia; radius with distal exostosis in early species (Wang and Rothschild, 1992); tibia with longer anteroproximal crest, less anteriorly and distally extended proximolateral and proximomedial articular surfaces for femur; relatively larger entocuneiform and well- developed functional metatarsal I with two phalanges. |