| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Taxonomy
Titanotylopus was named by Barbour and Schultz (1934). It is not extant.
It was assigned to Camelinae by Simpson (1945); to Camelidae by Barbour and Schultz (1934), Kurten and Anderson (1980) and Carroll (1988); and to Camelini by Webb (1965), Breyer (1976) and Honey et al. (1998).
It was assigned to Camelinae by Simpson (1945); to Camelidae by Barbour and Schultz (1934), Kurten and Anderson (1980) and Carroll (1988); and to Camelini by Webb (1965), Breyer (1976) and Honey et al. (1998).
Species
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1934 | Titanotylopus Barbour and Schultz |
| 1945 | Titanotylopus Simpson p. 150 |
| 1965 | Titanotylopus Webb p. 44 |
| 1976 | Titanotylopus Breyer |
| 1980 | Titanotylopus Kurten and Anderson p. 301 |
| 1988 | Titanotylopus Carroll |
| 1998 | Titanotylopus Honey et al. p. 451 |
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. †Titanotylopus Barbour and Schultz 1934
show all | hide all
†Titanotylopus nebraskensis Barbour and Schultz 1934
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| S. D. Webb 1965 | The characters of this genus are dis- cussed by Meade ( 1945) and by Hibbard and Riggs (1949). Very large size. Cranium elongate except in premaxillary region; braincase relatively small and shallow (this may be partly the result of crush- ing in some specimens, but shallowness is observed in several specimens and is confirmed by a short coronoid process); interorbital region convex; jugal shallow; postglenoid process large; tympanohyal vagina open posteroexternally; depth of muzzle at anterior end of nasals about 50% greater than in Camelops; maxillary fossa reduced; lacrimal vacui- ties absent; anterior narial aperture subovate, often bordered ventrally by strong premaxillary symphy- sis; premaxillaries blunt, laterally expanded to sup- port heavy canines. Angular process of mandible sharply inflected, position little below condyle; cor- onoid process relatively short. Dental formula: I 0-1/3, C 1/1, P 3/3-2, M 3/3; 13near tip of ros- trum when present; Cl sexually dimorphic, large to very large, anterolaterally inclined; p3 with in- complete internal crescent, but much larger than in Camelops; p4 with well developed parastyle, meta- style and rib; upper molars with styles and ribs better developed than in Camelops; M3 lacking posterior projection of metastyle; lower incisors on a nearly transverse line; canine large, anterolaterally inclined, anterior in position; P1 often absent in females; P 3 present, variable in size; P 4 bilobed, with strong anterolingual inflection; lower molars with lingual stylids and ribs well expressed. Limb elements usually, but not always, longer and more massive than in Camelops. |