| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Deperetella
Taxonomy
Deperetella was named by Matthew and Granger (1925). Its type is Deperetella cristata.
It was assigned to Helaletidae by Matthew and Granger (1925); and to Deperetellidae by Carroll (1988), Prothero and Schoch (1989), Holbrook (1999) and Tsubamoto et al. (2000).
It was assigned to Helaletidae by Matthew and Granger (1925); and to Deperetellidae by Carroll (1988), Prothero and Schoch (1989), Holbrook (1999) and Tsubamoto et al. (2000).
Species
D. cristata (type species), D. depereti, D. dienensis, D. khaitchinulensis, D. kungeica, D. sichuanensis
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1925 | Deperetella Matthew and Granger |
| 1930 | Cristidentinus Zdansky pp. 32-34 figs. Pl.II, Fig. 1-2 |
| 1930 | Diplolophodon Zdansky pp. 35-37 figs. I: 35 |
| 1988 | Deperetella Carroll |
| 1988 | Diplolophodon Carroll |
| 1989 | Deperetella Prothero and Schoch p. 533 |
| 1999 | Deperetella Holbrook p. 346 |
| 2000 | Deperetella Tsubamoto et al. p. 185 |
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. †Deperetella Matthew and Granger 1925
show all | hide all
†Deperetella cristata Matthew and Granger 1925
†Deperetella depereti Zdansky 1930
†Deperetella dienensis Chow et al. 1974
†Deperetella khaitchinulensis Reshetov 1979
†Deperetella kungeica Tarasov 1968
†Deperetella sichuanensis Xu et al. 1979
Invalid names: Cristidentinus Zdansky 1930 [synonym], Diplolophodon Zdansky 1930 [synonym]
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| O. Zdansky 1930 (Diplolophodon) | Theeth of upper jaw homoeodont. Molars much broader than long, from M1 to M3 increasing in size. Paracone robust and convex, metacone redused in size and concav. Parastyle seperated and pronounced. Metastyle of upper M1 and M2 well developed; together with the metacone surronding a concavity. Protoloph and metaloph parallel and sharp, cusps not seen. Crista not present. Cingulum anterior and posterior moderate to strong. Cingulum lingual weak and only partly developed (only in the transverse concavity of M1). Upper P4 rectangular, completely molarised. Protocone strongly convex, Tritocone flat (?). Parastyle comparable to that of the molars, metasyle weaker. Protoloph a little bit shorter than metaloph. Cingulum posterior complete, lingual only partly developed. Upper P3 completely (?) molarised. Protoloph shorter than metaloph. Cingulum posterior (?) and lingual complete. | |
| O. Zdansky 1930 (Cristidentinus) | Lower molars have two ridges, which are sharp and a little bit oblique; cingulum on the backside strong, with a flat transverse ridge in the middle. Frontal and ?buccal cingulum well developed. The molarising of lower P4 is between Teleolophus and Deperetella. From the posterolabial cusp to the anterolabial cusp there is a flat transverse ridge. Cingulum seems to be interrupted at the anterolingual side. Backside of lower P3 developed as a short transverse ridge. |