|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Perissodactyla - Equidae
It was recombined as Merychippus fossulatus by Hay (1902) and Trouessart (1905); it was synonymized subjectively with Pliohippus (Pliohippus) pachyops by Stirton (1940); it was synonymized subjectively with Pliohippus supremus by Webb (1969); it was recombined as Dinohippus fossulatus by Kelly and Lander (1988); it was synonymized subjectively with Pliohippus pernix by Hulbert (1989); it was recombined as Pliohippus fossulatus by Matthew (1899), Gidley (1903), Osborn (1918), Hay (1930), Dalquest and Hughes (1966), MacFadden (1984), Kelly (1995), MacFadden (1998) and Kelly (1998).
|Year||Name and author|
|1893||Protohippus fossulatus Cope p. 25|
|1899||Pliohippus fossulatus Matthew|
|1902||Merychippus fossulatus Hay|
|1903||Pliohippus fossulatus Gidley|
|1905||Merychippus fossulatus Trouessart|
|1907||Protohippus fossulatus Gidley p. 914|
|1918||Pliohippus fossulatus Osborn p. 156 figs. Plate 23.1,1a, 24.1. Text Figs. 124, 125|
|1930||Pliohippus fossulatus Hay|
|1966||Pliohippus fossulatus Dalquest and Hughes|
|1984||Pliohippus fossulatus MacFadden|
|1988||Dinohippus fossulatus Kelly and Lander|
|1995||Pliohippus fossulatus Kelly p. 14|
|1998||Pliohippus fossulatus Kelly|
|1998||Pliohippus fossulatus MacFadden p. 550|
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.
|H. F. Osborn 1918||(Cope) (1) Size between that of Pliohippus pachyops and P. mirabilis. (2) No fossa immediately in front
of the orbit, but there is a narrow and deep maxillo-nasal fossa [lachrymal], the posterior extremity of which approaches nearertothesuperiorpartoftheorbitthananyother; (3)beneathitandimmediatelyabovethepenultimatemolartooth (m2) a small but well pronounced fossa [malar]; (4) immediately anterior to the infraorbital foramen is a wider and shallower fossa [maxillary]; (5) infraorbital foramen above anterior border of m1; (6) anterior border of orbit above posterior border of m3• (7) Grinding faces of the molar crowns wider than long; (8) protocone large and well fused, projecting more prominently inward than the hypocone, which is not distinct in any of the teeth; (9) enamel borders perfectly simple, with no loop between the protocone and hypocone. (Gidley, 1907, p. 915) (10) Its general skull characters more nearly approach those of Prowhippus perditus as that species is now understood, especially in the form and position of the lachrymal fossa, also in the presence of a deep depression on the upper surface of the skull in the median line directly between the orbits, as in P. perditus; (11) it also agrees with P. perditus in the unusual broadening of the nasals anteriorly; (12) the com- parative shortness of the preorbital region; (13) the deep constriction of the preorbital region immediately in front of the premolars. A distinction is (14) the presence of an incipient malar fossa, and the greater depth of the lachrymal fossa. (Osborn, 1918) (15) Grinding teeth deeply worn, all enamel foldings obliterated; (16) extreme transverse diameter due to the basal section of the crown; (17) protocone prominent, constricted; (18) hypocone region somewhat less prominent, unconstricted.