|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Rodentia - Cricetidae
It was recombined as Mimomys meadensis by Repenning (1987); it was recombined as Ophiomys meadensis by Hibbard and Zakrzewski (1967), Kurten and Anderson (1980), Barnosky (1985) and Martin et al. (2002).
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.
|C. W. Hibbard 1956||Pliophenacomys meadensis is larger tha P. primaevus Hibbard and P. parvus (Wilson). The mental foramen is not so dorsal as in P. primaevus, and the capsular process for the base of the incisor on the coronoid process of the ascending ramus is better developed. The number of roots of M2 varies from two to three; M3 is two-rooted. In P. primaevus M2 has three roots, and M3 generally has two, although three roots are sometimes present. The posterior loop of the M3 in P. meadensis is more hook-shaped, like that of P. parvus (Wilson), than the posterior loop in P. primaevus, which is rounded.|