|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 pachyops by Hay (1902); it was recombined as Anchippus pachyops by Ameghino (1904) and Trouessart (1905); it was recombined as Pliohippus pachyops by Matthew and Stirton (1930), McGrew and Meade (1938), Stirton and Chamberlain (1939), Webb (1969) and MacFadden (1984); it was recombined as Pliohippus (Pliohippus) pachyops by Stirton (1940); it was synonymized subjectively with Pliohippus pernix by Hulbert (1989) and Kelly (1995); it was synonymized subjectively with Hypohippus affinis by Forsten (1991); it was synonymized subjectively with Pliohippus fossulatus by Kelly (1998); it was considered a nomen dubium by Macdonald (1992); it was recombined as Dinohippus pachyops by MacFadden (1998).
|Year||Name and author|
|1893||Protohippus pachyops Cope p. 24|
|1902||Merychippus pachyops Hay|
|1904||Anchippus pachyops Ameghino|
|1905||Anchippus pachyops Trouessart|
|1907||Protohippus pachyops Gidley p. 912|
|1918||Protohippus pachyops Osborn p. 138 figs. Plates 23.1,1a,2, 24.2,2a. T ext Fig. 110|
|1930||Pliohippus pachyops Matthew and Stirton|
|1938||Pliohippus pachyops McGrew and Meade p. 201|
|1939||Pliohippus pachyops Stirton and Chamberlain|
|1940||Pliohippus (Pliohippus) pachyops Stirton p. 192|
|1969||Pliohippus pachyops Webb|
|1984||Pliohippus pachyops MacFadden|
|1998||Dinohippus pachyops MacFadden p. 551|
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) Malar-maxillary ridge obtusely rounded; (2) no preorbital fossa, an oval maxillo-nasal fossa which is strongly pronounced; (3) infraorbital foramen issuing above middle of m1; (4) the deciduous premolar crowns with protocone section greater longitudinally than transversely, junction with protoconule complete; (5) two enamel folds in prefossette; (6) superior molars with elongate crowns, well curved transversely; (7) inferior with para- conid and hypostylid well developed.
Gidley observes (1907, p. 913) that (1) Cope's conclusions were based on a misconception of the age of the specimen; (2) that the characters of the type are in general those of Protohippus but differ in several important details from any previously described species; (3) that the young skull referred to this species by Cope agrees closely with that of[?] Protohippus affinis.