|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Ungulata - Merycoidodontidae
It was recombined as Hypsiops breviceps by Schultz and Falkenbach (1950), Lander (1998), Tabrum and Nichols (2001) and Stevens and Stevens (2007).
|Year||Name and author|
|1907||Ticholeptus breviceps Douglass p. 106|
|1937||Ticholeptus breviceps Thorpe p. 190 figs. Fig. 139j PI. XXVIII, figs. 3-5|
|1950||Hypsiops breviceps Schultz and Falkenbach p. 120 figs. 4-6, 12-15|
|1950||Hypsiops johndayensis Schultz and Falkenbach p. 123 figs. 4-6, 12|
|1998||Hypsiops breviceps Lander|
|2001||Hypsiops breviceps Tabrum and Nichols|
|2007||Hypsiops breviceps Stevens and Stevens p. 160|
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. B. Schultz and C. H. Falkenbach 1950 (Hypsiops johndayensis)||SKULL: Slightly longer and wider than ex- amples of H. brachymelis, definitely larger than those of H. breviceps and H. luskensis; more robust than those of other known species of genus; wider across frontals than in other species of genus; nasals with slight anterior retraction, less than in other species of genus; anterior nasal-maxilla contact above posterior portion of P1 ; zygomatic arch similar to that of H. brachymelis (light posterior border which may represent a female); malar not so deep below orbit as in last- named species, similar to that of H. brachymelis petersoni; lacrimal fossa deep and large; infraorbital foramen above anterior portion of P4; occipital condyles much larger than in other known species of genus; bulla more inflated and extending farther downward than in H. brachymelis, postglenoid process more massive and with external border less steep than in other species of genus.
MANDIBLE: Similar to that of H. brachymelis in size; inferior border of ramus with more marked downward curve posterior to first lobe of Ma than in H. brachymelis; ascending ramus very high with sharp inward curve of inferior border and with prominent fold on internal, inferior border (apparently for attachment of muscles). (Postsymphysis unknown.)
DENTITION: Series approximately same length as those of H. brachymelis; P2 and pa with anterior intermediate crest; inferior series similar to those of H. brachymelis. (Inferior series known from PrMa only.)
LIMBS:Similar to examples of H. brachymelis. (Known from referred fragmentary examples only.)
|C. B. Schultz and C. H. Falkenbach 1950||SKULL: Smaller than examples of H. brachymelis, approximately same length but wider than H. luskensis; brachycephalic, more so than in other species of genus; supra-occipital wings (damaged in holotype, only known specimen) suggesting less posterior extension than in H. luskensis; anterior nasal-maxilla contact above middle of P2; infraorbital foramen above posterior portion of P8; deep lacrimal fossa
MANDIBLE: Similar to H. brachymelis, but of smaller size; postsymphysis below P3.
DENTITION: More hypsodont than in other species of genus; series almost as long as those of H. brachymelis; cheek teeth con- siderably heavier than in H. luskensis and similar to those of H. brachymelis; superior and inferior premolars crowded; PLP 8 each set at an angle to alveolar border; anterior intermediate crest on p1-paclose to externalborder of teeth; P1-Pa each set at an angle to alveloar border; Pa with posterior intermediate crest.
LIMBS: Similar to examples of H. luskensis; smaller than those of holotype of H. brachymelis.