|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Artiodactyla - Merycoidodontidae
It was recombined as Metoreodon major by Matthew (1924) and Thorpe (1937); it was recombined as Ustatochoerus major by Schultz and Falkenbach (1941), Schultz and Falkenbach (1947), Stevens and Stevens (1989), Voorhies (1990) and Stevens and Stevens (2007).
|Year||Name and author|
|1858||Merychyus major Leidy p. 26|
|1884||Merychyus major Cope p. 545|
|1924||Metoreodon major Matthew|
|1937||Metoreodon major Thorpe|
|1941||Ustatochoerus major Schultz and Falkenbach p. 16|
|1947||Ustatochoerus major Schultz and Falkenbach|
|1988||Merychyus major Kelly and Lander|
|1989||Ustatochoerus major Stevens and Stevens|
|1990||Ustatochoerus major Voorhies|
|1998||Merychyus major Lander|
|2007||Ustatochoerus major Stevens and Stevens p. 166|
|2009||Merychyus major Morgan et al.|
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 1941||SKULL.-Larger than that of U. profectus; elongated posterior to orbits; malar moderately deep; nasals short and retracted considerably more than those of U. profectus; anterior tip of nasals retracted to region above P 3 ; postglenoid process very large in comparison with that of U. profectus.
MANDIBLE.-Typical of genus; larger and more robust than in U. profectus; smaller and lighter than in U. californicus espanolensis.
DENTITION.-Well-developed cusps in superior and inferior premolars, more so than in U. medius; 'tendency for presence of cingula on superior molars; m- ferior premolars crowded and grooved on internal side.
LIMBS.-Longer and heavier than in examples of U. profectus.