| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Taxonomy
Prionodelphis capensis was named by Hendey and Repenning (1972). Its type specimen is SAM-PQ-L15695, a partial skull (partial skull with LC and P4/ and RP3), and it is a 3D body fossil. It is the type species of Prionodelphis.
It was recombined as Homiphoca capensis by Muizon and Hendey (1980), Koretsky (2001), Deméré et al. (2003), Koretsky and Barnes (2008), Koretsky and Ray (2008), Werdelin and Peigne (2010), Berta et al. (2015), Govender (2015), Govender (2018), Berta et al. (2018), Dewaele et al. (2018), Kienle and Berta (2019), Berta et al. (2022) and Hafed et al. (2023).
It was recombined as Homiphoca capensis by Muizon and Hendey (1980), Koretsky (2001), Deméré et al. (2003), Koretsky and Barnes (2008), Koretsky and Ray (2008), Werdelin and Peigne (2010), Berta et al. (2015), Govender (2015), Govender (2018), Berta et al. (2018), Dewaele et al. (2018), Kienle and Berta (2019), Berta et al. (2022) and Hafed et al. (2023).
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1972 | Prionodelphis capensis Hendey p. 101 |
| 1972 | Prionodelphis capensis Hendey and Repenning |
| 1974 | Prionodelphis capensis Hendey p. 66 |
| 1980 | Homiphoca capensis Muizon and Hendey p. 96 |
| 2001 | Homiphoca capensis Koretsky p. 87 |
| 2003 | Homiphoca capensis Deméré et al. p. 49 figs. Fig. 3.3 |
| 2008 | Homiphoca capensis Koretsky and Barnes p. 552 |
| 2008 | Homiphoca capensis Koretsky and Ray p. 118 |
| 2010 | Homiphoca capensis Werdelin and Peigne p. 647 |
| 2015 | Homiphoca capensis Berta et al. p. 3 figs. Table 1 |
| 2015 | Homiphoca capensis Govender p. 25 |
| 2018 | Homiphoca capensis Berta et al. p. 210 figs. Fig. 4 |
| 2018 | Homiphoca capensis Dewaele et al. p. 12 |
| 2018 | Homiphoca capensis Govender p. 2 |
| 2019 | Homiphoca capensis Kienle and Berta |
| 2022 | Homiphoca capensis Berta et al. p. 7 figs. Table 1.1 |
| 2023 | Homiphoca capensis Hafed 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.
†Homiphoca capensis Hendey and Repenning 1972
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| L. Dewaele et al. 2018 | As presented by Muizon & Hendey [32, pp. 94–96]: ‘A monachine phocid with a skull superficially similar to that of Monachus. It differs from Monachus in having a relatively large rostrum, which is wide posteriorly and narrow anteriorly. As in Monachus, but unlike Lobodontini, the premaxillae terminate against the nasals, where they are anteroposteriorly elongated. The premaxillae have prominent tuberosities anteriorly. The ascending process of the maxilla is relatively high as in Lobodontini and, viewed anteriorly, is not strongly recurved medially as in Monachus. Dental formula: 2.1.4.1/2.1.4.1. The premolars are morphologically similar to those of Monachus and unlike those of Lobodontini. They differ from those of Monachus in being lower crowned, relatively narrow and in having a pronounced posterolingual expansion of the cingulum. The accessory cusps on the premolars are small but distinct, while the M1 usually lacks such cusps and is distinct in having a strongly recurved and sharp, pointed principal cusp. The M1 is the largest of the cheek teeth, with the principal cusp slanted posteriorly, and often with a small accessory cusp low on the long anterior keel of the principal cusp. The interorbital region is broad and tapers posteriorly as in crabeater seal Lobodon carcinophaga, but unlike all other monachines. In the auditory region the tympanic bulla covers the petrosal, while the mastoid forms a lip overlapping the posterior border of the bulla.’ | |
| R. Govender 2018 | p1 has a single root and p2 to m1 have double roots in SAM-PQHB-1038, as in ‘E’ Quarry Homiphoca, aff. Homiphoca (Lee Creek Mine), Hadrokirus, Pliophoca, Acrophoca, Callophoca obscura, Piscophoca, Monachus, and Ross (Ommatophoca rossii), Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii), leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx), and crabeater (Lobodon carcinophaga) seals. The horizontal ramus is narrow and straight below the tooth row, similar to ‘E’ Quarry Homiphoca, aff. Homiphoca (Lee Creek Mine), Callophoca obscura, Acrophoca, Piscophoca, and Ross seals but differs from Hadrokirus, Pliophoca, Monachus, Weddell, leopard, and crabeater seals, which have a wider and more robust horizontal mandibular ramus. The ascending ramus is directed posteriorly like in ‘E’ Quarry Homiphoca, Hadrokirus, Piscophoca, Monachus, and Ross seals, but this differs from Acrophoca, Weddell, leopard, and crabeater seals in which the ascending ramus is directed more poste- riorly. The horizontal ramus is thickened towards the ascending ramus, similar to LBW-E. The mandible of SAM-PQHB-1038 is more convex than that of the ‘E’ Quarry sample towards the ascending ramus. Specimen SAM-PQHB-1038 is referred to Homi- phoca capensis. |