1999
DOI: 10.1006/clad.1999.0107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Phylogeny and Classification of Tapiromorph Perissodactyls (Mammalia)

Abstract: Despite an excellent fossil record, the phylogeny of Peris-the ancestral morphology of Perissodactyla. ᭧ 1999 The Willi Hennig Society sodactyla is not well understood, in terms of both the relationships within Perissodactyla and the position of the Perissodactyla among the orders of mammals. This

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
20
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
20
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We assign the new specimen to a new species of Pappaceras based on the stratigraphical evidence (same with Pappaceras rather than Forstercooperia in Arshantan age) and its characteristic dental morphology (see diagnosis). The comparisons of craniodental features between Pappaceras meiomenus and the earliest representatives of main groups of early rhinocerotoids, which were considered to be highly comparable as proposed by various authors78111820, are essential for the study of rhinocerotoid evolution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…We assign the new specimen to a new species of Pappaceras based on the stratigraphical evidence (same with Pappaceras rather than Forstercooperia in Arshantan age) and its characteristic dental morphology (see diagnosis). The comparisons of craniodental features between Pappaceras meiomenus and the earliest representatives of main groups of early rhinocerotoids, which were considered to be highly comparable as proposed by various authors78111820, are essential for the study of rhinocerotoid evolution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In spite that P. meiomenus is close to the Late Eocene eggysodontids Proeggysodon and Guangnanodon in size (based on length of lower molar series)1831, eggysodontids differ from the latter by having complete upper premolars, large and nearly vertically oriented canines, primitively speculate incisors that vary in number (2 or 3) across different genera, and more molarized premolars3233, and the known craniodental features of eggysodontids34 are more comparable to those of rhinocerotids rather than forstercooperiines. The enigmatic genus Uintaceras was considered as the sister group of rhinocerotids for its distinctive features of anterior dentition (buccolingually compressed upper incisors with a triangular profile) and characteristics of cheek teeth and postcranial elements835. Although Holbrook and Lucas35 pointed out some cranial differences between forstercooperiines and Uintaceras , it should be noted that the reconstruction of skull of Uintaceras was mainly based on laterally compressed and distorted materials of UCMP 69722 and UW 2410.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations