Jump to content

User:PrimalMustelid/sandbox2: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 68: Line 68:
In 1928, English palaeontologist [[Clive Forster-Cooper]] erected ''P. hantonensis'' based on two upper molars from [[Hordle]] in England.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Forster-Cooper|first=Clive|year=1928|title=Pseudamphimeryx hantonensis, sp. n., with notes on certain species of Artiodactyls from the Eocene deposits of Hordwell|journal=Annals and Magazine of Natural History|volume=2|issue=7|pages=49–55|doi=10.1080/00222932808672847|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.20318/page/n59/mode/2up}}</ref> In 1978, French palaeontologist Jean Sudre recognized ''P. pavloviae'' as a distinct species and erected another named ''P. salesmei'' based on a [[mandible]] from the French locality of Salesmes.<ref name="artiodactyles">{{cite book|last=Sudre|first=Jean|year=1978|title=Les Artiodactyles de l'Eocéne moyen et supérieur d'Europe occidentale|publisher=University of Montpellier}}</ref><ref name="mormont">{{cite book|last1=Hooker|first1=Jerry J.|last2=Weidmann|first2=Marc|year=2000|title=Eocene Mammal Faunas of Mormont, Switzerland: Systematic Revision and Resolution of Dating Problems|publisher=Kommission der Schweizerischen Paläontologischen Abhandlungen|volume=120|pages=92–94}}</ref>
In 1928, English palaeontologist [[Clive Forster-Cooper]] erected ''P. hantonensis'' based on two upper molars from [[Hordle]] in England.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Forster-Cooper|first=Clive|year=1928|title=Pseudamphimeryx hantonensis, sp. n., with notes on certain species of Artiodactyls from the Eocene deposits of Hordwell|journal=Annals and Magazine of Natural History|volume=2|issue=7|pages=49–55|doi=10.1080/00222932808672847|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.20318/page/n59/mode/2up}}</ref> In 1978, French palaeontologist Jean Sudre recognized ''P. pavloviae'' as a distinct species and erected another named ''P. salesmei'' based on a [[mandible]] from the French locality of Salesmes.<ref name="artiodactyles">{{cite book|last=Sudre|first=Jean|year=1978|title=Les Artiodactyles de l'Eocéne moyen et supérieur d'Europe occidentale|publisher=University of Montpellier}}</ref><ref name="mormont">{{cite book|last1=Hooker|first1=Jerry J.|last2=Weidmann|first2=Marc|year=2000|title=Eocene Mammal Faunas of Mormont, Switzerland: Systematic Revision and Resolution of Dating Problems|publisher=Kommission der Schweizerischen Paläontologischen Abhandlungen|volume=120|pages=92–94}}</ref>


In 1974, the French palaeontologist Colette Dechaseaux noted that ''P. decedens'' had notably large [[orbit (anatomy)|orbits]] along with [[preorbital fossa]]e in front of them like in [[deer]]; these morphologies previously gave palaeontologists ideas of the appearance of the skull of ''Pseudamphimeryx''. She casted doubt that the species actually belonged to ''Pseudamphimeryx'' because of the molar forms. In 1984, Sudre tentatively reassigned ''P. decedens'' to the [[chevrotain|tragulid]] genus ''Cryptomeryx'' as ''C? decedens'', building on to Dechaseaux's study by confirming that the now-lost skull would have belonged to a small [[ruminant]].<ref name="reconstruction">{{cite journal|last=Dechaseaux|first=Colette|year=1974|title=Artiodactyles primitifs des phosphorites du Quercy|journal=Annales de Paléontologie. Vertèbres|volume=60|pages=59–100}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Sudre|first=Jean|year=1984|title=Cryptomeryx Schlosser, 1886, Tragulidé de l'oligocène d'Europe; relations du genre et considérations sur l'origine des ruminants|journal=Palaeovertebrata|volume=14|issue=1|pages=1–31|url=https://palaeovertebrata.com/articles/view/114}}</ref> In 1986, however, Geneviève Bouvrain, Denis Geraads and Jean Sudre revised ''Cryptomeryx'' as a synonym of ''[[Lophiomeryx]]'',<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bouvrain|first1=Geneviève|last2=Geraads|last3=Sudre|first3=Jean|year=1986|title=Révision taxonomique de quelques Ruminants oligocènes desphosphorites du Quercy.|journal=Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris|volume=302|issue=2|language=french|pages=101–104|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291855583_A_taxonomic_revision_of_some_Oligocene_ruminants_from_the_Quercy_phosphorites}}</ref> but it was alternatively considered a synonym of ''Iberomeryx'' by Bastien Mennecart et al. in 2010. ''C? decedens'' had tentatively been placed in ''[[Iberomeryx]]'' in a 2012 PhD thesis by Mennecart.{{efn|The species "''L.''" ''gaudryi'', formerly the type species of the now-invalid ''Cryptomeryx'', is pending reassessment to another genus.}}<ref name="ruminantia">{{cite thesis|type=PhD|last=Mennecart|first=Bastien|year=2012|title=The Ruminantia (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) from the Oligocene to the Early Miocene of Western Europe: systematics, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography|publisher=Université de Fribourg|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/20660663.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Bian|last2=Wang|first2=Qian|last3=Zhang|first3=Zhao-Qun|year=2023|title=New materials of Lophiomeryx (Artiodactyla: Lophiomerycidae) from the Oligocene of Nei Mongol, China|journal=Journal of Mammalian Evolution|volume=30|pages=1047–1066|doi=10.1007/s10914-023-09691-3}}</ref>
In 1974, the French palaeontologist Colette Dechaseaux noted that ''P. decedens'' had notably large [[orbit (anatomy)|orbits]] along with [[preorbital fossa]]e in front of them like in [[deer]]; these morphologies previously gave palaeontologists ideas of the appearance of the skull of ''Pseudamphimeryx''. She casted doubt that the species actually belonged to ''Pseudamphimeryx'' because of the molar forms. Similarly in 1978, Sudre expressed that ''P. decedens'' actually belonged to ''Pseudamphimeryx'', stating the the short [[premolar]]s, large [[orbit (anatomy)|orbits]], and preorbital fossae are not present in any other skull of other amphimerycid species. In 1984, Sudre tentatively reassigned ''P. decedens'' to the [[chevrotain|tragulid]] genus ''Cryptomeryx'' as ''C? decedens'', building on to Dechaseaux's study by confirming that the now-lost skull would have belonged to a small [[ruminant]].<ref name="reconstruction">{{cite journal|last=Dechaseaux|first=Colette|year=1974|title=Artiodactyles primitifs des phosphorites du Quercy|journal=Annales de Paléontologie. Vertèbres|volume=60|pages=59–100}}</ref><ref name="artiodactyles"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Sudre|first=Jean|year=1984|title=Cryptomeryx Schlosser, 1886, Tragulidé de l'oligocène d'Europe; relations du genre et considérations sur l'origine des ruminants|journal=Palaeovertebrata|volume=14|issue=1|pages=1–31|url=https://palaeovertebrata.com/articles/view/114}}</ref> In 1986, however, Geneviève Bouvrain, Denis Geraads and Jean Sudre revised ''Cryptomeryx'' as a synonym of ''[[Lophiomeryx]]'',<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bouvrain|first1=Geneviève|last2=Geraads|last3=Sudre|first3=Jean|year=1986|title=Révision taxonomique de quelques Ruminants oligocènes desphosphorites du Quercy.|journal=Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris|volume=302|issue=2|language=french|pages=101–104|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291855583_A_taxonomic_revision_of_some_Oligocene_ruminants_from_the_Quercy_phosphorites}}</ref> but it was alternatively considered a synonym of ''Iberomeryx'' by Bastien Mennecart et al. in 2010. ''C? decedens'' had tentatively been placed in ''[[Iberomeryx]]'' in a 2012 PhD thesis by Mennecart.{{efn|The species "''L.''" ''gaudryi'', formerly the type species of the now-invalid ''Cryptomeryx'', is pending reassessment to another genus.}}<ref name="ruminantia">{{cite thesis|type=PhD|last=Mennecart|first=Bastien|year=2012|title=The Ruminantia (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) from the Oligocene to the Early Miocene of Western Europe: systematics, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography|publisher=Université de Fribourg|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/20660663.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Bian|last2=Wang|first2=Qian|last3=Zhang|first3=Zhao-Qun|year=2023|title=New materials of Lophiomeryx (Artiodactyla: Lophiomerycidae) from the Oligocene of Nei Mongol, China|journal=Journal of Mammalian Evolution|volume=30|pages=1047–1066|doi=10.1007/s10914-023-09691-3}}</ref>


=== Classification ===
=== Classification ===

Revision as of 20:47, 28 November 2024

PrimalMustelid/sandbox2
Temporal range: Middle Eocene to Late Eocene
Pseudamphimeryx renevieri mandible, Natural History Museum of Basel
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: †Amphimerycidae
Genus: †Pseudamphimeryx
Stehlin, 1910
Type species
†Pseudamphimeryx renevieri
Pictet & Humbert, 1869
Other species
  • †P. schlosseri Ruetimeyer, 1891
  • †P. valdensis Stehlin, 1910
  • †P. pavloviae Stehlin, 1910
  • †P. hantonensis Forster-Cooper, 1928
  • †P. salesmei Sudre, 1978






















Taxonomy

Mandibles of Pseudamphimeryx renevieri (left) and Amphimeryx murinus (right)

In 1910, the Swiss palaeontologist Hans Georg Stehlin erected the genus Pseudamphimeryx, introducing it as an artiodactyl that differed from Amphimeryx only by specific cranial and dental traits. He first recognized the species Pseudamphimeryx Renevieri, which was previously classified to Cainotherium then Xiphodontherium (the latter synonymized with Amphimeryx); it was first named by the naturalists François Jules Pictet de la Rive and Aloïs Humbert in 1869. The second species that he classified to Pseudamphimeryx was P. Schlosseri, first named as a species of Dichobune by Ludwig Ruetimeyer in 1891. Stehlin then named the species P. valdensis based on lower fossil molars from the Swiss locality of Mormont, stating that it was smaller than P. renevieri in size. He also recognized two additional taxa from the Phosphorites du Quercy site: P. Renevieri var. Pavlowiae and P. decedens.[a][1][2][3]

In 1928, English palaeontologist Clive Forster-Cooper erected P. hantonensis based on two upper molars from Hordle in England.[4] In 1978, French palaeontologist Jean Sudre recognized P. pavloviae as a distinct species and erected another named P. salesmei based on a mandible from the French locality of Salesmes.[5][6]

In 1974, the French palaeontologist Colette Dechaseaux noted that P. decedens had notably large orbits along with preorbital fossae in front of them like in deer; these morphologies previously gave palaeontologists ideas of the appearance of the skull of Pseudamphimeryx. She casted doubt that the species actually belonged to Pseudamphimeryx because of the molar forms. Similarly in 1978, Sudre expressed that P. decedens actually belonged to Pseudamphimeryx, stating the the short premolars, large orbits, and preorbital fossae are not present in any other skull of other amphimerycid species. In 1984, Sudre tentatively reassigned P. decedens to the tragulid genus Cryptomeryx as C? decedens, building on to Dechaseaux's study by confirming that the now-lost skull would have belonged to a small ruminant.[7][5][8] In 1986, however, Geneviève Bouvrain, Denis Geraads and Jean Sudre revised Cryptomeryx as a synonym of Lophiomeryx,[9] but it was alternatively considered a synonym of Iberomeryx by Bastien Mennecart et al. in 2010. C? decedens had tentatively been placed in Iberomeryx in a 2012 PhD thesis by Mennecart.[b][10][11]

Classification

Because of some similar anatomical traits of the amphimerycids to those of ruminants (like the Java mouse-deer (Tragulus javanicus), pictured), they were previously considered ruminants by biologists. Today, their evolutionary relationship to ruminants and other artiodactyls proves unclear.

Pseudamphimeryx belongs to the Amphimerycidae, a Palaeogene artiodactyl family endemic to western Europe that lived from the middle to the earliest Oligocene (~44 to 33 Ma). Like the other contemporary endemic artiodactyl families of western Europe, the evolutionary origins of the Amphimerycidae are poorly known.[12] The family is generally thought to have made its first appearance by the unit MP14 of the Mammal Palaeogene zones, making them the first selenodont dentition artiodactyl representatives to have appeared in the landmass along with the Xiphodontidae.[13] The first representative of the Amphimerycidae to have appeared was Pseudamphimeryx, lasting from MP14 to MP17. Amphimeryx made its first appearance in MP18 as the only other known amphimerycid genus and lasted up to MP21, after the Grande Coupure faunal turnover event.[12]

Because of its similar anatomical traits with ruminants, some palaeontologists had originally included it within the suborder Ruminantia while some others rejected the placement. Today, its similarities with ruminants is thought to have been an instance of parallel evolution, in which amphimerycids and ruminants independently gained similar traits.[12][14] While amphimerycids have typically been excluded from the Ruminantia due to dental characteristics, it does not eliminate the possibility of them being sister taxa to ruminants by the latter independently gaining longer legs and more selenodont (crescent-shaped) dentition.[15] Its affinities, along with those of other endemic European artiodactyls, are unclear; the Amphimerycidae, Anoplotheriidae, Xiphodontidae, Mixtotheriidae, and Cainotheriidae have been determined to be closer to either tylopods (i.e. camelids and merycoidodonts) or ruminants. Different phylogenetic analyses have produced different results for the "derived" selenodont Eocene European artiodactyl families, making it uncertain whether they were closer to the Tylopoda or Ruminantia.[14][16][17]

In an article published in 2019, Romain Weppe et al. conducted a phylogenetic analysis on the Cainotherioidea within the Artiodactyla based on mandibular and dental characteristics, specifically in terms of relationships with artiodactyls of the Palaeogene. The results retrieved that the superfamily was closely related to the Mixtotheriidae and Anoplotheriidae. They determined that the Cainotheriidae, Robiacinidae, Anoplotheriidae, and Mixtotheriidae formed a clade that was the sister group to the Ruminantia while Tylopoda, along with the Amphimerycidae and Xiphodontidae split earlier in the tree.[17] The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below:[18]

In 2020, Vincent Luccisano et al. created a phylogenetic tree of the basal artiodactyls, a majority endemic to western Europe, from the Palaeogene. In one clade, the "bunoselenodont endemic European" Mixtotheriidae, Anoplotheriidae, Xiphodontidae, Amphimerycidae, Cainotheriidae, and Robiacinidae are grouped together with the Ruminantia. The phylogenetic tree as produced by the authors is shown below:[16]

Artiodactyla 

In 2022, Weppe conducted a phylogenetic analysis in his academic thesis regarding Palaeogene artiodactyl lineages, focusing most specifically on the endemic European families. One large monophyletic set consisted of the Hyperdichobuninae, Amphimerycidae, Xiphodontidae, and Cainotherioidea based on dental synapomorphies, of which the hyperdichobunines are paraphyletic in relation to the other clades. In terms of the amphimerycids, while the clade consisting of P. renevieri and A. murinus was recovered as a sister group to the other endemic artiodactyl clades, the placement of P. schlosseri has rendered the Amphimerycidae paraphyletic in relation to the derived amphimerycid species and other families. He argued that the Amphimerycidae thus needs a systemic revision for which P. schlosseri would be assigned to a new genus and removed from the Amphimerycidae.[14]

Description

Skull

The Amphimerycidae is defined in part as having an elongated snout and large orbits that are widened in their backs.[12] Pseudmphimeryx specifically is described as having a skull whose peak appears initially concave at the occipital crest's front, ascends slightly, and then finally slopes down. The skull is also diagnosed as having strong body orifices in its basicranium and projecting occipital crests.[5] Pseudamphimeryx and Amphimeryx, both known by multiple skull specimens, have very similar forms but differ based on a few characteristics.[7] Amphimeryx is also distinguished from Pseudamphimeryx by the more well-developed occipital crest and lack of preorbital fossa present on the snout of the latter. Its skull additionally resembles those of both Dacrytherium and Tapirulus.[19]

The overall skull of Pseudamphimeryx is very elongated especially in comparison to Mouillacitherium but falls short of that of Amphimeryx. The parietal bone and squamosal bone both make up a prominent portion of the cranial cavity's wall. Both amphimerycid genera have especially prominent occipital and sagittal crests, the latter of which divides into two less prominent branches behind the fronto-parietal suture that extend up to the supraorbital foramen. This is unlike Mouillacitherium where the crest's extension only goes up to the foramen's back.[7] The glenoid surface of Pseudamphimeryx is positioned slightly above the overall base of the skull and has a slightly convex form as opposed to a flat one like in primitive ruminants. The glenoid region of the skull also has a deep concavity above it like in ruminants but unlike in anoplotheriids. The zygomatic arch, or cheek bone, is thin.[19] The orientation of the occipital crest differs by amphimerycid genus, with that of Pseudamphimeryx being straight and vertical. Amphimerycids have primitive "mastoid" forms (in which the periotic bone of the ear is exposed to the skull's surface) akin to those of the dichobunids Dichobune and Mouillacitherium.[7]

The frontal bones of both amphimerycid genera are large plus flat, being particularly sizeable in their supraorbital portions; this trait is more pronounced in Amphimeryx. That of Amphimeryx is close to the orbits' upper edges and is more prominent in position between the two orbits than that of Pseudamphimeryx. The supraorbital foramen of Amphimeryx is wider than it is long and is proportionally larger than that of Pseudamphimeryx. It is also more perpendicular to the sagittal plane in its back edge, which is not oriented backwards like in Pseudamphimeryx. The lacrimal bone of both amphimerycids, but especially in Amphimeryx, has an extensive pars facialis and is quadrangular in shape, narrowing at its front. The orbit is large, is positioned back in relation to the overall skull, is wide at its back area, and is more curved at its upper compared to lower edge. There is no difference between both amphimerycids in terms of the orbits, suggesting based on their morphologies that the snouts of both genera are elongated. The optic foramen, located in the sphenoid bone, extends more forward in Amphimeryx than in Pseudamphimeryx. While the nasal bone is not as well-preserved in Amphimeryx fossils, the frontonasal suture is implied to have formed a W shape on the skull's upper surface like that of Pseudamphimeryx. Both amphimerycid genera also have similar, although not identical, medial positions of the infraorbital foramen in the maxilla. The palatine bones of Amphimeryx and Pseudamphimeryx are narrower at their front than back ends.[7]

The mandible of Pseudamphimeryx is undulated at the lower edge of its horizontal branch, or the mandibular corpus, and, like in Amphimeryx, has a large and slightly rounded angular border. The coronoid process of the mandible is positioned lower in relation to the overall skull unlike in ruminants, and the temporomandibular joint is also lower than in Amphimeryx.[7][12]

Pseudamphimeryx is also known from a brain endocast, although the endocasts of it and Amphimeryx were not as closely described in detail. Its neocortex was described by Dechaseaux as being of a primitive and simple type in the larger evolutionary scale of artiodactyls.[7][20]

Dentition

P. renevieri lower dentition

The dental formula of the Amphimerycidae is 3.1.4.33.1.4.3 for a total of 44 teeth, consistent with the primitive dental formula for early-middle Palaeogene placental mammals.[5][21] The canines (C/c) are incisiform (incisor (I/i) form) and therefore differ little with the incisors themselves. The premolars (P/p) are elongated and may generally be separated by diastemata (gaps between teeth). The lower premolars have three lobes, or developed areas on their crowns. The upper molars (M/m) are more developed in form and are generally subtriangular in shape, although some may be more rectangular. They have five crescent-shaped (selenodont) tubercles and sometimes a partial hypocone cusp that may be present in all species.[5][12] Amphimerycids differ from ruminants, particularly the basal clade Tragulina, in the retentions of their first premolars and their high levels of specialization in their selenodonty and number of cusps in their molars.[22] Their dentitions more closely resemble those of xiphodonts or dacrytheriines than of ruminants.[12]

Pseudamphimeryx specifically is diagnosed in part as having moderate diastemata between P1 and P2. P1 is similarly separated from P2 by a diastema but is closer to the lower canine. Its upper molars have five tubercles along with a single front cingulum each. In the lower molars, the labial cuspids are crescent-shaped whereas the lingual cuspids are subconical. The peak of the crescent formed by the metaconid and entoconid cusps is rounder in the molars of Pseudamphimeryx than in those of Amphimeryx, a diagnostic trait separating the two genera.[5][12]

In terms of non-diagnostic features of the amphimerycids, both genera have incisors that are shovel-shaped, have sharp edges on their crowns, and have horizontal positions in relation to the dental row. The canines are similar to incisors but differ by their somewhat asymmetrical shapes.[1] P1 and P2 have both been described as narrow and elongated, but the former tooth is larger than the latter.[7] The overall selenodonty and brachyodonty (low-crowned teeth) of amphimerycids suggest that they were adapted towards folivorous (leaf-eating) dietary habits.[23]

Postcranial skeleton

Size

Palaeoecology

Notes

  1. ^ Due to archaic species naming conventions, authors of the 19th and 20th centuries tended to capitalize species names based on individuals or places.
  2. ^ The species "L." gaudryi, formerly the type species of the now-invalid Cryptomeryx, is pending reassessment to another genus.

References

  1. ^ a b Stehlin, Hans Georg (1910). "Die Säugertiere des schweizerischen Eocaens. Sechster Teil: Catodontherium – Dacrytherium – Leptotherium – Anoplotherium – Diplobune – Xiphodon – Pseudamphimeryx – Amphimeryx – Dichodon – Haplomeryx – Tapirulus – Gelocus. Nachträge, Artiodactyla incertae sedis, Schlussbetrachtungen über die Artiodactylen, Nachträge zu den Perissodactylen". Abhandlungen der Schweizerischen Paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 36. Archived from the original on 5 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  2. ^ Pictet, François Jules; Humbert, Aloïs Humbert (1869). Mémoire sur les animaux vertébrés: trouvés dans le terrain sidérolitique du Canton de Vaud et appartenant a la faune éocène: supplément. Vol. 2. H. Georg.
  3. ^ Rütimeyer, Ludwig (1891). "II. Ungulata Paridigitata". Abhandlungen der Schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft. 18: 73–75.
  4. ^ Forster-Cooper, Clive (1928). "Pseudamphimeryx hantonensis, sp. n., with notes on certain species of Artiodactyls from the Eocene deposits of Hordwell". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 2 (7): 49–55. doi:10.1080/00222932808672847.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Sudre, Jean (1978). Les Artiodactyles de l'Eocéne moyen et supérieur d'Europe occidentale. University of Montpellier.
  6. ^ Hooker, Jerry J.; Weidmann, Marc (2000). Eocene Mammal Faunas of Mormont, Switzerland: Systematic Revision and Resolution of Dating Problems. Vol. 120. Kommission der Schweizerischen Paläontologischen Abhandlungen. pp. 92–94.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h Dechaseaux, Colette (1974). "Artiodactyles primitifs des phosphorites du Quercy". Annales de Paléontologie. Vertèbres. 60: 59–100.
  8. ^ Sudre, Jean (1984). "Cryptomeryx Schlosser, 1886, Tragulidé de l'oligocène d'Europe; relations du genre et considérations sur l'origine des ruminants". Palaeovertebrata. 14 (1): 1–31.
  9. ^ Bouvrain, Geneviève; Geraads; Sudre, Jean (1986). "Révision taxonomique de quelques Ruminants oligocènes desphosphorites du Quercy". Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris (in French). 302 (2): 101–104.
  10. ^ Mennecart, Bastien (2012). The Ruminantia (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla) from the Oligocene to the Early Miocene of Western Europe: systematics, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography (PDF) (PhD). Université de Fribourg.
  11. ^ Wang, Bian; Wang, Qian; Zhang, Zhao-Qun (2023). "New materials of Lophiomeryx (Artiodactyla: Lophiomerycidae) from the Oligocene of Nei Mongol, China". Journal of Mammalian Evolution. 30: 1047–1066. doi:10.1007/s10914-023-09691-3.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h Erfurt, Jörg; Métais, Grégoire (2007). "Endemic European Paleogene Artiodactyls". In Prothero, Donald R.; Foss, Scott E. (eds.). The Evolution of Artiodactyls. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 59–84.
  13. ^ Franzen, Jens Lorenz (2003). "Mammalian faunal turnover in the Eocene of central Europe". Geological Society of America Special Papers. 369: 455–461. doi:10.1130/0-8137-2369-8.455. ISBN 9780813723693.
  14. ^ a b c Weppe, Romain (2022). Déclin des artiodactyles endémiques européens, autopsie d'une extinction (Thesis) (in French). University of Montpellier. Archived from the original on 11 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  15. ^ Janis, Christine M.; Theodor, Jessica M. (2014). "Cranial and postcranial morphological data in ruminant phylogenetics". Zitteliana B. 32: 15–31. doi:10.5282/ubm/epub.22383.
  16. ^ a b Luccisano, Vincent; Sudre, Jean; Lihoreau, Fabrice (2020). "Revision of the Eocene artiodactyls (Mammalia, Placentalia) from Aumelas and Saint-Martin-de-Londres (Montpellier limestones, Hérault, France) questions the early European artiodactyl radiation". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 18 (19): 1631–1656. Bibcode:2020JSPal..18.1631L. doi:10.1080/14772019.2020.1799253. S2CID 221468663.
  17. ^ a b Weppe, Romain; Blondel, Cécile; Vianey-Liaud, Monique; Escarguel, Gilles; Pélissié, Thierry; Antoine, Pierre-Olivier; Orliac, Maëva Judith (2020). "Cainotheriidae (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from Dams (Quercy, SW France): phylogenetic relationships and evolution around the Eocene–Oligocene transition (MP19–MP21)" (PDF). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 18 (7): 541–572. Bibcode:2020JSPal..18..541W. doi:10.1080/14772019.2019.1645754. S2CID 202026238. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 19 September 2023.
  18. ^ Weppe, Romain; Blondel, Cécile; Vianey-Liaud, Monique; Pélissié, Thierry; Orliac, Maëva Judith (2020). "A new Cainotherioidea (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from Palembert (Quercy, SW France): Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of the dental pattern of Cainotheriidae". Palaeontologia Electronica (23(3):a54). doi:10.26879/1081. S2CID 229490410.
  19. ^ a b Pearson, Helga Sharpe (1927). "On the Skulls of Early Tertiary Suidae, together with an Account of the Otic Region in Some Other Primitive Artiodactyla". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character. 215 (421–430): 440–445. doi:10.1098/rstb.1927.0009.
  20. ^ Dechaseaux, Colette (1969). "Les grandes lignes de l'histoire de la fissuration du néopallium des artiodactyles". Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences. D, Sciences naturalles. 268: 653–655.
  21. ^ Lihoreau, Fabrice; Boisserie, Jean-Renaud; Viriot, Laurent; Brunet, Michel (2006). "Anthracothere dental anatomy reveals a late Miocene Chado-Libyan bioprovince". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (23): 8763–8767. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.8763L. doi:10.1073/pnas.0603126103. PMC 1482652. PMID 16723392.
  22. ^ Vislobokova, Innessa Anatolevna (2001). "Evolution and classification of Tragulina (Ruminantia, Artiodactyla)". Paleontological Journal: 69–145.
  23. ^ Blondel, Cécile (2001). "The Eocene-Oligocene ungulates from Western Europe and their environment" (PDF). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 168 (1–2): 125–139. Bibcode:2001PPP...168..125B. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(00)00252-2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 August 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PrimalMustelid/sandbox2&oldid=1260097724"