[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
I wanted to get some reactions to this (not dinosaur, sorry, but
Fox, R. C., & B. G. Naylor. 2003. A Late Cretaceous taeniodont (Eutheria,
Mammalia) from Alberta, Canada. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und
Palaeontologie - Abhandlungen 229 (3): 393-420.
'_Schowalteria clemensi_ n. g. n. sp., from the Late Cretaceous Scollard
Formation, Red Deer River Valley is the first Mesozoic taeniodont to be
discovered. Although more primitive in important features of the postcanine
dentition than the conoryctid _Onychodectes_ (of mid-Puercan age, New
Mexico, and previously the most primitive taeniodont known), _S. clemensi_
most resembles the advanced, stylinodontid taeniodonts in incisor
morphology, canine specialisations, facial proportions, and zygomatic arch
construction. The dentition of _Schowalteria_ indicates that the purported
affinity of palaeoryctid insectivorans with _Onychodectes_ is based only on
homoplastic resemblances, leaving taeniodont relationships unresolved.'
This makes _two_ more tetrapod lineages (Conoryctidae and
Stylinodontidae) that supposedly survived the K-T event - and in North
America, no less.
What's the current phylogenetic position of palaeoryctids (Cimolestes
and its ilk)? Are they crown or stem Placentalia?
Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology
University of Auckland