Globally changing Chilotheridium to them to Aceratheriini indet. might not be bad but perhaps checking for simple mistakes for Chilotherium first. #122
Activity
Show details
Write a comment…
indre.zliobaite Jan 18, 2023 2:44 PM
Discussed with coordinators, no consensus, leave as is for the time being.
Reply • Delete
indre.zliobaite Jun 3, 2020 3:43 PM (edited)
Next Oscar will investigate validity of Chilotheridium as a genus, no particular urgency.
Reply • Delete
indre.zliobaite Jun 3, 2020 3:43 PM
I will take a look to them. In order to summarize the problem with the
species, Chilotheridium pattersoni is indeed a valid OTU and clearly
different from Chilotherium. The dentition is highly hypsodont and shows
the typical lingual bridge on premolars found in some 'Aceratheres sensu
lato' (sensu Becker et al 2013) and elasmotheres as well. On the other
hand, the postcranial skeleton, which I've got the chance to see in the KNM
collection, is odd and clearly different from the slender elasmothere one
(although Geraads in 2010 suggests that might belong to this group, I am
not completely sure about that).
There quite a few cases of Chilotheridium in NOW (Chilotheridium indet. and Chilotheridium pattersoni). There is a suggestion to replace those globally by Aceratheriini indet. Shall this be done?
Activity Show details Write a comment… indre.zliobaite Jan 18, 2023 2:44 PM Discussed with coordinators, no consensus, leave as is for the time being.
Reply • Delete indre.zliobaite Jun 3, 2020 3:43 PM (edited) Next Oscar will investigate validity of Chilotheridium as a genus, no particular urgency.
Reply • Delete indre.zliobaite Jun 3, 2020 3:43 PM I will take a look to them. In order to summarize the problem with the species, Chilotheridium pattersoni is indeed a valid OTU and clearly different from Chilotherium. The dentition is highly hypsodont and shows the typical lingual bridge on premolars found in some 'Aceratheres sensu lato' (sensu Becker et al 2013) and elasmotheres as well. On the other hand, the postcranial skeleton, which I've got the chance to see in the KNM collection, is odd and clearly different from the slender elasmothere one (although Geraads in 2010 suggests that might belong to this group, I am not completely sure about that).
I'll keep you posted about my findings,
Oscar
Reply • Delete indre.zliobaite May 27, 2020 5:13 PM Wrote to Oscar May 27:
There quite a few cases of Chilotheridium in NOW (Chilotheridium indet. and Chilotheridium pattersoni). There is a suggestion to replace those globally by Aceratheriini indet. Shall this be done?