taxonID	type	description	language	source
AB4D878FFFB5610152D8FABEC0F0FB4B.taxon	materials_examined	Type genus: Zhelestes Nesov, 1985 a. Included taxa: The subfamily, Zhelestinae Nesov, 1985 a; six zhelestid genera incertae sedis, Sheikhdzheilia Averianov & Archibald, 2005, Borisodon gen. nov., Lainodon Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1994, Labes Sigé in Pol et al., 1992, Gallolestes Lillegraven, 1976, and Avitotherium Cifelli, 1990; and questionably Eozhelestes Nesov, 1997. Revised diagnosis: Differs from other Cretaceous eutherians by a unique combination of derived states: upper molar stylar shelf width less than 25 % of molar length; ectoflexus shallow to absent (reversed in Sheikhdzheilia); conular region width more than 51 % of the total molar width; paraconule prominent and midway or closer to paracone; protocone similar in height to paracone and metacone; p 5 with incipient basin lingual to talonid ridge; protoconid subequal in height to paraconid and or metaconid. Distribution: Asia, Europe, North America, and Madagascar; Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian – Maastrichtian). Comments: A possible distinct taxon of Zhelestidae is represented by edentulous dentary fragments in the Cenomanian Khodzhakul Formation of Uzbekistan (‘ Zhelestidae’ indet., unnamed large sp. A in Averianov & Archibald, 2005). An isolated axis from this locality, the holotype of Oxlestes grandis Nesov, 1982, may be referable to this taxon (see Averianov & Archibald, 2005 for description and discussion).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFB6610152A1FF18C74CFD21.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Aspanlestes aptap Nesov, 1985 a. Included species: Type species and Aspanlestes sp. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Turonian -? Coniacian). Comments: A lower molar fragment from the Campanian Darbasa Formation of southern Kazakhstan identified by Averianov (1997: fig. 5) as? Aspanlestes sp. is best classified as Zhelestidae indet.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFB66112529DFCD3C74EFE81.taxon	description	FIGURES 1 – 10 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.) Holotype: CCMGE 4 / 12176, right dentary fragment with p 4 - 5, m 1 - 2 and alveoli for p 2 - 3. Type locality and horizon: CDZH- 17 a, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Bissekty Formation, Upper Cretaceous (middle- upper Turonian). Revised diagnosis: Differs from Zhelestes by P 3 doublerooted; mandibular condyle positioned at or slightly above alveolar level; p 5 paraconid is trigonid cusp rather than part of cingulum. Differs from Zhelestes and Eoungulatum by upper and lower canine double-rooted. Differs from Parazhelestes and Eoungulatum by P 1 single-rooted; protocone labial shift absent. Differs from Eoungulatum by P 5 protocone smaller, lower than paracone; P 5 metacone swelling small; upper molars metacone slightly smaller than paracone; ‘ coronoid’ facet absent; masseteric fossa bordered ventrally by welldefined crest connected to condyle. Differs from Parazhelestes by trigonid angle between 36 – 49 °. Description: Skull. Fragments of a skull were recovered in 2003 from CBI- 14. These consisted of most of the frontal, much of the presphenoid, much of the basisphenoid, the left pars cochlearis of the petrosal, the pars cochlearis and pars canalicularis of the right petrosal, the right exoccipital, and the right maxillary fragment with M 2 and alveoli for M 1 and M 3. Although no fragments were in direct contact with each other, they almost certainly belong to the same individual based on the similarity of preservation and 5 mm because they were the only mammalian cranial remains from a particular bag of screen washing concentrate. Additionally, the pars cochlearis and pars canalicularis of the right petrosal and the right exoccipital fit well together, and the presphenoid and basisphenoid slightly less so. All cranial remains were given the same number, URBAC 03 – 93, except for the right maxillary fragment, which was given the number URBAC 03 – 188 because of a slight doubt that it was from the same individual. All fragments, including the maxilla, are of the correct, smaller size to be assignable to Aspanlestes aptap, the smallest of the Dzharakuduk zhelestids. Further, the two damaged petrosals accord well with the smallest petrosals described elsewhere for zhelestids (Ekdale et al., 2004) and are probably referable to Aspanlestes. Each of the bones is described below in more detail as well as being figured. Here, we describe and compare broadly our reconstruction of the skull relative to other Asian (Mongolia and Uzbekistan) Cretaceous eutherians (Fig. 1). For comparison we use the reconstructions of Wible, Novacek & Rougier (2004: fig. 51), Wible et al. (2009: fig. 35) of the zalambdalestids Kulbeckia, Barunlestes, and Zalambdalestes, as well as the asioryctitheres Kennalestes, Asioryctes, and Daulestes, and the cimolestan Maelestes. Identifications of anatomical features extensively used the following sources: Crouch, 1969; Wible 1990, 2003, 2008; Ekdale et al. 2004; Wible et al. 2004, 2009; Mead & Fordyce 2009. Although much of the skull is unknown, what is preserved provides some limits on the proportions of the skull and dentary. In overall size, the skull was probably some 5 mm longer than skulls of both Barunlestes and Kulbeckia, but almost 10 mm shorter than Zalambdalestes. Recall that Aspanlestes is the smallest Dzharakuduk zhelestid, so the largest taxon, Eoungulatum would probably have exceeded the length of Zalambdalestes. Relative to the zalambdalestids and the asioryctitheres, Aspanlestes, and almost certainly other Dzharakuduk zhelestids, were built somewhat more robustly. The preorbital region was wider and shorter, and probably deeper compared to these other taxa. The snout was definitely less laterally constricted than in zalambdalestids and possibly also than in asioryctitheres. As the premaxillary region is unknown we do not know the anatomy of this region, but the dentary probably extended nearly as far anteriorly as the premaxilla. This slightly greater robustness continues in the dentary, notably in the depth, which is similar to that in Barunlestes. The ascending ramus of the dentary, and most especially of the dorsal part of the mandibular condyle, is quite large and rectangular in outline. This most resembles Asioryctes although the flat, dorsal margin of the ascending ramus is probably longer in Aspanlestes. Frontal and parietal (?). Much of both frontals are preserved (Fig. 2). There is considerable constriction laterally through the frontals, slightly more so than in the placental Erinaceus but less than in the marsupial Didelphis. On the dorsal surface at the anterior and posterior margins of the preserved portions of the frontals, denticulated sutures are present for the nasals (fr / na) and parietals (fr / pa), respectively. The nasals and parietals clearly formed lappets of bone overlying the frontals dorsally. The nasals were expanded at least posteriorly at their contact with the frontals. The better-preserved right frontal has a facet at its anterolateral margin that was probably for the lacrimal (fr / la?), which in turn probably contacted the right nasal. What are probably small lappets of the parietals can be seen near the posterolateral margins of both frontals (pa?). This would place the narrowest part of the cranial vault near the frontal / parietal suture as in many smaller-brained mammals. In lateral view there is a small foramen that has no endocranial aperture. This is most likely to be the frontal diploic vein foramen (df). Intracranially (ventral), elongate semicircular depressions and ridges are present at the anterior end of the frontals and housed ethmoturbinals (et). Medially is the olfactory fossa (olf). Posteriorly a transverse ridge (tr) separates the olfactory fossa from the anterior cranial fossa (acf). This fossa is delimited posteriorly by a broad, low annular ridge (ar) between the anterior and middle cranial fossae. The parietals certainly overlaid this region dorsally as lappets of bone covering the frontals, but it cannot be determined if the parietals are also exposed internally on the preserved portion of the bone. Presphenoid. Most of the body of the presphenoid (pr) and part of the orbitosphenoid wings (orb) are preserved (Fig. 3). Ventrally, articulation surfaces are recognizable for the basisphenoid (pr / bs), the palatines (pr / pl), and the vomer (pr / vo). In the articulated skull, the only part of the presphenoid that would have been exposed ventrally would have been a long, narrow dagger-shaped surface (light grey in Fig. 3 B). The lateral sides of the orbitosphenoid wings would have been exposed in the orbital region. The floor of each large optic foramen (of) is traversed by a small canal, the function of which is not known. The anterior aperture is labelled the ‘ anterior small optic foramen’ (‘ asof’) and the ‘ posterior small optic foramen’ (‘ psof’) (Fig. 3 C, D). Two similarly sized canals (‘ smf’) on the anteromedial margin of the preserved part of the basisphenoid (Fig. 4 A) may have been a continuation of these small canals. A small area of bone-to-bone contact may be preserved between the presphenoid and basisphenoid (pr / bs). There is not enough of the contact present to determine if the presphenoid and basisphenoid were fused or separate bones. Medially there is a small depression or foramen between the two posterior small optic foramina. Dorsal to these openings is a much larger oval opening, the chiasmatic groove (cg), into which the two optic foramina (of) empty intracranially. Anteriorly, the presphenoid is well preserved with a pair of deep sphenoidal sinuses (ss) and a median, vertical ridge for the ethmoid lamina (pr / et). On the betterpreserved left side, posterolateral to the optic foramen, there are two shallow depressions that formed the medial wall of the orbital fissure (orf) and possibly the medial wall of the foramen rotundum or an alisphenoid canal (for?). Basisphenoid. Much of the body of the basisphenoid (bs) and part of the left alisphenoid wing (al) are preserved (Fig. 4). Viewed anteriorly, and moving medially to laterally on each side, there are small foramina (‘ smf ’), and ventrolateral margins of the orbital fissure (orf) and questionably the foramen rotundum (for?) or alisphenoid canal. The small foramina may have been confluent with the posterior small optic foramen on the posterior margin of the presphenoid. Their function is unknown. In ventral view there is a prominent midline basisphenoid crest (bsc) flanked by two crests. The bone is distinctly crenulated on either side of this medial crest. This appears to be natural rather than caused by weathering. No remnants of the pterygoid bones are discernible. The two lateral crests are possibly the broken bases of the entopterygoid processes (enpt). On the better-preserved left side, at the posterior margin where the alisphenoid and basisphenoid meet there is a finished edge with two curved surfaces that are tentatively identified as the anterior margins of the piriform fenestra (pf) and foramen ovale (foo). A carotid foramen (caf) is found on either side near the posterior extent of the basisphenoid crest. The right foramen is occluded with sediment but the left foramen opens dorsally (intracranially) into the lateral margin of the hypophyseal fossa of the sella turcica, where it continues for a short distance anteriorly as a shallow groove to the margin of the sella turcica. Anteriorly the sella turcica is bounded by the remains of a rounded, laterally narrow tuberculum sellae (ts), and posteriorly by the remains of a laterally broader dorsum sellae (ds). The intervening teardrop-shaped hypophyseal fossa is shallow but distinct. In its centre is a small fossa that may have housed a craniopharyngeal canal (cpc?). Petrosal and exoccipital. Both petrosals are preserved but the ventral surfaces of both promontoria are damaged, more so the left side. The right side is more complete in preserving both the pars cochlearis (pco) and pars canalicularis (pca). The right exoccipital (ex) is also preserved and can be articulated with the right petrosal (pet) (Fig. 5). It is this side that is referred to in the following description. Zhelestid petrosals have been described in detail elsewhere (Ekdale et al., 2004) and some comparisons are made here. The dominant aspect of the ventral part of the pars cochlearis is the ovoid-shaped and slightly bulbous promontorium (prm) that houses the cochlea of the inner ear. Although the fenestrae cochleae (fc) and vestibuli (fv) are somewhat damaged (light grey region in Fig. 5 A), their original outlines can be reconstructed. The fenestra vestibuli, which receives the footplate of the stapes, had a length to width ratio of about 2 or 2.5 to 1. A similarly high ratio is common in many extant eutherians. Anterolaterally of the promontorium is the ridge-like remnant of the tegmen tympani (tt). Between the tegmen tympani and the promontorium is the tympanic aperture of the facial canal (ta). This communicates with the fenestra semilunaris (fse) on the anteromedial margin of the intracranial surface of the pars cochlearis. Running anteromedially from the facial canal is the groove of a partially covered hiatus Fallopii (hfa). Ekdale et al. (2004) noted a distinct, broad sulcus for the inferior ramus of the stapedial artery running anteriorly just lateral to the promontorium, but that there was no indication of a transpromontorial sulcus for the internal carotid artery in any of the zhelestid petrosals. The Aspanlestes petrosal described here similarly has no indication of the latter sulcus, and although there is no clear indication of the former sulcus, the shallow groove roofing the hiatus Fallopii could have held an inferior ramus of the stapedial artery. On the medial side of the promontorium is a shallow, broad depression interpreted as the sulcus for the internal carotid artery (sica). Although the petrosal and basisphenoid are not in direct contact, the identification of this sulcus is likely because just anteromedial to the sulcus there is a carotid foramen near the posterior margin of the basisphenoid described in the previous section. Posterolateral to the promontorium is a distinct, deep fossa here identified as the fossa for the stapedius muscle (fs). Ekdale et al. (2004) figured and discussed this fossa in Kulbeckia, which they termed the fossa musculus minor, but did not indicate its presence in zhelestids. They figured a zhelestid petrosal in their figure 2 (URBAC 99 – 41) that is at least a third larger than the petrosal here described. Although not visible in their figure because of a bony overhang of the pars canalicularis, we observed the fossa for the stapedius muscle in URBAC 99 – 41, although it is smaller and occurs in a more troughshaped depression rather than as distinct, deep fossa as in Aspanlestes. Using the terminology of Wible et al. (2004), the mastoid contribution to the paroccipital process (ppr) is preserved on the posterolateral margin of the pars canalicularis. The jugular foramen is found on the ventral surface near the anterior end of the petrosal / exoccipital suture. Just anterior to this a portion of the sulcus for the inferior petrosal sinus (ips) can be discerned in ventral view. On the ventral, anterolateral margin of the exoccipital is an elongate fossa that bears a hypoglossal foramen (hf) at either end. The right occipital condyle (oc) is shaped like a squat half-barrel and is visible in all views except the lateral (squamosal) view. In posterior view, the preserved portion of the skull is quite flat with only a slight medial to lateral concavity. It is dominated by the occipital condyle and what Wible et al. (2004) termed the posterior semicircular canal prominence (pscp) on the pars canalicularis (pca). The posterior surface of the pars canalicularis was completely exposed as the mastoid exposure of the petrosal. Dorsal to the paraoccipital process (ppr) is the medial margin of the posttemporal foramen (ptf). There is not enough of the exoccipital preserved to determine whether or not it was united with the supraoccipital and basioccipital to form an occipital bone. The right margin of the foramen magnum (fm) is preserved. The anterodorsal (intracranial) surface of the petrosal is dominated by the more posterodorsal subarcuate fossa (sf) and the more anteroventral internal auditory meatus (iam). The sulcus for the sigmoid sinus (sss) is identified dorsomedially of the subarcuate fossa. A sulcus running the vertical length of the intracranial petrosal / exoccipital suture ending ventrally at the jugular foramen is questionably identified (indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 5 C) as part of the sulcus for the sigmoid sinus. Part of the quite large prootic canal (pc) is preserved dorsolaterally of the subarcuate fossa. Anteroventral to this is the opening into the cavum supracochleare referred to as the fenestra semilunaris (fse; Wible et al., 2001), which communicates with the tympanic aperture of the facial canal (ta) on the ventrolateral surface of the petrosal. In intracranial view, one hypoglossal foramen (hf) is visible in the exoccipital. Laterally, the rugous surface of the pars canalicularis (pca) bears two shallow sulci. The post-temporal canal (ptc) horizontally traverses the length of the pars canalicularis from the posteriorly placed posttemporal foramen (ptf) to the margin of the pars canalicularis anteriorly. The absent squamosal formed the lateral wall of this sulcus as well as covering all of the lateral side of the pars canalicularis except for probably near the posteroventral margin of the paraoccipital process. Immediately anterior to the post-temporal canal is the vertically orientated continuation of the medial wall of the prootic canal. There are some unresolved differences in structure and interpretation between the zhelestid petrosals (notably URBAC 99 – 41) described by Ekdale et al. (2004) and the petrosal of Aspanlestes described here. On URBAC 99 – 41 the prootic canal is complete whereas in the Aspanlestes petrosal it is not (compare fig. 2 a in Ekdale et al., 2004 with Fig. 5 C). Ekdale et al. (2004) labelled a second sulcus in this region as the ascending canal of the superior ramus of the stapedial artery. No separate sulcus can be identified for this vessel in the Aspanlestes petrosal, possibly because of the damage noted above. Thus the sulcus identified on the lateral (squamosal) side as the prootic canal (pc) may have in part housed the ascending ramus (ac?). Maxilla. The best-preserved maxillary fragment is URBAC 02 – 45 (Fig. 6), with completely preserved facial and zygomatic processes, but an incomplete palatal process. The facial process is a thin, vertical plate with a convex dorsal border. It is highest above the alveoli for P 2. On the lateral side at the anterior end of the facial process, above the mesial root for the upper canine, there is a short strap-like facet for the premaxilla (pmf) or possibly part of the bone is preserved. On the medial side along the anterodorsal border of the facial process there is another premaxillary facet. Approximately halfway between this facet and the palatal process there are two very faint horizontal ridges, a longer dorsal ridge and a shorter ventral ridge. These are the attachment areas for the maxilloturbinals (mtc). On the lateral surface the large oval infraorbital foramen (iof) is positioned close to the alveolar margin dorsal to the roots of P 4. The zygomatic process of the maxilla extends from dorsal of P 5 posteriorly to the alveolar margin of M 2. Much of the maxillary process of the jugal is preserved (mpj). The maxilla- jugal contact is high above P 5 but sharply descends to the alveolar margin above M 2. The dorsal surface of the palatal process of maxilla is subdivided into three portions separated by two oblique ridges: the longer and smooth anterior portion is the ventral floor of the nasal cavity, the shortest middle portion of rhomboid shape possibly housed part of the maxilloturbinals, and the posterior portion sculptured by numerous pits forms the ventral floor of the orbit. The orbital floor is an anteriorly pointed triangular area bordered laterally by the zygomatic process and medially by an oblique ridge making the contact line with the palatine. The palatine facet (paf) extends anteriorly into a wedge-like pocket posterior to the maxilloturbinal area. In the anterior corner of the orbital floor there is the posterior opening of the infraorbital canal. Jugal. As noted there is a maxillary process of the jugal laterally overlapping the zygomatic process of the maxilla in URBAC 02 – 45 (Fig. 6 A). It extends anteriorly to dorsal of the roots of P 5. On the anterodorsal margin of the jugal- maxillary contact there is a wedge-shaped facet for the facial process of the lacrimal (not visible in Fig. 6). The facet extends posteriorly to above the contact of M 1 and M 2. Upper dentition. The upper canine is represented by an isolated specimen (ZIN 88983) and an in situ although worn specimen (URBAC 02 – 45; Fig. 6). It is a large double-rooted tooth slightly larger in length than P 4. The crown is low and conical, subdivided by a vertical groove on both lingual and labial sides. The mesial and distal crown halves continue dorsally forming robust and widely separated roots. Anterior upper premolars are not known for Aspanlestes. In URBAC 02 – 45 (Fig. 6) there are five alveoli between the upper canine and P 4 that are interpreted as alveoli for a single-rooted P 1 and for double-rooted P 2 and P 3. The alveoli for P 1 and P 2 are approximately of the same size, whereas the alveoli for P 3 are half this size. There are no diastemata between these teeth, but there is a small diastema between P 3 and P 4. The latter diastema is lacking in a presumably younger specimen (URBAC 00 – 15). There are two specimens of P 4, one of which is preserved worn but in situ (Fig. 6). The tooth is double-rooted with a crown somewhat longer than that of P 5. The crown is conical with a large main cusp and a short distal heel. On URBAC 04 – 100 there is also a small mesial accessory cusp. The distal half of the crown is expanded lingually forming a protocone bulge. On URBAC 04 – 100 there is a lingual cingulum along the protocone bulge, as well as the distal cingulum, with a minute cuspule labial to the distal accessory cusp. The distal root of P 4 is twice wider labiolingually than the mesial root (URBAC 04 – 100 and the edentulous maxilla URBAC 00 – 15). In URBAC 04 – 100 the distal root is subdivided on the distal side by a vertical groove. The P 5 is known from several specimens, including two specimens in maxillary fragments with the molars (Figs 6, 7). The P 5 is a submolariform tooth with a paracone, an incipient metacone, and a large protocone reaching lingually as far as the lingual margin of M 1 - 2. The labial side is gently concave without a stylar shelf but with a narrow ectocingulum. About half of the crown is occupied by a large paracone. Anteriorly is a large parastylar lobe with a prominent parastyle. The parastyle and paracone are widely separated. The mesial side of the paracone is conical whereas the distal side is connected by a salient crest to the metastyle. On this crest there is a variably developed incipient metacone. It can be cusplike, separated by a notch from the paracone (URBAC 04 – 274), a swelling on the crest (most specimens), or nearly lacking (CCMGE 19 / 12953). The protocone is large but distinctly lower than the paracone. The shallow trigon basin is facing distoventrally and is bordered by an almost perpendicular preprotocrista and a slightly distally convex postprotocrista. In unworn specimens, such as CCMGE 1 / 12455 (Fig. 7), there is a short postparaconule and a longer preparaconule crista defining the paraconule. It is not elevated above the level of the preprotocrista. In one specimen there is a distinct ridge between the paracone and protocone and there is no paraconule (Nesov, 1997: pl. 52, fig. 5). The preparaconule crista extends mesially towards the base of the parastyle and the postprotocrista extends distally towards the base of the metastyle. There are very faint precingulum and postcingulum at the base of the protocone. The length of these cingula varies between specimens. The P 5 is three-rooted, with the smaller labial roots nearly equal in size and the lingual root much larger. The DP 5 is known from a single worn specimen (Nesov, 1987: pl. 1, fig. 4; Nesov, Sigogneau-Russell & Russell, 1994: pl. 7, fig. 6; Nesov, 1997: pl. 48, fig. 8). The crown is triangular, with a well-developed parastylar lobe. The labial side of the crown is almost straight, with a very shallow ectoflexus. The stylar shelf is absent labial to the paracone and is very narrow labial to the metacone. On the ectocingulum there are two cusp-like crenulations labial to the paracone. The paracone is a tall, conical cusp directed somewhat mesially. The metacone (now missing) is slightly smaller and lower than the paracone. The centrocrista is a sharp, straight crest. The protocone is large but distinctly lower than the paracone. Its apex is closer to the mesial side of the crown. The conules have well-developed wings and are placed near the bases of the labial cusps; the paraconule is somewhat closer to the protocone than is the metaconule. The preparaconule and postmetaconule cristae are short and do not extend labially beyond the bases of the paracone and metacone, respectively. There are very faint, short pre- and postcingula; the latter is slightly longer. On the parastylar lobe there are a parastyle and smaller preparastyle; the latter is obscured by the wear. The upper molars M 1 - 2 are known from several dentulous maxillae and isolated specimens. These teeth are quite similar in structure, differing mostly in proportions (Figs 6 – 8). The proportions of M 1 are similar to DP 5: the labial margin of the crown is nearly straight with only a slight ectoflexus. This is because the parastylar lobe is projecting mostly mesially to the paracone and the metastylar lobe is distolabial to the metacone. In M 2 the ectoflexus is deeper because the parastylar lobe is projecting mesiolabially to the paracone and the metastylar lobe is mostly labial to the metacone. Also in M 1 the trigon is slightly more expanded mesiodistally compared to M 2. In both molars there is a distinct ectocingulum and narrow stylar shelf. Usually there are no cusps on the ectocingulum, but some M 1 s show inflation of the ectocingulum in the position of the stylar cusp E and in one M 2 (URBAC 04 – 252; Fig. 8 C) this cusp is well developed. In one M 2 (URBAC 99 – 30: Fig. 8 D, E) there are crenulations on the ectocingulum in positions of the stylar cusps B (stylocone), C, and E. In M 1 and M 2 the stylar shelf, a flat area between the ectocingulum and the bases of the labial cusps, is widest between the paracone and metacone, narrower labial to the metacone, and very narrow or almost absent labial to the paracone. The metacone is distinctly smaller than the paracone (it is relatively smaller in M 2 compared with M 1). The centrocrista is straight. In less worn M 1 s the preparacrista is directed labially towards the parastyle (URBAC 03 – 10, 04 – 126, 04 – 392; Fig. 8 A). In worn specimens the preparacrista is gone. The preparastylar groove excavates the mesial side of the paracone and its margin could be mistaken for the preparacrista, which contacts the area of stylocone. In less worn M 2 s the preparacrista extends mesially towards an area between the parastyle and preparastyle (URBAC 04 – 252, 06 – 67, 06 – 117; Fig. 8 C). The stylocone is not a distinct cusp in most M 1 s and M 2 s, except for one M 1 (URBAC 04 – 165; Fig. 8 B). On M 1 and M 2 the postmetacrista extends from the apex of the metacone toward the metastyle, which is usually not a distinct cusp. The trigon forms two-thirds of the crown width in M 1 and M 2. The protocone is large and is as tall as the metacone but lower than the paracone. Its apex is situated mesial of the centrocrista notch, in some cases almost opposite the paracone. The conules are well developed and winged, located about twice as close to the labial cusps compared to the protocone (the paraconule is a slightly closer to the protocone than is the metaconule). These conules project well above the pre- and postprotocristae. The internal conular cristae are well separated and extend labially towards the bases of their respective labial cusps. These cristae and the centrocrista border the deepest part of the trigon basin. The preparaconule crista extends labially towards the preparastyle. The paracingulum quickly becomes obliterated by wear forming part of the expanded preparastylar groove. The postmetaconule crista extends labially dorsal to the metacone apex but does not reach the metastyle. The precingulum and postcingulum are narrow but well developed (more prominent on M 1 than M 2). They extend labially towards the area dorsal to the conules. On the parastylar lobe there are labial parastyle and lingual, smaller preparastyle; these cusps are easily obliterated by wear and not recognizable on worn specimens. The M 3 is not known for Aspanlestes. Judging from its alveoli, best preserved in CCMGE 68 / 12455 [Nesov, 1993: fig. 2 (3), 1997: pl. 52, fig. 4] its lingual margin was aligned with other molars suggesting that it was not reduced in width relative to M 1 and M 2. Dentary. The dentary is known from several fragments, but the anterior portion is preserved only in URBAC 04 – 395 (Fig. 9 A). Here the dentary is quite shallow, suggesting a juvenile or subadult. The mandibular symphysis occupies the ventral half of the entire length of the preserved fragment. A prominent horizontal ridge borders the symphysis dorsally. The alveolar border parallels this ridge in the region of canine and premolars. On the labial side there are two anterior mental foramina: a small one below i 3 and another, much larger, below the mesial root of p 1. The ventral border of the dentary is convex except the concavity immediately posterior to the i 3. The posterior mental foramen is between p 4 and p 5 (URBAC 02 – 66), under mesial root of p 5 (ZIN 88475), or under the distal root of p 5 (holotype, CCMGE 4 / 12176, Fig. 9 D). The posterior end of the mandibular symphysis extends to the level of p 4 in an old individual (ZIN 88488) in which p 3 was probably lost and the alveoli filled by bone. The ascending dentary ramus is best preserved in URBAC 02 – 77 (Fig. 9 E). The posterior edge is complete whereas the anterior edge is not. The horizontal ramus continues in a gentle arc on to the ascending ramus. The ascending ramus is about 2.5 times higher than the horizontal ramus, with a steep, distinct anterior border of the coronoid process, sloping at an angle of about 40 ° relative to the alveolar margin. The coronoid process is almost complete in URBAC 02 – 77, missing only a small triangular anterior piece. Accounting for the missing piece, the coronoid process is trapezoidal in form, with an almost straight anterior margin and a concave posterior margin. The masseteric fossa is very large and deep, extending posteriorly to the mandibular condyle, and bordered anteriorly by a very prominent coronoid crest. It is deepest along the ventral portion of the coronoid crest. There are two large labial mandibular foramina in most specimens. In CCMGE 69 / 12455 there is a single large lateral mandibular foramen that continues dorsally into a short groove. The ventral shelf of the masseteric fossa continues on to the mandibular condyle. This shelf is more prominent posteriorly than anteriorly. The medial side of the coronoid process is flat. The mandibular foramen is relatively large, oval-shaped, and facing posteriorly. It opens above the anterior portion of the angular process. On URBAC 03 – 31 there is a bump-like eminence in the position of the ‘ coronoid facet’, which is not as developed in other specimens. Half of the mandibular condyle is above and the other half below the alveolar margin. The condyle is convex, oval in posterior and dorsal views, and at an angle of about 30 ° from the horizontal with the lateral end higher. The mandibular angle is a thin triangulate plate with very little medial deflection. Its anteroventral margin is convex and the posterior margin is concave, forming part of the round incisura between the mandibular angle and condyle. Lower dentition. Lower incisors, canine, and anterior premolars are known from a single specimen referable to Aspanlestes (URBAC 04 – 395: Fig. 9 A). It is an anterior dentary fragment with the roots of i 1 - 3, alveolus for i 4, subdivided root of c, posterior portion of p 1, and mesial alveolus for p 2. The i 1 - 3 are basically similar in size, but i 4, judging from the alveolus, was much smaller. The i 1 - 3 are inclined anteriorly, with the angle of inclination decreasing from i 1 to i 3. The alveolus for i 4 is located mesiolabial to the mesial root of the canine. The roots of the canine are subdivided by vertical grooves on both lingual and labial sides, with the distal root being more than three times larger than the mesial root, but both roots are set in a single alveolus. The worn distal portion of p 1 is preserved, with a distinct distal accessory cusp. The p 1 is small, with the mesial root shorter than the distal root. The p 2, judging from its mesial alveolus, was distinctly larger than p 1. Judging from the alveoli in the holotype (CCMGE 4 / 12176) and ZIN 88475, p 3 was double-rooted and more than twice smaller than p 2 or p 4. In ZIN 88488 p 3 is absent probably having been lost during life with a resulting diastema between p 2 and p 4. The p 4 is known only from the holotype dentary fragment (Fig. 9 B – D). The tooth is distinctly smaller than p 5. The main cusp occupies most of the crown and has a strong distal crest, but no mesial crest. The mesial margin of the cusp is almost vertical. The distal half of the crown is distinctly wider than the mesial half and bears a distal heel that can be considered a distal accessory cusp. At the widest point of the crown there is a bulge-like swelling in the position of the metaconid. The distal side of the p 4 crown – with a flat area between the distal crest of the main cusp, the metaconid swelling, and the distolingual cingulid – is reminiscent of the p 5, although the talonid basin is more elaborated in the latter. There are no mesial accessory cusps or cingulids, except for the distal accessory cusp. The p 5 is known from two dentary fragments, including the holotype (CCMGE 4 / 12176, Fig. 9 B – D), and several isolated specimens (Fig. 10 A, B). This tooth is longer than p 4 and shorter than m 1. The tooth is submolariform with a three-cusped trigonid and a unicuspid talonid with an incipient talonid basin. The crown morphology is quite variable. The protoconid is high and occupies the anterior two thirds of the crown. The metaconid is distinctly lower than the protoconid and variably developed: it can be just a swelling on the lingual side of the protoconid, with apices of two cusps connected by a vertical ridge (ZIN 88473, URBAC 04 – 288; Fig. 10 A), or fully separated from the protoconid by the protocristid notch (URBAC 98 – 7; Fig. 10 B). The p 5 metaconid in the holotype dentary is intermediate in morphology between these variants. The development of the paraconid is highly variable: it can be totally absent (holotype), a small cingulid cusp mesially (URBAC 04 – 288) or mesiolingually (URBAC 99 – 77, 04 – 320) of the protoconid, or more elevated above the cingulid but still very small (URBAC 98 – 7). On URBAC 04 – 288 there is a strong paracristid, a vertical ridge extending between the protoconid apex and the paraconid base. This crest is not as well developed in other specimens. There is no trigonid basin, except that in URBAC 04 – 288 a shallow area is delimited by the paracristid and a more lingual cristid between the bases of the paraconid and the metaconid. The talonid cusp is only slightly lower than the metaconid. The talonid basin varies in depth. It is bordered by the cristid obliqua, postcristid, and entocristid, and is confluent with the depressed area on the distal trigonid wall that is bordered by vertical ridges from the protoconid and metaconid. The lingual of these ridges (the entocristid and the metaconid ridge) are more basal in position, so the talonid basin and the depression on the distal trigonid wall are well exposed on the lingual side. In most specimens only a mesial cingulid is present, which connects lingually with the paraconid. In URBAC 99 – 77 there is a very faint lingual cingulid and in ZIN 88473 there is a distinct labial cingulid at the base of the talonid extending vertically towards the apex of the talonid cusp. The dp 5 is known from several isolated specimens, amongst which URBAC 97 – 8 (Fig. 10 C) is the most complete and unworn. Another specimen is preserved in a dentary fragment (URBAC 02 – 68). The trigonid angle is considerable (i. e. the trigonid basin is quite open lingually). The protoconid is distinctly higher than the metaconid, but on worn teeth the height of these cusps might be equal. The metaconid is set somewhat distal to the protoconid, resulting in an oblique position of the protocristid relative to the dentary longitudinal axis. The paraconid varies in size, but is usually much smaller than the metaconid. There is a well-developed cusp-like precingulid on the mesial side of the crown below the paracristid notch. The talonid is longer and about 1.5 times wider than the trigonid. The hypoconid is the largest talonid cusp and the hypoconulid is the smallest. The hypoconulid projects distally and is closer to the entoconid, but is not twinned with the latter. The cristid obliqua extends to below the protocristid notch. On the distal side of the hypoconid there is a faint postcingulid, extending lingually towards the hypoconulid apex. The lower molars are known from several isolated specimens and dentulous dentary fragments. All lower molars can be easily distinguished: in m 1 the trigonid angle is greater than in m 2 and the paraconid is smaller and placed more labially compared with m 2; in m 3 the trigonid is the same as in m 2 but the talonid is distinctly longer and narrower than the trigonid and the hypoconulid is more distally projecting (Figs 9 B – D, 10 D, E). In m 1 - 2 the talonid is wider than the trigonid. The metaconid is only slightly lower than the protoconid. Lingually the bases of the paraconid and metaconid are separated by a variably developed groove. The trigonid basin is the largest on m 2 and smallest on m 3. The protocristid is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the dentary in all molars. The precingulid is well developed and is below the protoconid. All talonid cusps are well developed; the hypoconid is the largest and the entoconid the smallest. The hypoconulid occupies the most posterior position on the talonid; it is closer to the entoconid than to the hypoconid. With the wear, which removes part of the hypoconulid from the labial side, the hypoconulid appears to be even closer to the entoconid. The cristid obliqua extends to below or slightly labial to the protocristid notch. There is a short postcingulid on all molars below the hypoconid. In one m 1 (CCMGE 13 / 12953), there is a distinct labial cingulid around the base of the protoconid between the precingulid and hypoflexid and in one m 2 (URBAC 00 – 63) there is a short labial cingulid within the hypoflexid (ectostylid). Measurements: See Appendices 2 and 3.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFA56112551BFE65C7CFF9C1.taxon	description	Locality and horizon: CDZH- 117, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Aitym Formation, Upper Cretaceous (upper Turonian – Coniacian?). Description: P 4 (Averianov & Archibald, 2003: fig. 10 a, b), if correctly attributed to Aspanlestes sp., differs from Aspanlestes aptap in lacking a protocone bulge (only a distolingual cingulum is present), by having a larger anterior accessory cusp, and by having a more prominent distolabial cingulum. The fragmented and heavily worn P 5 is somewhat smaller than that in A. aptap, but apparently does not differ in the structure from what is preserved. For description of DP 5 see Archibald & Averianov (2001: 542; misidentified there as M 1 of Paranyctoides). In morphology it is very close, if not identical, to DP 5 of A. aptap (CCMGE 4 / 12455). The upper molars (for M 2 see Averianov & Archibald, 2003: fig. 10 c) are the same as that in A. aptap. The fragment of a worn lower molar (Averianov & Archibald, 2003: fig. 10 d, e), originally identified as m 1 or m 2, is most certainly identified here as m 2. It shows no differences from m 2 s of A. aptap, except its somewhat smaller size. Measurements: See Averianov & Archibald (2003: 179, 181) and Appendix 2. Comments: The sample of Aspanlestes sp. from the Aitym local fauna is very close to A. aptap from the Bissekty local fauna. It may belong to the same species but more material is needed to verify this.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFA5611152D2F9ACC3DDFCC9.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Parazhelestes robustus Nesov, 1993. Included species: Type species, Parazhelestes mynbulakensis (Nesov, 1985 b) comb. nov., and Parazhelestes sp. Revised diagnosis: Differs from Zhelestes by diastema between upper canine and premolars absent; diastema posterior to P 1 absent; P 3 double-rooted (unknown for P. robustus). Differs from Zhelestes and Eoungulatum by double-rooted upper and lower canine. Differs from Aspanlestes and Zhelestes by P 1 double-rooted; protocone labially shifted more than 21 %. Differs from Aspanlestes, Zhelestes, and Eoungulatum by mandibular symphysis at p 2 or more anterior; trigonid angle less than 35 °. Differs from Eoungulatum by P 5 protocone smaller than paracone; P 5 metacone swelling; P 5 para- and metastylar lobes subequal; upper molars preparastyle present; metacone slightly smaller than paracone; ‘ coronoid’ facet absent; masseteric fossa bordered ventrally by welldefined crest connected to condyle; m 3 subequal to larger than m 2. Distribution: Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Turonian-? Coniacian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFA661145011FCABC74EF94F.taxon	description	FIGURES 11 – 17 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.) Holotype: CCMGE 36 / 12000, left dentary with m 2 and alveoli for m 3. Type locality and horizon: CBI- 4 b, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Bissekty Formation, Upper Cretaceous (middle- upper Turonian). Found in 1980. Diagnosis: Differs from P. robustus in lower teeth averaging 13 % smaller (range equals 4 to 21 %) and upper teeth averaging 10 % smaller (range equals 7 to 13 %) and width of M 3 subequal to M 2 [37 (0)]. Description: Maxilla. The known portions of the maxilla for P. mynbulakensis are similar to that bone in Aspanlestes, but some structural differences do exist. In P. mynbulakensis the jugal facet is closer to the alveolar margin above all molars (above the distal root of M 1 to M 2 - 3 in Aspanlestes). The infraorbital foramen is placed above the distal root of P 4 or between the roots in P. mynbulakensis (URBAC 00 – 24, 02 – 59, 04 – 162) (but above the mesial root of P 4 in Aspanlestes). In the most complete maxillary fragment (URBAC 04 – 162) there is not a wedge-like palatine facet anterior to the medial opening of the infraorbital foramen, and no detectable facets for maxilloturbinals. Palatine. In ZIN 88468 there is a partial horizontal (palatal) process of the palatine attached to the maxillary fragment (Fig. 11). The anterior portion of the process overlaps the maxilla ventrally and the maxilla- palatine suture is located close to the lingual border of the upper molars. There may be a postpalatine torus. Medial and posterior to M 3 there is a longitudinally elongated complex depression bordered by elevated bone walls. This depression may correspond to the postpalatine foramen or minor palatine foramen in Zalambdalestes (Wible et al., 2004). Upper dentition. The upper incisors, canine, and anterior premolars are not known for P. mynbulakensis. Judging from alveoli in URBAC 04 – 162 (Fig. 12), P 2 and probably P 1 were double-rooted and relatively unreduced. P 3 was also double-rooted, but much smaller than P 2 (CCMGE 11 / 12176, URBAC 04 – 162). In URBAC 02 – 59 the P 3 was lost and its alveoli were filled by bone, leaving a diastema between P 2 and P 4. As in Aspanlestes, the distal root of P 4 is labiolingually wider than the mesial root (CCMGE 11 / 12176, URBAC 02 – 59), suggesting that P 4 had a welldeveloped protocone swelling. The P 5 is known from several maxillary fragments and isolated specimens. The structure of P 5 is essentially the same as in A. aptap. The development of the metacone is highly variable. In CCMGE 11 / 12176 (Fig. 13) and URBAC 02 – 83, 04 – 109 the metacone swelling is almost indistinguishable. It is slightly more pronounced in URBAC 00 – 42, 02 – 1, and 02 – 59. In an unworn (unerupted) P 5, URBAC 98 – 20, the metacone is a distinct trenchant cusp separated by a deep notch from the paracone; but with wear this cusp is easily eliminated leaving only a swelling distal to the paracone. A relatively worn CCMGE 21 / 12953 is unique in having the metacone as a distinct cusp widely separated from the paracone (Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 12 F – H). Some specimens (URBAC 98 – 20, 02 – 59) show a well-developed metastyle distolabial to the metacone. The paraconule is present in all specimens and the metaconule is absent. The precingulum is usually shorter than the postcingulum. URBAC 02 – 59 is unique in having the precingulum but not the postcingulum. The DP 5 is known from five isolated specimens. It is somewhat larger than DP 5 of A. aptap, but similar in structure. The specimens vary in development of the preparastyle, which can be smaller than the parastyle or almost the same size. The biggest discrepancy between the size of the preparastyle and parastyle is in URBAC 04 – 168. In URBAC 04 – 151, 04 – 168, 04 – 206, and 04 – 397 there is a distinct cingular cusp C connected by a transverse ridge to the centrocrista. In URBAC 04 – 213 the cusp C is much less developed, not more than a crenulation on the ectocingulum. In URBAC 04 – 151 and 04 – 397 there is a smaller additional cingular cusp immediately mesial to the cusp C. A small cingular cusp E is present in four specimens (in URBAC 04 – 213 this area of ectocingulum is missing). The lingual cingula vary in development. The precingulum is shortest in URBAC 04 – 151 and longest in URBAC 04 – 168. The upper molars M 1 - 2 are known from several maxillary fragments and numerous isolated specimens. The structure of these teeth is basically the same as in A. aptap. The most variable part of the crown is the ectocingulum. A majority of M 1 s have no stylar cusps. In some M 1 s there is a small, but distinct stylocone (URBAC 98 – 18, 98 – 108, 02 – 8), crenulations in C and E cusp positions (CCMGE 11 / 12176, URBAC 98 – 19), or in C position (URBAC 02 – 8), or distinct cusp in E position (URBAC 98 – 18, 02 – 8, 04 – 99). The M 1 s of CCMGE 11 / 12953 and URBAC 02 – 27 have a distinct cusp C connected by a transverse ridge with the centrocrista, as in DP 5 s. The M 2 appears to be less variable. No M 2 has a stylocone or cusp C and only two M 2 s have a distinct stylar cusp E (URBAC 04 – 121 and 04 – 192). Two quite worn M 2 s (URBAC 02 – 28 and 06 – 93) still have a strong preparacrista extending mesially between the parastyle and preparastyle. The M 3 is known from a single isolated and quite worn specimen (URBAC 03 – 179; Fig. 14). Compared to M 2, it has a larger and more labially projecting parastylar lobe, very reduced metastylar lobe, and a more mesiolabially positioned protocone. The metacone and the metaconule are relatively unreduced. In contrast to the M 1 - 2, the postcingulum is much shorter than the precingulum. The M 3 lingual root preserved in a maxillary fragment ZIN 88468 (Fig. 11) shows that the lingual side of this tooth is aligned with other molars. Dentary. The structure of the dentary in preserved fragments is the same as in Aspanlestes (the coronoid processes are not known for P. mynbulakensis). The posterior end of the mandibular symphysis is between the roots of p 2 (ZIN 88470), the distal root of p 2 (six specimens), between p 2 and p 3 (URBAC 98 – 24), the mesial root of p 3 (URBAC 00 – 11, 06 – 92), or between the roots of p 4 (URBAC 02 – 104). The posterior shift of the mandibular symphysis is probably ontogenetically correlated. In URBAC 06 – 113 there are two small anterior mental foramina under i 2 and one larger under the mesial root of canine. Two other specimens also preserve an anterior mental foramen under i 3 (URBAC 04 – 193) or under the distal root of the canine (ZIN 88481). In other specimens the distal-most of the anterior mental foramina is under the mesial root of p 1 (eight specimens), distal root of p 1 (five specimens), or mesial root of p 3 (URBAC 03 – 40). In ZIN 88482 and URBAC 98 – 24 this foramen is very large and extends for the whole length of p 1. In URBAC 02 – 104 there is a lateral groove from below p 1 to the mesial root of p 3, which houses two large mental foramina at its ends. The posterior mental foramen is under the mesial root of p 5 (seven specimens), between the roots of p 5 (two specimens), or under the distal root of p 5 (five specimens). The labial mandibular foramen is usually represented by three to six relatively large irregular openings. The condylar and angular processes are preserved only in IZANUz P 2155 - M- 1 (Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 17). The shape and configuration of these processes and the mandibular foramen are essentially the same as in URBAC 02 – 77 of Aspanlestes. The medial end of the condylar process is completely preserved (abraded in URBAC 02 – 77) and pointed, giving a tear-like shape of the condyle in posterior view. Lower dentition. In URBAC 06 – 113 (Fig. 15), i 2 - 3 are incompletely preserved, with most of the crowns eliminated by wear or breakage. Numerous edentulous anterior dentary fragments provide information about the lower incisors and canine. Most specimens had three lower incisors, with large i 1 - 3 (i 1 is somewhat smaller than i 2 - 3) and a minute i 4 wedged on the labial side between the alveoli for i 3 and the canine. The root of i 4 can be seen in URBAC 99 – 109 (Fig. 16). The i 4 position can be absent in some specimens, such as URBAC 98 – 13 (Fig. 17). The lower canine was a large, double-rooted tooth; its mesial root was shorter (URBAC 98 – 13, 06 – 113; Figs 15, 17) or as large as the distal root (URBAC 99 – 109; Fig. 16). In ZIN 88470 the tip of the erupting lower canine crown is preserved with the remainder of crown in its crypt. It has a flattened lingual side with the apex deflected somewhat distally. In the deciduous canine the distal root was relatively smaller than in the permanent canine. The p 1, judging from its alveoli, was a small, double-rooted tooth set obliquely (the smaller mesial root was more labial than the distal root) in the dentary between the larger canine and p 2. The p 2 is known from dentary fragments URBAC 97 – 3 and 02 – 13 (Fig. 15). It is a relatively large, double-rooted tooth with a high main cusp and a small distal accessory cusp (there is no mesial accessory cusp). The mesial side of the main cusp is almost vertical; its apex is deflected somewhat distally. There is a very faint lingual cingulid above the mesial root. An unerupted p 2 is also preserved in URBAC 00 – 68 and 06 – 111. The p 3, judging from the alveoli, was smaller than p 2 and p 4, but slightly larger than p 1. It is aligned with other premolars in most specimens, but in URBAC 02 – 13 it is set obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the dentary, with the mesial root placed more labially than the distal root (Fig. 15). The latter specimen is also unique in having the mesial root distinctly larger than the distal root, whereas in other specimens the distal root is somewhat larger than the mesial root. In some specimens p 3 is absent and may have been lost during ontogeny (e. g. ZIN 88482, URBAC 99 – 109). In URBAC 99 – 109 there is a short diastema between the p 2 and p 4 with a little hole attached to the mesial alveolus of p 4, possibly representing the distal alveolus for p 3 (Fig. 16). In ZIN 88482 there are no traces of p 3 in the diastema between p 2 and p 4. The p 4 is known from three dentary fragments (ZIN 88477, 88485, URBAC 99 – 109; Fig. 15). The p 4 is a simple double-rooted tooth like p 2, with a high main cusp having an almost vertical mesial side. The posterior accessory cusp is larger than in p 2. There is a very small anterior accessory cusp (URBAC 99 – 109), or a short, faint mesial cingulid in its place (ZIN 88477). The p 5 is known from three dentary fragments and three isolated specimens (Figs 16, 17). This tooth is close in structure to p 5 in Aspanlestes and is as variable as in the latter taxon. The paraconid is absent in CCMGE 1 / 12953 (there is a very short mesial cingulid in its place), a minute cingular cusp in ZIN 82580 (the mesial cingulid on this specimen is much longer than in CCMGE 1 / 12953), a distinct, but still very small cusp at the base of the protoconid, closer to the lingual side of the latter (URBAC 98 – 16, 99 – 109, 04 – 226), or a larger and more elevated cusp, approximating the position of the paraconid in m 1 (URBAC 98 – 13). In URBAC 98 – 13 and 99 – 109 there is a prominent mesial cingulid extending from the paraconid to around the labial base of the protoconid. The metaconid is represented by a metaconid swelling on the lingual side of the protoconid in most specimens, but in URBAC 98 – 13 it is a distinct cusp separated from the protoconid by a wide protocristid groove (Fig. 17). The dp 5 is known from one dentary fragment and two isolated specimens. This tooth is almost identical in morphology and only slightly larger than dp 5 in Aspanlestes. One structural difference does exist: the precingulid in the dp 5 of P. mynbulakensis is much reduced and ridge-like compared with the prominent cusp-like precingulid in this tooth in Aspanlestes. The lower molars are known from several dentary fragments [amongst which URBAC 98 – 13 and 99 – 109 are most complete (Figs 16, 17)] and a number of isolated specimens. The structure of the molars is identical to that in Aspanlestes. In m 1 the variation concerns the postcingulid, which can be faint (URBAC 00 – 80, 04 – 399) or strong (other specimens). One m 1 is unique in having an almost complete labial cingulid (URBAC 04 – 398). In another m 1 there is a labial cingulid around the talonid and hypoflexid (URBAC 04 – 227). Other m 1 s totally lack the labial cingulid. In m 2, as in m 1, the most variable structure is the postcingulid. The postcingulid is absent in URBAC 06 – 65, faint in URBAC 03 – 170, 04 – 6, 04 – 123, and stronger in other specimens. In one m 2 (URBAC 98 – 112) there is an almost complete labial cingulid connected with the postcingulid. The known sample of m 3 s shows no variation. Measurements: See Appendices 2 and 3.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFA3611F5292F930C6B2F9A3.taxon	description	FIGURES 18 – 20 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.) Holotype: CCMGE 70 / 12455, left maxilla with heavily worn and eroded P 4 - 5, M 1 - 3. Type locality and horizon: CBI- 14, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Bissekty Formation, Upper Cretaceous (middle- upper Turonian). Found in 1987. Revised diagnosis: Differs from P. mynbulakensis in lower teeth averaging 13 % larger (range equals 4 to 21 %) and upper teeth averaging 10 % larger (range equals 7 to 13 %) and M 3 narrower than M 2 [37 (1)]. Description: Maxilla. The jugal facet on the holotype of P. robustus is higher than in P. mynbulakensis and Aspanlestes: it comes close to the alveolar border only above M 3. The infraorbital foramen is slightly more posterior than in P. mynbulakensis, approximately at the level between P 4 and P 5. The maxilla has a distinct facet for the maxilloturbinals (holotype), as in Aspanlestes. The palatal process on URBAC 02 – 24 has a small premaxillary facet on the anterior end (Fig. 18). Upper dentition. No upper incisors, canines, or anterior premolars are known for P. robustus. The only anterior maxillary fragment referable to P. robustus is URBAC 02 – 24 (Fig. 18 A). It has two approximately equal and labiolingually compressed canine roots, two roots for a small P 1 set somewhat obliquely, and alveoli for a double-rooted P 2 (the P 2 was more than twice as long as P 1). There are no diastemata between the teeth. There is some space on the maxilla anterior to the canine, but the alveolar border is broken here and it is not clear if this space contained the alveolus of the last incisor. The P 4 is known from the holotype maxilla and an isolated specimen, URBAC 98 – 23 (Fig. 18 B). In the holotype the enamel of this tooth is eroded so description is based on the isolated specimen. This is a double-rooted tooth with a robust main cusp, very small mesial and distal accessory cusps, and a welldeveloped protocone swelling supported by the transversely widened distal root. There is a prominent distal ridge extending from the main cusp apex towards the posterior accessory cusp but it does not reach the latter. There is a short distolabial cingulum at the distal accessory cusp and a longer distolingual cingulum extending around the whole protocone swelling. The P 5 is known from the holotype maxilla, where the enamel of this tooth is somewhat eroded, and from isolated CCMGE 35 / 12176 (Nesov, 1985 a: pl. 3, fig. 1; 1997: pl. 53, fig. 5; Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 14 P, Q) (Fig. 18 C). For description of CCMGE 35 / 12176 see Nesov et al. (1998: 59). The DP 5 labial fragment URBAC 04 – 270 (Fig. 18 D) is referred to P. robustus because it is larger than the DP 5 s of P. mynbulakensis and coincides in size with the P 5 of P. robustus. The stylar shelf is of equal width (very narrow) labial to the paracone and metacone. There is a minute stylocone but no other stylar cusps. The upper molars are known from the holotype maxilla, where they are heavily worn, and from isolated specimens. The upper molars of P. robustus are larger and more robust than the upper molars of P. mynbulakensis but have basically the same structure. The main structural difference between the two species is a somewhat more labially placed protocone in P. robustus. The known sample of M 1 s shows almost no variation. The stylar cusp E is present in CCMGE 20 / 12953 (Fig. 19 A). Except for the holotype, M 2 of P. robustus is known only from an isolated specimen, URBAC 99 – 13 (Fig. 19 B). This tooth has a relatively small parastylar lobe and the ectocingulum is expanded in the region of cusp C. The metastylar lobe was certainly small but some of the labial margin has been eroded away. The M 3 is somewhat less worn in the maxilla fragment URBAC 98 – 22 (Fig. 19 C) compared to the holotype. Both maxillary fragments show that the lingual border of M 3 is placed somewhat labial to the lingual margin of M 1 - 2. The M 3 in URBAC 98 – 22 differs from M 3 URBAC 03 – 179, referred to P. mynbulakensis, in having a relatively shorter parastylar lobe. Dentary. The posterior mental foramen is usually under the distal root of p 5 (ZIN 88465). In URBAC 03 – 120 the posterior mental foramen is very large, extending beneath the distal root of p 4 and both roots of p 5. The Meckelian groove is absent (URBAC 97 – 5, 03 – 120). The masseteric crest is high. There are two (URBAC 03 – 120, ZIN 88466) or three (ZIN 88455) labial mandibular foramina. In some specimens there is a marked tuberosity in the area of the coronoid facet of more primitive mammals, which is on the medial side of the dentary between the m 3 and base of the coronoid process (ZIN 88466). In ZIN 88463 on the medial side of the coronoid process there is a robust subhorizontal crest delimiting the ventral border for the temporalis muscle. The base of the angular process and the mandibular foramen are present only in ZIN 88969; these structures do not differ from those in other zhelestids. Lower dentition. The lower incisors, canines, and premolars (except a tentatively attributed isolated p 2) are not known for P. robustus. However, in IZANUz P 2155 - M- 5 there is a minute alveolus for i 4 at the mesiolabial corner of the canine anterior root, exactly as in URBAC 99 – 109 of P. mynbulakensis (Fig. 16). This suggests that at least some individuals of P. robustus had four lower incisors as well. The lower canine is double-rooted, as evident from alveoli in IZANUz P 2155 - M- 5. In this specimen there are no alveoli for p 1 and p 3, but judging from the closely spaced alveoli, it is likely to be an immature specimen and the postcanine dentition could have been dp 2 - 4. The referral of IZANUz P 2155 - M- 5 to the larger Eoungulatum is unlikely because the latter has a single-rooted lower canine. The alveoli for p 2 and p 3 are similar in size. The p 3 was much smaller and mesiodistally aligned (ZIN 88489, URBAC 03 – 120) or oblique (ZIN 88465) to the tooth row. URBAC 04 – 324 is a lower premolar tentatively attributed to P. robustus (Fig. 20 A, B). It has two long roots, a conical central cusp, which is inclined anteriorly, no mesial accessory cusp, and a small distal accessory cusp. It is likely to be p 2 because p 1 and p 3 are reduced in zhelestids and p 4 has a distinct anterior accessory cusp. It is larger than p 2 in URBAC 97 – 3 and 02 – 13 attributed to P. mynbulakensis. Amongst the lower molars, m 1 is not known for P. robustus, m 2 is known from three isolated specimens and one dentary fragment, URBAC 97 – 5 (Fig. 20 C, D), and m 3 is known from a single isolated specimen (URBAC 03 – 38; Fig. 20 E). The lower molars have the same morphology as in P. mynbulakensis, but are slightly larger. The postcingulid is absent in URBAC 04 – 260, short in URBAC 98 – 14, and longer in URBAC 97 – 5. In the latter specimen there is a faint labial cingulid. The single m 3 is wider than this tooth in P. mynbulakensis, but has a much shorter talonid. The hypoconulid projects only slightly distally. The m 3 paraconid is reduced and in a more labial position as in m 1, whereas it is little reduced and more lingual in m 2 as in P. mynbulakensis. Measurements: See Appendices 2 and 3.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFA8611D52F5F944C723FA43.taxon	description	Locality and horizon: CDZH- 117, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Aitym Formation, Upper Cretaceous (upper Turonian – Coniacian?). Description: The morphology of DP 5 is the same as in other zhelestids and in size it is most similar to DP 5 s of P. mynbulakensis. There are three crenulations on the ectocingulum, the smallest one in the position of cusp E, the middle one in the position of cusp C, and the largest one mesial to the latter. For a more detailed description of the tooth see Averianov & Archibald (2003: 179 – 180). The latter description is incorrect in regard to the preparacrista and stylocone: in ZIN 85293 the preparacrista is absent through wear and the stylocone was most probably absent (this area of the ectocingulum is chipped). For description of M 3 see Averianov & Archibald (2003: 181). This tooth is distinctly smaller than the isolated M 3 URBAC 03 – 179 referred to P. mynbulakensis and approximates the size of this tooth in the holotype maxilla of P. robustus. The fragmented M 3 ZIN 85295 differs from the previous specimen in having a small stylocone, and possibly in having a relatively longer parastylar lobe. Measurements: See Appendix 2. Comments: There are possibly two species of Parazhelestes in the Aitym local fauna, which differ in size, as in the Bissekty local fauna. Whether or not they are conspecific with the Bissekty species is not clear.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFAA611C52D3FA28C07CFD05.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Zhelestes temirkazyk Nesov, 1985 a. Included species: Type species only. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Turonian). Comments: Sorlestes budan and Zhelestes temirkazyk were described in the same paper by Nesov (1985 a) where the former has a page priority. Kumsuperus avus was established a year earlier (Nesov, 1984), but it is based on an inadequate specimen (CCMGE 13 / 11758), a dentary fragment with extremely worn m 1 - 3 that lack diagnostic features. We consider Kumsuperus avus Nesov, 1984 to be a nomen dubium. By the principle of the first reviser (ICZN Article 24.2) we choose the name Zhelestes temirkazyk Nesov, 1985 a as a senior objective synonym for the name Sorlestes budan Nesov, 1985 a, as it is based on a more diagnostic specimen (maxilla with dentition) rather than a dentary fragment with a not particularly diagnostic lower molar. Additionally, the loss of the nominal genus for Zhelestidae would create unnecessary confusion in the systematic literature.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFAB612051E1FCF7C035FC65.taxon	description	FIGURES 21 – 23 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.) Holotype: CCMGE 10 / 12176, left maxilla with heavily worn P 2, P 3 (now broken), P 4 - 5, M 1 - 3 and alveoli for C, P 1. Found in 1980. Type locality and horizon: CBI- 17, Dzharakuduk, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Bissekty Formation, Upper Cretaceous (middle- upper Turonian). Revised diagnosis: Differs from Aspanlestes and Parazhelestes by upper and lower canine singlerooted; mandibular condyle above alveolar level; p 5 paraconid cingulid cusp or absent. Differs from Aspanlestes, Parazhelestes, and Eoungulatum by diastema between upper canine and premolars present; diastema posterior to P 1 present; P 3 singlerooted. Differs from Parazhelestes and Eoungulatum by protocone labial shift absent. Differs from Parazhelestes by mandibular symphysis at p 3 or more posterior; trigonid angle between 36 – 49 °. Differs from Eoungulatum by P 5 protocone smaller than paracone; P 5 metacone swelling; P 5 para- and metastylar lobes subequal; upper molar preparastyle present; metacone slightly smaller than paracone; ‘ coronoid’ facet absent; masseteric fossa bordered ventrally by welldefined crest connected to condyle; m 3 subequal to larger than m 2. Description: Maxilla. The maxilla is almost completely preserved in the type specimen (Fig. 21). In structure it is quite similar to the maxilla URBAC 02 – 45 of Aspanlestes (Fig. 6, see description above), and preserves a more complete palatal process. The proportions are somewhat different, which may be related to size differences between the specimens. The facial process is relatively shorter and higher; it is highest above P 4 (Fig. 21 A). Its anterodorsal corner is inflated and has a large hole for the canine root. In Aspanlestes there is no such inflation. A thin anterior projection of the facial process, covering the canine laterally and present in URBAC 02 – 45, is not preserved in CCMGE 10 / 12176. Dorsal to the broken area an intact bone edge is preserved, suggesting that at least part of the lateral alveolus for the canine was formed by the premaxilla. The infraorbital foramen is placed higher and relatively further backward compared with URBAC 02 – 45, above the distal root of P 4. The palatal process is quite narrow (widest at the level of P 4) and slightly convex ventrally. The anterior end of the palatal process projects anteriorly beyond the canine alveolus, as in Aspanlestes. The intermaxillary suture is straight. The maxillopalatine suture extends from a level between P 4 and P 5 to the posterior end of the bone. Here the medial border of the palatal process is convex and approximates the molar’s alveoli. The jugal facet is wide posteriorly and tapers anteriorly to the level between P 4 and P 5. Its widest part is between M 2 and M 3 (above M 3 in Aspanlestes). The lacrimal facet is not discernible. Upper dentition. The upper canine is not known, but judging from its alveolus in the holotype maxilla it was large, single-rooted, and quite curved throughout its length. The anterior premolars or their alveoli are known only from the type specimen, representing a quite old individual. The P 1 was mesiodistally aligned with other premolars. The alveolus for its mesial root is more than twice as small as the alveolus for the distal root and confluent with the canine alveolus. In Nesov et al. (1998: fig. 10) P 1 was reconstructed as single-rooted, but we think that it more likely had two roots. The P 2 is a relatively large conical tooth with two roots and without distinct accessory basal cusps. P 3 is small, peg-like, and single-rooted; the crown is now missing but can be seen in previous photos (e. g. Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 9 A). P 3 is separated by a small diastema from P 2 and by a twice longer diastema from P 4. The posterior upper premolars and molars are heavily worn in all known specimens. The structure of P 4 - 5 is essentially the same as in Parazhelestes. In an isolated P 4 URBAC 98 – 117 there is a better-developed anterior accessory cusp. The upper molars are similar to those of Parazhelestes in morphology, but differ in proportions: they are relatively wider labiolingually and more mesiodistally constricted at the centre. In M 2 URBAC 02 – 81 there are some crenulations on the ectocingulum. The M 3 is as wide labiolingually as M 2 (narrower than M 2 in P. robustus). Dentary. There are two anterior mental foramina: one is at the anterior end of the canine alveolus, just beneath the i 4 alveolus, another is under the mesial root of p 1 (CCMGE 3 / 11658, ZIN 88480). The posterior mental foramen is under the distal root of p 5 (ZIN 88480). The masseteric crest is strong and there are multiple labial mandibular foramina (ZIN 88453, 88461, and other specimens). The mandibular symphysis is quite long, with the posterior end at the level between the roots of p 2 (juvenile specimen ZIN 88469), or between p 2 and p 3 (adult specimen ZIN 88480). The Meckelian groove is absent (ZIN 88461). In the juvenile specimen ZIN 88469 the angular and part of the condylar processes are preserved (Fig. 22 A). The condyle was probably not fully ossified and was placed significantly above the alveolar level. The angular process is constructed as in Aspanlestes and P. mynbulakensis with only a slight lingual inflection. Lower dentition. In a young specimen, CCMGE 3 / 11658, with an erupting canine (Fig. 22 B), there are alveoli for four incisors, with i 3 largest and i 4 smallest. In an older edentulous dentary ZIN 88480, the alveoli for i 1 - 3 are similar in size and the alveolus for i 4 is much smaller and confined within the canine alveolus. The lower canine was large and single-rooted (ZIN 88480). CCMGE 3 / 11658 preserves the crown of the erupting lower canine (Fig. 22 B). Judging from alveoli in edentulous dentaries (e. g. ZIN 88461 and 88480), p 1 and p 3 were double-rooted and smaller than p 2, but not as reduced as in Parazhelestes. In ZIN 88461 there is a relatively large diastema between p 2 and p 3. The p 2 is known from a dentary fragment CCMGE 3 / 11658 (Fig. 22 B). The central cusp is conical and slightly turned distally. There are no mesial accessory cusps and only a small distal accessory cusp. The roots are swollen and spread apart. It is possible that this tooth could be a dp 2 because the canine in this dentary fragment is at the initial stage of erupting. An unerupted crown of p 2 is also present in ZIN 82555. The p 5 is known from three specimens, the isolated tooth CCMGE 2 / 12953 and unerupted crowns in dentary fragments URBAC 03 – 218 and ZIN 88448 (Fig. 22 C – E). CCMGE 2 / 12953 is unique amongst p 5 s of Dzharakuduk’s zhelestids in having a very small, cingulid paraconid, which is placed very low on the crown. It is not preserved and may not have been present on the two other p 5 s, where this portion of the crown was not fully formed and is now missing. A cingulid-like paraconid on p 5 may have been a consistent feature of Zhelestes, whereas in P. mynbulakensis it is a trigonid cusp. In this character Zhelestes is very similar to Borisodon. The p 5 of Zhelestes is clearly distinct from that tooth in Borisodon in having a metaconid, present in all three known specimens. The small talonid basin lingual to the talonid ridge is somewhat more expanded than in Borisodon. In URBAC 03 – 218 there is a small second talonid cusp, the entoconid (absent in CCMGE 2 / 12953; in ZIN 88448 this part of the crown is missing). In CCMGE 2 / 12953 there is a well-developed, distolabial cingulid. The lower molars of Zhelestes are similar to those of other Dzharakuduk zhelestids, but differ from the lower molars of Parazhelestes in having a larger trigonid angle, which is presumably correlated to mesiodistally narrower upper molars in Zhelestes compared to Parazhelestes. The best-preserved m 1 is CCMGE 37 / 12000 (Fig. 23 A). The trigonid angle is slightly greater that in m 2 and m 3. The paraconid is more labially shifted than in m 2 or m 3, and is smaller than this cusp in m 2 but larger than in m 3. The precingulid is ridge-like, as in P. mynbulakensis. The m 2 trigonid has a lesser angle than m 1 or m 3, whereas the paraconid is the larger and more lingually placed. The sample of m 2 s is more numerous than for other lower molars and shows more variation. The most variable structures are the precingulid and postcingulid. The labial cingulid is complete, connecting the precingulid and the postcingulid in URBAC 98 – 15; very short, confined to the hypoflexid area in URBAC 06 – 26; or absent in other specimens. URBAC 04 – 309 has the best-developed precingulid amongst the sample, but the postcingulid is totally lacking in this specimen (Fig. 23 B). The postcingulid is the strongest in URBAC 02 – 35 and 02 – 65. There are two unerupted m 3 s represented by two unerupted crowns in dentary fragments (URBAC 03 – 218, ZIN 88448; Fig. 22 E). The m 3 is best known from an isolated and worn specimen CCMGE 3 / 12953 (Fig. 23 D). The trigonid is constructed as in m 1 except that the paraconid is even smaller. The precingulid is quite small. The talonid is longer and narrower than the trigonid. The talonid is quite damaged so was probably originally somewhat wider. All three talonid cusps are similar in size. The hypoconulid is about equidistant from the hypoconid and the entoconid. Measurements: See Appendices 2 and 3.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF97612051ADFA47C04BF9C3.taxon	description	FIGURES 24 – 25 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.)	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF97612051EEFC0CC3E8FA9A.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Eoungulatum kudukensis Nesov et al., 1998. Included species: Type species and Eoungulatum sp. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Turonian-? Coniacian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF936124525DFDB2C1A4FC26.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Sheikhdzheilia rezvyii Averianov & Archibald, 2005. Included species: Type species only. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF93612B529AFBC4C2B8FE15.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: ZIN 88438, right dentary fragment with p 5, m 1, talonid of m 2, and alveoli for p 4 and m 3. Found in 2003 from concentrate obtained in 1998. Type locality and horizon: SSHD- 8, Sheikhdzheili, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Upper part of Khodzhakul Formation, Upper Cretaceous (early Cenomanian). Revised diagnosis: Differs from other zhelestids by having a deep ectoflexus; stylar cusp B (stylocone) small but distinct; lingual cingula on upper molars absent. Differs from other zhelestids except Lainodon by protoconid tallest cusp on trigonid; labial postcingulid absent. Differs from other zhelestids except Eoungulatum by preparastyle absent. Differs from other zhelestids except Lainodon and Avitotherium by protocristid oblique. Differs from Avitotherium, Lainodon, and Gallolestes by paraconid not on lingual margin. Differs from Avitotherium, Gallolestes, and Parazhelestes by trigonid angle between 36 – 49 °. Differs from Aspanlestes, Parazhelestes, and Zhelestes by p 5 metaconid absent; p 5 lingual cingulid complete. Differs from Aspanlestes and Parazhelestes by p 5 paraconid cingulid cusp absent. Differs from Parazhelestes and Eoungulatum by protocone not labially shifted. Description: See Averianov & Archibald (2005: 600 – 601). Measurements: See Averianov & Archibald (2005: 600 – 601).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9C612B5029FDFEC357FC51.taxon	etymology	Etymology: Named after our irascible colleague and very good friend, the late Boris Gregorievich Veretennikov of Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Type species: Sorlestes kara Nesov, 1993. Included species: Type species only. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Kazakhstan; Late Cretaceous (Turonian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9C61295014FC37C6D2FEAE.taxon	description	FIGURE 26 (See Appendix 4 for synonymies, referred illustrations, and referred specimens.) Holotype: CCMGE 106 / 12455, right dentary with p 5, m 1 - 3, alveoli for p 2 - 4, and coronoid, angular, and condyloid processes. In the original description the collection number was incorrectly indicated as CCMGE 101 / 12455 (Nesov, 1995: 123). Found in 1988. Type locality and horizon: Near Ashchikol’ Lake, Kyzylorda Province, Kazakhstan. Drilling core from about 500 m depth. Grey siltstone of lower Turonian age (Nesov, 1993). Diagnosis: Differs from Aspanlestes, Zhelestes, Parazhelestes, and Eoungulatum by tilting of coronoid process 95 – 105 °. Differs from Aspanlestes, Zhelestes, and Eoungulatum by mandibular symphysis at p 2 or more anterior. Differs from Aspanlestes, Zhelestes, and Parazhelestes by ‘ coronoid’ facet present; p 5 metaconid absent; p 5 lingual cingulid complete. Differs from Zhelestes, Parazhelestes, and Eoungulatum by Meckelian groove present. Differs from Aspanlestes and Parazhelestes by mandibular condyle slightly above alveolar level; p 5 paraconid cingulid cusp absent. Differs from Eoungulatum by masseteric fossa bordered ventrally by well-defined crest connected to condyle; m 3 subequal or larger than m 2. Description: The posterior portion of the dentary horizontal ramus is about 1.5 times higher than the tooth crowns. On the labial side at the mid-height of the horizontal ramus under the p 5 distal root there is a large posterior mental foramen, connected to a short groove that becomes shallower posteriorly. On the medial side of the horizontal ramus the posterior end of the mandibular symphysis is at the level between the roots of p 2. There is a rather faint Meckelian groove extending between the level of the distal end of m 3 and towards the point anteroventrally of the mandibular foramen. The horizontal ramus gradually continues into the ascending ramus without constriction. The ascending ramus is about three times higher than the horizontal ramus, with a steep anterior border of the coronoid process, sloping at an angle of 75 ° toward the alveolar margin. The coronoid process, or its impression, was complete before its removal from the encasing matrix; thus, the outline in Figure 26 is quite accurate. It is trapezoidal in shape, with an almost straight anterior margin and a slightly concave posterior margin. The masseteric fossa is very large and deep, extending posteriorly to the condylar process, and bordered anteriorly by a very prominent coronoid crest. It is deepest at the anteroventral corner, where there is a large, slit-like labial mandibular foramen concealed laterally by the coronoid crest. Ventrally the masseteric fossa is bordered by an extensive posterior shelf continuing to the mandibular condyle. The medial side of the coronoid process is flat and slightly depressed along the anterior margin. The mandibular foramen is relatively large, oval-shaped, and faces posteroventrally. It opens above the anterior portion of the angular process, in the posterior half of the ascending ramus. The mandibular condyle is distinctly above the alveolar level. The condyle is convex and oval-shaped in posterior and dorsal views, with the lateral end more pointed and placed more dorsally compared with the medial end (Fig. 26 B – D). The mandibular angle is a thin triangulate plate somewhat deflected medially. Its anteroventral margin is convex and the posterior margin is concave, forming part of the round incisura between the mandibular angle and condyle. There are alveoli for double-rooted p 2 - 4 preserved in the anterior portion of the dentary fragment and partially visible laterally because of the broken dentary wall. The alveoli for p 4 are approximately the same size as for p 5. The anterior alveolus for p 2 is incomplete but it seems that this tooth was only slightly shorter than p 5. The alveoli for p 3 are twice as small as those of p 4. The p 5 is a semimolariform tooth without a metaconid, and with a unicusped talonid with an incipient ‘ basin’. It is as tall as the molars. The main cusp (protoconid) is distinctly curved, hook-like, with its apex pointed distally. Its mesial margin is a sharp vertical crest. The distal side of the cusp is wide, concave, facing linguodistally, and sloping into the talonid basin. Mesial to the base of the protoconid there is a small triangular platform at the junction of the lingual and labial cingulids and the protoconid mesial crest. This structure could be a cingulid mesial accessory cusp (paraconid). The talonid is formed by a large cusp, reaching half the height of the protoconid, and is pointed dorsodistally. Its mesiolingual side is distinctly concave, forming the incipient talonid basin. The lingual cingulid is continuous, extending from between the mesial end towards the distal point of the talonid cusp. It is elevated above the space between the roots and forms the lingual border of the talonid basin. The labial cingulid is interrupted at the space between the roots and vanishes at the posterior portion of the talonid cusp. The lower molars are of rather similar morphology. The m 2 is the largest and the m 1 the smallest. The trigonid is about twice as tall as the talonid on m 3 (on m 1 - 2 the protoconid is not complete and could be taller). The metaconid seems to be only slightly lower than the protoconid. The metaconid apex is bent somewhat distally. The paraconid is smaller than the metaconid but still relatively unreduced. It is largest on m 3 and smallest on m 1. On m 3 the paraconid is distinctly taller than the talonid of m 2 whereas as in m 1 - 2 the paraconid is confluent with the talonid surface of the preceding tooth. The mesiolingual vertical side of the paraconid forms a keel on all molars. The protocristid is almost straight and transverse. The paracristid is not straight but angled at the paracristid notch. The bases of the paraconid and metaconid are connate lingually, leaving only a slit-like opening into the trigonid basin. The trigonid basin is a small triangular area between the bases of the trigonid cusps. The talonid is distinctly wider than the trigonid on m 1, slightly wider on m 2, and narrower on m 3. The cristid obliqua contacts the trigonid wall at the protocristid notch. The hypoconid is the largest talonid cusp and the entoconid the smallest. The hypoconulid projects distally and is closer to the entoconid but is not twinned with the latter. In m 3 the hypoconulid is hook-like and separated by a greater distance from the entoconid than in m 1 - 2. The talonid basin slopes mesiolingually towards its deepest point at the mesial end of the entocristid. The development of the precingulid increases from m 1 to m 2. It is a short subvertical crest whose lingual end is abutted against the hypoconulid (or talonid cusp) of the preceding tooth. A very faint postcingulid is present only in m 2. Measurements: See Appendix 3.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9E6129527AFE50C19FFCF8.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Lainodon orueetxebarriai Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1994. Included species: Type species only. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Spain; Late Cretaceous (Campanian or Maastrichtian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9E61285240FCE6C0A7FDD4.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: L 1 AT 14, left m 2. Identified by Gheerbrant & Astibia (1994, 1999) as m 1 (?). Type locality and horizon: Laño, Álava Province, Basque Autonomous Community, Spain; unnamed stratigraphical unit, Late Cretaceous (late Campanian or early Maastrichtian). Revised diagnosis: Differs from all zhelestids except Sheikhdzheilia with protoconid tallest cusp on trigonid; labial postcingulid absent. Differs from all zhelestids except Sheikhdzheilia and Avitotherium by protocristid oblique. Differs from all zhelestids except Avitotherium and Gallolestes by paraconid on lingual margin present. Differs from all zhelestids except Avitotherium, Gallolestes, and Parazhelestes by trigonid angle between 36 – 49 °. Description: See Gheerbrant & Astibia (1999: 297 – 301, 310 – 314). Measurements: See Gheerbrant & Astibia (1999: tabs 1 – 4). Comments: Lainodon orueetxebarriai was based on permanent lower molars whereas milk lower premolars from the same site were referred by Gheerbrant & Astibia (1999) to Lainodon sp. nov. We see no basis for this assignment. All differences between these ‘ taxa’ noted by Gheerbrant & Astibia (1999) are differences between permanent molars and deciduous premolars. We refer tentatively to L. orueetxebarriai all therian teeth from the Laño locality, except possibly a tooth L 1 AT 11 identified as? Labes sp. (Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1999: 314, fig. 5, pl. 2, figs 7 – 9). A right molar or dp 5 trigonid from the Late Cretaceous of Taveiro, Portugal (Antunes, Sigogneau-Russell & Russell, 1986: fig. E; Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1999: fig. 3 e) may belong to Lainodon. A fragmentary lower molar from the Maastrichtian of Madagascar may belong to a zhelestid similar to Lainodon (Averianov, Archibald & Martin, 2003).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9F612852B5F9C1C659F896.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Gallolestes pachymandibularis Lillegraven, 1976. Included species: Type species and Gallolestes agujaensis Cifelli, 1994. Distribution: Mexico and Texas, USA; Late Cretaceous (Campanian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9F61285279FC3DC75FFA13.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: GAR 007, right m 1 - 2. Depository not indicated. Type locality and horizon: Champ-Garimond, Fons-outre-Gardon, Gard, France; unnamed stratigraphical unit, Late Cretaceous (Campanian). Revised diagnosis: About 30 % larger than L. quintanillensis. Description: Not available. Measurements: See Pol et al. (1992: 300).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF9F6128500BFDB9C695FE6A.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Labes quintanillensis Sigé in Pol et al., 1992. Included species: Type species and Labes garimondi Sigé in Pol et al., 1992. Revised diagnosis: Differs from Sheikhdzheilia and Lainodon by protoconid subequal to paraconid or metaconid in height. Differs from Avitotherium, Lainodon, and Gallolestes by paraconid not on lingual margin. Differs from Parazhelestes, Avitotherium, and Gallolestes by paracristid- protocristid angle between 36 and 49 °. Differs from Sheikhdzheilia, Avitotherium, and Lainodon by protocristid transverse. Differs from all zhelestids except Sheikhdzheilia and Lainodon by absence of labial postcingulid. Differs from all zhelestids by cristid obliqua labial to protocristid notch; hypoconulid on m 1 - 2 equidistant from hypoconid and entoconid. Distribution: France and Spain; Late Cretaceous (Campanian and Maastrichtian). Comments: The two species of Labes are known from noncomparable material: m 3 for L. quintanillensis and m 1 - 2 for L. garimondi. At least some of the differences between the two species listed by Sigé in Pol et al. (1992: 299) may pertain to the positional variation. The only reliable difference between the two species is the size; the Maastrichtian species is distinctly smaller. Referral of Labes to the Zhelestidae is tentative until the discovery of more complete specimens. The most striking difference of this taxon compared to zhelestids is the hypoconulid on m 1 - 2, which is equidistant from the hypoconid and entoconid. Tabuce, Vianey-Liaud & Garcia (2004) described a poorly preserved dentary fragment with some remnants of dentition as ‘ Valentinella vitrollense ’. This taxon is considered here as a nomen dubium because it lacks diagnostic features. It was said to be more derived than Labes and Lainodon in having fully compressed trigonids, but the trigonids are actually not preserved on the holotype specimen. The lower molars of this specimen seem to be somewhat larger than in L. garimondi.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF98612F52BCFE08C64CFCED.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Avitotherium utahensis Cifelli, 1990. Included species: Type species only. Distribution: Utah and Montana, USA; Late Cretaceous (Campanian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF98612F5278FC89C6F1FA1D.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: MNA V 4650, right M 1. Type locality and horizon: OMNH locality V 9, upper Wahweap Creek area, Kane County, Utah, USA. Lower Kaiparowits Formation, Late Cretaceous (late Campanian). Description: See Cifelli (1990: 353 – 355). Measurements: See Cifelli (1990: tab. 3). Comments: An isolated upper molar UCMP 131240 from the Judith River Formation of Montana, USA, identified as ‘ tribotherian’ (Montellano, 1992: fig. 32) is possibly a DP 5 of Avitotherium.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF98612E52ABF991C30BFF03.taxon	materials_examined	Type species: Eozhelestes mangit Nesov, 1997. Included species: Type species only. Diagnosis: As for the type species. Distribution: Western Uzbekistan; Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF98612F51C6F9DFC6BAFE6B.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: OMNH 22788, left dentary fragment with m 1 or 2. Type locality and horizon: OMNH V 58, 8 km northnorth-east of Study Butte, Brewster County, Texas, USA. Upper shale member, Aguja Formation, Late Cretaceous (late Campanian). Revised diagnosis: About 40 % smaller than G. pachymandibularis in dental measurements. Description: See Cifelli (1994: 132). Measurements: See Cifelli (1994: tab. 7).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF98612F51E5FF18C376FA35.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: LACM 42633, right dentary with fragmented p 4, dp 5, and m 1 - 3. Type locality and horizon: LACM locality 3302, Baja California del Norte, Mexico. ‘ El Gallo Formation’, Late Cretaceous (late Campanian). Revised diagnosis: About 40 % larger than G. agujaensis in dental measurements. Description: See Lillegraven (1976: 438 – 440) and Clemens (1980: 2 – 3). Measurements: See Lillegraven (1976: tab. 1). Comments: We follow Butler (1977, 1990) in the interpretation of the last premolar on the holotype of G. pachymandibularis as a milk tooth, dp 5, contra our previous claim that this tooth is a molariform p 5 (Archibald & Averianov, 2001; see also discussion in Lillegraven, 1976; Clemens, 1980; Nesov et al., 1998; Kielan-Jaworowska, Cifelli & Luo, 2004). The deciduous nature of this tooth was rejected on the ground that ‘ the roots are well formed, very unusual for a deciduous tooth that was soon destined to be shed’ (Archibald & Averianov, 2001: 543). The roots of this tooth, however, actually are formed as well as in some dp 5 s of zhelestids from Dzharakuduk having the same state of wear. The smaller size relative to m 1 and the much heavier wear strongly argue that this is a milk tooth. As was pointed out by Clemens (1980), retention of the last deciduous premolar until the m 3 has erupted is quite unusual. In the Asiatic Zhelestinae dp 5 is replaced when m 3 is not fully erupted (see the next section). A similar delay in replacement of dp 5 was noted for the zalambdalestid Barunlestes by Butler (1990).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF99612E5014FE88C668FCFA.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: CCMGE 26 / 12176, left m 1. Found in 2003 from concentrate obtained in 1998. Type locality and horizon: SSHD- 8, Sheikhdzheili, Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. Upper part of Khodzhakul Formation, Upper Cretaceous (early Cenomanian). Revised diagnosis: Differs from Eomaia, Prokennalestes, Murtoilestes, and Bobolestes by anteroposterior compression of trigonid; entoconid subequal to or larger than hypoconid or hypoconulid; labial postcingulid present. Differs from Eomaia, Prokennalestes, and Bobolestes by ‘ coronoid’ facet absent; i 4 greatly reduced; hypoconulid on m 1 - 2 about twice as close to entoconid than to hypoconid. Differs from Eomaia and Prokennalestes by mandibular symphysis posterior margin reaching p 3 or more posteriorly; posteriormost mental foramen below p 5 or more posterior; p 3 shorter than p 2. Differs from Prokennalestes and Bobolestes by lower canine enlargement. Differs from Eomaia by p 1 - p 2 diastema absent. Differs from Prokennalestes by lower canine single-rooted. Differs from Bobolestes by oblique protocristid; cristid obliqua lingual to protocristid notch. Differs from the clade Zhelestidae + Paranyctoides by trigonid height twice or more the height of talonid; oblique protocristid; talonid narrower than trigonid; cristid oblique lingual to protocristid notch. Description: See Averianov & Archibald (2005: 602 – 603). Measurements: See Averianov & Archibald (2005: 603). Comments: Eozhelestes mangit was originally established on a single lower molar and though to be the most ancient and primitive member of Zhelestidae (Nesov, 1997), extending the fossil record of the group by about five million years earlier than Dzharakuduk. Kielan-Jaworowska et al. (2004) excluded this taxon from Zhelestidae and considered it to be order and family incertae sedis following a conclusion expressed in ‘ note added in proof’ to Nesov et al. (1998: 87). Averianov & Archibald (2005) referred to E. mangit eight additional specimens and provided a revised diagnosis for this taxon citing a unique combination of primitive and derived characters. They noted that this taxon differs from the Turonian zhelestids by a number of ancestral retentions, which is consistent with its older geological age, and classified it within Zhelestidae. According to the phylogenetic analysis by Wible et al. (2004: fig. 3) Eozhelestes forms a clade with Paranyctoides that is less basal than Zhelestidae on the phylogenetic tree, forming a sister relationship to all other eutherians. This result is somewhat surprising because in most characters Eozhelestes is clearly plesiomorphic relative to Zhelestidae. According to the phylogenetic analyses in the last section of the present paper, Eozhelestes is either a sister taxon to a Zhelestidae + Paranyctoides clade or is in a polytomy with other zheletsids. For now we place Eozhe-lestes as? Zhelestidae. Paranyctoides will be treated in a separate publication.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF8F613F5018F9FCC77EF92F.taxon	description	Aspanlestes cf. aptap: Nesov, 1985 a: pl. 2, fig. 7. Theria [indet.]: Nesov, 1985 b: pl. 2, fig. 5; Nesov, 1993: fig. 4 (11). Zhelestes [sp.], or Theria indet. Nesov, 1985 b: 213, pl. 2, fig. 5. Zhelestes? bezelgen: Nesov, 1987: 207, pl. 1, fig. 1; Nesov & Kielan-Jaworowska, 1991: fig. 1; Nesov et al., 1994: 66, pl. 6, fig. 1. Zhelestinae [indet.]: Nesov, 1987: pl. 1, fig. 3. Eutheria indet. Nesov, 1987: pl. 1, fig. 4; Nesov, 1993: fig. 2 (4); Nesov, 1997: pl. 51, fig. 2. Zhelestes? sp. cf. Z. bezelgen: Nesov, 1993: 125, figs 2 (3), 5 (5). Gen. indet. Nesov et al., 1994: pl. 7, fig. 6. Parazhelestes minor [partim, nomen nudum]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 52, fig. 5. Ortalestes tostak: Nesov, 1997: 171, pl. 48, fig. 8. Zhelestidae cf. Zhelestes sp. Nesov, 1997: pl. 49, fig. 8. Sorlestes budan [partim]: Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 15 F – J. Cf. Zhelestes sp. Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.4 I. Referred specimens: URBAC 03 – 93, associated skull fragments, associated with URBAC 03 – 188, right maxillary fragment with M 2 and alveoli for M 1 and M 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 45, left maxilla and jugal fragment with heavily worn C, P 4 - 5, M 1 - 2, and alveoli for P 1 - 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 00 – 15, left maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 3 - 5, M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 22, right maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 5, M 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 116, right maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 5, M 1 - 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 30, left maxillary fragment with M 2 and alveoli for P 5, M 1, and M 3 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 68 / 12455, left maxillary with M 2 and alveoli for P 5, M 1, and M 3 (CBI- 4, 1989); URBAC 03 – 188, right maxillary fragment with M 2 and alveoli for M 1 and M 3, associated with URBAC 03 – 93, associated with skull fragments 03 – 93 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 1 / 12455, left maxilla with P 5, M 1 - 2 and alveoli for P 4 (holotype of? Zhelestes bezelgen Nesov, 1987, CBI- 14, 1984); ZIN 88983, upper canine (CBI- 4 v, 1980); URBAC 04 – 100, right P 4 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 4 / 12455, left DP 5 (holotype of Ortalestes tostak Nesov, 1997, CBI- 4 b); CCMGE 19 / 12953, right P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 229, left P 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 274, right P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 307, right P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 313, left P 5 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 38 / 12000, right M 1 lacking parastylar lobe (CDZH- 17 a); CCMGE 3 / 12455, left M 1 (CBI- 14, 1984); ZIN 97883, left M 1 (CBI- 14, published previously under incorrect number CCMGE 103 / 12455); URBAC 03 – 10, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 78, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 126, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 152, left M 1 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 165, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 9, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 65, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 271, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 392, left M 1 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 17); URBAC 06 – 84, left M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 06 – 116, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 102, left M 2 heavily worn (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 03 – 21, right M 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 209, right M 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 252, left M 2 (CBI- 14); IZANUz P 2155 - M- 2, left M 2 (CBI- 14, 1994); URBAC 06 – 67, right M 2 lacking metastylar lobe (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 06 – 117, left M 2 (CBI- 17); URBAC 04 – 390, right M 2 labial fragment (CBI- 17); ZIN 88984, right M 2 lingual fragment (CBI- 14, 1989); ZIN 82585, right M 1 or M 2 lingual fragment (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 6, left M 1 or M 2 lingual fragment (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 395, right dentary fragment with alveoli or roots for i 1 - 4, c, p 2, and partial p 1 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88488, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 2, p 4 - 5 [p 3 not indicated] (CBI- 14, 1984); ZIN 88475, right dentary with partial m 3 talonid and alveoli for p 1 - 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1987); URBAC 02 – 66, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 3 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CDZH- 17 a); URBAC 02 – 68, right dentary fragment with dp 5, fragment of dp 4, and anterior alveolus for m 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 99 – 77, right dentary fragment with incomplete p 5 and alveoli for p 4 and m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 25, left dentary fragment with alveoli for p 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 97 – 4, left dentary fragment with m 2 and alveoli for m 1 and m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 64, left dentary fragment with m 2 talonid and alveoli for m 1 and m 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 00 – 29, left dentary fragment with erupting m 3 and alveoli for m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 31, left dentary fragment with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 87, right dentary fragment with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 18, right dentary fragment with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 77, left dentary fragment with incomplete m 3 in crypt, coronoid process, angular process, and mandibular condyle (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 196, right dentary fragment with alveoli for m 2 and erupting m 3 and angular process (CBI- 14); CCMGE 69 / 12455, left dentary fragment with worn m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1987); CCMGE 6 / 12176, left dentary fragment with m 2 talonid and m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 27, right dentary fragment with m 3 talonid unerupted and angular process (CBI- 4 e); CCMGE 78 / 12455, right p 5 worn (CBI- 7 a); ZIN 88473, right p 5 [CDZH- 17 a, 1978 (1980)]; URBAC 98 – 7, left p 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 288, left p 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 320, left p 5 worn (CBI- 14); ZIN 82583, left worn dp 5 (CBI-?); URBAC 97 – 8, left dp 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 118, right worn dp 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 130, left dp 5 trigonid (CBI- 14); CCMGE 13 / 12953, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 147, right m 1 heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 148, left m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 32, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 134, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 197, left m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 100, left m 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 98 – 26, left m 1 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 119, right m 1 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 120, left m 1 trigonid (CBI- 14); ZIN 96612, right m 2 (CBI- 14) [published in Nesov et al., 1998: 49 under incorrect number CCMGE 8 / 12953]; ZIN 82582, left m 2 (CBI-?); ZIN 82584, left m 2 (CBI-?); URBAC 00 – 63, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 86, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 185, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 302, right m 2 worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 389, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 110, right m 2 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 160, right m 2 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 311, right m 1 or m 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 333, left m 1 or m 2 talonid (CBI- 14); ZIN 82581, left m 3 (CBI-?); URBAC 98 – 152, left m 3 (CBI- 14).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF88613E52E4F8C5C365FDB2.taxon	description	cf. Aspanlestes sp. Averianov & Archibald, 2003: 180, fig. 10. Eutheria indet. [partim]: Averianov & Archibald, 2003: 183. Paranyctoides sp. cf. P. aralensis: Averianov & Archibald, 2003: 190. Referred specimens: ZIN 85299, right P 4 (CBI- 117, 1999); ZIN 85298, right P 5 heavily worn (CBI- 117, 1999); ZIN 85044, left DP 5 (CBI- 117, 1998); ZIN 85297, fragmented right M 1 (CBI- 117, 1999); URBAC 02 – 101, right M 2 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 117); ZIN 85051, left m 2 lacking most of the talonid (CBI- 117, 1998).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF89613C51A5FD4CC0EEFA7C.taxon	description	Zhelestes cf. temirkazyk: Nesov, 1985 a: pl. 3, fig. 5. Zalambdalestes? mynbulakensis [partim]: Nesov, 1985 b: 212, pl. 2, fig. 2; Nesov et al., 1994: 66, pl. 5, fig. 2; Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1999: fig. 3 h. Zhelestidae [indet.]: Nesov, 1993: fig. 5 (6); Nesov, 1997: pl. 54, fig. 4. gen. indet. Nesov et al., 1994: pl. 7, fig. 8. Parazhelestes sp. nov. Archibald, 1996: fig. 2 G, H; Averianov, 2000: figs 30.6 Q, 30.7 G. Parazhelestes minor [partim, nomen nudum]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 52, fig. 3, pl. 54, fig. 1. Sorlestes budan [partim]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 49, fig. 12, pl. 56, fig. 4; Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 17. Parazhelestes minor: Nesov et al., 1998: figs 12, 13, 20. Possible Sorlestes budan: Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.5 E, F. Referred specimens: URBAC 04 – 162, right maxillary fragment with M 2 and alveoli for P 1 - 5 and M 1 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 11 / 12176, right maxillary fragment with P 5, M 1 - 2, roots of P 4, and alveoli of P 2 - 3, M 3 (CBI- 14, 1980); URBAC 02 – 59, right maxillary fragment with P 5 and alveoli for P 2 - 4, M 1 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88499, left maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 3 - 5, M 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 02 – 38, left maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 4 - 5, M 1 - 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 02 – 1, left maxillary fragment with P 5 and alveoli for P 4 and M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 00 – 24, right maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 5, M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 98 – 20, left maxillary fragment with not erupted and incomplete P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 80, right maxillary fragment with M 2 labial part and alveoli for M 1 and M 2 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88468, left maxillary fragment with M 1 - 3 heavily worn and palatine fragment (CBI- 4 b, 1980); CCMGE 21 / 12953, right P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 42, left P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 83, right P 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 109, left P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 151, right DP 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 168, right DP 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 206, left DP 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 213, right DP 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 397, left DP 5 (CBI- 17); ZIN 97884, left M 1 (? CBI- 14; published previously under incorrect number CCMGE 104 / 12455); CCMGE 11 / 12953, right M 1 (holotype of Parazhelestes minor Nesov et al., 1998, CBI- 4); CCMGE 22 / 12953, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 18, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 19, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 108, left M 1 parastylar lobe and paracone (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 27, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 34, right M 1 with eroded enamel (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 00 – 70, right M 1 paracone and parastylar lobe (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 8, left M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 02 – 34, right M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 03 – 177, right M 1 with eroded enamel (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 99, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 137, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 212, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 275, left M 1 lingual fragment (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 50, left M 1 (CBI- 17); CCMGE 12 / 12953, right M 2 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14, 1993); URBAC 98 – 21, right M 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 28, left M 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 34, right M 2 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 73, left M 2 with eroded enamel (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 121, left M 2 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 192, right M 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 308, left M 2 heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 13, right M 2 heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 39, left M 2 (CBI- 17); URBAC 06 – 60, left M 2 with damaged metastylar region (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 06 – 93, left M 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 97 – 2, left M 1 or M 2 lingual part, heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 51, left M 1 or M 2 lingual part, heavily worn (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 03 – 27, right M 1 or M 2 lacking labial part (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 45, left M 1 or M 2 lingual part (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 396, left M 1 or M 2 lingual part, heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 179, left M 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88481, left dentary fragment with alveoli for i 1 - 4, double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14, 1991); URBAC 04 – 193, right dentary fragment with alveoli for i 1 - 4, double-rooted c, and p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88482, left dentary fragment with alveoli for i 1 - 3, double-rooted c, p 1 - 2, p 4 - 5 [p 3 probably lost during ontogeny] (CBI- 14, 1991); URBAC 03 – 40, left dentary fragment with alveoli for i 1 - 4, double-rooted c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88470, left dentary fragment with erupting c, m 3 trigonid in crypt, and alveoli for i 1 - 4, p 1 - 4, dp 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 06 – 113, left dentary fragment with i 2 - 3 with worn and broken crowns, mesial root of c, and alveoli for i 1, i 4, and c distal root (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 99 – 109, left dentary fragment with p 4 - 5, m 1 - 3, alveoli for i 2 - 3, root of i 4, and alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 2 [p 3 probably lost during ontogeny] (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 13, left dentary fragment with p 4, m 1 - 3 and alveoli for i 2 - 3, double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 5, left dentary fragment with alveoli of i 3, double-rooted c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 17, left dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 81, left dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 8, left dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 92, right dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88484, right dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 14, 1987); URBAC 00 – 11, right dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 104, right dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 06 – 111, left dentary fragment with p 2 in crypt and alveoli for dc?, p 1, p 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 97 – 3, right dentary with p 2, p 4, roots of p 5, and alveoli for p 1, p 3, and m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 61, left dentary fragment with alveoli for p 1 - 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 02 – 13, left dentary fragment with p 2, incomplete p 4, and alveoli for c, p 1, p 3, and p 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 98 – 24, right dentary fragment with alveoli for double-rooted c, p 1 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88497, left dentary fragment with alveoli for p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 03 – 62, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88483, left dentary fragment with alveoli for p 1 - 5, m 1 (CBI- 14, 1987); ZIN 88479, left dentary fragment with alveoli for p 1 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1989); ZIN 88490, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 2 - 5, m 1 (CDZH- 17 a, 1978 [1983]); URBAC 00 – 68, right dentary fragment with erupting p 2, root of dp 2, and alveoli for dc, p 3, dp 4 - 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88491, right dentary fragment with not erupted p 2 and alveoli for doublerooted dc 1 (?), p 1, p 3, dp 4, p 4, dp 5, m 1, not erupted m 2 (CBI- 14, 1987); URBAC 04 – 171, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 2 - 5 and m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88449, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 3 - 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1989); ZIN 88485, right dentary fragment with not erupted p 4 and alveoli for p 1 - 3, dp 4 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88477, left dentary fragment with p 4, anterior root of p 5, and alveoli for p 3 (CBI- 5 a, 1989); URBAC 02 – 9, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 4 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 4 e); CCMGE 7 / 12953, right dentary fragment with dp 5 (CBI- 5 a); CCMGE 1 / 12953, left dentary fragment with p 5 and alveoli or roots for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1987); URBAC 00 – 45, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 5); ZIN 88474, right dentary fragment with alveoli for p 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 06 – 110, right dentary fragment with m 3 trigonid in crypt and alveoli for p 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88478, left dentary fragment with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1985); URBAC 99 – 3, left dentary fragment with incomplete m 2 and m 3 (CBI- 14); IZANUz P 2155 - M- 1, left dentary fragment with erupting m 3 and alveoli for m 2, part of coronoid process, and angular process (CBI- 14, 1994); ZIN 89006, left dentary fragment with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 00 – 21, right dentary fragment with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 32, right dentary fragment with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 17); ZIN 82580, right p 5 (CBI-?); URBAC 98 – 16, right p 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 226, right p 5 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88476, left dp 5 heavily worn (CBI- 14, 1985); URBAC 04 – 326, left dp 5 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 00 – 80, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 211, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 227, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 398, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 399, right m 1 (CBI- 17); URBAC 04 – 402, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 112, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 139, left m 2 heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 58, left m 2 worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 170, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 192, right m 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 03 – 216, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 6, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 96, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 123, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 141, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 312, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 400, left m 2 fragment (CBI- 17); URBAC 06 – 55, right m 2 (CBI- 17); URBAC 06 – 65, right m 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 98 – 111, left m 1 or m 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 151, left m 1 or 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 156, right m 1 or 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 332, left m 1 or m 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 401, right m 1 or m 2 talonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 107, left m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 340, left m 3? worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 83, right m 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 304, right m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 210, right m 2 or m 3 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 323, right m 2 or m 3 trigonid (CBI- 14). PARAZHELESTES ROBUSTUS NESOV, 1993 Kennalestidae [indet.]: Nesov, 1985 a: pl. 3, fig. 1. Parazhelestes robustus: Nesov, 1993: 124, fig. 2 (1); Nesov, 1997: pl. 53, figs 2, 3; Nesov et al., 1998: 55, figs 11, 20; Averianov, 2000: figs 30.6 R, 30.7 A; Kielan- Jaworowska et al., 2004: fig. 13.26 D 1, 2. Condylarthra indet. Nesov, 1993: fig. 6 (3). cf. gen. et sp. nov. Archibald, 1996: fig. 2 C. cf. Eoungulatum kudukensis [nomen nudum, partim]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 53, fig. 5. cf. Eoungulatum kudukensis [partim]: Nesov et al., 1998: figs 14 P, Q, 20. Referred specimens: URBAC 02 – 24, left maxilla with alveoli for P 2 and roots for C, P 1 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88450, right maxillary fragment with alveoli for P 5, M 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 04 – 200, left maxillary fragment with M 1 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 22, right maxillary fragment with M 3 and alveoli for M 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 23, left P 4 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 35 / 12176, right P 5 (CBI- 4 v); URBAC 04 – 270, right DP 5 labial fragment (CBI- 14); CCMGE 10 / 12953, right M 1 lacking parastylar lobe (CBI- 14, 1993); CCMGE 20 / 12953, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 39, left M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 8, right M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 13, right M 2 metastylar lobe somewhat damaged (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 108, M 1 or M 2 heavily worn (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 11, right M 1 or M 2 lingual fragment (CBI- 14); IZANUz P 2155 - M- 5, right dentary with alveoli for i 4, double-rooted c and p 2, 4, 5, or dp 2 - 4 (CBI- 14, 1994); ZIN 88465, right dentary with alveoli for p 2 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1985); ZIN 88489, left dentary with alveoli for p 2 - 5 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 03 – 120, right dentary with alveoli for p 3 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88495, left dentary with alveoli for p 3 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1985); URBAC 02 – 47, right dentary with alveoli for p 4 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 02 – 10, right dentary with alveoli for p 4 - 5, m 1 - 2 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88462, right dentary with alveoli for m 1 - 3, m 3 was not erupted (CBI- 14, 1980); ZIN 88454, left dentary with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 56, 1989); URBAC 03 – 124, left dentary with alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88936, left dentary with roots or alveoli for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 06 – 8, left dentary with alveoli or roots for m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 125, right dentary with alveoli or roots for m 1 - 3, m 3 was not erupted (CBI- 14); ZIN 88451, right dentary with roots or alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 51, 1987); ZIN 88457, right dentary with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1980); ZIN 88466, right dentary with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1989); ZIN 88494, right dentary with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 00 – 17, left dentary with alveoli for m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88455, left dentary with alveoli for m 3 (CBI- 14, 1984 – 1985); ZIN 88456, left dentary with alveoli for m 3 (CBI- 14, 1987); ZIN 88463, right dentary with alveoli for m 3 (CBI- 51, 1987); ZIN 88969, left dentary with posterior alveolus for m 3 and angular process (CDZH- 17 a, 1978); URBAC 97 – 5, right dentary with m 2 and alveoli for m 1 and m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 324, left p 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 98 – 14, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 176, right m 2 lacking entoconid and hypoconulid (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 260, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 38, right m 3 (CBI- 14).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFF8B61435076FA65C3F5FE28.taxon	description	Parazhelestes sp. cf. P. robustus [partim]: Averianov & Archibald, 2003: 181, fig. 11 a – c. Eutheria indet. [partim]: Averianov & Archibald, 2003: 183. Referred specimens: ZIN 85293, left DP 5 (CBI- 117, 1999); ZIN 85301, left M 3 (CBI- 117, 1999); ZIN 85295, left M 3 paracone and parastylar lobe (CBI- 117, 1999). ZHELESTES TEMIRKAZYK NESOV, 1985 A Placentalia [indet.]: Nesov, 1982: pl. 2, fig. 2. Kumsuperus avus [nomen dubium]: Nesov 1984: 63, fig. e-zh; Nesov & Kielan-Jaworowska, 1991: fig. 1; Nesov et al., 1994: 59, pl. 2, fig. 1; Nesov, 1997: pl. 55, fig. 1; Nesov et al., 1998: 65, fig. 18; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.5 C. cf. Cimolestes sp. Nesov, 1984: fig. g, d. Zhelestes temirkazyk: Nesov, 1985 a: 16, pl. 3, fig. 14; Nesov et al., 1994: 63, pl. 5, fig. 1; Archibald, 1996: fig. 4 A; Nesov, 1997: pl. 52, fig. 1; Nesov et al., 1998: 53, figs 9, 10, 20; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.7 D, E; Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004: fig. 13.26 A 1, 2. Sorlestes budan [partim]: Nesov, 1985 a: 14, pl. 2, fig. 13; Nesov & Kielan-Jaworowska, 1991: fig. 1; Nesov et al., 1994: 61, pl. 1, fig. 7; Nesov, 1997: pl. 50, fig. 3; Nesov et al., 1998: figs 15 A – D and 16; Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1999: fig. 3 i; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.7 H, I; Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004: fig. 13.26 E 1, 2. Zalambdalestes? mynbulakensis [partim]: Nesov, 1985 b: pl. 2, fig. 3; Nesov, 1997: pl. 49, fig. 15. Aspanlestes aptap [partim]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 46, fig. 1; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.4 F. Referred specimens: URBAC 98 – 117, right incomplete P 4 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 17, right maxilla fragment with P 5 and alveoli for P 4 and M 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 81, right maxilla with M 2 and alveoli for M 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 99 – 24, left maxilla with worn M 2 and alveoli for M 1 and M 3 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 3 / 11658, left dentary with erupting c, p 2, and alveoli for i 1 - 4, p 1 and p 3 (CDZH- 25); ZIN 88480, left dentary with alveoli for i 1 - 4, singlerooted c, p 1 - 5, m 1 (CBI- 56, 1989); ZIN 88469, right dentary with alveoli for single-rooted c, p 1 - 3, dp 4 - 5, m 1 - 3, m 2 - 3 were not erupted, part of coronoid process, and angular process (CBI- 14, 1989); ZIN 82555, right dentary with not erupted p 2 and m 2, m 3 in crypt, and alveoli for c, p 1, p 3 - 4, dp 5, m 1 (CBI- 14, 1985); URBAC 00 – 51, left dentary with alveoli or roots for c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88461, right dentary with alveoli for p 2 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1987); ZIN 88448, left dentary with erupting p 5, m 3 trigonid in crypt, and alveoli for m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1984); URBAC 03 – 218, right dentary with unerupted p 5 and m 3 and alveoli for p 2 - 4 and m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 99 – 71, left dentary with m 1 talonid and m 2 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 3 / 12176, right dentary with m 2 and alveoli for m 3 (holotype of Sorlestes budan Nesov, 1985 a, CBI- 14, 1980); CCMGE 13 / 11758, left dentary with heavily worn m 1 - 3 (holotype of Kumsuperus avus Nesov, 1984, CBI- 4 v, 1979); ZIN 88453, left dentary with roots of m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1985); CCMGE 2 / 12953, left p 5 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 37 / 12000, left m 1 (CBI- 4 v, 1980); CCMGE 14 / 12953, left m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 189, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 310, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 31, right m 1 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 190, left worn m 1? (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 35, right m 2 (CBI- 4 e); CCMGE 6 / 12953, right m 2 (CBI- 14, 1993); URBAC 98 – 15, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 73, right m 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 04 – 309, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 02 – 65, left m 2 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 06 – 26, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 316, right m 2 trigonid (CBI- 14); CCMGE 3 / 12953, right worn m 3 (CDZH- 17 a); ZIN 82586, right worn mx (CBI- 14).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF46143528EFA89C725F9C0.taxon	materials_examined	Referred specimens: The holotype only. LAINODON ORUEETXEBARRIAI GHEERBRANT &	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF4614351B5FDC8C6DAFD5E.taxon	description	Archaic ungulate mammals: Nesov & Kielan- Jaworowska, 1991: fig. 1. Condylarthra of the family Periptychidae, new genus and species: Nesov, 1993: fig. 1 (3). Condylarthra cf. Periptychidae gen. et sp. nov. Nesov, 1995: pl. 11, fig. 6. cf. gen. et sp. nov. Archibald, 1996: fig. 2 A, B. gen. et sp. nov. Archibald, 1996: figs 2 D, 3 D. Sorlestes budan [partim]: Archibald, 1996: fig. 4 B; Nesov, 1997: pl. 51, fig. 4; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.6 X; Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004: fig. 13.26 A 2. Zhelestidae indet. Nesov, 1997: pl. 51, fig. 5. Eoungulatum kudukensis [nomen nudum]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 54, fig. 3. cf. Eoungulatum kudukensis [nomen nudum, partim]: Nesov, 1997: pl. 54, figs 5, 6, 8.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF4614351B5FDC8C6DAFD5E.taxon	description	‘ Zhelestidae’ genus and species indeterminate: Nesov et al., 1998: 65, fig. 19. ‘ Zhelestidae’ gen. et sp. nov. Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.6 S, T. ‘ Zhelestidae’ indet. Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.7 J. Referred specimens: URBAC 02 – 60, left maxilla with alveoli for C, P 1 - 3 (CBI- 4 e); URBAC 99 – 42, right maxilla with alveoli for P 4 - 5, M 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 60, right P 5 (CBI- 14); URBAC 03 – 185, left M 1 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 85055, left MX, very worn; URBAC 99 – 6, right dentary with alveoli for i 1 - 4, single-rooted c, p 1 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14); CCMGE 15 / 12953, left dentary with single-rooted c, p 4, and alveoli for two incisors and p 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1984); ZIN 88459, right dentary with alveoli for c, p 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1984); CCMGE 23 / 12953, right dentary with alveoli for c, p 1 - 5, m 1 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 00 – 12, left dentary with p 4 and alveoli for c, p 1 - 3, and p 5 (CBI- 4 e); ZIN 88464, left dentary with alveoli for c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14, 1989); URBAC 04 – 80, left dentary with alveoli for c, p 1 - 4 (CBI- 14); ZIN 88460, right dentary with alveoli for c, p 1 - 5 (CBI- 4 v, 1979); ZIN 88452, right dentary with m 3 trigonid in crypt and alveoli for m 1 - 2 (CBI- 14, 1993); ZIN 88471, left dentary with roots of m 2 - 3 (CBI- 14, 1993); URBAC 02 – 25, left dentary with worn m 2 and alveoli for m 3 (CBI- 4 e); CCMGE 17 / 12953, right m 1 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 46, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 00 – 49, right m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 88, left m 2 trigonid (CBI- 14); URBAC 06 – 42, left m 2 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 135, right m 1 or m 2 heavily worn (CBI- 14); CCMGE 16 / 12953, left m 3 (CBI- 14, 1984); CCMGE 18 / 12953, left m 3 (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 74, right m 3 lacking lingual part of trigonid and heavily worn (CBI- 14); URBAC 04 – 119, left m 3, heavily worn (CBI- 14).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF56142528FFBD0C185FA6D.taxon	description	1997: 139, pl. 43, fig. 5; Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.3 F. gen. indet. Nesov et al., 1994: pl. 7, fig. 2. ‘ Mixotheridia’ cf. ‘ Zhelestidae’: Nesov, 1997: 139. Eozhelestes mangit: Nesov, 1997: 170, pl. 43, fig. 4; Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004: 498, fig. 13.19 E; Averianov & Archibald, 2005: 601, figs 5 – 6. ‘ Zhelestidae’ gen. et sp. nov. Averianov, 2000: fig. 30.3 D, E. Referred specimens: See Averianov & Archibald (2005: 601).	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF56142526DFEF8C64AFC1A.taxon	materials_examined	Referred specimens: OMNH 25108, right upper molar lingual fragment; OMNH 25109, right upper molar lingual fragment; OMNH 25218, right M 3 lacking protocone; OMNH 22792, right m 1 or 2; OMNH 25268, right lower molar trigonid; OMNH 22793, left lower molar trigonid; OMNH 25111, left lower molar trigonid; OMNH 25269, right lower molar talonid. AVITOTHERIUM UTAHENSIS CIFELLI, 1990 Avitotherium utahensis: Cifelli, 1990: 353, fig. 6; Nesov et al., 1998: fig. 22 G; Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004: fig. 13.27 B. cf. Paranyctoides sp. Montellano, 1992: fig. 29. Referred specimens: MNA V 4515, left M 1; UCMP 131245, left M 1; OMNH 21980, broken upper molar; OMNH 20471, lingual fragment of left M 1 or 2; OMNH 20532, left dentary fragment with p 3, fragmented p 2, and roots or alveoli of several teeth; OMNH 20424, right m 1 or 2; OMNH 21981, broken right lower molar.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
AB4D878FFFF5614251A2FD41C33CFBCA.taxon	materials_examined	Referred specimens: QTC 8, fragment of right lower molar. Depository not indicated. LABES GARIMONDI SIGÉ IN POL ET AL., 1992 Theria indet. Ledoux et al., 1966: fig. 2. Champ-Garimond molar: Butler, 1977: fig. 5 CG; Butler, 1990: fig. 10 Ch. G. Labes garimondi: Pol et al., 1992: 300, fig. 9. Referred specimens: GAR 008, right m 1 - 2. Depository not indicated.	en	Archibald, J. David, Averianov, Alexander (2012): Phylogenetic analysis, taxonomic revision, and dental ontogeny of the Cretaceous Zhelestidae (Mammalia: Eutheria). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2): 361-426, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00771.x
