identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03FEEF638D468A0186E150DDFDA96A2B.text	03FEEF638D468A0186E150DDFDA96A2B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Uintasorex parvulus Matthew 1909	<div><p>Uintasorex parvulus Matthew, 1909</p> <p>Figure 3.1-4, Table 1</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5841: partial M1 or 2, SDSNH 110359; dp4, SDSNH 110358. From DMNH Locality 4672: m2, DMNH 75287. From UCM Locality 92189: partial i1, UCM 95766.</p> <p>Description. The partial M1 or 2 has a broken anterolabial corner and is missing part of the paracone. Its paracone and metacone are conical, with the paracone slightly larger than the metacone. The protocone is the largest primary cusp and is positioned anterior of the transverse midline of the tooth. The preprotocrista and postprotocrista extend labially from the protocone as low crests in gentle arcs to join a distinct protoconule and metaconule, respectively. Although their labial termini are broken away, a distinct preparaconule crista extends labially from the paraconule and a precingulum (anterior cingulum) extends labially from the anterolingual base of the protocone. The posterior cingulum extends from the posterolingual base of the protocone to terminate at the posterior base of the metacone.</p> <p>One partial lower incisor (UCM 95766) from UCM Locality 92189 has the extreme anterior end of the tip missing and a small wedge along the dorsal edge anterior to the crown base broken off. It is very small, with a dorsoventral width of 1.05 mm and a labiolingual width of 0.62 mm near the base of the crown. UCM 95766 is typical of the lower incisors of Uintasorex (Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1969b), including a lanceolate shape with a sharp dorsal edge, a thin ridge or crest along the ventral lingual border that extends anteriorly from near the base of the crown to the tip, and a long, relatively straight root.</p> <p>The dp4 is in very early wear. Its trigonid is open labially between the paraconid and metaconid, and significantly narrower than the talonid, but only moderately taller than the talonid. The protoconid is the largest trigonid cusp. The paracristid extends anterolingually in an arc from the protoconid apex to join a weak, shelf-like paraconid. The protocristid extends lingually from the protoconid apex to join a small metaconid. The cristid obliqua extends anterolingually from the hypoconid apex to join the posterior base of the protoconid. The hypoconid and entoconid are distinct cusps, widely separated, resulting in a wide talonid basin. A low postcingulid extends lingually from the hypoconid to terminate at a very small hypoconulid (only a slight expansion), which is separated from the entoconid by a very shallow notch. A small posterior cingulid extends lingually from the posterior base of the hypoconid to terminate near the middle of the postcingulid. The hypoflexid notch is shallow.</p> <p>DMNH 75287 is identified as an m2 because it lacks a paraconid and the trigonid is closed labially (Szalay, 1969b; Krishtalka, 1978). Its trigonid is moderately taller than the talonid. The protoconid and metaconid are distinct cusps connected anteriorly by a relatively tall paracristid and posteriorly by a low protocristid. The entoconid and hypoconid are robust. The postcingulid extends lingually from the hypoconid to a small hypoconulid that is positioned close to the entoconid, but is separated from it by a distinct notch. The cristid obliqua extends anterolingually from the apex of the hypoconid to terminate at the posterior base of the protoconid. The ectocingulid (labial cingulid) is prominent, extending from the anterolabial base of the hypoconid to the anterior base of the protoconid. The hypoflexid notch is shallow.</p> <p>Remarks. Uintasorex is relatively rare in Eocene faunas. Two species of Uintasorex are currently recognized: U. parvulus from the Bridgerian of Wyoming and U. montezumicus Lillegraven, 1976, from the Uintan of the San Diego area of southern California (Matthew, 1909; Szalay, 1969b; Golz and Lillegraven, 1977; Nelson, 1977; Rudman, 1981; Walsh, 1991, 1996; Silcox and Gunnell, 2008). Additional samples of Uintasorex have also been described, but their specific statuses have been left in open nomenclature. These include U. sp. from the early Bridgerian Green River Formation, Wyoming (Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1969b), U. sp., cf. U. parvulus from Uintan Tepee Trail Formation at Badwater Creek, Wyoming (Robinson, 1968b; Krishtalka, 1978), U. sp., cf. U. parvulus from late Wasatchian Red Desert region, Wyoming (Gazin, 1962), U. sp., cf. U. montezumicus from the late Uintan Tapo Canyon Local Fauna of the Sespe Formation, California (Kelly and Whistler, 1994), and cf. Uintasorex sp. from the middle Duchesnean Simi Valley Landfill Local Fauna of the Sespe Formation, California (Kelly, 2010). In addition, two other uintasoricine genera are known from the Bridgerian of Wyoming, Alveojunctus minutus Bown, 1982, from the Aycross Formation and Bartelsia pentadactyla Gunnell, 2012, from the Wasatch Formation at South Pass.</p> <p>The partial i1 and m2 can be confidently assigned to U. parvulus because they are indistinguishable in size and occlusal morphology to those described for the species (e.g., Matthew, 1909; Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1969b; Rudman, 1981). The m2 differs from the lower molars of U. montezumicus by being slightly larger and by having a robust ectocingulid (labial cingulid). It can be easily distinguished from the lower molar of Alveojunctus by being significantly smaller and by having a relatively narrower talonid basin. It can also be easily distinguished from the lower molars of Bartelsia by being larger and by having the trigonid relatively narrower than the talonid, the trigonid height relatively taller than the talonid and a much more robust ectocingulid.</p> <p>To the best of our knowledge, the dp4 of Uintasorex has not been previously described. SDSNH 110358 is molariform and very similar in size and occlusal morphology to the m1 of Uintasorex parvulus except for a narrower trigonid relative to the talonid width and a more anteriorly projecting trigonid that is more open labially, characters seen in other early primate dp4s (e.g., Godinot, 1983; Bloch et al., 2010; Rose et al., 2009). Thus, we tentatively assign it to U. parvulus.</p> <p>The partial M1 or 2 (SDSNH 110359) is very similar in occlusal morphology to those of U. montezumicus (Lillegraven, 1976) and U. sp. from the early Bridgerian Green River Formation (Szalay, 1969b) and can be confidently assigned to the genus. SDSNH 110359 is larger relative to the referred m2 (DMNH 75287) than one might expect, so it could be argued that these teeth are not conspecific. Although the upper molars of U. parvulus have not been previously described, the M1-2s of U. montezumicus and U. sp. from the Green River Formation correlate well in their observed ranges in size to those of their m1-2s. The m2s of U. parvulus vary in size, with an ap observed range of 1.09-1.40 mm (Szalay, 1969b; Rudman, 1981; Silcox and Gunnell, 2008; Gunnell, 2012). Although SDSNH 110359 is broken, its ap is 1.18 mm and, even accounting for the missing anterolabial corner of the tooth, its complete ap would have been considerably less than 1.40 mm, the largest reported m2 ap for U. parvulus. Therefore, the relative difference in size of SDSNH 110359 to that of the referred m2 is regarded as individual variation, and it is also assigned to U. parvulus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D468A0186E150DDFDA96A2B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D448A01845453FEFAD36D8B.text	03FEEF638D448A01845453FEFAD36D8B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microsyops annectans (Marsh 1872)	<div><p>Microsyops annectans (Marsh, 1872)</p> <p>Figure 3.5-7, Table 1</p> <p>Referred specimens. From UCM Locality 92189: m1, UCM 67984; partial dentary with m2, UCM 70315.</p> <p>Description. The partial dentary is missing the ascending ramus and the portion of the horizontal ramus anterior of the p2 alveolus. Its morphology is typical of that of Microsyops, being relatively deep (depth of ramus below m2 = 5.50 mm) and with the mental foramen positioned below the posterior root of p3. The m1 differs from the m2 by being narrower relative to its length and by having the paracristid slightly less robust. Otherwise the m1 and m2 are very similar. The metaconid, protoconid, and hypoconid are robust and bulbous, whereas the paraconid is reduced to a small, but distinct cusp. The trigonid is narrower than the talonid and compressed anteroposteriorly with the paraconid positioned relatively close to the metaconid. The talonid basin is relatively deep with the cristid obliqua extending anterolingually from the hypoconid to join the posterior wall of the trigonid, lingual of the protoconid apex. The hypoconulid is smaller than the entoconid and positioned relatively close to it, giving these cusps a somewhat twinned appearance.</p> <p>Remarks. The TBM Microsyops specimens agree well in size and molar occlusal morphology to those of Microsyops annectans (e.g., Marsh, 1872; Wortman, 1903; Szalay, 1969a; Silcox and Gunnell, 2008) and are referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D448A01845453FEFAD36D8B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D448A0F86F155DEFE816DEB.text	03FEEF638D448A0F86F155DEFE816DEB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notharctus robustior Leidy 1872	<div><p>Notharctus robustior Leidy, 1872</p> <p>Figure 4.1-3, Table 1</p> <p>Referred specimens. From UCM Locality 92189: partial M1 or 2, UCM 78457; partial M3, UCM 69054; partial dentary with p3 and partial p4, UCM 72600. From DMNH Locality 4672: M1, DMNH 75300.</p> <p>Description. The M1 (DMNH 75300) is complete, but the other two upper molars are broken. UCM 78457 is missing the anterolabial portion, including most of the paracone and the parastyle, and UCM 69054 is missing the parastyle. The tooth position of UCM 78457 cannot be determined unequivocally from an isolated partial tooth, but it represents either M1 or 2. The M3 differs from the M1 or 2 by its smaller size, more lingually positioned metacone and by lacking a distinct, robust hypocone (= pseudohypocone, postprotocingula or protocone fold, see Gazin, 1958; Covert, 1990; Gunnell et al., 2008) that is separated from the protocone by a distinct notch. The upper molars exhibit the following additional characters: 1) large size; 2) a large, conical protocone; 3) a somewhat crescentic paracone and metacone, each with sharp, acute apices when unworn; 4) a V-shaped centrocrista with a prominent mesostyle; and 5) strong labial, lingual, anterior, and posterior cingula.</p> <p>The p4 of UCM 72600 is well worn and broken with a small portion of the posterior wall missing, whereas the p3 is complete. The p3 exhibits a simple morphology with a moderately tall protoconid, a very small entoconid, weak lingual and anterolabial cingulids and is lacking a paraconid. Although worn, the following characters of the p4 can still be distinguished: 1) premolariform with a distinct, small paraconid and distinct metaconid; 2) an incipient entoconid; 3) an incipient hypoconid at the posterior termination of the cristid obliqua; and 4) weak labial and lingual cingulids.</p> <p>Remarks. The TBM Notharctus specimens are indistinguishable in size and occlusal morphology to those of Notharctus robustior (e.g., Granger and Gregory, 1917; Robinson, 1957; Beard, 1988; Covert, 1990; Gunnell et al., 2008) and are referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D448A0F86F155DEFE816DEB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D4A8A0F8459555EFD146ADE.text	03FEEF638D4A8A0F8459555EFD146ADE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Trogolemur myodes Matthew 1909	<div><p>Trogolemur myodes Matthew, 1909</p> <p>Figure 4.4-5, Table 1</p> <p>Referred specimens. From UCM Locality 92189: m2, UCM 78097; m3, UCM 67833.</p> <p>Description. The m3 differs from the m2 by having a relatively narrower talonid, a slightly more anteroposteriorly compressed trigonid and in being much more elongate anteroposteriorly due the presence of a large hypoconulid. The m1-2 exhibit the following additional characters: 1) small size; 2) relatively low-crowned; 3) a paraconid positioned relatively close to the metaconid, resulting in the trigonid being almost closed off labially; 4) a relatively tall, distinct entoconid and hypoconid; 5) a cristid obliqua extending anterolingually from the hypocone to join the posterior wall of the trigonid below the protoconid apex; and 6) a weak labial cingulid.</p> <p>Remarks. The TBM molars are indistinguishable in size and occlusal morphology from those of Trogolemur myodes (Matthew, 1909; Szalay, 1976; Gunnell et al., 2008) and are referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D4A8A0F8459555EFD146ADE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D4A8A0C84035045FA656D76.text	03FEEF638D4A8A0C84035045FA656D76.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Omomys carteri Leidy 1869	<div><p>Omomys carteri Leidy, 1869</p> <p>Figure 4.7-9, Table 1</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5841: M3, SDSNH 110357; partial m1, SDSNH 110355. From DMNH Locality 4672: m3, DMNH 75326. From UCM Locality 92189: p4, UCM 68564; m3, UCM 95722.</p> <p>Description. The M3 is complete, but its enamel surface is somewhat abraded. Its occlusal outline is transversely elongate and triangular. The paracone is larger than the metacone and a mesostyle is lacking between these cusps. The protocone is large and positioned anterior of the midline of the tooth. The preprotocrista and postprotocrista extend labially to join a small, but distinct protoconule and metaconule, respectively. The preprotoconule, postprotoconule, premetaconule, and postmetaconule cristae are very short and extend labially from the protoconule and metaconule to join the labial base of the paracone and metacone, respectively. The ectocingulid is moderately robust, extending from the posterolabial base of the metacone to join the base of the paracrista (preparacrista). The precingulum and postcingulum are moderately strong and joined labially, forming a distinct, continuous lingual cingulum. The pericone is a distinct cusp on the labial cingulum, but a hypocone is lacking on the lingual cingulum.</p> <p>A single p4 was recovered from the TBM. Its protoconid is the largest and tallest cusp. The paracristid descends rapidly in a gentle arc from the protoconid apex to terminate at a small, shelf-like paraconid. The protocristid is short, extending posterolingually from the protoconid apex to join a small, but distinct metaconid. The cristid obliqua is narrow and descends posteriorly from the posterior wall of the trigonid, below the center of the protocristid, to terminate at a very small hypoconulid. The talonid is relatively shallow and transversely narrow with a slight swelling at its posterolingual corner (incipient entoconid). The lingual and anterolabial cingulids are distinct.</p> <p>The partial m1 (SDSNH 110355) has the labial bases of the protoconid and hypoconid along with the anterolingual edge of the trigonid broken away. The two m3s are complete and differ from the m1 by having a more anteroposteriorly elongate occlusal outline due to the presence of a large hypoconulid that extends posteriorly from the talonid, a relatively smaller paraconid that is positioned less lingually (just lingual of the midline of the trigonid), and relatively narrower trigonid and talonid basins. Although the ectocingulid (labial cingulid) morphology for the m1 cannot be determined because the basal labial margin of the tooth is missing, the m3 ectocingulid extends from the anterolabial base of the protoconid to the anterolabial base of the hypoconid and then continues from the posterolabial base to the hypoconid to terminate at the labial base of the hypoconulid. The m1 and m3 exhibit the following additional characters: 1) a three cusped trigonid (protoconid, metaconid, paraconid) that is moderately taller than the talonid; 2) a widely basined talonid, especially on m1; 3) an anteroposteriorly wide hypoconid that is larger than the entoconid; and 4) a cristid obliqua extending anterolingually from the hypoconid apex to terminate at the base of the protoconid, below and in line with its apex.</p> <p>Remarks. Omomys carteri is common throughout the upper and lower Bridger Formation (e.g., Gazin, 1958; West, 1969, 1973; Szalay, 1976; Gunnell, 1998; Gunnell et al., 2009; Murphey, 2001; Tornow, 2005; Cuozzo, 2008). The TBM lower premolar and molars are indistinguishable in size and occlusal morphology from those of O. carteri (Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1976; Cuozzo, 2008) and can be confidently assigned to the species.</p> <p>SDSNH 110357 has a complete labial cingulum that continues across the labial base of the protocone, a distinct pericone on the lingual cingulum, and is lacking a protocone fold and mesostyle, characters typical of the upper molars of Omomys (Szalay, 1976). In all other occlusal characters, SDSNH 110357 agrees well with the M3 of Omomys. However, compared to the M3 of O. carteri, its length is at the largest recorded measurement, and its width is slightly larger than the largest recorded measurement for the species, whereas its length and width are well within the observed ranges for the M2 of O. carteri (Tornow, 2005; Cuozzo, 2008). So, the question arose when examining SDSNH 110357, could it possibly represent M2? Tornow (2005) and Cuozzo (2008) recently documented a significant amount of individual variation in samples of upper molars of O. carteri from the Bridger Formation. In Omomys, certain characters can be used to distinguish the M3 from the M2 (Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1976; Tornow, 2005; Cuozzo, 2008). The M3 metacone is smaller than the paracone, wherein the anterior portion of the labial margin is more expanded labially than the posterior portion of the labial margin resulting in posteriorly inclined plane along the labial occlusal outline, whereas on M2 the metacone is equal in size or larger than the paracone, resulting in a straighter labial occlusal margin. A hypocone is always lacking on M3, whereas on M2, a hypocone is usually present on the postcingulid (95% in Tornow's [2005] sample, 67% in Cuozzo's [2008] sample). A pericone is variably present on the M3 lingual cingulum, whereas it is always present on M2 (100%). The M3 has little to no inflection along the posterior margin of the tooth from the posterior margin of the metacone to the level of the protocone, whereas on M2 there is a distinct inflection. SDSNH 110357 has a posteriorly inclined labial occlusal margin (metacone smaller than paracone) and a distinct pericone, but is lacking a hypocone and a distinct inflection along the posterior margin of the tooth. The variable presence of a pericone on M3 and a hypocone on M2 does not allow use of these characters for identification of tooth position. The presence of the other two characters on SDSNH 110357 plus the fact that a distinct anterior appression facet is present along the anterolabial border of the tooth where it contacted another molar, but a posterolabial appression facet is lacking, strongly supports its identification as M3. Therefore, SDSNH 110357 is identified as M3 and apparently represents the largest M3 recorded for O. carteri.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D4A8A0C84035045FA656D76	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D498A0C86FE541CFAD06AFD.text	03FEEF638D498A0C86FE541CFAD06AFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Washakius insignis Leidy 1873	<div><p>Washakius insignis Leidy, 1873</p> <p>Figure 4.6, Table 1</p> <p>Referred Specimen. From UCM Locality 92189: M1 or 2, UCM 68541.</p> <p>Description. UCM 68541 exhibits the following characters: 1) moderate size; 2) a large protocone; 3) a distinct hypocone; 4) a robust protoconule; 5) a two-cusped metaconule (doubled), with the larger of the two cusps positioned near the lingual base of the metacone; 6) paracone and metacone apices nearly in line with a relatively straight centrocrista extending between them; 7) a small mesostyle; and 8) strong labial, anterior, and posterior cingula.</p> <p>Remarks. Based on a single, isolated tooth, the position of UCM 68541 cannot be unequivocally determined. It is lacking a pericone, a character that Tornow (2005) found to be variable on the M1- 2 of Washakius insignis. In his study, a pericone was lacking on 43% of the M1s and 10% of the M2s. In size, UCM 68541 is within the observed ranges of both the M1 and M2 of W. insignis (Tornow, 2005). In all other occlusal characters, UCM 68541 agrees well with the M1-2 of W. insignis (Gazin, 1958; Szalay, 1976; Tornow, 2005; Gunnell et al., 2008) and is referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D498A0C86FE541CFAD06AFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D4F8A0B8449525BFC3B6C2B.text	03FEEF638D4F8A0B8449525BFC3B6C2B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Microparamys minutus (Wilson 1937)	<div><p>Microparamys minutus (Wilson, 1937)</p> <p>Figure 5.1-5, Table 2</p> <p>Referred specimens. From UCM Locality 92189: dP4, UCM 66310; P4, UCM 95695; M1 or 2, UCM 95696. From SDSNH Locality 5841: p4, SDSNH 110374; m1 or 2, SDSNH 110375. From SDSNH Locality 5843: dp4, SDSNH 110373. From DMNH Locality 4672: m1 or 2, DMNH 74140.</p> <p>Description. The dP4 is in very early wear. Its paracone and metacone are distinct, compressed slightly anteroposteriorly, and about equal in size. The protocone is similar in size to that of the paracone and metacone and positioned slightly labial of the hypocone. The hypocone is robust, slightly larger than the protocone, and separated from the protocone by a distinct valley that is continuous with the valley between the metaloph and posterior cingulum. The anterior cingulum extends labially in an anteriorly extended wide arc from about the middle of the anterior wall of the tooth to terminate at the anterior base of the paracone. The protoloph is complete, extending lingually from the paracone to join a small protoconule and then continuing as a very low loph to the lingual edge of the paracone. The metaloph is complete, extending anterolingually from the metacone to join the posterolabial corner of the protocone. The mesostyle is distinct with a short lophule extending lingually from it that has a small accessory cuspule present at about the middle of the lophule. The posterior cingulum is robust, extending labially from the posterolabial edge of the hypocone to terminate at the posterior base of the metacone. The enamel is crenulated.</p> <p>The P4 occlusal morphology is nearly identical to that of the dP4, but differs in having the anterior cingulum not flared anteriorly, resulting in a much narrower valley between the anterior cingulum and protoloph, a small, but distinct metaconule, and the enamel is more crenulated.</p> <p>Confident separation of M1 from M2 cannot be made for isolated teeth of Microparamys. On UCM 95696, the protocone is the largest primary cusp. The hypocone is prominent and slightly smaller than the protocone. The paracone and metacone are the smallest primary cusps, slightly compressed anteroposteriorly, and about equal in size. The anterior cingulum is long, extending from the anterior base of the protocone to terminate at the anterior base of the paracone. The protoloph is complete, extending labially from the protocone to join the lingual edge of the paracone. The metaloph is complete, extending from the posterolabial edge of the protocone to join the labial edge of the metacone. The posterior cingulum is robust, extending labially from the hypocone to terminate at the posterior base of the metacone. The enamel is crenulated.</p> <p>One tooth (SDSNH 110373) is identified as a dp4 because it is elongate anteroposteriorly and very similar in size and occlusal morphologically to those tentatively referred by Dawson (1968) to Microparamys minutus. Its talonid is relatively narrow with the metaconid slightly larger than the protoconid. The entoconid is compressed anteroposteriorly, and the hypoconid is compressed obliquely. The anterior cingulid is short and separated from the metaconid and protoconid by a shallow valley. The metalophulid II is incomplete, extending lingually from the protoconid to terminate near the posterolabial base of the metaconid. The hypolophid is complete, extending lingually in a gentle arc from the hypoconid to join the entoconid. The ectolophid is incomplete, extending anteriorly from the hypoconid to connect with a transversely elongate mesoconid. A small metastylid is present between the posterior terminus of a distinct metastylid ridge and the anterior base of the entoconid. The posterior cingulid is short and low, extending from about the middle of the hypolophid to terminate at the posterior base of the entoconid.</p> <p>The p4 is in moderate wear. Its trigonid is significantly narrower than the talonid. The metaconid is slightly larger than the protoconid and positioned close to the protoconid with a very short, but complete, metalophulid II extending between them. The metastylid crest extends posteriorly from the metaconid to a very small metastylid. The hypoconid is the largest primary cusp. The entoconid is robust, with its apex positioned slightly anterior of the hypoconid apex. The anterior cingulid is a short lophid extending from the anterior edge of the metaconid to terminate near the anterolingual base of the protoconid. The posterior cingulid is complete, extending lingually in a weak arc from the hypoconid to the entoconid. The ectolophid is low, connecting a small mesoconid anteriorly to the protoconid and posteriorly to the hypoconid. The enamel in the central basin is lightly crenulated.</p> <p>Confident separation of the m1 from m2 cannot be made for isolated teeth of Microparamys. The m1 or 2s have a subrectangular occlusal outline. The primary cusps are robust with the protocone, metacone and entoconid conical in shape, whereas the hypocone is slightly compressed obliquely. The anterior cingulid is strong, extending labially from the anterior edge of the metaconid to terminate near the anterior base of the protoconid, where it is weakly separated from the protoconid by a shallow valley that disappears with wear. The metalophulid II is incomplete, extending lingually from the protoconid to terminate near the posterolabial base of the metaconid. The hypolophid is short, either extending labially to terminate in the central basin or extending posterolabially to terminate near and at about the middle of the posterior cingulid. The posterior cingulid is relatively tall and complete, extending in an arc from the hypocone to join the posterior edge of the entoconid. A distinct metastylid is present at the posterior terminus of the metastylid ridge. The ectolophid is complete, connecting a small mesoconid anteriorly to the protoconid and posteriorly to the hypoconid. The enamel in the central basin is crenulated.</p> <p>Remarks. In size and occlusal morphology, the premolars and molars are indistinguishable from those of Microparamys minutus (Wilson, 1937; Wood, 1962; Dawson, 1968) and are referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D4F8A0B8449525BFC3B6C2B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D4D8A1686DB501CFD766FB6.text	03FEEF638D4D8A1686DB501CFD766FB6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thisbemys corrugatus Wood 1959	<div><p>Thisbemys corrugatus Wood, 1959a</p> <p>Figure 6.1, Table 2</p> <p>Referred specimen. From UCM Locality 92189: m1, UCM 70671.</p> <p>Description. Differentiation of m1 from m2 can be difficult when dealing with isolated ischyromyid teeth, but in Thisbemys the m1 differs from the m2 by being slightly smaller in size and having the trigonid narrower relative to the talonid. For example,</p> <p>in T. corrugatus the mean tra/mean ap ratio for m1 is 0.93 and that of m2 is 0.99 (Wood, 1962). UCM 70671 has a tra/ap ratio of 0.93, indicating that it most likely represents m1. UCM 70671 is relatively large with robust primary cusps (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, and entoconid). The trigonid valley is moderately wide and open anterolingually. The metalophid is incomplete with a distinct valley bisecting it about one-third of the way from the protoconid to the metaconid. The ectolophid is incomplete between the protoconid and hypoconid, separated by a narrow transverse valley. The talonid is wide with a deep lingual gorge (valley) between the metaconid and entoconid that extends into the central basin. The hypoconulid is relatively robust and centrally positioned on the posterolophid (= posterior cingulid). The enamel is heavily corrugated (crenulated) throughout the talonid basin.</p> <p>Remarks. Five species of Thisbemys are recognized from the Bridger Formation (Gunnell, 1998; Gunnell et al., 2009; Anderson, 2015): T. corrugatus Wood, 1959a; T. plicatus Wood, 1962; T. nini Wood, 1962; T. perditus Wood, 1962; and T. brevicrista (Ostrander, 1986). All five species coexisted during the middle Bridgerian (biochron Br2) in the Bridger Basin (Wood, 1962; Gazin, 1976; Anderson, 2015). Anderson's (2015) figure 2 showed T. plicatus occurring in the Twin Buttes Member (late Bridgerian, biochron Br3), but in her conclusions section (Anderson, 2015: p. 329) she stated that "only T. brevicrista and T. corrugatus continued into the latest Bridgerian (Br3)." Although apparently not recorded from the Twin Buttes Member of the Bridger Formation, T. plicatus has been recorded from the lower Bridgerian (biochron Br1b = Bridger A of Matthew [1909]) of Wyoming (Gunnell, 1998; Gunnell et al., 2009) and in early Uintan faunas (biochrons Ui1a and Ui1b) from the Devil's Graveyard Formation of Texas (Wood, 1962, 1973; Campisano et al., 2014).</p> <p>Thisbemys nini and T. perditus can be easily distinguished from T. plicatus, T. corrugatus, and T. brevicrista by their significantly smaller size and by having the crenulations on the talonid enamel much less developed, along with certain other minor occlusal differences (Wood, 1962, 1973; Anderson, 2015). The lower molar occlusal morphology of T. plicatus is quite similar to that of T. corrugatus, but differs by having the talonid slightly less open with slightly weaker enamel crenulations and being slightly smaller (Wood, 1962, 1973; Campisano et al., 2014; Anderson, 2015). Thisbemys brevicrista is known from the middle through late Bridgerian (Br2-Br3) and is distinguished from T. corrugatus and T. plicatus by its slightly larger size and by having complete m1-3 metalophids and complete m1-2 ectolophids (Wood, 1962; Anderson, 2015). Thisbemys brevicrista further differs from T. corrugatus by having m1 with the trigonid narrower relative to its length (mean tra/mean ap = 0.86), m1-2 with a relatively narrower and less open trigonid, and m2 with more rhomboid occlusal outline (Anderson, 2015).</p> <p>UCM 70671 is referred to Thisbemys corrugatus because it is well within the observed size range for the m1 of the species, and its occlusal morphology is indistinguishable from that of the species, including an incomplete metalophid, an anteriorly incomplete ectolophid, a relatively unconstricted and open trigonid, and an identical ratio of the trigonid width to tooth length.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D4D8A1686DB501CFD766FB6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D538A12859956BCFC596E36.text	03FEEF638D538A12859956BCFC596E36.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sciuravidae Miller and Gidley 1918	<div><p>Family SCIURAVIDAE Miller and Gidley, 1918</p> <p>Remarks. The taxonomy of the sciuravids from the Bridger Formation has a complicated history, similar to that of the Cylindrodontidae (see below). The holotypes of many sciuravid species were originally based on fragmentary specimens, often only a partial dentition or known only from either an upper or lower partial dentition. To further complicate issues, the type localities for the holotypes of many species from the Bridger Formation are either very imprecise or unknown.</p> <p>Marsh (1971) described the first sciuravid from the Bridger Formation, Sciuravus nitidus (= Sciuravus undans Marsh, 1871 and Colonomys celer Marsh, 1872; see Wilson, 1938a for synonymies). This is the most common and best represented sciuravid from the Bridger Formation, now known from numerous upper and lower dentitions plus cranial material (e.g., Matthew, 1910; Wilson, 1938a; Dawson, 1961). Marsh (1872) named three additional sciuravids from the Bridger Formation; Taxymys lucaris, based on a partial maxilla with P3-4 from Henry's Fork (presumably Br3), Tillomys senex based on a partial dentary with m1 from Henry's Fork (presumably Br3), and Sciuravus parvidens based on a partial dentary with m2 presumably from Grizzly Buttes (Br2). Sciuravus parvidens was later reassigned to Tillomys (Troxell, 1923b; Wilson, 1938b). Marsh (1872) also named a second species of Tillomys, T. parvus, but this taxon was later correctly recognized as belonging to Cylindrodontidae by Wilson (1938b) and transferred to Mysops (see also remarks below on cf. Pareumys sp.). Subsequent to Marsh (1871, 1872), investigators have questioned whether the upper dental specimens assigned to Taxymys and lower dentition assigned to Tillomys might be cogeneric because they are similar in size and compatible in occlusal morphology. Troxell (1923a) described Pauromys perditus based on a partial dentary with p4-m3 from an undetermined locality in the Dry Creek area (Dawson, 1968; Gazin, 1976), which includes strata of both the Bridger B and C (Br2 and Br3). Wilson (1938a) described two additional sciuravids from the Bridger Formation; Sciuravus bridgeri based on a partial dentary with p4-m2 from Millersville (presumably Br2) along with referred specimens including a partial dentary with m1-3 and four isolated cheek teeth, and Sciuravus? rarus based on a partial dentary with p4- m1 from an unknown locality in the Bridger Formation. Wilson (1938c) described Taxymys? progressus based on partial maxilla with P3-4 from an unknown locality in the Bridger Formation. Wood (1959b) described Pauromys schaubi based on a partial dentary with the alveolus for p4 and m1-2 from the "red stratum at Twin Buttes" (Br3 or Ui1a?). Dawson (1962) described a partial maxilla with P3-M1 from Twin Buttes (Br3) that she left without generic taxonomic assignment (sciuravid sp.) because it might represent a sciuravid genus already known only by lower dentitions from the Bridger Formation. To summarize, eight sciuravid species have been previously recognized from the Bridger Formation (Sciuravus nitidus, Sciuravus? rarus, Tillomys senex, Tillomys parvidens, Taxymys lucaris, Taxymys? progressus, Pauromys perditus, and Pauromys schaubi) along with one partial upper dentition left in open nomenclature. In addition to the above sciuravids from the Bridger Formation, Dawson (1968) described a large sample of isolated rodent teeth from the early Bridgerian Powder Wash Locality of the Green River Formation, Utah, wherein she divided the sciuravid teeth into two groups left in open nomenclature as Sciuravus sp. and Pauromys sp.</p> <p>Additional sciuravid taxa have also been recognized from Wasatchian and Uintan strata including the following (Korth, 1984, 1994; Flanagan, 1986; Ivy, 1990; Walton and Porter, 2008): 1) Knightomys Gazin, 1961, primarily known from the Wasatchian and including seven species (the type species K. senior [Gazin, 1952, originally assigned to Tillomys], K. depressus [Loomis, 1907, originally assigned to Sciuravus, synonyms Microparamys lysitensis Wood, 1962, and Microparamys cathedralis Wood, 1962], K. cuspidatus [Bown, 1982, originally assigned to Taxymys], K. reginensis [Korth, 1984, originally assigned to Microparamys], K. huerfanensis [Wood, 1962], K. minor [Wood, 1965, originally assigned to Dawsonomys], and possibly K. cremeneus Ivy, 1990); 2) four additional species of Sciuravus (S. eucristadens Burke, 1937, S. powayensis Wilson, 1940, S. popi Dawson, 1966, and probably S. altidens [Peterson, 1919]); 3) three additional species of Pauromys (P. exallos Emry and Korth, 1989; P. texensis Walton, 1993, and P. simplex Walton, 1993) and 4) Prolapsus Wood, 1973, including two species (the type species P. sibilatorius Wood, 1973, and P. junctionis Wood, 1973).</p> <p>The type species of Pauromys, P. perditus, is characterized by the following (Troxell, 1923a; Wood, 1959b; Dawson, 1968): 1) very small size; 2) an extremely reduced p4 relative to the molars, where the p4 ap is only 56% of the m1 ap; and 3) a transversely expanded mesoconid on m1-3 that is isolated from the protoconid. The lower molars of P. perditus also differ from those of Sciuravus and Tillomys by having the primary cusps less inflated and a more lophate occlusal pattern. Walsh (1997) described Pauromys lillegraveni based on a partial dentary with i-m3 along with a partial maxilla with P4-M1 and a number of isolated teeth from the early Uintan Stadium Conglomerate of southern California. Pauromys lillegraveni exhibits a very reduced p4 (p4 ap = 50% of m1 ap), like that of P. perditus, and its P4 is similarly reduced (P4 ap = 57% of M1 ap). Although other investigators (e.g., Walton, 1993) have suggested that the very reduced p4 of P. perditus may be a character that rises to the level of generic distinction within Sciuravidae, Walsh (1997) went further and adopted a narrower interpretation for the diagnosis of Pauromys sensu stricto, including only P. perditus and P. lillegraveni, confidently in the genus.</p> <p>Walsh (1997) questioned the previous generic assignment of certain other species referred to Pauromys. He noted that although Dawson's (1968) Pauromys sp. from Powder Wash, which is known only from isolated teeth, does exhibit similarity in size and lower molar occlusal morphology to P. perditus, its p4 and P4 are not quite as reduced as in those of P. perditus or P. lillegraveni. He further noted that Pauromys exallos is known only from isolated teeth and if the referred p4 was correctly assigned by Emry and Korth (1989) to the species, then the species does not have a reduced p4 and can be excluded from the genus; however, Walsh (1997) suggested that the referred p4 may actually represent Microparamys sambucus from the same locality, so that the other molars referred to P. exallos could still possibly represent Pauromys. Lastly, he noted that some of the teeth referred by Walton (1993) to Pauromys texensis and P. simplex more closely resemble those of the eomyid Metanoiamys than those of Pauromys, and if correctly assigned, then these species are not referable to Pauromys. Walton and Porter (2008) partially followed Walsh (1997) in their diagnosis of Pauromys along with additional characters used by Porter (2001) in his analysis of the Sciuravidae, which included the following: 1) p4 reduced (p4 ap &lt;60% of m1 ap; 2) m1 entoconid not connected to mesolophid; 3) m2 mesoconid does not contact hypolophid; and 4) m3 entoconid connects to posterolophid (= posterior cingulid). However, contrary to Walsh (1997), Walton and Porter (2008) tentatively included P. schaubi and P. exallos in the genus.</p> <p>Based on the size of the p4 alveoli in the holotype of P. schaubi, its p4 is not greatly reduced with an alveolar ap that is about 80% of the m1 ap. Pauromys schaubi further differs from P. perditus by having a doubled m2 mesoconid and more robust lower molar primary cusps, and lacking a lingual extension of the posterior cingulid (Wood, 1959b). These differences suggest that P. schaubi is probably generically distinct from Pauromys.</p> <p>The isolated molars that Emry and Korth (1989) referred to Pauromys exallos are significantly larger than those of P. perditus or P. lillegraveni, but exhibit occlusal morphologies very similar to these species, including a lophate occlusal pattern and a transversely expanded mesoconid that is isolated from the protoconid. Whether the single, isolated, heavily worn p4 referred to P. exallos by Emry and Korth (1989) is correctly assigned or represents another taxon (i.e., Microparamys), as proposed by Walsh (1997), cannot be determined without intact dentitions, but the occlusal patterns of the referred molars do suggest a close relationship with P. perditus and P. lillegraveni.</p> <p>Walton and Porter (2008) supported Walsh's (1997) analysis of P. texensis and P. simplex and regarded most of the teeth previously assigned by Walton (1993) to these species to actually belong to Metanoiamys. Most recently in a geochronological and taxonomic revision of the early Uintan Whistler Squat Quarry, Campisano et al. (2014) retained P. texensis as valid, but did not mention Walsh's (1997) or Walton and Porter's (2008) referral of P. texensis, at least in part, to Metanoiamys. Walton (1993) was very careful in her analysis of P. texensis and P. simplex and only tentatively assigned premolars to these species. She recognized the difficulty of referring isolated teeth representing different positions to a single species, as have other investigators (e.g., Dawson, 1968).</p> <p>Although Walton and Porter (2008) tentatively referred P. texensis and P. simplex to Metanoiamys, the assignment of all the referred teeth may be too inclusive. The lower molars of Pauromys, as typified by P. perditus and P. lillegraveni, exhibit a number of characters that differ from those of Metanoiamys. In Pauromys, the metalophid (= metalophulid II) extends lingually from the protoconid to terminate at and slightly posterior of the labial base of the metaconid, whereas in Metanoiamys, the metalophid is usually a continuous cristid with the metalophid forming a smooth arc between the protoconid and metaconid (more complete and joining the metaconid slightly more anteriorly). The ectolophid is less complete with the mesoconid either isolated or nearly isolated (only connected posteriorly by a low cristid to the hypoconid), whereas in typical Metanoiamys, the ectolophid is more complete, usually connecting the mesoconid anteriorly to the protoconid and relatively taller. The hypolophid is incomplete, whereas in Metanoiamys, the hypolophid is stronger, usually forming a complete, continuous cristid joining the hypoconid to the entoconid. The separation of the entoconid from the lingual termination of the posterior cingulid is more distinct in Pauromys. Some of the lower molars that Walton (1993) assigned to P. texensis (e.g., Walton, 1993, figures 4J-O) and P. simplex (e.g., Walton, 1993, figures 8G-I) appear more similar to those of Pauromys than to those of typical Metanoiamys. Differentiating upper molars of Pauromys from those of primitive Metanoiamys is more difficult. The upper molars of Pauromys lillegraveni are characterized by the following (Walsh, 1997): 1) strong M1-2 anterior cingula; 2) M1-2 lacking an anterocone and protoconule; 3) a complete M1-2 protoloph that extends from the protocone to the anterolingual base of the paracone; 4) a complete M1-2 metaloph connecting the hypocone to the metacone; and 5) an incomplete M1 endoloph, only connecting the mesocone to the hypocone, but complete in M2 connecting the mesocone to the protocone and hypocone. The occlusal morphology of Pauromys sp. from Powder Wash (Dawson, 1968) is very similar to that of P. lillegraveni. The M1-2 of primitive Metanoiamys are also similar to those of P. lillegraveni and Pauromys sp. from Powder Wash, but have slightly stronger protolophs and metalophs, a greater tendency for the endolophs to be complete with small accessory lophules that extend from the endoloph or mesocone into the central basin. These subtle differences are not surprising because Metanoiamys, the earliest known eomyid, has been postulated to have been derived from a Pauromys -like sciuravid (Walsh, 1997; Walton and Porter, 2008). This may help explain why some of the upper molars assigned to P. texensis and P. simplex likely represent Metanoiamys instead of Pauromys. Since the lower molars of Pauromys and Metanoiamys appear to be more easily distinguished, and some of the lower molars assigned to the Texas samples of Pauromys do exhibit more similarity to Pauromys rather than primitive Metanoiamys, it is possible that the Texas samples include examples of both Pauromys (e.g., Walton, 1993, figures 6I, 6M, 7C and 8D-E) and Metanoiamys (e.g., Walton, 1993, figures 4A, 6J, 6K, and 7D). Thus, referral of all teeth from Texas assigned by Walton (1993) to P. texensis, P. simplex and Pauromys spp. (taxa left in open nomenclature) to Metanoiamys may not be justified. However, the holotype of P. texensis, a LM1 (TMM 41745-412), and the holotype of P. simplex, a LM1 (TMM 42486-515), appear more similar in occlusal morphology to those of primitive Metanoiamys than to those of P. lillegraveni and P. sp. from Powder Wash. Therefore, we accept Walton and Porter's (2008) reassignment of P. texensis and P. simplex to Metanoiamys, but question the referral of some of the lower molars in the hypodyms of these two species to Metanoiamys. Only with the discovery of intact upper and lower dentitions of both of these species will their taxonomic identities be fully clarified.</p> <p>Other investigators have noted the similarity of other rodent taxa to Pauromys, which also exhibit a significantly reduced p4, including Wasatchian ' Microparamys ' scopaiodon (Korth, 1984, 1994; Walton and Porter, 2008) and Bridgerian ' Sciuravus ' rarus (Korth, 1994). ' Microparamys ' scopaiodon is known only from a partial dentary with p4 and m2 plus the alveoli for m1, and its p4 and m2 occlusal morphologies are very similar to those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni. However, the p4 of ' M.' scopaiodon is slightly less reduced than those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni. A comparison of the relative reduction of p4 to m1-2 and P4 to M1 for Sciuravidae and ' Microparamys ' scopaiodon is presented in Table 3. If one accepts the character state of the p4 ap &lt;60% of m1 ap (Walsh, 1997; Walton and Porter, 2008) as a diagnostic character of Pauromys, then only P. perditus, P. lillegraveni, P. sp. from Powder Wash, and possibly ' Sciuravus ' rarus would be included in the genus. However, the m1 of ' S.' rarus is significantly larger than those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni, but similar in size to those of Sciuravus. Moreover, the m1 of ' S. ' rarus differs from those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni by having more well-defined, inflated primary cusps (less lophate) and a less transversely expanded mesoconid, characters more typical of the lower molars of Sciuravus. Thus until additional, more complete specimens of ' S. ' rarus are available, its phylogenetic relationships to Pauromys or Sciuravus cannot be determined with confidence.</p> <p>Korth (1984) referred a sample of nine isolated teeth from the late Wasatchian (Wa7) Lost Cabin Member of the Wind River Formation to Pauromys sp. In the Lost Cabin sample, the p4 length is not greatly reduced relative to the m1-2 lengths, as in those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni, but are within the observed ranges for species of Knightomys (Table 3). However, the referred teeth are very similar in size and occlusal morphology to those of P. perditus and P. lillegraveni, differing primarily in having lower lophs (Korth, 1984). Korth (1984) suggested that relatively larger p4 of the older Lost Cabin species would be predicted if there was a progressive reduction of the premolar in the genus through time. However, it could also be argued that the increased loph height and extreme reduction of the p4 seen in later species of Pauromys rises to the level of generic separation from the earlier Lost Cabin species.</p> <p>The above discussion indicates that after more than 140 years of collecting fossils from the Bridger Formation, the phylogenetic relationships of many of the poorly characterized Bridgerian sciuravids is still controversial. Only with the discovery of much more complete specimens, including intact upper and lower dentitions, will their relationships be fully clarified. We follow the taxonomic scenario presented by Walton and Porter (2008) for the Sciuravidae, with the exception of ' P.' schaubi, which we regard as likely generically distinct from other species of Pauromys.</p> <p>The larger sciuravid teeth (molars with ap observed range of 1.74-2.05 mm) from the TBM can be assigned with reasonable confidence to previously recognized taxa from the Bridger Formation. However, several potential hurdles arose regarding the generic and specific identification of the small to medium-small sized sciuravid teeth (molars with ap &lt;1.47 mm). First, the sample size of sciuravid teeth from each locality is small. Second, many of the previously recognized sciuravid species are poorly documented so the amount of individual variation in their occlusal morphology and size has not been adequately determined. Lastly, many of the previously recognized sciuravid taxa are known only from either upper or lower partial dentitions. As with any analysis of isolated rodent teeth, the assignment of teeth representing different positions to a single species is difficult, but accomplished best when a very large sample of upper and lower teeth that agree in size and occlusal morphology are available from a single locality. However, this is not the case for the small to medium-small sized sciuravid teeth from the TBM. The best sample came from UCM Locality 92189, which yielded 20 medium-small sized sciuravid teeth (molars with ap observed range of 1.20-1.46 mm) that agree in occlusal morphology and can be reasonably regarded as conspecific. UCM Locality 92189 also yielded one smaller (ap = 1.13 mm) sciuravid upper molar that appears to represent a second species at the locality. Only four other localities (SDSNH Localities 5841, 5842, 5787, and UCM Locality 92189) yielded small to medium-small sized sciuravid teeth, ranging from one to five isolated teeth from each locality. As noted above, the systematic relationships of most of the Bridgerian sciuravids are unclear, so the systematic accounts of the small to medium-small sized sciuravid teeth from the TBM presented below is very conservative, wherein the majority of these teeth are only placed into informal taxonomic groups left in open nomenclature. Hopefully, confident generic and specific assignments for these teeth can be accomplished in the future with the discovery of intact associated upper and lower dentitions from the TBM.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D538A12859956BCFC596E36	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D578A12868457DDFA8F6BBD.text	03FEEF638D578A12868457DDFA8F6BBD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sciuravus nitidus Marsh 1871	<div><p>Sciuravus nitidus Marsh, 1871</p> <p>Figure 7.1, Table 4</p> <p>Referred specimen. From UCM Locality 92189: partial P4, UCM 68430.</p> <p>Description. The partial P4 is moderately well worn with the enamel abraded away along the lingual aspect of the metacone. It has a transversely elongate oval occlusal outline. The anterior cingulum is strong, slightly lower in height than the metaloph, and extends labially from the protocone to join the anterolabial corner of the paracone. The protocone is moderately large and connected to the paracone by a complete protoloph. The metacone is nearly as large as the paracone. A hypocone is lacking. The metaloph extends lingually from the metacone to join an indistinct metaconule (slight swelling) and terminates just short of the posterior cingulum. The posterior cingulum is robust and extends from the protocone to the posterolabial corner of the metacone.</p> <p>Remarks. Based on its occlusal outline and lack of a distinct hypocone, UCM 68430 can be confidently identified as a P4. In size and occlusal morphology, UCM 68430 is indistinguishable from the P4s of S. nitidus (Troxell, 1923b; Wilson, 1938b, Dawson, 1961) and is referred to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D578A12868457DDFA8F6BBD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D578A11868E534BFE386C4B.text	03FEEF638D578A11868E534BFE386C4B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tillomys senex Marsh 1872	<div><p>Tillomys senex Marsh, 1872</p> <p>Figure 7.5-7, Table 4</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5841: m1 or 2, SDSNH 110363. From UCM Locality 92189: m1 or 2, UCM 95753, 78451. From DMNH Locality 4672: m1 or 2, DMNH 75279, 75328.</p> <p>Description. The five m1 or 2s from the TBM are very similar in size and occlusal morphology. They have a relatively short anterior cingulid that extends lingually from the anterior edge of the protoconid to the anterolabial base of the metaconid. The primary cusps are robust with the hypoconid being the largest, the protoconid the second largest, and the metaconid and entoconid being about subequal in size. The metalophulid II (posterior arm of the protoconid) is incomplete, extending lingually from the apex of the protoconid to terminate near and slightly posterior to the posterolabial base tial).</p> <p>of the metaconid. The entoconid is anteroposteriorly compressed with an incomplete hypolophid that extends posterolabially (obliquely) from the entoconid apex to terminate near the junction of the hypoconid and posterior cingulid. The mesoconid is transversely elongate and isolated from the protoconid and hypoconid. The posterior cingulid is robust, extending lingually from the hypoconid to terminate near the posterior base of the entoconid, where it is separated from the entoconid by a weak valley.</p> <p>Remarks. Two species of Tillomys are recognized from the Bridger Formation, T. senex and T.? parvidens (Troxell, 1923b; Wilson, 1938a, b; Walton and Porter, 2008). Both species are known only from lower dentitions. The five TBM lower molars are compatible in size and occlusal morphology to those of T. senex, including robust tall trigonids, moderately strong metastylid crests, and obliquely orientated hypolophids.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D578A11868E534BFE386C4B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D548A118403557EFC936C2B.text	03FEEF638D548A118403557EFC936C2B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tillomys parvidens (Marsh 1872)	<div><p>T.? parvidens (Marsh, 1872)</p> <p>Figure 7.8-9, Table 4</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5841: m1 or 2, SDSNH 110379. From DMNH Locality 4672: m1 or 2, DMNH 75329; m3, DMNH 75288. From UCM Locality 92189: partial m1 or 2, UCM 68533.</p> <p>Description. The three m1 or 2s are very similar in occlusal morphology to those referred above to Tillomys senex including the following: 1) a robust, tall trigonid; 2) an incomplete metalophulid II; 3) an isolated mesoconid; 4) an incomplete hypolophid that is orientated obliquely posteriorly; and 5) a robust posterior cingulid. They differ from those referred to T. senex in being slightly smaller and by having a double-cusped mesoconid that is slightly less elongate transversely and a slightly shorter hypolophid.</p> <p>The m3 is unworn and has a rectangular, elongate occlusal outline. The primary cusps (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, and entoconid) are robust. The anterior cingulid is a thick, short cristid extending from the anterior edge of the protoconid to the labial base of the metaconid. A moderate metastylid crest extends posteriorly from the metaconid. The metalophulid II (posterior arm of the protoconid) is incomplete, extending lingually from the protoconid to terminate near the posterolabial base of the metaconid. The mesoconid is isolated from the protoconid and hypoconid and is doubled (two swellings or incipient cusps). The entoconid is prominent with a very short hypolophid extending posteriorly and at an oblique angle from it. The posterior cingulid is robust extending lingually in an arc from the hypoconid and terminating at the posterolingual corner of the tooth, where it is separated from the entoconid by a shallow, but distinct, valley.</p> <p>Remarks. Tillomys? parvidens was originally assigned to Sciuravus by Marsh (1872), but Troxell (1923b) and Wilson (1938b) noted that the m2 of the holotype is more similar in occlusal morphology to those of T. senex than to those of Sciuravus and questionably referred it to Tillomys (see also Walton and Porter, 2008). The lower molars of Tillomys? parvidens are very similar to those of T. senex, but differ primarily by the following: 1) slightly smaller; 2) a tendency for a doubled mesoconid (two-cusped) that is less transversely elongate; and 3) a shorter hypolophid. Whether these differences rise to the level of specific separation is debatable, but the four lower molars from the TBM exhibit the putative diagnostic characters of T.? parvidens and are tentatively assigned to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D548A118403557EFC936C2B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D548A1E868D553EFECF6B56.text	03FEEF638D548A1E868D553EFECF6B56.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Taxymys lucaris Marsh 1872	<div><p>Taxymys lucaris Marsh, 1872</p> <p>Figure 7.2-4, Table 4</p> <p>Referred specimens. From DMNH Locality 4672: M3, SDSNH 75336. From UCM Locality 92189: M1 or 2, UCM 68307, 68924, 95759, 95762; partial M3, UCM 68921.</p> <p>Description. The M1 or 2s have a robust, but relatively short anterior cingulum that extends lingually from the paracone to the level of the origination of the protoloph from the protocone, where it is separated from the protoloph by a shallow valley. The protoloph is a complete, relatively tall crest extending from a robust, conical protocone to an anteroposteriorly compressed paracone. On one molar there is a slight swelling along the protoloph that appears to be an incipient protoconule, whereas the other three molars lack a protoconule. The protocone is separated from the hypocone by a distinct, relatively deep valley that extends labially into the central portion of the tooth. A small mesostyle is present between the paracone and metacone. The metaloph is a complete crest extending anterolabially from the hypocone to about the center of the tooth and then turns posterolabially to connect with the metacone. The posterior cingulum is robust, slightly lower in height than the metaloph, and extends labially from the hypocone to terminate at the posterior base of the metacone.</p> <p>The M3 is in very early wear, with a rounded, triangular occlusal outline. The anterior cingulum is robust, but relatively short, extending labially from near the origin of the protoloph from the protocone to terminate at the anterior base of the paracone. The protocone is large and separated from the hypocone by a distinct valley that extends labially into the central portion of the tooth. The protoloph is complete, relatively tall, and extends in an arc from the protocone to the paracone. The metaloph is complete, extending anterolabially from the hypocone and then bifurcates, with a low crest extending to the mesostyle and a taller crest that turns posterolabially to connect with the metacone. The posterior cingulum is short, extending from the hypocone to the posterolingual base of the metacone.</p> <p>Remarks. Taxymys lucaris is known only from upper dentitions, and Troxell (1923b) proposed that specimens assigned to the genus may actually represent the upper dentition of Tillomys, which is known only from lower dentitions. Although this scenario may be reasonable because their respective dentitions are compatible in size and occlusal morphology, we follow most previous investigators (e.g., Wilson, 1938b; Walton and Porter, 2008) and retain these two genera as distinct pending the discovery of associated upper and lower dentitions that would unambiguously clarify their taxonomic relationship. In size and occlusal morphology, the six TBM upper molars are indistinguishable from those of Taxymys lucaris and are assigned to the species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D548A1E868D553EFECF6B56	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D5E8A18862654FEFB206ED6.text	03FEEF638D5E8A18862654FEFB206ED6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sciuravidae , Walsh 1997	<div><p>Sciuravidae, genus and species undetermined</p> <p>Figure 8.5-7, Table 4</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5841: partial p4, SDSNH 140176. From SDSNH Locality 5844: P4, SDSNH 110462; partial p4, SDSNH 110454.</p> <p>Description. Two small, partial lower premolars and one complete upper premolar were recovered from the TBM. The P4 (SDSNH 110462) from SDSNH Locality 5844 is small with a transversely oval occlusal outline. The primary cusps are rounded and relatively robust with the protocone being the largest cusp, the paracone and metacone about equal in size, and the hypocone being the smallest primary cusp, but still very distinct. A relatively deep valley separates the protocone from the hypocone. The anterior cingulum is short, extending lingually from the anterior base of the paracone to near the anterolabial base of the protocone. The protoloph is low, but complete, extending from the protocone to the paracone, with a short spur originating from about the middle of the protoloph that extends anteriorly almost connecting with the anterior cingulum. The metaloph is low and incomplete, extending anterolingually from the metacone towards the protocone, but terminates before reaching the labial base of the protocone. The posterior cingulum is prominent, extending from the hypocone to the posterior base of the metacone.</p> <p>The well worn partial p4 (SDSNH 110454) from SDSNH Locality 5844 is small. It is missing the protoconid and the anterior half of the metaconid, but even in its broken state, certain characters can still be discerned. Although the enamel wall is broken away from the anterolabial edge of the tooth, the overall occlusal outline appears to have been relatively short anteroposteriorly, with the trigonid much narrower than the talonid. Based on the posterior half of the metaconid, it is relatively large. The hypoconid is large. The entoconid is distinct, anteroposteriorly compressed and smaller than the hypoconid. The hypolophid extends posterolabially from the entoconid to terminate near the origin of the posterior cingulid from the hypoconid. The posterior cingulid is distinct, relatively thick, and extends lingually from the hypoconid to terminate at the posterior base of the entoconid.</p> <p>The partial p4 from SDSNH Locality 5841 is in very early wear and is missing the anterolingual corner of the tooth, including the metaconid. Even in its broken state, certain characters can still be discerned. It is very small, with the anteroposterior length relatively short and, based on the labial inclination along the labial border, the trigonid was significantly narrower than the talonid. The protoconid is robust. The hypoconid is rounded and slightly smaller than the protoconid. The entoconid is distinct, anteroposteriorly compressed, and slightly smaller than the hypoconid. A very small, isolated mesoconid is present between the protoconid and hypoconid. A short cristid is present that extends posterolabially from the entoconid to terminate close to the posterior cingulid. The posterior cingulid is robust, extending lingually from the hypoconid to terminate near the posterior base of the entoconid.</p> <p>Remarks. The P4 was listed in the SDSNH catalog as Pauromys sp. In size and occlusal morphology, the P4 from SDSNH Locality 5844 is indistinguishable from those of Pauromys sp. from Powder Wash (Dawson, 1968). SDSNH Locality 5844 yielded two sciuravid species (sp. A and sp. C). If the P4 is conspecific with sciuravid sp. A, then this species would have a greatly reduced P4 indicating that it probably belongs in Pauromys. However, if the P4 is conspecific with the smaller sciuravid sp. C, then this species would not have a greatly reduced P4 and would probably not represent Pauromys. Thus, to which of these two species the P4 belongs cannot be determined and it adds little to the generic assignment of either sciuravid sp. A. or sp. B. A similar situation exists for the partial p4 from SDSNH Locality 5844.</p> <p>The partial p4 from SDSNH Locality 5841 is extremely small, with its length within the observed ranges of those of Pauromys lillegraveni and Pauromys sp. from Powder Wash (Dawson, 1968; Walsh, 1997), but longer than that of Pauromys perditus (Dawson, 1968). Unfortunately, there are no small to medium-small sciuravid teeth known from SDSNH Locality 5844.</p> <p>In summary, three small premolars have been recovered from the TBM that are similar morphologically to those of Pauromys. However, their generic status cannot be determined due to the lack of adequate samples and intact dentitions and the fact that several different small to medium-small sized sciuravids occur in the TBM. Therefore, these premolars are assigned to Sciuravidae without generic or specific allocation.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D5E8A18862654FEFB206ED6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
03FEEF638D6B8A28840D533CFA4D69D6.text	03FEEF638D6B8A28840D533CFA4D69D6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Elymys Emry and Korth 1989	<div><p>Elymys ? emryi new species</p> <p>Figure 12.1 -16, Table 8</p> <p>zoobank.org/ 92BA7EA2-3D41-4D82-91A2-BB2B56AC29FF</p> <p>Holotype. RM1, SDSNH 110466.</p> <p>Referred specimens. From SDSNH Locality 5844: M1, SDSNH 110463, 110464, 110465; M2, SDSNH 100444; M3, SDSNH 110448; m1, SDSNH 110455, 110456; m2, SDSNH 110457; m3, SDSNH 110461. From SDSNH Locality 5843: m2, SDSNH 110405.</p> <p>Type Locality. SDSNH Locality 5844, 105 m above the base of the Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, Wyoming.</p> <p>Distribution and Age. Type locality and SDSNH Locality 5843, which is at the same stratigraphic level on strike and just west of SDSNH Locality</p> <p>5844, Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, Uinta County, Wyoming. Earliest Uintan (Ui1a).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Differs from Elymys complexus Emry and Korth, 1989, by the following: 1) significantly larger size; 2) molars slightly higher crowned and slightly more lophate; 3) M1-2 usually with short to moderate mesoloph; 4) m1-2 commonly with short mesolophid; 5) m2-3 with metalophulid I; and 5) m1-2 usually with distinct hypoconulid.</p> <p>Etymology. Patronym for Robert J. Emry of the Smithsonian Institution in honor of his many contributions to vertebrate paleontology, including his detailed analysis of the myomorph rodent Elymys.</p> <p>Description. The M1-2 and all lower molars are longer than wide and low crowned. Four teeth are identified as M1, three of which are complete and one has the anterolabial portion of paracone broken away. The M1 talon and trigon vary from being equal in width to slightly narrower anteriorly. Two of the M1s have very small, but distinct, anterior appression facets, indicating that a small P4 was presumably present in the species. The M1 anterior cingulum is strong, extending lingually from a distinct parastyle to terminate near the anterolingual base of the protocone. Two cuspules are present along the anterior cingulum, the more lingually positioned one being the larger. The primary cusps (paracone, metacone, protocone, and hypocone) are robust and about equal in height. The preprotocrista (anterior arm of the protocone) extends anterolabially from the anterolabial corner of the protocone to a distinct protoconule and then continues to connect with a cuspate parastyle (= anterocone of cricetids) at the anterolabial corner of the tooth. A short paralophule (or protolophule I) is present that extends from the protoconule to connect with the anterolingual edge of the paracone. The endoloph is complete, connecting a small mesoconid anteriorly to the protocone and posteriorly to the hypocone. A distinct mesostyle is present between the paracone and metacone. Two M1s have a mesoloph that extends labially from the mesocone to about half the way to the mesostyle, whereas the other two have a shorter mesoloph that only extends about one third or one quarter of the way. The metaloph is complete and moderate height, connecting the metacone and hypocone. The posterior cingulum (or posteroloph) is robust, extending from the posterolabial corner of the hypocone to a distinct hypoconule and then continues to the posterolabial base of the metacone.</p> <p>The one tooth identified as M2 has the enamel somewhat abraded. It is very similar in size and occlusal morphology to the referred M1s, but exhibits certain differences. The preprotocrista extends similarly from the paracone to a distinct protoconule, but then continues more anteriorly than in the M1 to connect with the anterior cingulum rather than with the parastyle. The anterocone is a distinct cuspule positioned slightly nearer the lingual terminus of the anterior cingulum and the accessory cingulum cuspule seen in the M1s is lacking. The anterior cingulum is slightly wider and oriented more vertically, whereas in the M1s it obliquely inclined. The mesocone is slightly larger.</p> <p>The M3 has the talonid expanded transversely, resulting in a trapezoidal occlusal outline. The anterior cingulum is robust, extending from the anterolabial corner of the paracone to the anterolingual corner of the tooth, where it is separated from the protocone by valley. A robust anterocone is present on the anterior cingulum near its lingual terminus. The protocone and paracone are the largest primary cusps and about equal in size. The preprotocrista (anterior arm of the protocone) extends anterolabially to a weak protoconule and then continues labially connecting to the anterolingual corner of the paracone, resulting in a complete protoloph. The hypocone is distinct and connected to the posterior cingulum (posteroloph), which extends labially in a gentle arc to an incipient entoconid. A short accessory crest extends anterolingually from the entoconid into the central valley towards the mesocone. The mesocone is distinct and connected by a very short, anterolingually directed crest to the anterolabial base of the protocone and a short, posterolingually directed crest to the anterolabial base of the hypocone, resulting in a complete, but low, endoloph. A short mesoloph extends from the mesocone into the central valley. The protocone and hypocone are separated by a deep valley lingual to the endoloph.</p> <p>The m1 is distinctly narrower anteriorly than posteriorly. It has a distinct anteroconid that is separated from the protoconid and metaconid by a valley. The protoconid is large with a metalophulid II (= posterior arm of the protoconid) that extends lingually in an arc from the protoconid to the posterolabial base of the metaconid. The metaconid is conical and slightly smaller than the protoconid. The entoconid and hypoconid are robust, about equal in size and larger than the metaconid and protoconid. The mesoconid is distinct, connected to the protoconid anteriorly by a relatively tall cristid and posteriorly to the hypoconid by an equally tall cristid, resulting in a complete ectolophid. A short mesolophid is present in one m1, whereas the other has no mesolophid. A strong mesostylid is present between the metaconid and entoconid. The hypolophid (entolophulid) is low, but complete, extending from the entoconid to either the lingual base of the hypoconid or the hypoconulid. The posterior cingulid is robust, extending from the posterolingual edge of the hypoconid to a strong hypoconulid and then continues lingually to terminate at the posterior base of the entoconid.</p> <p>The m2 has a rectangular occlusal outline. The anterior cingulid extends lingually from a small parastyle positioned near the anterolabial edge of the metaconid to a distinct anteroconid and then continues to the anterolabial corner of the tooth, where it is separated from the protoconid by a valley. The primary cusps (metaconid, entoconid, protoconid, and hypoconid) are robust and about equal in size. The preprotocristid (anterior arm of the protoconid) extends from the anterolingual corner of the protoconid to the anteroconid, and a short cristid extends from the anteroconid to the anterolabial base of the metaconid, resulting in a complete metalophulid I. The metalophulid II is complete, extending lingually from the posterolingual corner of the protoconid to the posterolabial base of the metaconid. The mesoconid is connected anteriorly to the protoconid by a relatively tall cristid and posteriorly by a relatively tall cristid, resulting in a complete ectolophid. A short mesolophid extends lingually from the mesoconid into the central valley. The hypolophid is relatively tall and complete, connecting the entoconid to the hypoconid. A distinct mesostylid is present between the metaconid and entoconid. The posterior cingulid extends posterolingually from the hypoconid to a distinct hypoconulid and then continues to join the posterolabial base of the entoconid.</p> <p>The m3 has an elongate talonid that is considerably narrower than the trigonid. The anterior cingulid is robust, extending labially from an incipient parastylid (slight swelling) at the anterolingual corner of the tooth to a distinct anteroconid, and then continues to the anterolabial corner of the tooth, where it is separated from the protoconid by a valley. The primary cusps (metaconid, entoconid, protoconid, and hypoconid) are conical and robust. The preprotocristid (anterior arm of the protoconid) extends lingually from the anterolingual corner of the protoconid to the anterolabial edge of the metaconid, resulting in a complete metalophulid I. A distinct cristid extends anteriorly from the metalophulid I to the anteroconid. The postprotocristid (posterior arm of the protoconid) extends lingually in an arc to join with the posterolabial base of the metaconid, resulting in a complete metalophulid II. The mesoconid is distinct, connected anteriorly to the protoconid, and posteriorly to the hypoconid by relatively tall cristids, resulting in a complete ectolophid. A short mesolophid extends lingually from the mesoconid. A distinct mesostylid is present between the metaconid and entoconid. The entolophulid extends labially from the entoconid to either the labial base of the hypoconid or to the posterior cingulid near its origin from the hypoconid, resulting in a complete metalophid. The posterior cingulid extends lingually from the posterolingual corner of the hypoconid to the posterior base of the entoconid.</p> <p>Remarks. Emry and Korth (1989) described Elymys complexus from the early Bridgerian Elderberry Canyon Local Fauna, Sheep Pass Formation, Nevada, and questionably assigned it to the Zapodidae Coues, 1875, based on the presence of a small, peg-like P4. Subsequently, Emry (2007) provided a detailed account of the species based on a much larger sample, wherein he considered Elymys to be a definitive basal myomorph possibly representing the ancestral morphotype that lead to both cricetids and dipodoids.</p> <p>Rodrigues et al. (2010) also recognized Elymys as the earliest known myomorph and regarded it as a basal dipodoid, but noted that it shares a suite of characters with the first cricetids. For example, in early representatives of the basal cricetid Pappocricetodon Tong, 1992, of Asia (e.g., P. antiquus Wang and Dawson, 1994; P. kazakstanicus Emry et al., 1998, and P. neimongolensis Qian, 2012) a small P4 is present, the anterior arm of the M1 protocone extends anterolabially to join the protoconule and then commonly continues as an anterolophule to terminate at a small cuspate anterocone (= parastyle), the M2 has a squared occlusal outline, the m1 trigonid is significantly narrower than the talonid, and the m2-3 have a small, but distinct, transversely elongate anteroconid. Although compared to more derived cricetids, the M1 anterocone of these early members of Pappocricetodon is significantly smaller and does not extend nearly as far forward. The TBM teeth share the above characters of these basal cricetids, but differ by having a shorter, weaker M1 mure that extends less anterolabially, a slightly more distinct (more cuspate) M1 anterocone (= parastyle), a taller, better developed M1 anterolophule, more weakly developed upper molar mesolophs (not mesostylar), a stronger m1 posterior arm of the protoconid, a stronger metalophulid I and II on m2- 3, distinct molar hypoconules and hypoconulids, and lower molars lacking ectomesolophids. Although difficult to distinguish basal cricetids from basal dipodoids (Rodrigues et al. 2010), the above differences appear to eliminate the TBM teeth as representing a basal cricetid immigrant from Asia.</p> <p>Based on a small sample of specimens from the late Uintan through early Duchesnean portions of the Sespe Formation of southern California, Wilson (1935a, 1935b) described three species of Simimys (S. simplex, S. vetus, and S. murinus). Lillegraven and Wilson (1975) provided an analysis of a large sample of Simimys from California and concluded that Wilson's (1935a) three species actually represent a single normally variable species, making S. vetus and S. murinus junior synonyms of S. simplex. One additional species of Simimys, S. landeri from the late Duchesnean portion of the Sespe Formation, was described by Kelly (1992), and is significantly larger than S. simplex.</p> <p>When examining the TBM teeth, it was clear they represent a new species, but their generic allocation was questionable because they appear to be intermediate morphologically between Elymys and Simimys. It could be argued that they represent a transitional morphotype that rises to the level of generic separation, but erecting a new genus based on a small sample of isolated teeth cannot be justified. Because the new species exhibits more similarity to Elymys than Simimys, we questionably referred them to the former genus.</p> <p>Elymys ? emryi shares the following characters with E. complexus: 1) brachydont; 2) presumably a small P4, based on small anterior appression facets on half of the M1s; 3) M1-2 longer than wide; 4) M1 anterior arm of the protocone (preprotocrista) extending anterolabially from the protocone to a protoconule and continuing as an anterolophule to connect with a cuspate parastyle (= anterocone of cricetids) on the anterolabial terminus of the anterior cingulum; 5) M3 talonid notably wide transversely and long posteriorly; 6) M3 protoloph low, but complete; 7) m1 trigonid notably narrower than talonid; 8) m2 protoconid connected to anteroconid by a short cristid; 9) m3 trigonid distinctly wider than talonid; and 10) endolophs and ectolophids complete on the upper and lower molars, respectively. Elymys ? emryi also shares the following characters with Simimys simplex and S. landeri, some of which are also shared with E. complexus (see above): 1) M1-2 longer than wide; 2) the M1 anterior arm of the protocone extends anterolabially to the protoconule and then continues as an anterolophule to connect with a distinct parastyle on the labial terminus of the anterior cingulid; 3) m2-3 with a metalophulid I; and 4) M1-2 and m1-2 with mesolophs and mesolophids, respectively. Elymys ? emryi differs from Simimys simplex and S. landeri by the following: 1) cheek teeth significantly more brachydont and less lophodont; 2) mesolophs and mesolophids much weaker and shorter; 3) M2 anterolophule lacking (no connecting lophule between protoconule and parastyle); 4) M3 lacking any connections with anterior cingulum; and 5) molar accessory lophs and lophids lacking.</p> <p>Wilson (1935a) regarded Simimys as a possible cricetid based on similarities in occlusal morphology to later cricetids. Since then, numerous investigators have debated the phylogenetic relationship of Simimys to other myomorph rodents (e.g., Wood, 1937, 1974; Stehlin and Schaub, 1951; Lindsay, 1968, 1977; Wilson, 1975; Emry, 1981; Vianey-Liaud, 1985; Wang and Meng, 1986; Kelly, 1992; Korth, 1994; Emry and Korth, 1989; Walsh, 1997; Emry, 2007; Rodrigues et al., 2010). Vianey-Liaud (1985) suggested that dipodoids first immigrated to North America from Asia in the middle Eocene (Uintan), as represented by Simimys. Dawson et al. (1990) described Armintomys from the earliest Bridgerian and questionably assigned it to Dipodoidea Fisher de Waldheim, 1817, but Wang and Dawson (1994) later noted that it lacks the derived condition of the neurovascular canal seen in Dipodoidea (including Simimys). Walsh (1997) described additional material of Simimys from southern California and amended the diagnosis of the genus. Based on the presence of a single-rooted, peg-like P 4 in some early representative specimens, a generalized myodont occlusal morphology and a hystricomorphous zygomasseteric structure, Walsh (1997) regarded Simimys along with Elymys and Nonomys Emry and Dawson, 1973, as possible basal dipodoids and the closest sister taxa to the Zapodidae. Walsh (1997) further regarded Myomorpha Brandt, 1855, to be derived from Sciuravidae with Eomyidae, Armintomys, and Pauromys as the closest successive sister taxa, respectively, to Dipodoidea (including Elymys and Simimys) and Muroidea Illiger, 1811. Emry (2007) provided the following scenario in his reinterpretation for the origin of Myomorpha: 1) myomorphs originated in North America from Sciuravidae at least as early as the beginning of the middle Eocene (earliest Bridgerian) with subsequent immigration of an Elymys -like myomorph to Asia during the early middle Eocene, from which dipodoids (Zapodidae) and muroids (Cricetidae Fisher von Waldheim, 1817) evolved in Asia; 2) an immigration of eumyines derived from something close to Asian Eucricetodon Thaler, 1966, back from Asia to North America near the end of the Eocene (Chadronian); and 3) followed by an immigration from Asia to North America of zapodid dipodoids in the Miocene. Emry (2007) also considered Simimys as more likely to have a North American origin, where it was derived from an Elymys -like ancestor.</p> <p>The increased size, slightly higher crowns, slightly more lophate occlusal pattern, development of short mesolophs and mesolophids, and presence of a metalophulid I on m2-3 of E.? emryi indicate that it is slightly more derived than E. complexus. These characters also suggest that Simimys could have been easily derived from E.? emryi or a very similar ancestral morphotype, further supporting Emry's (2007) proposal of a North American origin for Simimys.</p> <p>Rodentia, family undetermined</p> <p>Figure 6.2-3, Tables 2, 9</p> <p>Referred specimen. From UCM Locality 92189, Lm1 or 2, UCM 95700.</p> <p>Description. UCM 95700 is unworn with an anteroposteriorly elongate occlusal outline, wherein its length is significantly longer than its width (ap/tra = 1.305 and ap/trp = 1.283). The trigonid and talonid widths are nearly equal. The anterior cingulid is complete and relatively tall, extending from the anterolingual corner of the protoconid to the anterolabial corner of the metaconid. The metalophulid II is tall and complete, extending posterolingually from the posterolingual corner of the protoconid and, at about its center, bends back anterolingually to join the anterolabial corner of the metaconid, resulting in a distinct inflection and relatively wide trigonid basin. The metastylid crest is a relatively strong ridge positioned along the posterolingual border of the metaconid and separated from the metaconid apex by a distinct notch. The primary cusps (protoconid, metaconid, entoconid, and hypoconid) are robust and nearly equal in size. The trigonid and talonid basins are deep. A ridge is present on the center of the labial surface of the entoconid that extends labially from its apex to its base (incipient hypolophid). The ectolophid is tall, straight, and complete, connecting a small, but distinct, oval shaped mesoconid anteriorly to the protoconid and posteriorly to the hypoconid. The posterior cingulid (posterolophid) is tall, robust and extends from the posterolingual edge of the hypoconid to a strong, centrally positioned hypoconulid and then continues lingually to terminate near the posterolingual corner of the tooth, where it is separated from the entoconid by a relatively wide, deep valley. The enamel is moderately crenulated.</p> <p>Remarks. UCM 95700 was identified in the UCM catalog as Aplodontidae, genus and species undetermined. When first examining UCM 95700, the question arose; could this tooth possibly represent a cylindrodontid that lacks the typical complete hypolophid as seen in some examples of Bridgerian Mysops (e.g., m1 of M. parvus plicatus or m2 of M. minimus; see also Wilson, 1938b: p. 216)? Moreover, it is similar in length to that of m1-2 of Bridgerian Mysops. UCM 95700 differs from the m1-2s of Bridgerian Mysops and cf. Pareumys sp. from the TBM in a number of characters. Its occlusal outline is significantly more elongate, with the tra and trp narrower relative to the ap (ap/tra ratio = 16-17% narrower and ap/trp ratio = 16-18% narrower), and the trigonid and talonid are nearly equal in width. The entoconid is very robust, relatively larger and wider, and not anteroposteriorly compressed. The anterior cingulid is taller and more complete. The metalophulid II (posterior arm of the protoconid) is relatively taller, more completely connected to the posterolabial wall of the metaconid, and inflected posteriorly at about its midline. The hypoconulid is taller and more distinct, positioned near the midline of the posterior cingulid (= posterolophid). The ectolophid is taller, straighter, and more complete, whereas those of Mysops and cf. Pareumys sp. are more convex (inflected), especially posteriorly. The metastylar crest is more distinct. The enamel is crenulated (although not heavily). UCM 95700 also exhibits some occlusal similarity to the m1-2 of certain species of the early Eocene (Wasatchian) cylindrodont Tuscahomys Dawson and Beard, 2007, which have a distinct hypoconulid and mesoconid, and commonly exhibit an incomplete or short hypolophid (e.g., T. ctenodactylops [Korth, 1984] and T. walshi Anemone et al., 2012). However, UCM 95700 can be easily distinguished from these species by the following (Korth, 1984; Dawson and Beard, 2007; Beard and Dawson, 2009; Anemone et al., 2012; Rose et al., 2012): 1) a significantly taller crown with deeper talonid and trigonid basins; 2) a relatively wider trigonid, more nearly equal in width to the talonid; 3) a much taller metalophulid II, connecting higher on the metaconid wall, and with a prominent posterior flexure at its midline; 4) a more distinct metastylid crest; 5) a much weaker hypolophid, barely extending labially into the talonid basin, and not directed towards or connected to the ectolophid or hypoconid; and 6) crenulated enamel.</p> <p>Stock (1935) described three species of Eohaplomys from the late Uintan portion of the Sespe Formation of southern California and regarded his new genus as the then known earliest representative of the Aplodontidae. However, Rensberger (1975) provided convincing evidence that the dental similarities of Eohaplomys and prosciurine aplodontids (e.g., Spurimus Black, 1971, and Haplomys Miller and Gidley, 1918) represent convergence. Subsequently, Korth (1988) recognized that Eohaplomys along with Mytonomys Wood, 1956, actually represent ailuravine ischryomyids closely related the middle Eocene Ailuravus Rütimeyer, 1891, of Eurasia (see also Weitzel, 1949; Michaux, 1968; Wood, 1976; Hartenberger, 1995; Escarguel, 1999; Bernard et al., 2012).</p> <p>In an attempt to further determine the familial status of UCM 95700, its dental characters were compared to those of the aplodontids Spurimus and Haplomys, along with the ailuravines Eohaplomys and Ailuravus, which exhibit some convergent occlusal similarity to early aplodontids (Table 9). Based on this comparison, UCM 95700 appears to have an occlusal morphology that is slightly more similar to the ailuravines Eohaplomys and Ailuravus (Ischyromyidae) than to Haplomys and the basal aplodontid Spurimus (Aplodontidae). Comparison of UCM 95700 to the aplodontid Prosciurus Matthew, 1903, which has many of the same dental character states as Haplomys (Rensberger, 1975), further indicates that it does not represent a basal aplodontid. UCM 95700 differs from late Uintan Eohaplomys by having a less lophate lower molar with the hypolophid incomplete, and with slightly less development of the metastylid crest and a weaker mesoconid. UCM 95700 is also significantly smaller than Eohaplomys. Moreover, no upper molars have been recovered from the TBM with the distinctive morphology seen in those of Eohaplomys or Ailuravus.</p> <p>To summarize, UCM 95700 appears to represent a previously unknown rodent whose familial and generic allocations are uncertain. It could represent a cylindrodont or possibly a basal ailuravine.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEEF638D6B8A28840D533CFA4D69D6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kelly, Thomas S.;Murphey, Paul C.	Kelly, Thomas S., Murphey, Paul C. (2016): Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 1: Primates and Rodentia. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (8): 1-55, DOI: 10.26879/586, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/586
