Macropus ( Notamacropus ), 1985

Macropus ( Notamacropus) View in CoL spp. Dawson and Flannery, 1985

Referred material. NMV P173678, right I2; NMV P200669, left I2; NMV P215807, left I2; NMV P215808, left I2; NMV P215809, left I2; NMV P215814, I2; NMV P200643, worn left I3; NMV P215813, left I3; NMV P215815, worn right I3; NMV P216046, unerupted left I3; NMV P173656, right maxillary fragment containing partial dP3 and M1?; NMV P187189, left dP3?; NMV P215783, metaloph left dP3?; NMV P200626, worn left M1?; NMV P187185, left M3 or M4; NMV P216887, left M3 or M4; NMV P200675, trigonid left m2?; NMV P200606, trigonid left m3?; NMV P215821, left m3?; NMV P173655, right i1; NMV P216895, partial left i1.

Remarks. A few isolated and partial molars are tentatively referred to Macropus ( Notamacropus) spp. on the basis of being high crowned; possessing strong midlinks; having a vertical hypolophid, which is not markedly rounded or convex posteriorly and lacks any ornamentation or a posterior cingulid; possessing a strong preparacrista; and lacking a forelink on upper molars ( fig. 3 View Figure 3 ) ( Dawson and Flannery, 1985).

The lower molars differ from Baringa nelsonensis in being relatively broader, with a broader, shorter, more upturned anterior cingulum and stronger premetacristid ( fig. 3A View Figure 3 ). They differ from Thylogale billardierii in being much larger and higher crowned, and possessing a broader, shorter more upturned anterior cingulum. They are most similar overall to Macropus ( Notamacropus) rufogriseus in size and in the morphology of the anterior cingulum.

Two small, unworn i1s may be referable to Macropus ( Notamacropus) as they are lanceolate in shape, long relative to depth, bear sharp dorsal and ventral enamel flanges and lack any thick ventrolingual enamel ( fig. 3B View Figure 3 ) ( Dawson and Flannery, 1985). They are closest in size to Macropus ( Notamacropus) parryi (max. depth, 5.4 mm and 5.3 mm, respectively).

Two upper molars ( NMV P187185, P216887) are similar in size and morphology to Macropus ( Notamacropus) eugenii , but also show some similarities to Petrogale ( fig. 3C View Figure 3 ). Four other smaller upper molar specimens ( NMV P173656, P187189, P200626, P215783) all possibly represent anterior and deciduous molars from the same species ( fig. 3D View Figure 3 ). They are smaller and relatively narrower, and have a much longer, narrower anterior cingulum than Thylogale billardierii , but are quite close in both size and morphology to Macropus ( Notamacropus) parryi .

A few isolated upper incisors are also referable to this genus. They are similar in size and morphology to Macropus ( Notamacropus) rufogriseus and Macropus ( Notamacropus) parma .

Many of the features used here to identify these specimens as Macropus are also present in species of Petrogale , Onychogalea and Prionotemnus , and to add further difficulties there are no single characters that can be used to distinguish Macropus from other macropodines ( Dawson and Flannery, 1985). At least two species are present in the Nelson Bay LF; however, owing to the fragmentary nature of the specimens, and a lack of association with premolars or incisors, identification to species level is extremely difficult and identification to generic level is questionable.