. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 152, No. 1. log(M1 area) Figure 3. Plot of log-transformed M, area vs. M2 length for Palaeostylops iturus (dots) and Gashatostylops macrodon (squares). the genus Palaeostylops, its contained species, and the relationships of those species to Arctostylops steini. Simpson (1936a) indicated that the species P. iturus and "; macrodon might be considered as closely allied but distinct genera; Dash- zeveg (1982) referred both to the North American genus Arctostylops.
. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. Bulletin Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 152, No. 1. log(M1 area) Figure 3. Plot of log-transformed M, area vs. M2 length for Palaeostylops iturus (dots) and Gashatostylops macrodon (squares). the genus Palaeostylops, its contained species, and the relationships of those species to Arctostylops steini. Simpson (1936a) indicated that the species P. iturus and "; macrodon might be considered as closely allied but distinct genera; Dash- zeveg (1982) referred both to the North American genus Arctostylops. The super- ficially close similarity of the Asian species (except for size) and the fact that they always co-occur suggested to us, at the out- set of this study, the possibility that a sin- gle, sexually dimorphic, species was rep- resented. Detailed qualitative and quantitative comparisons, presented be- low, together with previously unknown morphology provided by a new specimen, uphold Simpson's view. To explore the dif- Ferences between these superficially sim- ilar speeies, we examined available VMNH) samples of arctostylopid denti- tions from the Gashato and Nomogen lo- calities and performed univariate and multivariate analyses on tooth dimension length, width' data, using the Systat mi- iputer software package. Matthew . (Granger, and Simpson (1929) distinguished "; macrodon from P. itu- rus by its larger size and its proportionately larger second upper and lower molars. Comparison of type and referred materials reveal several other consistent morpholog- ical differences, summarized in the diag- noses and description given below. The most obvious difference in specimens as- signed to the two species, other than ab- solute size, is the aforementioned dispro- portionately large upper and lower second molars of "; macrodon (Table 2). Length measurements of these teeth do not even overlap in range, which would be expected if the difference were due t
Size: 2169px × 1152px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorharvarduniversity, bookcentury1900, booksubjectzoology
