| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Eobaatar clemensi
Taxonomy
Eobaatar clemensi was named by Sweetman (2009). Its type specimen is BMNH M 45482, a tooth (a well preserved left m1 tooth crown), and it is a 3D body fossil. Its type locality is Bed L9, northwest of Grange Chine, which is in a Barremian crevasse splay conglomerate in the Wessex Formation of the United Kingdom.
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2009 | Eobaatar clemensi Sweetman p. 377 figs. 6-8 |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.
†Eobaatar clemensi Sweetman 2009
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| S. C. Sweetman 2009 | Autapomorphy: m1 with two crescentic lingual cusps and three labial cusps of which the mesial−most two comprise blunt cones (m1 unknown for Eobaatar minor, E. hispanicus, Hakusanobaatar, and Tedoribaatar). Resembles Bolodon osborni and E. magnus in possession of a distal−most labial cusp comprising a complex structure incorporating pits, grooves and ridges. The lingual margin is convex, shorter than the straight labial margin and the distal margin lies at an acute angle distally to the mesiodistal axis of the crown. Differs from Loxaulax and Janumys but resembles E. magnus and Bolodon in possession of two lingual cusps. Differs from E. magnus in lack of subdivision of mesial lingual cusp. Differs from Bolodon but resembles Eobaatar and Loxaulax in the degree of asymmetry of the crown (less asymmetric in Bolodon). Differs from Eobaatar but resembles Loxaulax and Bolodon in possession of three labial cusps. Differs from Loxaulax in complex morphology of the distal−most labial cusp. Where known, differs from Paracimexomys group cimolodontans in confinement of coalescence of cusps and cusp ornamentation to the distal−most labial cusp. Differs from Arginbaatar in cusp morphology and possession of ornamented enamel (m1 incompletely known for Ameribaatar). |
Measurements
No measurements are available
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
| Source: o = order, c = class, subp = subphylum | |||||
| References: Jenkins and Krause 1983, Hopson 1973, Hendy et al. 2009, Carroll 1988 | |||||