Choneziphius Duvernoy, 1851
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5376445 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FED57F-FFF9-9F61-81AB-FF7AFD87FDEC |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Choneziphius Duvernoy, 1851 |
status |
|
Genus Choneziphius Duvernoy, 1851
Choneziphius Duvernoy, 1851: 63 .
Belemnoziphius Huxley, 1864: 395 , partim.
Ziphius Owen, 1870 View in CoL : pl. 2, fig. 1, partim.
Proroziphius Leidy, 1876: 87 ; 1877: pl. 32, figs 1-4.
TYPE SPECIES. — Ziphius planirostris Cuvier, 1823 by present designation.
OTHER INCLUDED SPECIES. — Choneziphius macrops ( Leidy, 1876) and C. liops Leidy, 1876 (figured in Leidy 1877). EMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — This fossil ziphiid genus differs from all the other known living and fossil ziphiids in: the mesorostral groove dorsally closed at the level of the antorbital noches by the joined medial margins of the premaxillary sac fossae, forming a prominent ridge posteriorly deviated on the left, and separating deeply concave anterior portions of the premaxillary sac fossae. It further differs from:
– Ziphirostrum and Messapicetus in: flatter and lower maxillary surface at the dorsal base of the rostrum; more asymmetrical premaxillary sac fossae (ratio between maximum widths of left and right premaxillae at the level of the fossae lower or equal to 0.65); elevated longitudinal maxillary crest on the supraorbital process;
– Aporotus in: fusion of the elevated premaxillae over the mesorostral groove;
– Ziphius in: dorsal roofing of the mesorostral groove by the premaxillae; less elevated vertex not overhanging the bony nares as clearly as in Ziphius ;
– Tusciziphius in: concavity of the surface of the premaxillary sac fossa anteriorly followed by a deep longitudinal foramen; much narrower transverse premaxillary crests on the vertex.
The vertex is only known from the species C. planirostris .
DISCUSSION
The drawing of the partial rostrum from Suffolk, identified by Lankester (1870: pl. 33, figs 1-4) as Choneziphius packardi is not detailed enough and the fragment is probably too eroded to allow a specific or even generic determination.
The fragmentary C. trachops is similar to C. planirostris ; the only difference clearly noted by Leidy (1877) is the less excavated premaxillary sac fossae. However, this character is demonstrat- ed here as variable in C. planirostris .
C. liops might represent a different species, given its relatively shorter rostrum, with a stronger anterior narrowing.
The holotype of Proroziphius macrops sensu Leidy, 1876 , from the Phosphate Beds of South Carolina, is discussed below, and is considered as a member of the genus Choneziphius , C. macrops . In the same way, the poorly preserved holotype of Proroziphius chonops Leidy, 1877 (USNM 16689) should probably be included in the genus Choneziphius : it shows premaxillary sac fossae separated by a deviated crest, the complete dorsal roofing of the mesorostral groove, and the roughly horizontal dorsal surface of the maxillae at the base of the rostrum, typical of Choneziphius .
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Choneziphius Duvernoy, 1851
Lambert O. 2005 |
Proroziphius
LEIDY J. 1876: 87 |
Belemnoziphius
HUXLEY T. H. 1864: 395 |
Choneziphius
DUVERNOY G. 1851: 63 |