Metamynodon Scott & Osborn, 1887

Veine-Tonizzo, Léa, Tissier, Jérémy, Bukhsianidze, Maia, Vasilyan, Davit & Becker, Damien, 2023, Cranial morphology and phylogenetic relationships of Amynodontidae Scott & Osborn, 1883 (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotoidea), Comptes Rendus Palevol 22 (8), pp. 109-142 : 118

Genus Metamynodon Scott & Osborn, 1887

Metamynodon Scott & Osborn, 1887: 165 .

TYPE SPECIES. — Metamynodon planifrons Scott & Osborn, 1887 .

INCLUDED SPECIES. — According to literature Metamynodon chadronensis Wood, 1937 , Metamynodon mckinneyi Wilson & Schiebout, 1981 are included in Metamynodon . However, some revision work of both species seems to be needed to assess their validity. Indeed, diagnostic characters used to describe M. chadronensis Wood, 1937 and M. mckinneyi Wilson & Schiebout, 1981 are not specific enough to distinguish them from the type species.

EMENDED DIAGNOSIS. — Within Metamynodontini , Metamynodon differs from other genera ( Paramynodon Matthew, 1829 , Megalamynodon Wood, 1945 , and Sellamynodon Tissier, Becker, Codrea, Costeur, Fărcaș, Solomon, Venczel & Maridet, 2018 ) in having large and tusk-like canines, high-crowned cheek teeth, the labially confluent trigonid and talonid, the premaxilla and the nasal reduced but still contacting each other along the border of external nares, a very large and massive zygomatic arch, a massive lower jaw ( Wall 1989). Metamynodon differs from Sellamynodon in having a high zygomatic arch, a flat dorsal profile of the skull, the presence of a sagittal crest, a circular magnum foramen and m3 talonid equal or smaller than trigonid. Metamynodon differs from Megalamynodon in having a well-developed paroccipital process and strong upper canines. Metamynodon differs from Paramynodon in having a protoloph on P2, an upper postcanine diastema shorter than the length of upper premolars and the orbit positioned higher on the skull.

REMARK

Diagnosis same as for the type species.