Abstract
El objetivo de este trabajo es describir e interpretar los dientes suiformes de Moroto, Uganda, y Ngorora, Kenia, que contribuyen al debate sobre las relaciones hipo-anthracothere-whale. Las primeras etapas de la evolución de los hipopotámidos son relativamente poco conocidas a causa de la escasez de su registro fósil en edades superiors a los 7 Ma. Nuevos ejemplares de Morotochoerus en Uganda revelan que no están estrechamente relacionados con Hippopotamidae, las semejanzas superficiales de los dientes de la mandíbula con los de los hipopótamos representan convergencias y no homologías. Algunas muestras de Palaeopotamus ternani aparecen en el Medio Mioceno de Kenia {Maboko, ca 16 Ma; Muruyur, ca 14.5 Ma; Fort Ternan, ca 13.7 Ma}, mientras que desde la base del Mioceno tardío, Kenyapotamus coryndonae aparece en Kenia {Ngerngerwa, ca 10.5-10 Ma; Nakali, ca 10.5 Ma; Samburu Hills, ca 9,5 Ma}, {Ch’orora Etiopía, ca 10.5 Ma} {y Túnez Beglia Formación ca 11-10 Ma}. La obtención de especímenes de Kenyapotamus de la Formación Ngorora, Kenya, con edad ca 11 Ma, es de interés porque incluye dientes bien conservados, incluyendo un m/3 en buenas condiciones. Estos ejemplares apoyan la hipótesis de que los hipotámidos descienden de paleoquéridos y no de antracotéridos.
Highlights
Convergence in tooth form has confused palaeontologists for over two centuries, with famous examples among the proboscideans and suiforms including the ‘tapir gigantesque” of Cuvier, 1804, Tapirus pentapotamiae of Falconer, 1868, a suid, Hesperopithecus haroldcookei Osborn, 1922, a peccary tooth misidentified as a hominoid, and many others
A pertinent example is the interpretation of Oreopithecus bambolii as a cercopithecid (Delson, 1979) based on a cladistic analysis of its cheek teeth, and omission of the skull, mandible and post-cranial skeleton from the analysis
There is a superficial resemblance between the gross morphology of the molars of Morotochoerus and those of hippopotamids, in detail there are important differences between them which effectively remove the genus from Hippopotamidae and approach it to Anthracotheriidae
Summary
Convergence in tooth form has confused palaeontologists for over two centuries, with famous examples among the proboscideans and suiforms including the ‘tapir gigantesque” of Cuvier, 1804 (a deinotherian proboscidean), Tapirus pentapotamiae of Falconer, 1868, a suid, Hesperopithecus haroldcookei Osborn, 1922, a peccary tooth misidentified as a hominoid, and many others. Have specimens of hyracoids and even fish (Andrews, 1978). In all these cases, more complete specimens or restudy of the original fossils led to the correct elucidation of the affinities of the specimens. Cheek tooth rows have been less commonly misattributed, as they contain more information than isolated teeth, and complete skeletons are even less commonly misidentified, inappropriate analyses have on occasion misled palaeontologists. A pertinent example is the interpretation of Oreopithecus bambolii (a late Miocene hominoid) as a cercopithecid (Delson, 1979) based on a cladistic analysis of its cheek teeth, and omission of the skull, mandible and post-cranial skeleton from the analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
