A history of land mammals in the western hemisphereScott, William Berryman
History
A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere
Scott, William Berryman
Mammals; Mammals, Fossil
From the White River, or lower Oligocene, many well-preserved
rhinoceroses, including complete skeletons, have been gathered in the
various collections and display very interesting differences in the three
substages of the White River beds. In the uppermost substage is found the
apparent beginning of the †dicerathere phylum, though it may be traced
back to the middle substage; the nasal bones had become much thickened
so as to serve as a support for the horns, and these are indicated by a
small, but very rough, area on the outer side of each nasal. Comparing
this White River species with those of the upper Oligocene and lower
Miocene, two differences may be observed: in the later species the
horn-supports were well defined bony knobs or prominences, and these
knobs were close to the anterior ends of the nasals; while in the White
River animal the places for the attachment of the horns were mere
roughened areas, and these were well behind the tips of the nasals.
This is not an infrequent sort of change, that horns should shift their
position forward or that the portion of the nasals in front of the horns
should be shortened. Parallel changes occurred among the †titanotheres.
In the middle White River all the rhinoceroses were hornless, but the
same two phyla may be distinguished; the actual starting point of the
†diceratheres had no indication of the nasal horns, but may be identified
as such by their close resemblance in other respects to the species of
the upper substage in which the incipient horns appeared. Much commoner
were the members of the typical hornless line (see Fig. 135, p. 256),
which, though true and unmistakable rhinoceroses, were yet far removed in
many details of structure from the progressive genera of the middle and
upper Miocene. There are several species in this phylum, which constitute
a series of diminishing size almost in proportion to their increasing
antiquity. The dentition was already thoroughly and characteristically
rhinoceros-like, but a more primitive feature was the presence of a
second upper incisor, a small tooth placed behind the trenchant one,
making the incisor formula 2/2; the third incisor and the canines of
both jaws were already lost. The assumption of the molar-pattern by
the premolars varied much in degree of completeness in the different
species; the upper molars, while having all the essentials of the
rhinocerotic plan of structure, had a much less complex appearance than
in the Recent genera, because of the absence of the accessory spurs; and
all the grinding teeth were very low-crowned, in strong contrast to the
high-crowned (yet not properly hypsodont) teeth of the middle Miocene and
subsequent genera.
[Illustration: FIG. 174.—Skull of †hornless rhinoceros (_†Cænopus
tridactylus_); middle White River stage. (After Osborn.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 175.—Second upper molar, left side, of _†Cænopus_,
showing the masticating surface.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account