On the morphological, taxonomic, and phylogenetic status of South American Quaternary dinomyid rodents (Rodentia: Dinomyidae)

A reassessment of the cranial morphology of Neoepiblema acreensis (Rodentia: Chinchilloidea), a Miocene rodent from South America

“…In the phylogenetic analyses resulting from the morphological dataset here utilized (Rasia & Candela, ), as well as previous interpretations (e.g., Bondesio et al, ; Kramarz, ; Rasia & Candela, ; Kerber et al, ; Kerber, Mayer, et al, ; Kerber & Sánchez‐Villagra, ), Perimys , Phoberomys , and Neoepiblema were considered members of Neoepiblemidae (as well as Doryperimys olsasheri Kramarz, Bond, and Arnal (). However, Perimys was recently recovered as a cavioid (Boivin, Marivaux, & Antoine, ).…”

“…maximus (but absent in Ch . lanigera ), and also in other groups, such as the octodontoid Sallamys and the cuniculid Cuniculus paca (Fields, ; Kerber, Mayer, et al, ; Kramarz, Vucetich, & Arnal, ; Mayer, Hubbe, Kerber, Haddad‐Martim, & Neves, ; Patterson & Wood, ). In Perimys , this structure was codified as present by Rasia and Candela (), but it is not evident in MACN‐A 52‐152.…”

“…In the matrix for chinchilloids of Rasia and Candela (), which is the most recent version of a dataset that has been modified over the last few years (Kerber, Negri, Ribeiro, et al, ; Kramarz et al, ; Rasia & Candela, ), we changed the status of the following characters: 15, 20, 56, and 58 (Appendix S1). We also included two dental characters that were proposed in Kerber, Mayer, et al (). In character 15 (originally 15:0), we observed that the frontal penetrates between the maxilla and premaxilla (15:1).…”

“…Despite the recent significant advances in studies on the morphology, as well as taphonomy, body mass, dental ontogeny, taxonomy, and phylogeny (Carrillo & Sánchez‐Villagra, ; Kerber, Mayer, Gomes, & Nasif, ; Kerber, Negri, Ferigolo, et al, ; Kerber, Negri, & Sanfelice, ; Kerber & Sánchez‐Villagra, ; Rasia & Candela, , ; Vucetich et al, ), our knowledge of the anatomy of members of this group is still scarce. Their fossil record includes localities from Argentina (Rasia & Candela, ), Peru (Boivin, Marivaux, & Antoine, ), Venezuela (Horovitz, Sánchez‐Villagra, Martin, & Aguilera, ), and Brazil (Kerber, Negri, Ribeiro, et al, ), but the fragmentary or poor state of preservation of most of the fossils prevents detailed anatomical studies.…”

First record of Tetrastylus Ameghino, 1886 (Rodentia; Dinomyidae) from the Upper Miocene of Uruguay

“…including the largest representatives of the family), and Tetrastylinae (late Miocene-Pleistocene), considered by many authors as a subgroup of the Eumegamyinae or Dinomyinae (see Fields, 1957;Mones, 1981). According to the latest systematic revisions (Rinderknecht et al, 2011;Rinderknecht & Blanco, 2015;Kerber et al, 2018), the family is composed only by the subfamilies Eumegamyinae, Tetrastylinae and Potamarchinae. Although this systematic scheme gives some stability to the more than 60 fossil species described (Kraglievich, 1926(Kraglievich, , 1930Mones, 1986), knowledge of the morphology of these animals is far from been satisfactory due to the lack of associated cranial and postcranial remains.…”