Rhinocerotidae

A potential link between lateral semicircular canal orientation, head posture, and dietary habits in extant rhinos (Perissodactyla, Rhinocerotidae)

“…This is supported by Pliocene rhinoceros material from Africa which is described as belonging to Ceratotherium praecox and considered closely related to Diceros (Hooijer & Patterson, ). The material was later assigned to Diceros praecox (Geraads, ), and further studies (Hernesniemi, Giaourtsakis, Evans, & Fortelius, ) identified some of the material to belong to the black rhino ( Diceros bicornis ). Apart from the discussion about the taxonomic attribution, the material, assigned to be closely related to the extant black rhinoceros, shows that the black rhino mainly developed a browsing habit in contrast to the proposed ancestral mixed feeder (Geraads, ).…”

Perissodactyla (Rhinocerotidae and Equidae) from Kanapoi

“…It is 30 obviously not C. praecox (see below). Hernesniemi et al (2011) called it Ceratotherium efficax 31 Dietrich, 1942, but the differences between this species, whose type is from Laetoli, and the North 1 African Pleistocene Ceratotherium mauritanicum (from Tighennif, Aïn Hanech, and Grotte des 2 Rhinocéros; Geraads, 2005) are quite subtle. In contrast to Hernesniemi et al (2011), I fail to see 3 any difference in the shape of the upper M3 ectoloph or in the wear stage at which the lingual valley 4 closes in the upper premolars; it may be true that these teeth have a more reduced lingual cingulum 5 in C. mauritanicum, but this is weak support for species distinction.…”

“…Hernesniemi et al (2011) called it Ceratotherium efficax 31 Dietrich, 1942, but the differences between this species, whose type is from Laetoli, and the North 1 African Pleistocene Ceratotherium mauritanicum (from Tighennif, Aïn Hanech, and Grotte des 2 Rhinocéros; Geraads, 2005) are quite subtle. In contrast to Hernesniemi et al (2011), I fail to see 3 any difference in the shape of the upper M3 ectoloph or in the wear stage at which the lingual valley 4 closes in the upper premolars; it may be true that these teeth have a more reduced lingual cingulum 5 in C. mauritanicum, but this is weak support for species distinction. Choosing between these names 6 for the Kanapoi species is a matter of preference; in age and morphology, it is certainly close to the 7 Laetoli form, but calling it C. efficax hides the remarkable stability of the North African lineage and 8 I prefer to keep calling it C. mauritanicum, of which I regard C. efficax as a junior synonym.…”