Lomaphorus is a possibly dubious extinctgenus ofglyptodont that lived during thePleistocene in easternArgentina.[2] Although many species have been referred, the genus itself is possibly dubious or synonymous with other glyptodonts likeNeoslerocalyptus from the same region.[3][2][1]
The genus nameLomaphorus is derived from the Greek rootsloma- meaning "fringe" and-phorus meaning "bearing"[citation needed] after the striated anatomy of the dermal armor ofL. imperfectus.[4][5] In 1935, aTrematode was namedLomaphorus unwittingly, but it has since been moved to a new genus name,Lomasoma.[6]
The first fossils referred toLomaphorus were described as early as 1857 with the description ofGlyptodon elevatus based on dorsal carapace osteoderms recovered fromPleistocene deposits inArgentina, but majority of the fossils were described by Argentine paleontologistFlorentino Ameghino during the late 19th century.[7][5] Several more species were referred to the genus that later were synonymized with more complete species or their own genera, Ameghino even admitting that many of his species were diagnosed based on very fine details that could be individual variation.[5][8] Many species have been named as or referred toLomaphorus, but most of these referrals or descriptions were erroneously based ontaphonomic characteristics of fossilized osteoderms instead of genuine diagnostic features.[1][2] Few species have received detailed descriptions either, further complicating the situation.[8][9][1]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)imperfectus (Gervais & Ameghino, 1880);[10] Undesignatedholotype, but Ameghino illustrated some material that may be the holotype that shows many similarities toNeosclerocalyptus.[1] Possibly synonymous withN. pseudornatus orN. ornatus, but further analysis is necessary.[1][11]
Species referred toLomaphorus according to Zuritaet al (2016):[1]
Lomaphorus chapalmalensis Ameghino, 1908; Holotype is a distal fragment of a caudal tube (MACN Pv 5806). The morphology of the tube is indistinguishable from that of fossils ofEosclerocalyptus and also juveniles ofNeoslerocalyptus, making it anomen dubium.[12]
Lomaphorus cingulatus Ameghino, 1889;[5] Holotype is a single dorsal carapace osteoderm that has been lost, though a calcotype (MACN A-592) was created. This calcotype is indistinguishable from otherLomaphorus species', making it anomen dubium.[1] It could also be a synonym ofTrachycalyptus.
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)compressus Ameghino, 1882;[7] Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms. The osteoderms' supposed diagnostic traits are the same as those inNeoslerocalyptus species, making it anomen dubium.[2]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)elegans (Burmeister, 1871); Holotype includes dorsal carapace osteoderms, though many fossils have been referred to the species.[13]
Lomaphorus (Glyptodon)elevatus (Nodot, 1857);[14] Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms. The osteoderms' supposed diagnostic traits are the same as those in juveniles ofNeoslerocalyptus species, making it anomen dubium.[1]
Other species referred toLomaphorus:
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)clarazianus (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is fragmentary osteoderms and a referred skull, though the skull is lost and has been referred toNeoslerocalyptus.[15] The type osteoderms lack diagnostic traits, making it anomen dubium.[15]
Lomaphorus (Glyptodon)gracilis (Nodot, 1857);[5] Holotype is fragmentary osteoderms from Brazil.[5] The species was referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894).[16]
Lomaphorus (Zaphilus)larranagai (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms (MACN 1233). The species was referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894),[16] but has since been declared anomen dubium and placed back inZaphilus.[17]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)lydekkeri (Ameghino, 1889);[5] Holotype is a distal caudal tube fragment (BMNH 40664).[18] The species has since been placed in its own genus,Uruguayurus.[18]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus) "meyeri" (Lund, 1843); Anomen nudum,[19] referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894).[16]
Lomaphorus (Plohophorus)orientalis (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is a caudal tube fragment (MACN-A ?). The species was referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894),[16] but has since been placed inPseudoplohophorus.[17]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)paranensis (Ameghino, 1883); Holotype is a breastplate fragment (MACN ?). The species was referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894),[16] but has since been declared anomen dubium and placed inNeoslerocalyptus.[17]
Lomaphorus (Hoplophorus)pseudornatus (Ameghino, 1889);[5] Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms (MACN 1233). The species was referred toLomaphorus by Lydekker (1894),[16] but has since been placed inNeoslerocalyptus.[20]
Lomaphorus?(Hoplophorus) scrobiculatus Ameghino, 1889;[5] Holotype is a dorsal carapace and caudal tube apparently in the collections of the MACN. The carapace was said by Ameghino (1895) to be fromLomaphorus compressus and the caudal tube toNeoslcerocalyptus, but it has since been declared aspecies inquirenda.[20]
Due to problems with the diagnostics ofLomaphorus and its problems with its internal taxonomy, many of the diagnostic traits for the taxon are uncertain.Lomaphorus, like most of the glyptodons, was large at 2.5 meters long but not as large as its relativeHoplophorus.[5]Lomaphorus possessed a powerful carapace that covered a large part of the body, formed byosteoderms melted together. The carapace was relatively low and long, but not as much as that of theNeosclerocalyptus. The dorsal plates brought a central figure of medium size, surrounded by a peripheral area of radial ornamentation. The tail was protected thanks to a series of bone rings and a terminal bone tube; The latter still retained a narrow peripheral band, and was equipped with large side osteoderms. At the end of the tube there were two great convex osteoderms.
^abcdZurita, A. E.; Carlini, A. A.; Scillato-Yané, G. J. (2009). "Paleobiogeography, biostratigraphy and systematics of the Hoplophorini (Xenarthra, Glyptodontoidea, Hoplophorinae) from the Ensenadan Stage (early Pleistocene to early-middle Pleistocene)".Quaternary International.210 (1–2):82–92.Bibcode:2009QuInt.210...82Z.doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2009.06.029.
^Luna, Carlos. (2014). Implicancias sistemáticas, ontogenéticas y biomecánicas de la microestructura de los osteodermos de Neosclerocalyptus Paula Couto, 1957 (Cingulata, Glyptodontia).
^Palmer, T. S. (1904).Index generum mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals (No. 23). US Government Printing Office.
^abcdefghijAmeghino, F. (1889).Contribucion al conocimiento de los mamiferos fosiles de la República Argentina: Obra escrita bajo los auspicios de la Academia nacional de ciencias de la República Argentina para ser presentada á la Exposicion universal de Paris de 1889 (Vol. 6). PE Coni é hijos.
^Manter, H. W. (1935). Lomasoma, New Name for Lomaphorus, Manter, 1934 (Trematoda).The Journal of Parasitology,21(3), 220-221.
^abAmeghino, F. (1882). Catálogo de las colecciones de Antropología prehistórica y paleontología de Florentino Ameghino, Partido de Mercedes.Catálogo de la Sección de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (República Argentina), 35-42.
^abHoffstetter, R. (1958). Xenarthra:. 535-636 in J. Piveteau, ed Traité de Paléontologie, Vol. 6.
^de Paula Couto, C. (1979).Tratado de paleomastozoologia. Academia Brasileira de Ciências.
^Gervais, H., & Ameghino, F. (1880). Los mamíferos fósiles de la América del Sur.Sabih e Igon.
^Soibelzon, E., Miño-Boilini, Á. R., Zurita, A. E., & Krmpotic, C. M. (2010). Los Xenarthra (Mammalia) del Ensenadense (Pleistoceno inferior a medio) de la región pampeana (Argentina).Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas,27(3), 449-469.
^Ameghino, F. (1908). Las formaciones sedimentarias de la región litoral de Mar del Plata y Chapadmalal.An. Museo Nac. Histor. Nat.,10, 343-428.
^Czerwonogora, A. (2010).Morfología sistemática y paleobiología de los perezosos gigantes del género Lestodon Gervais 1855 (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Tardigrada) (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Nacional de La Plata).
