Lomaphorus

''Lomaphorus'' is a possibly dubious extinct genus of glyptodont that lived during the Pleistocene in eastern Argentina. Although many species have been referred, the genus itself is possibly dubious or synonymous with other glyptodonts like '' Neoslerocalyptus'' from the same region.

Etymology

The genus name ''Lomaphorus'' is derived from the Greek roots ''loma-'' meaning "fringe" and ''-phorus'' meaning "bearing" after the striated anatomy of the dermal armor of ''L. imperfectus''.Ameghino, 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. In 1935, a Trematode was named ''Lomaphorus'' unwittingly, but it has since been moved to a new genus name, ''Lomasoma.''

Taxonomy

The first fossils referred to ''Lomaphorus'' were described as early as 1857 with the description of ''Glyptodon elevatus'' based on dorsal carapace osteoderms recovered from Pleistocene deposits in Argentina, but majority of the fossils were described by Argentine paleontologist Florentino Ameghino during the late 19th century. 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. Many species have been named as or referred to ''Lomaphorus'', but most of these referrals or descriptions were erroneously based on taphonomic characteristics of fossilized osteoderms instead of genuine diagnostic features. Few species have received detailed descriptions either, further complicating the situation.Hoffstetter, R. (1958). Xenarthra:. 535-636 in J. Piveteau, ed Traité de Paléontologie, Vol. 6.

Species

Type:

* ''Lomaphorus'' ('' Hoplophorus'') ''imperfectus'' (Gervais & Ameghino, 1880); Undesignated holotype, but Ameghino illustrated some material that may be the holotype that shows many similarities to '' Neosclerocalyptus''. Possibly synonymous with ''N. pseudornatus'' or ''N. ornatus'', but further analysis is necessary.

Species referred to ''Lomaphorus'' according to Zurita ''et al'' (2016):

* ''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 of '' Eosclerocalyptus'' and also juveniles of '' Neoslerocalyptus,'' making it a ''nomen dubium''.
* ''Lomaphorus cingulatus'' Ameghino, 1889; Holotype is a single dorsal carapace osteoderm that has been lost, though a calcotype (MACN A-592) was created. This calcotype is indistinguishable from other ''Lomaphorus'' species', making it a ''nomen dubium''. It could also be a synonym of '' Trachycalyptus''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') ''compressus'' Ameghino, 1882;Ameghino, 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. Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms. The osteoderms' supposed diagnostic traits are the same as those in ''Neoslerocalyptus'' species, making it a ''nomen dubium''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') ''elegans'' (Burmeister, 1871); Holotype includes dorsal carapace osteoderms, though many fossils have been referred to the species.
* ''Lomaphorus'' ('' Glyptodon'') ''elevatus'' (Nodot, 1857); Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms. The osteoderms' supposed diagnostic traits are the same as those in juveniles of ''Neoslerocalyptus'' species, making it a ''nomen dubium''.
Other species referred to ''Lomaphorus'':

* ''Lomaphorus'' ('' Hoplophorus'') ''clarazianus'' (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is fragmentary osteoderms and a referred skull, though the skull is lost and has been referred to ''Neoslerocalyptus''. The type osteoderms lack diagnostic traits, making it a ''nomen dubium''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Glyptodon'') ''gracilis'' (Nodot, 1857); Holotype is fragmentary osteoderms from Brazil. The species was referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894).
* ''Lomaphorus'' ('' Zaphilus'') ''larranagai'' (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms (MACN 1233). The species was referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894), but has since been declared a ''nomen dubium'' and placed back in '' Zaphilus''.Toriño, P. (2015). Nuevos aportes de la sistemática de los" Plohophorini" de Uruguay (Mammalia, cingulata, glyptodontidae).
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') ''lydekkeri'' (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is a distal caudal tube fragment ( BMNH 40664). The species has since been placed in its own genus, '' Uruguayurus''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') "meyeri" (Lund, 1843); A ''nomen nudum,'' referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894).
* ''Lomaphorus'' ('' Plohophorus'') ''orientalis'' (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is a caudal tube fragment (MACN-A ?). The species was referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894), but has since been placed in '' Pseudoplohophorus''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') ''paranensis'' (Ameghino, 1883); Holotype is a breastplate fragment (MACN ?). The species was referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894), but has since been declared a ''nomen dubium'' and placed in ''Neoslerocalyptus''.
* ''Lomaphorus'' (''Hoplophorus'') ''pseudornatus'' (Ameghino, 1889); Holotype is dorsal carapace osteoderms (MACN 1233). The species was referred to ''Lomaphorus'' by Lydekker (1894),Lydekker, R. (1894). ''Contributions to a knowledge of the fossil vertebrates of Argentina''. Taller de publicaciones del Museo. but has since been placed in ''Neoslerocalyptus''.
* ''Lomaphorus''? ''(Hoplophorus) scrobiculatus'' Ameghino, 1889; Holotype is a dorsal carapace and caudal tube apparently in the collections of the MACN. The carapace was said by Ameghino (1895) to be from ''Lomaphorus compressus'' and the caudal tube to ''Neoslcerocalyptus,'' but it has since been declared a ''species inquirenda''.

Description

Due to problems with the diagnostics of ''Lomaphorus'' 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 relative ''Hoplophorus''. ''Lomaphorus'' possessed a powerful carapace that covered a large part of the body, formed by osteoderms melted together. The carapace was relatively low and long, but not as much as that of the '' Neosclerocalyptus''. 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.

References

{{Taxonbar, from=Q16908548

Prehistoric cingulates
Pleistocene xenarthrans
Prehistoric placental genera
Pleistocene mammals of South America
Lujanian
Pleistocene Argentina
Fossils of Argentina
Fossil taxa described in 1889
Taxa named by Florentino Ameghino
Nomina dubia