David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
_Monotrematum_ is now often considered a junior synonym of
_Obdurodon_.
Really? *M.* is two isolated teeth from the Paleocene of South America; *O.*
is good material (at least one skull, IIRC) from the Miocene of Australia.
_Obdurodon_ was originally described from two isolated teeth, named
_O. insignis_. The superb skull is from the referred species, _O.
dicksoni_. Both _Obdurodon_ species are from Australia. The teeth
from Patagonia named _Monotrematum sudamericum_ are very similar to
those of _Obdurodon_, although substantially larger. Hence the
proposed synonymy. However...
Another hypothesis is that _Obdurodon_ is referrable to the
Ornithorhynchidae (the platypus family), but that _Monotrematum_ is a
stem-monotreme. This is the hypothesis advanced by Phillips et al.
(2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904649106 ). This still means that the
terrestrial, ant-eating echidnas likely evolved from amphibious
ancestors, given how similar the teeth and femora of _Monotrematum_
are to ornithorhynchids. So the platypus-like characters of
_Monotrematum_ would be primitive for the crown Monotremata; but
_Monotrematum_ would *not* be referrable to _Obdurodon_.
Cheers
Tim
Cheers
Tim