PLEASE NOTE: THIS PROJECT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. IT IS A HOBBY.
"I was looking for information on an old mammal and found this lot. What is this project?"
It's got lots of information on old mammals. For a short bit of background information, see here.

Looking for books?
You could visit the Book Centre and look around.

In the scheme of McKenna & Bell, 1997, some of these genera are amongst the earliest known epitherian placental mammals, (according to the scheme of McKenna ). However, subsequent publications make me doubt that. The asioryctitherians in section B are probably outside of Placentalia. The families Asioryctidae and Kennalestidae form Asioryctitheria Novacek, Rougier, Wible, McKenna, Dashzeveg & Horovitz, 1997. For those of a tidy-minded nature, Epitheria McKenna, 1975 is given as a magnaorder, and includes ourselves and most existing placentals. Exceptions seem to be the members of Xenarthra; anteaters, sloths and armadillos, whose origins are somewhat mysterious, (with thanks to The Ohio Mammals Homepage). The xenarthrans are sometimes termed edentates, although the words aren't precise synonyms.

Links: Mikko Haaramo's Epitheria Mikko Haaramo's Epitheria As I don’t pretend to know much about systematics, it’s a good job someone else does. T Mike Keesey, The Ages of the Mesozoic http://dinosauricon.com/times/index.html The Mesozoic, this is your life.

A. some basal eutherians B. Asioryctitheria C. Gypsonictopidae

A. SOME BASAL EUTHERIANS

Taxon: not really. Some of my early relatives. Where they quite fit in is a mystery to me. This section was originally entitled 'basal' Epitheria, but that doesn't seem to have been accurate. Genera: Deccanolestes, Hyotheridium, Sahnitherium, other reports Time-Line: Upper Cretaceous: Deccanolestes, Hyotheridium, Sahnitherium

Genus: Deccanolestes Prasad GVA & Sahni A, 1988 'Deccan brigand' Remarks: This genus is sometimes regarded as belonging to Palaeoryctidae Winge 1917, within Cimolesta. However: "Dental comparisons with Cimolestes, Procerberus, and Aboletylestes do not support proposed "palaeoryctoid" affinities for Deccanolestes. Although similarities exist with Otlestes and Batodon, Deccanolestes is currently considered to be of uncertain familial affinities", (Rana & Wilson 2003, p.331). The origninal description doesn't specify the meaning of the name. Several possibilities exist for lestes, including 'raider', 'thief' and 'brigand'. I don't know which would've been preferred. In any event, the mammal wasn't exactly completely preserved. The original material comprised two upper molars and a lower premolar, all of them a bit on the small side. Beyond doubt is that the former owner (or owners) clearly had bags of talent and personality. It was also the first Cretaceous mammal found in the history of India.

Species:	Deccanolestes hislopi Prasad GVA & Sahni A, 1988
Place:	Naskal, Andhra Pradesh, Deccan Traps
Country:	India
Age:	Maastrichtian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based upon my reading of Prasad & Sahni, 1988, and thanks go to the generous supplier. Back in 1988, about the only signs of what were thought to be Cretaceous mammals from the former southern supercontinent of Gondwana had come from northwestern South America (p.368), and most of those are now thought to date from the subsequent Paleocene. The known supply could've fitted into a small matchbox, and there'd have been enough room left for the matches as well. Things have moved on mightily over the past twenty years, and you'd now have to employ several matchboxes. There has been a hard won and extreme advance with specimens emerging from South America, Africa, Australia and India, and this growing army has changed things from next to nothing to a mighty very little indeed. I'm not being ironic. Efforts have been enormous, and the growing diversity is impressive. However, the unfilled gaps remain much, much larger. Cretaceous Gondwana is now known to have hosted dryolestoid, "symmetrodonts", some kind of triconodont killer, multituberculates, weird endemic gondwanatherians, australosphenidans, monotremes, possibly marsupials and, somewhat contrary to some expectations, also eutherians. That's not even the full list, as I've forgotten to include Vincelestes or to take West Africa into account. I should also mention it was written in accordance with the files in my biological memory, and I'm not going to bother checking it for accuracy. The point is this. Two decades of research have been met with considerable success. India Some of this success has been brought about by Indian paleontologists beavering away in the Deccan Traps of Central India, more specifically to the south of Hyderabad. A series of Upper Cretaceous volcanic strata outcrop in Andhra Pradesh, and some intervals contain vertebrate fossils. Volcanic activity was incredibly strong at that time, one of the most powerful episodes in the history of the planet, but there were interludes during which living conditions approached normality. For a long time, there had been a deliberate search underway for Cretaceous and Paleocene mammals in the area. It's often a matter of finding localities with the right sort of conditions, and then trusting to perseverance and luck. One good site turned up a couple of kilometres northeast of a village called Naskal, and the researchers were rewarded by a pay out from the geological one-arm bandit. Rather than coins tinkling down into the winnings' tray, this bit of educated gambling paid out in vertebrate fossils; bits of fish, frogs, lizards, snakes, crocs and occasional mammal teeth. The age was shown to be from late during the Maastrichtian by all kinds of helpful data; radiometric, paleomagnetic and paleontological. The rocks, for example, had been laid down during a period of 'reversed' polarity when the magnetic pole was down south. That's the kind of finding paleomagnetic refers to. This particular bout of a southern magnetic pole is known to its friends as 29R, and it includes the transition from the Cretaceous to the Paleocene. 'Deccan brigand' The type fossil is identified as a first upper molar, with a length of 0.9mm and a width of 1.4. It was befriended by an M3 molar and a lower p3 premolar. The outline of the M1 is something like a stretched heart sort of shape, and its bumpy lobes show which the buccal side is. The front one of these is a bit larger than the rear one, and both are separated by a deep ectoflexus bay. That condition ensures these lobe areas, termed the stylar shelf, are relatively wide. Cusps occur at positions A (parastyle) and B (stylocone). Additionally, there's a weak metastyle. Of this collection of stylar cusps, B is the largest and A is termed "small, basal but distinct". Trigon cusps are modest affairs. The paracone wins a height contest with the metacone, and there's the protocone lingual from them. All these cusps have more the flavour of foot hills rather than mountains. The M3 has a less regular stylar shelf, with a considerable preference apparent for the anterior lobe, a shallow ectoflexus, and a smaller rear lobe. Rather than settling for being a bit large, the paracone insists upon being double the size of the metacond. However, it remains low, and is set somewhat further forwards compared with the situation of the M1. Affinities The authors offered no formal referral, but pointed to features suggesting links with a very broadly spread Palaeoryctidae including Cimolestes and Kennalestes. Beyond being eutherian, a secure assignment to any established order, let alone family, presently seems impossible. However, the fact of eutherians being present in the Indian Upper Cretaceous has its own significance, as some opinions held the place to be in geographical isolation at that time, with its rude collision with Asia pencilled in for around twenty million years ahead. That still appears to be broadly correct, but some northern faunal elements, eg. eutherians, obviously found some route for reaching the place. The genus has since received the company of a couple more taxa, and the composition of the known fauna and flora is something of a north-south cocktail. Dinos and plants, for example, show Gondwanan affinities, whereas ostracods and charohytes are more akin to fossils from Mongolia (p.639). Holotype NK IM/10 lives in a collection somewhere or other, quite which isn't stated, and the specific name presumably honours an unspecified Hislop for something. Whoever they quite are or what they actually did, well done (I expect). (Checking my notes from other sources, the type fossil's full name is VPL/JU/NKIM/10 and it studies at Jammu University.) Additional notes Further teeth from nearby Rangapur are broadly similar to the original Naskal material, (D. cf. hislopi). These are described in Rana & Wilson, 2003. They are confident enough to place this material within the genus, (as is also the case for the following entry), but the species referrals are more tentative, (p.341). Ankle remains have been referred to this species, (Horovitz 2000, p.549).
Reference:	Prasad & Sahni (1988), First Cretaceous mammal from India. Nature 332, p.638-640.

Species:	Deccanolestes robustus Prasad GVR, Jaeger J-J, Sahni A, Gheerbrant E & Khajuria CK, 1994
Place:	Naskal, Andhra Pradesh, Deccan Traps
Country:	India
Age:	Maastrichtian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	Some information on the tooth, (note the use of the singular), which is a lower molar (m1): "These mammals are primitive in comparison to North American palaeoryctids in their lack of strong, winged conules and absence of lingual cingula on the upper molars; presence of cristid obliqua at the base of metaconid; and hypoconulid closer to hypoconid than to entoconid", (from the abstract). A further form "with affinities to D. hislopi" is mentioned. Ankle remains have also been referred to this species, (Horovitz 2000, p.549). A further, broadly similar specimen, (D. cf. robustus) has been recovered from Rangapur, (Rana & Wilson, 2003). The type fossil is VPL/JU/NKIM/14, and also resident at Jammu University.
Reference:	Prasad et al (1994), Eutherian mammals from the upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) intertrappean beds of Naskal, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14 (2), p.260-277.

Link: The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14(2) http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/14-260-277.html The abstract.

Genus: Hyotheridium Gregory & Simpson, 1926

Species:	Hyotheridium dobsoni Gregory & Simpson, 1926
Place:	Bayan Zag
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Campanian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based on my reading of Gregory & Simpson, 1926. Although referred originally to Deltatheriidae, the case wasn't made with much conviction. It wasn't possible to separated the upper and lower jaws, which meant making comparisons was understandable problematic: "It seems probable that it was comparable to that of Deltatheridium" (p.12). As well as most the teeth being inconveniently hidden, the visible parts were worn. Holotype The type fossil, AMNH 21702, is the front of a skull which is interlocked with the lower jaw. It resides in the American Museum of Natural History, New York. The specific name honours "the author of 'A Monograph on the Insectivora'". This seems to be George Edward Dobson (1848-1895). No explanation is offered for the generic name. Additional notes "The systematic position of Hyotheridium, which is poorly preserved, cannot be established", (Kielan-Jaworowska et al 2003, p.276). It's not even clear that this is a eutherian, let alone an epitherian. Remains are known from only the one location.
Reference:

Genus: Sahnitherium Rana RS & Wilson GP, 2003 'Sahni's beast' Remarks: The generic name honours Indian paleontologist Professor Ashok Sahni.

Species:	Sahnitherium rangapurensis Rana RS & Wilson GP, 2003
Place:	Rangapur, Andhra Pradesh, Deccan Traps
Country:	India
Age:	Maastrichtian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based upon my reading of Rana & Wilson, 2003. "Sahnitherium rangapurensis exhibits similarities to Procerberus, Paranyctoides, Alostera, Aboletylestes, and Avitotherium, but it is here placed within Eutheria incertae sedis", (p.331), which means it's some kind of eutherian or other. I've housed it in this section because: a. it's got to go somewhere; and b. it's at least got a geographic connection with Deccanolestes. Remains of both these genera have so far only been identified in a small area southwest of Hyderabad in Central India. The two localities concerned, Naskal and Rangapur, are within a few miles of each other, (p.332). Volcanic times These sites find themselves in a geologically rather interesting area, which earns much notoriety amongst some lovers of non-birdy dinosaurs and ammonites. This is Deccan Traps country; oodles of basalt rock laid down by an enormous episode of latest Cretaceous volcanic activity, which might be at least partly responsible for some of the abnormal levels of extinction. The beds below this former lava are termed Infratrappean (Lameta Formation). They date from earlier Maastrichtian times. This mammal material comes from the younger Intertrappean beds (Takli Formation), which are thin layers between outpourings of basalt. Their age has been established on the basis of paleontological, geochronological and paleomagnetic studies. The fossil fauna If you'd like to do some fossiling there yourself, the authors provide some handy hints. As well as checking the surface of the ground, you might consider collecting 5000 kg of matrix and screenwashing it, (p.333). Then sort through the concentrate with the help of a binocular microscope. In this way, you too may obtain the remains of fish, amphibians, turtles, lizards, crocs and of course mammals. These five metric tons yielded 15 isolated, mammalian molars and premolars. One of these, an upper molar, (M1 or M2), forms the basis of this genus, (p.339). The tooth in question In terms of size and some morphological features, this is similar to D. hislopi, the authors list various significant, structural differences. They naturally provide a list. "Based on evaluation of upper molars from other Cretaceous eutherians, we judge these differences to be greater than preservational, interspecific, or even intrageneric variation", (p.340), and they consequently established the genus. Affinities and the wider picture As well as being presently evasive about their affinities within Eutheria, both Deccanoloestes and Sahnitherium raise further, interesting puzzles. They are clearly eutherians, remains of which are known from other fossil sites stretching back into the Lower Cretaceous. However, these other sites are all from Laurasia of the northern hemisphere, (with the possible exception of one tooth from Madagascar, which may represent a "zhelestid" -see Averianov et al, 2003). India was part of the southern continent of Gondwana, although it broke off sometime during the Upper Cretaceous. These finds show that eutherians weren't confined to the north. The authors discuss five various hypotheses which may help account for the evident "Laurasian" - "Gondwanan" cocktail of Indian Cretaceous fauna. "Continued geological and paleontological fieldwork, especially underwater screenwashing of microvertebrate localities, on the Indian subcontinent and other southern continents will winnow the possibilities", (p.345). The holotype To its friends, the holotype is known as ITV/R/Mm-1. It's in the collection of HNB Garhwal University, Srinigar, Uttaranchal. The specific name honours the village near the actual location.
Reference:	Rana & Wilson (2003), New Late Cretaceous mammals from the Intertrappean beds of Rangapur, India and paleogeographic framework. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (3), p.331-348.

The Deccan Traps, India, Upper Cretaceous The following is based upon my reading of Rana & Wilson, 2003. Hyderabad is a city in central India. To the southwest is a fossil locality at Rangapur. This was a small part of an area subjected to truly massive volcanic activity at the end of the Cretaceous. Much of northern and central India is still strewn with vast quantities of basalt rock 65 million years later. However, the lava wasn't all deposited in one mega-eruption. It was an episodic affair. Sometimes, the land was habitable and, consequently, populated. Adieu Gondwana Another important influence on Indian wildlife in the Upper Cretaceous was the geographical situation. The subcontinent had been part of the great southern continent of Gondwana. During the Cretaceous this landmass broke up. Together with Madagascar, India drifted north. This may have started around 150 million years ago, (p.331), but this shouldn't be seen as being somehow instantaneous. At some point, Madagascar went its own way and India decided to apply for membership of Asia. This was granted around 50 million years ago, and the Himalayas were erected to commemorate the occasion. That's the broad picture but the details are hazier. An unexpected faunal cocktail Assuming this was truly splendid isolation, (which doesn't seem to be so), than the population of India would've been restricted largely to Gondwanan lineages, with a high probability of peculiar endenicism; which effectively means packed with weird animals not found elsewhere, as is rather the case with Australia today. This is not a prediction that's been verified. The isolation was clearly less than total. While much of the biota is Gondwanan, an unexpected number of Laurasians have been identified. (Laurasia was the northern megacontinent.) As an example, this study increased the mammalian contingent of the fauna from three to four species. One is an unnamed gondwanatherian. The other three are eutherians. This is generally thought to be an originally northern lineage, (p.332), though this isn't universally accepted. At the time, it was certainly a predominantly northern line. The only Upper Cretaceous exceptions are known from India and perhaps Madagascar. Beneath the Deccan basalt can be found thick sequences termed Infratrapen beds, which were deposited on coastal plain. Thinner beds are located between the layers of basalt. These are the Intertrappen beds and they probably resulted from periodic blockages of the drainage system caused by lava flows. Both types of bed date to the Maastrichtian. A somewhat fuzzy picture As well as the mammals, other northern vertebrates include particular frogs, anguid lizards and alligators, (p.343). There are several possibilities that could account for this: the isolation of India was less extreme than previously thought, and land connections were sometimes available; the 'northern' groups weren't restricted to the north; or both. That possible Madagascan eutherian has otherwise been interpreted as a metatherian. In either case it's a 'northerner' in Gondwana, (Boreosphenida). Reports from South America indicate the possible Upper Cretaceous presence of metatherians there, (p.344). Given the paucity of the fossil record from the former southern hemisphere, they may have been distributed more widely still. Going back further to the Lower Cretaceous, more basal boreosphenidans are known from Morocco, and some dinosaurs from Niger show northern affinities. It's conceivable that an improvement in the Gondwanan fossil record will throw up further such surprises, and there's plenty of scope for improvement. So far, all listed genera are from the Intertrappean beds with the exception of Avashishta. That one came from the Infratrappean beds. Further Mesozoic site summaries can be found at Localities. Meet the Mammals of the Deccan Traps ?"Haramiyida" Avashishta bacharamensis Gondwanatheria Bharattherium bonapartei Eutheria Deccanolestes hislopi; D. robustus; Kharmerungulatum vanvaleni; Sahnitherium rangapurensis

Other reports: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A. some basal eutherians B. Asioryctitheria C. Gypsonictopidae

B. ASIORYCTITHERIA

Taxon: Asioryctitheria Novacek MJ, Rougier GW, Wible JR, McKenna MC, Dashzeveg D & Horovitz I, 1997 A small order of small insectivores. According to the findings of Qiang et al, 2002: "asioryctitherians from the Campanian (~75 Myr) of Mongolia form a clade that also includes zalambdalestids." In this case, the title of the section makes sense, though these genera are probably also too basal to be regarded as within Placentalia. Some asiorycti characteristics The following is based upon my reading of Archibald & Averianov, 2006. The validity of the taxon is given support by a number of possible synapomorphies; derived traits inherited from a common ancestor (p.351). As often with Mesozoic mammals the key points are based upon teeth. Among them are: double-rooted lower canines; the ultimate lower premolar is longer than its predecessor; the ultimate lower premolar has either a reduced metaconid or has completely dispensed with such a cusp; upper and lower premolars number four per side (although five may be present in the juvenile stage for Kennalestes). Then there are more esoteric points concerning basins, P4 protocones (read P3 in some terminology), stylar shelves and the relative positions and proportions of cones. An interesting point about the lower jaw is the absence of a feature on the inside face called Meckel's groove. This was present in many more ancient mammals and even basal eutherians (eg. Eomaia and Prokennalestes. It occurs on the jaws of all living reptiles but not extant mammals. It became irrelevant to my ancestors and they got rid of it. The ancestors of asiorycties took a similar view and could have been, but not necessarily, the self same ancestors. Genera: Asioryctes, Daulestes (and partly = Uchkudukodon, Bulaklestes, Kennalestes, Murtoilestes, Prokennalestes (and partly = Murtoilestes), Prozalambdalestes (= Prokennalestes), Uchkudokodon, Ukhaatherium, other reports Time-Line: Upper Cretaceous: Asioryctes, Bulaklestes, Daulestes, Kennalestes, Uchkudukodon, Ukhaatherium Lower Cretaceous: Murtoilestes, Prokennalestes

Genus: Asioryctes Kielan-Jaworowska Z, 1975 'Asian-digger' Family: Asioryctidae Kielan-Jaworowska, 1981

Species:	Asioryctes nemegetensis Kielan-Jaworowska Z, 1975
Place:	Nemegt, Khulsan & Hermiin Tsav II
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Campanian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	Kielan-Jaworowska et al 2000 summarize the critter on page 609. With a skull length of about 3cm, this is a touch larger than Kennalestes. The dental formula per side is: (uppers): 5 incisors, 1 canine, 4 premolars and 3 molars; (lowers): 4, 1, 4 and 3 respectively. There are broad similarities in the tooth arrnagement between Asioryc and Kenn but, in this case, the molars are "strongly elongated transversely", a choice of words that strikes me as being somewhat odd. The paracone and metacone of the uppers are situated further labially, with the latter being considerably shorter. The lower molars have comparatiely smaller paraconids and shorter trigonids. Holotype The type fossil, ZPAL MgM-I/56, is one of at least ten skulls, and it sits quietly in the collection of the Institute of Paleobiology, Warsaw. Additional notes A cast specimen is in the Peabody collection, Yale. "Asioryctes is relatively well-known and is represented by the dentition, complete cranium and mandible, and parts of the postcranium,", (Luo, Kielan-Jaworowska & Cifelli, 2002). Kemp, 2005 (p.228) states this genus is relatively basal for the Mongolian Campanian eutherians. Remains include ten skulls and several partial skeletons. There are five upper and four lower incisors; the numbers known from both Eomaia and Prokennalestes. The premolars had been reduced to four per side. The upper molars are wide but become progressively narrower towards the rear of the row. This results in the paracone and metacone being close to each other. Lowers have a talonid that's longer than the trigonid. Wible et al, 2004 (p.39) gives a skull length of between 2.5-3cm. (Kemp 2005 states about 5.4cm, but I'm not convinced that was intentional.)
Reference:	Kielan-Jaworowska (1975), Preliminary description of two new eutherian genera from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Paleontol. Pol. 33, p.5-15.

Links: Mesozoic Mammals, Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/x575.htm A photo of a cast of the brain cavity. Clifford A Cuffey http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation". An up-to-date look at the 'reptile-mammal' transitionary fossil series, including Asioryctes. Challenging for non-specialists, but highly rewarding. Asioryctes nemegetensis http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Dinosaurs/Asioryctesnemegetensis.html< An image from the gallery of Daniel Bensen. Paleontological Collections, Warsaw http://www.paleo.pan.pl/collect.htm#Mon-mammalia The Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy of Sciences collection includes specimens of Asioryctes nemegetensis and Prokennalestes trofimovi.

Genus: Bulaklestes Nessov LA, 1985 Remarks: It's an asioryctitherian in the view of Archibald & Averianov, 2005.

Species:	Bulaklestes kezbe Nessov LA, 1985
Place:	Bissekty Formation, Dzharakuduk
Country:	Uzbekistan
Age:	middle-upper Turonian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based upon my reading of Archibald & Averianov, 2006. Tooth lengths In terms of molar lengths, this is the largest asioryctitherian presently known from the Bissekty fauna. (Uppers p.355, lowers p.356). Uppers: Premolars, P4 (P3 in other terminology, 2 specimens) 1.53-1.70mm. Molars, M1 (1 specimen) 2.00mm; M3 (1 specimen) 1.36mm. Lowers: Incisors, i2 (1 specimen) 1.00mm; i3 (1 specimen) 0.43mm. Canine, c (1 specimen) 1.03mm. Premolars, p1 (1 specimen) 0.86mm; p2 (1 specimen) 1.00mm; p4 (p3 in oth. term., 2 specimens) 1.30-1.33mm; p5 (p4 in oth. term., 1 specimen) 1.60mm. Molars, m1 (3 specimens) 1.49-1.67mm; m2 (3 specimens) 1.45-1.58mm; m3 (4 specimens) 1.45-1.56mm. The general picture This genus was originally based on a lonely upper molar (p.351). Further collecting has added more isolated teeth and some useful fragments of jaw (p.364). This is enough to show it was a relatively large asiorycti (the biggest in the known fauna), but that still translates as somewhere between a biggish mouse- or smallish rat-size. Nevertheless, should you happen to be even more minimalist of stature, then this mammal would've willingly given you a severe savaging. Its teeth were unrodent-like tools for spreading mayhem and slaughter. Upper premolars Two P4s were described (P3 in other terminology, p.365) and, apart from the size difference, they're much the same. These are high-crowned teeth with faint ridges fore and aft. There's a single main cusp and a swelling to the middle of the lingual side of the crown. There are certainly two roots but it can't be ruled out that a small accessory colleague supported that swelling. The state of preservation leaves room for uncertainty. Upper molars The main differences between the M1 of Bulaklestes and Daulestes inobservablis are: size; the parastyle of this genus is proportionately large; a thickened crest between the stylocone and parastyle is thicker and cusp-like. The M3 had been described previously and there was little further to add. Lower jaw Various new fragments contributed information. Two natural holes in the bone (mental foramina) occur beneath what was probably the i4 incisor. and at varying positions extending from the canine to the back root of the first premolar. In one case a third small foramen is below the rear root of p5 (p4 in other terminology). Another thing evident is that the depth of the dentary increased significantly with biological age. There were 32 specimens shower the rear of the dental row, and just three of them have the third molar at least partly erupted (p.367). Lower incisors and canine Two of the incisor positions are represented; i3 and i4. Both are similar although the latter is only about half the size and sits in the jaw in a somewhat more labial position. They have unicusped crowns with a cingulid on the internal side. Both incisors point diagonally forwards to some degree ('slightly procumbent'). The canine has two roots and is higher than either of those rear incisors. Lower premolars There were four per side; p1, 2, 4 and 5. There was no p3 and, in some studies, the last two would be termed p3 and p4. The first three are certainly double-rooted and similarly built. A paraconid isn't present (except for a small one on the p4 (p3 in oth. term.), and the single cusp of the talonid is unimpressive. The premolars increase in size along the line, with the p4 (p3 in oth. term.) achieving a similar height to that of the canine. The p5 (p4 in oth. term.) has a considerable stronger paraconid and a cingulid to the front of the lingual side (p.368). The talonid is narrow and restricted to the lingual half of the tooth, with its cusps matching the paraconid is size while having a higher position. Lower molars Other than for the size these are like the equivalents known from Daulestes inobservablis. According to my notes, those in turn strongly resemble the lower molars of Uchkudukodon and D. kulbeckensis, so those entries may provide some snippets. (I can't remember.) A better place to look for information would be in Archibald & Averianov, 2006. A link to that and many other studies can be found somewhere in The Mesozoic Eucynodonts Paper Bag. (I wonder how many of the links still work.) Old fashioned touches There are a couple of what appear to be ancestral hangovers on the lower premolars of Bulaklestes, which seem basal in comparison with other known asiorycties (p.368). The p4 is of a markedly shorter length than the p5 (p3 and p4 respectively in other terminology), and the talonid heel of the latter tooth is relatively narrow. In the recognised relatives the rear premolar has about the same length (or is shorter) than its neighbour. Holotype CCMGE 12/12176 is an upper right M3 molar in the collection of Chernyshev's Central Museum of Geological Exploration, Saint Petersburg.
Reference:	Nessov (1985), Novyye mlekopitayushchiye mela Kyzylkumov. Vestn Leningr Univ Ser 3, Biol, p.8-18.

Link: Opportunity for International Educational Experience http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~oip/facreport/FY00-01/R3-22.html Professor JD Archibald briefly outlines the details of a trip to St Petersburg. Several resultant publications are listed. Should you be so inclined, you can also check the travel expenses.

Genus: Daulestes Trofimov BA & Nessov LA, 1979 Aka: Kennalestes (partly); Kumlestes Nessov, 1985; Taslestes Nessov, 1982 Remarks: The latter two are treated as synonyms by McKenna & Bell, (1997). Archibald & Averianov placed this genus within Asioryctitheria, so I thought I'd follow their lead. A bit about the genus The following is based on my reading of Archibald & Averianov, 2006. Two species are presently recognised although a third was previously established. Further research prompted "D." nessovi to lodge complaints, and its solicitors had it transferred to Uchkudukodon in 2006. Upper teeth Of the upper premolars P1 is larger than P2. This is typical for asioryctitherians, but contrasts from the presumably ancestral arrangement as modelled by Kennalestes. As with other Uzbek asiorycties the P4 (P3 in other terminology) is double-rooted. The basal condition was tri-rooted. Furthermore, the 'protocone swelling' has been reduced on that tooth. The upper molars bear no cingula on the lingual side in common with other asiorycties except for Kennalestes. The buccal side of the M2 has two stylar lobes (metastylar and parastylar), and the former is similarly sized with or smaller than the latter. It's smaller for Asioryctes and Ukhaatherium but near equality is known from Kennalestes (p.353). Lower teeth The lower canine is double-rooted as with other asiorycties except for Ukhaatherium. The lack of a diastema between the first two premolars is basal for such critters. That gap is present in Asioryctes, Kennalestes and Ukhaatherium. The p4 (p3 in other terminology) has lost the paraconid (in common with Kennalestes and Ukhaatherium) and that tooth is larger than the p5 (p4 in other terminology), the usual condition for asiorycties other than Bulaklestes. A derived feature of p5 is that the talonid is as wide as the front of the crown. (Should anybody be wondering about p3, that tooth was dispensed with be the ancestors.) Molar size The generic range for m1 lengths is small; 1.2-1.4mm. Other asiorycties had larger sizes. The corresponding tooth measures 1.6-1.9mm (Asioryctes, Bulaklestes, Kennalestes and Ukhaatherium). This genus was presumably a smaller mammal than Ukhaatherium; body length less than 12cm (tail not inclusive). Revision The identification of an unnamed D. species in the somewhat later Uzbek Aitym local fauna now appears to been wrong. This was based upon the buccal part of an M1 upper molar (p.374). It's now considered it actually belonged to something like "... Paranyctoides or a small zhelestid."

Reassigned species: D. nessovi McKenna et Al, 2000 see Uchkudukodon nessovi Archibald & Averianov, 2006

Species:	Daulestes kulbeckensis Trofimov BA & Nessov LA in Nessov & Trofimov, 1979
Aka:	Kennalestes uzbekistanensis; Kumlestes olzha; Taslestes inobservabilis; (and perhaps D. nessovi)
Place:	Bissekty Formation, Dzharakuduk
Country:	Uzbekistan
Age:	middle-upper Turonian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based on my reading of Archibald and Averianov, 2006. Daulestes kulbekensis was the second Cretaceous mammal to be described from what was then the Soviet Union, and the first from what's now the Republic of Uzbekistan (p.351). Its debut in print occurred in 1979 based on a lower right jaw with either teeth or alveoli providing information on the dentition from the canine to the first molar. The interpretation saw it as a zalambdalestid within Insectivora. Later it was moved to Palaeoryctidae and then to Asioryctitheria. Postcanine lengths (uppers p.355, lowers p.356) Uppers: M1 (1 specimen) 1.58mm; M2 (1 specimen) 1.59mm. Lowers: p4 (p3 in other terminology, 1 specimen) 0.93mm; p5 or dp5 (4 in oth. term., 1 sp.) 0.87mm. m1 (2 specimens) 1.17-1.30mm; m2 (1 specimen) 1.32mm. In terms of molar lengths this species is larger than Uchkudukodon but smaller than its sister species, D. inobservablis (p.355). New material The authors restricted their descriptions to newly harvested fossils, and these didn't include the holotype lower mandible. They were two upper molars and three bit of dentary (p.357). Upper molars Two pieces of M1 appear to be remains of the same tooth, and were treated accordingly. The ectoflexus on the buccal side forms a fairly unimpressive bay, and this divides the stylar shelf into two lobes. The rear one, beside the metacone, is about double the width of the front parastylar lobe. The latter is nevertheless large as it juts forwards beyond the margins of the rest of the crown. Furnishings of the parastylar lobe include a heavily worn preparastyle and a rather small stylocone. Further cusps don't occur behind that. The metastylar lobe doesn't project backwards. This results in the areas of both lobes being similar despite the marked difference in terms of width. That rear lobe houses two strongly worn ridges; the preparacrista and the postmetacrista. The paracone is the largest of the three trigon cusps, while the protocone and metacone are similar in height. The lingual side of the crown is bereft of cingula. An M2 is also available. This has a deeper ectoflexus bay. Lower jaws All three of the dentary fragments came from immature critters as the third molar wasn't completely erupted. The expectant alveoli are very near the ascending coronoid process in two cases. Lower premolars Preservation of specimens isn't ideal but the p4 is longer than the p5 (p3 and p4 respectively in other terminology). A talonid with a single cusp occupies the entire width at the rear of the crown. Lower molars Both m1 and m2 are similar, but the trigonid angle of the former is described as 'more open', and its paraconid is smaller and positioned more buccally. Unless wear has intervened, the molars have trigonids with double the height of the talonids. The smallest of the three trigonid cusps is the protoconid while the paraconid is both taller and larger than the metaconid. At the rear is found the talonid, and its width is less than that of the trigonid. Its basin is relatively deep. Of the trio of talonid cusps it's the hypoconid which wins in terms of size, and the entoconid loses. The hypoconulid is positioned about halfway between its two colleagues, and could thus be termed middling in a couple of senses. Initial difficulties Incompleteness of the material available to earlier researchers made interpreting the lower dentition tricky (p.368). The type fossil is a bit of lower jaw with alveoloi and parts of the roots. Several suggestions were made as to precisely which tooth positions were represented, but they now seem to be holes for a double-rooted canine and four double-rooted premolars. Holotype CCMGE 1/11758 is part of a lower right jaw in the collection of Chernyshev's Central Museum of Geological Exploration, Saint Petersburg. The specific name is a geographical reference. In addition A further, unnamed species, (not D. nessovi), was listed in the faunal table by Averianov & Archibald 2003, (p.15).
Reference:	Nessov & Trofimov (1979), The oldest Cretaceous insectivore from Uzbekistan. Trans. (Dokl.) USSR Acad Sci, Earth Sci Sect 247, p.237-239.

Link: Supplementary information for Late Cretaceous relatives of rabbits , rodents, and other extant eutherian mammals. Nature 414,62. Nature 414, 62 A technical study of early eutherians. "69) Coiling of the cochlea: less than 360º (0), more than 360º (1). This is character 129 in Rougier et al's. supplementary information (1998). McKenna et al.(2000, p. 22) note that "the degree of curvature of the cochlear canal in Daulestes cannot be determined with precision, but it seems more curved than that of monotremes and Vincelestes, but less so than in any other known therian mammals." Based upon this we coded Daulestes as ancestral for this character." 360° is rated as "likely" by Wible et al 2001, (p.30), which puts in on a par with the condition of the Lower Cretaceous eutherian, Prokennalestes. This is one of those studies which are of great interest to anatomists, but baffle most the rest of us.

Species:	Daulestes inobservabilis (Nessov LA, 1982) McKenna MC, Kielan-Jaworowska Z & Meng J, 2000
Aka:	Taslestes inobservabilis Nessov, 1982; Kennalestes? uzbekistanensis Nessov, 1997
Place:	Bissekty Formation, Dzharakuduk
Country:	Uzbekistan
Age:	middle-upper Turonian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based upon my reading of Archibald & Averianov, 2006. This is the larger of the two species in the Bissekty fauna. Postcanine lengths (uppers p.355, lowers p.356) Uppers: P4 (P3 in other terminology, 1 specimen) 1.33mm; P5 (P4 in oth. term. 1 sp.) 1.41mm. M1 (4 specimens) 1.68-1.74mm; M2 (2 specimens) 1.62-1.70mm. Lowers: p5 or dp5 (4 in oth. term., 1 sp.) 1.15mm. m1 (1 specimen) 1.34mm; m2 (3 specimens) 1.28-1.35mm; m3 (1 specimen) 1.32mm. Upper jaw The most informative bit of maxilla presently available contains parts of alveoli for the P4 premolar, the P5 (P3 and P4 respectively in other terminology), the M1 and alveoli for M2 and 3 (p.357). A facet of the jugal bone seems to be level with the M1 on the external face of the bone (p.358). Upper premolars P4 (P3 in oth. term.) is a tall tooth with crests and small cusps to both the front and rear. The lingual side carries a full cingulum with a slight swelling positioned almost in the middle. Subdivision of the rear root provides that with support, and this helps explain why that root's a bit bigger than the front one. P5 (P4 in oth. term.) is tri-rooted and semimolariform. It has a small metacone and a centrally placed, large paracone. There's a deep ectoflexus bay bisecting the labial side of the crown into two nearly equal lobes. Lacking are a stylocone and preparastyle, but there's a crest termed the preparacrista running to a prominent parastyle. The trigon is completed by a low protocone. The trigon's wide but without cingula on the lingual side. Upper molars M1 is a wider tooth than the final premolar. It's also larger than the corresponding molar in Uchkudukodon (p.359), but otherwise rather similar. It does differ in some details. The M2 has a deeper ectoflexus dividing the buccal side into two relatively symmetrical lobes. Lower jaw A toothless mandible nevertheless provides information on the postcanine series thanks to the alveoli. These represent the rear root of p1, pairs of holes for p2, p4 and possibly dp5 (the latter pair being number 3 and 4 in other terminology), pairs for m1 and m2, and a hole for m3 which never got to develop further. The premolars presumably increased progressively in size along the line with the exception of the final one, which happens to be the only known premolar for this species. Its size seems too small in comparison for the alveoli of p4 (p3 in oth. term.), and the relative proportions would be in line with its close allies: D. kulbeckensis and Uchkudukodon. Lower molars The front two molars are structurally similar to the corresponding teeth of Uchkudukodon and D. kulbeckensis, though there are some subtle differences apart from the matter of size. Holotype CCMGE8/11758 is a partial dentary found in 1978. It resides at Chernyshev's Central Museum of Geological Exploration, Saint Petersburg.
References:	Nessov (1982), The most ancient mammals of the USSR [in Russian], Ezegodnik Vsesoyuznogo Paleontologisceskogo Obsestva, 25, p.228-242.
	McKenna et Al (2000), Earliest eutherian mammal skull from the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian) of Uzbekistand, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 45(1), p.1-54.

Genus: Kennalestes Kielan-Jaworowska Z, 1969

Reassigned species: K. uzbekistanensis see Daulestes kulbeckensis Trofimov BA & Nessov LA, 1979

Species:	Kennalestes gobiensis Kielan-Jaworowska Z, 1969 (The Peabody gives 1968, which is incorrect, (according to McKenna & Bell, 1997).
Place:	Bayan Zag & Tögrög
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Campanian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	Kielan-Jaworowska, 2000 provide some information on pages 606-607. A number of skulls are know for this species including a juvenile one. Adult heads reached lengths of around 2.5cm, and their dental formula (per side) is: (uppers): 4 incisors, 1 canine, 4 premolars and 3 molars; (lowers): 3, 1, 4 and 3 respectively. However, kids seem to have enjoyed the services of a fifth premolar; the basal eutherian condition. Upper teeth As with the lower counterpart, the canine is double-rooted. The largest adult premolar is the third, and the final one is described as semimolariform with an incipient metacone. Unlike for typical Cretaceous metatherians, this semimolariform approach means that there's no sharp morphological distinction between that tooth and the molars. Rather, there's a transitional graduation along the series. Holotype ZPAL MgM-I/3 is the front of a skull with lower jaws, and it lives at the Institute of Paoleobiology in Warsaw. Additional notes Postcranial bones are also known. I have seen an internet reference to this genus being known from Central America, which is presumably an unfortunate typing mistake! The Peabody has a cast. A possible second species has been identified in Bayan Mandahu, China. The age is broadly similar, (eg. Kielan-Jaworowska et al 2003, p.277).
Reference:	Kielan-Jaworowska (1969), Preliminary data on the Upper Cretaceous eutherian mammals from Bayn Dzak, Gobi Desert. Palaeontologica Polonica, 19, p.171-191.

Link: Life on Earth, Monash University http://www.earth.monash.edu.au/ESC2032/LECTURES/Lec21/L21s28.htm Sketches of mammal dentaries, including Kenn’s.

Genus: Murtoilestes Averianov AO & Skutschas PP, 2001 'Murtoi thief' Aka: Prokennalestes (partly)

Species:	Murtoilestes abramovi (Averianov & Skutschas, 2000) Averianov AO & Skutschas PP, 2001
Aka:	Prokennalestes abramovi Averianov & Skutschas, 2000
Place:	Mogoito, Murtoi Formation, Transbaikalia
Country:	Russia
Age:	Barremian-Aptian, Lower Cretaceous
Remarks:	Until the announcement of Eomaia, this site had revealed the earliest known eutherian. This genus reportedly belongs within Kennalestoidea. (With thanks to Mikko Haaramo.) The following is based upon my reading of Averianov & Skutschas, 2000. I haven't seen the subsequent paper. A rough outline A helpful sketch, (p.331), provides an impression of the outline of the upper molar, (an M2), and a much needed guide to the terminology. In my mind, it looks in outline like an elongated heart shape. I'm going to restrict myself to the more obvious features, and hope they improve my appreciation of archaic eutherian M2s. I'm also going to use some eccentric measurements of my own concoction. The sketch is in occlusal view. The cusp nearest the bottom of the sketch is the protocone. This is off-centre and roughly 20% from the lowest point of the sketch. At about 60% come a pair of cones, each on its own side of an imaginary midline. These are the paracone, (pretty much in line with the protocone), and the metacone. Between that pair and the protocone is a feature known as the trigon basin. The heart shape effect is achieved at the top by the ectoflexus, which is like a bay on the coastline of a map. Its deepest penetration is slightly off-centre in favour of the metacone side. Anyway, that's how things look to me. Scale is relative Although 2mm might sound like much of a length, that's 10-20% longer than M2s of Prokennalestes trofimovi. Still, size isn't everything. The deep ectoflexus suggests this is an M2, (p.333). The paracone is bigger than the metacone, and both have lingual slopes which are nearly vertical. The protocone is lower than either of them. Those short and steep lingual slopes are probably basal in comparison to the situation in Prokennalestes, which is presently hanging around in section C. of this unpleasingly structured directory. Also the trigon basin is both larger and relatively deep. This may well provide a clue concerning the hypoconid of the lower molar, which would've engaged with that feature. Much of the rest of the paper discusses the genus of Prokennalestes, and the Lower Cretaceous vertebrate assemblages of Asia. Holotype The holotype is zin 34834, a left upper molar. It resides in the collection of the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Saint Petersburg. The species name honours Dr Alexei Abramov, who provided much assistance during the fieldwork in 1998. When published, this was the only specimen available, and it was found by P Skutschas, 31.8.98. Mammal hunts The paper also summarises developments in Lower Cretaceous, Asiatic mammal hunting over the proceeding 20 years. The number of relevant sites known in 1979 was three. Two were in China and had contributed one published specimen each, (Endotherium and Manchurodon, and only a couple of genera had then been published from the third location, which was Höövör (aka Khoboor) in Mongolia). Lower Cretaceous mammals from the largest continent on Earth weren't exactly over-represented. But how things changed. By the time this paper was written, the presses had been rolling merrily concerning further finds from Höövör, and ten more sites had come on-line; Mongolia, Uzbekistan, China and Siberia. Non-tribosphenic mammals dominate, ( multituberculates, 'triconodonts' and 'symmetrodonts'), but more derived material had also come to light including eutherians. Indeed, subsequent to this paper, Asia now provides both the earliest known eutherian, (Eomaia), and metatherian, ( Sinodelphys). Mogoito added a further location.
References:	Averianov & Skutschas (2001), A new genus of eutherian mammal from the Early Cretaceous of Transbaikalia, Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 46 (3), p.431-436.
References:	Averianov & Skutschas (2000), A eutherian mammal from the Early Cretaceous of Russia and biostratigraphy of the Asian Early Cretaceous vertebrate assemblages. Lethaia 33(4), p.330-340.

Link: Lethaia 33(4), 2000 Lethaia 33(4) The abstract

Genus: Prokennalestes Kielan-Jaworowska Z & Dashzeveg D, 1989 'before Kennalestes' Aka: Prozalambdalestes simpsoni Trofimov, 1974; Prozalambdalestes simsoni; Prozalambdelestes (all nomen nudum). Remarks: Fossils are limited to teeth, part of the jaw and the petrosal, -Luo et al 2002, p.11. The Biosis Index cites Trofimov, 1974 as the author of prokenny. This was a nomen nudum, (McKenna & Bell, 1997), as was prozalam. M & B, 1997 places this genus within Gypsonictopidae. This view no longer seems to have much (or any) support. The following is based upon my reading of Averianov & Skutschas, 2001. This was the publication of P. abramovi, which was than reassigned to Murtoilestes. As that was represented by a single upper molar, (M2), it doesn't seem to affect their revised diagnosis for the genus excepting perhaps for the skull length estimates, which I shall omit. This is on page 332. In this genus, the mandibular foramen, (which is a space in the bone of the lower jaw), is in a very low position, and the dentary symphasis reaches the rear root of p2, (a premolar). As far as is known, the dental formula is the same for both upper and lowers: incisors ?; canine 1; premolars 5; molars 3 per side. Distinguishments Differences to Kennalestes include the presence of five premolars in adults, which is a basal characteristic for eutherians, as is the more distinct Meckelian groove. There are also contrasts in dental architecture. Although the number of premolars is the same as in Otlestes, it Prokennalestes "lacks the apomorphic characters" of that genus, (eg. a single-rooted canine and a larger talonid on the p5 in Otlestes.) Overall, the authors see more similarities between P. and K., which explains why they refer it to Kennalestidae. Of the 500 mammal specimens from Höövör in the Paleontological Institute of Moscow, 80% represent this genus. They also mention P. kozlovi as a nomen nudum dating from 1974, (p.340).

Reassigned species: P. abramovi Averianov & Skutschas, 2000 see Murtoilestes abramovi Averianov AO & Skutschas PP, 2001

Species:	Prokennalestes trofimovi Kielan-Jaworowska Z & Dashzeveg D, 1989
Place:	Höövör (formally known as Khoboor, Khoobur, Khobur and Khovboor)
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Aptian-Albian, Lower Cretaceous
Remarks:	Kielan-Jaworowska et al, 2000 contains a summary on page 605. Eighteen framents of upper and lower jaws had been identified in the Ulaan Baatar collection as of the year 2000, and more had made their way to Moscow's Paleotological Institute. This small mammal, with skull lengths of around 2.5cm, can't have been rare in the ancient Höövör landscape but, due to its size, it must've been talented at keeping out of sight. The lower jaw has several antiquitated mammalian features such as the already mentioned Meckelian groove. There also still seem to have been the remnants of an 'extra' lower jaw bone termed the coronoid. Additionally, it turned out to have five premolars per side whereas, previously, four was thought to represent the original eutherian complement. Holotype PSS 10-6 is the rear part of a right dentary in the care of the Institute of Geology, Ulaan Baatar. The specific name honours the Russian paleontologist, BA Trofimov. Lend me your ears An isolated petrosal, (the bony casing of the inner ear, aka PSS-MAE 136), has been referred to this species, (Wible et al 2001). It's from a basal eutherian and is about the right size. However, (p.15-16): "An alternative is that PSS-MAE 136 belongs to an as yet undescribed or unknown Khoobur taxon that occupies a phylogenetic position between Vincelestes and Late Cretaceous eutherians. There is, in fact, another form from Khoobur that has been named but not formally described -Prodelttheridium kalandadzei (Trofimov in Reshetov and Trofimov, 1984)- and, therefore, is considered a nomen nudum..." That as may be, it once housed a basal eutherian inner ear and has prompted a bit of discussion below.
Reference:	Kielan-Jaworowska & Dashzeveg (1989), Eutherian mammals from the Early Cretaceous of Mongolia. Zool. Scripta 18, p.347-355.

More earnotes: The following has been prompted by Wible et al, 2001, Earliest Eutherian Ear Region: A Petrosal Referred to Prokennalestes from the Early Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Museum Novitates 3322, p.1-44. As I've written these notes, treat them with caution. Considering this fossilized petrosal has a maximum width of about 4mm, the amount of detailed information it reveals is quite mindblowing. It's equipped with all kinds of canals, grooves and other structures. Consequently, it permits conclusions to be reached on the bones, veins, arteries and nerves of the former owner. Of course, all this is conducted in highly specialized language. The most readily accessible point concerns the cochlear canal, which is a thing sound vibrations travel along, allowing the brain to process them. The canal is an interesting illustration of evolution at work. In typical reptiles, the equivalent feature is a cavern. In protomammals such as Yunnanodon of the Lower Jurassic, it had become a canal. Basal mammals, eg. Morganucodon, Lower Jurassic), possessed an elongated cochlear canal. (Use the link to Yunnanodon for a brief bit of consideration.) The Lower Cretaceous possibly pretribosphenic, Vincelestes, had a canal which was even longer. It had coiled to 270°. This is a greater degree of coiling than is known from existing monotremes, (eg. the duckbilled platypus). This can be seen as an indication that the line leading to platypussies evolved earlier than Vincelestes. However, there's also the possibility that monotreme curling developed independently of therian coiling. The referred petrosal shows a continuation of this tendency. In this case: "Among the derived features shared with therians is a cochlea coiled through a minimum of 360°, with Prokennalestes extending the range of the oldest occurrence of such a coiled cochlea by at least 10 million years", (page 1). This is likely also the case with Daulestes, (p.28), from the Coniacian, Upper Cretaceous, (ca. 87 million years old). In other Upper Cretaceous eutherians and metatherians, the coiling is between 450° and 540°, (p.30).

Species:	Prokennalestes minor Kielan-Jaworowska Z & Dashzeveg D, 1989
Place:	Höövör (formally known as Khoboor)
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Aptian-Albian, Lower Cretaceous
Remarks:	"The two nominal species of Mongolian Prokennalestes may represent sexual morphs within one species (Kielan-Jaworowska & Dashzeveg 1989)", (Averianov & Skutschas 2000, p.333). Its estimated skull length is 21mm, which is around 20% smaller than the larger version, (Wible et al 2001, p.15). That gives a clue regarding the meaning of the species name. As well as being one of the earliest known eutherian mammals, (that's our lineage), this genus has a very basal feature. (It might well have many such plesiomorphies - 'primitive' characteristics. I'm not presently familiar with the relevant literature.) The jaw contains a groove; Meckel's groove, which in turn played host to Meckel's cartilage. (See Dryolestes for some further info on that). It's a feature known from non-mammalian vertebrates such as dinosaurs, reptiles, frogs... Coming to think of it, this is a feature of virtually all vertebrates with the exception of all existing, mature mammals. It's also present in the earlier eutherian, Eomaia. Holotype PSS 10-7a is a fragment of dentary in the collection of the Institute of Geology. The specific name refers to the smaller size of this species.
Reference:	Kielan-Jaworowska & Dashzeveg (1989), Eutherian mammals from the Early Cretaceous of Mongolia. Zool. Scripta 18, p.347-355.

Link: ??????? ????? ??????? ??? http://www.gaudeamus.spb.ru/1999/01/zub.html Russian speakers may be able to provide some enlightenment. I recognize a photo of a tooth, mention of Prokennalestes and thousands of dollars.

Genus: Uchkudukodon Archibald JD & Averianov AO, 2006 'Uchkuduk tooth' Aka: Daulestes (partly) Remarks: As is widely known by its friends, Uchkuduk is a city in Uzbekistan, and its name derives from Kazkh words meaning 'three' and 'well'. It's near the fossil site.

Species:	Uchkudukodon nessovi (McKenna, Kielan-Jaworowska & Meng, 2000) Archibald & Averianov, 2006
Aka:	Daulestes nessovi McKenna, Kielan-Jaworowska & Meng, 2000
Place:	Bissekty Formation, Dzharakuduk
Country:	Uzbekistan
Age:	middle-upper Turonian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	The following is based upon my reading of Archibald & Averianov, 2006. Tooth lengths (Uppers p.355, lowers p.356) Uppers: Premolars, P1 (2 specimens) 0.49-0.63mm; P2 (2 specimens) 0.56-0.68mm; P4 (P3 in other terminology, 2 specimens) 1.03-1.05mm; P5 or DP5 (4 in oth. term., 2 sp.) 0.94-1.04mm. (Note: the critter didn't have a P3). Molars, M1 (5 specimens) 1.22-1.37mm; M2 (4 specimens) 1.12-1.27mm; M3 (1 specimen) 0.81mm. Lowers: Incisors, i2 (1 specimen) 0.47mm; i3 (1 specimen) 0.26mm. Canine (c or dc, 2 specimens) 0.61-0.66mm. Premolars, p1 (2 specimens) 0.37-0.44mm; p2 (2 specimens) 0.67-0.67mm; p4 (p3 in oth. term., 3 specimens) 0.78-0.88mm; p5 or dp5 (4 in oth. term., 3 specimens) 0.78-0.88mm. Molars, m1 (3 specimens) 1.12-1.21mm; m2 (4 specimens) 1.14-1.19mm; m3 (3 specimens) 0.92-1.08mm. Sample size Several dozen specimens have now been identified; a couple of partial skulls and bits of lower jaw (p.361). Many of those weren't available to previous researchers. They all add up to a tidy pile of information and justified the establishment of a new genus. The authors restricted their descriptions to the most recently collected fossils (p.362) as previous workers had already dealt with other material, including the holotype. Skull A new fragment provided some insights concerning the maxilla, lacrimal, nasal, frontal and orbitosphnoid, and it also preserved some postcanines (p.363). The external face of the maxilla appears to have a facet for the jugal located near the rear alveolus for the M1 molar. Upper premolars There were four per side: P1, 2, 4, 5. In other studies the last pair can be termed P3 and P4. However, it turned out that we eutherians originally had five of these teeth (eg. Eomaia), and it appears to have been the third that was dispensed with. The new fossils show that P2 is double-rooted, low-crowned and unicusped. The rear root is marginally the longest. P5 is triple-rooted and described as semimolariform (somewhat molar-like). There's a large centrally positioned paracone but no sign of a metacone. That absence is a derived trait. A deep ectoflexus bay divides the labial side of the crown into two similarly sized lobes. Upper molars The two M1s supplied with the skull and three others are all similar. There's a modest ectoflexus on the labial side and, of the resultant two lobes, the rear one by the metacone is around twice as wide as the front one. However, as the parastylar lobe is longer and projects forwards beyond the rest of the crown, their areas don't differ greatly. The parastylar lobe houses three cusps; parastyle (large), preparastyle (small), stylocone (intermediate). No further cusps occur behind. Of the trigon cusps the paracone and metacone merge at their bases, and are large, sharp features. The paracone is the largest. The protocone is similar in height with the metacone. Two M2s were available, and differences to the M1 include a deeper ectoflexus. That results in the lobes being more alike each other. A single M3 is preserved on the new skull fragment and it closely resembles the corresponding tooth of Bulaklestes. It has an unusually broad parastylar lobe on the labial side. The paracone of the trigon is around double the size of the metacone. Lower jaw 21 individuals were kind enough to bequeath appropriate portions of dentaries showing the m3 tooth position, and ten of them had that gnasher still involved in erupting. Their alveoli are found on the front of the slope of the coronoid process. In adults, that tooth lay in a position relatively further forwards along the jaw. Another side effect of ageing was a significant deepening of the mandible. Lower premolars One specimen has a single small hole in the jaw between the alveoli for p2 and p4 (p3 in other terminology), both of which were double-rooted teeth. That hole is partly filled with bone and is taken to be the position for a non-replaced deciduous premolar (dp3). Another fragment suggests the p5 (p4 in oth. term.) was somewhat shorter than the premolar in front of it. However, it's pointed out that this p5 wasn't completely erupted. Lower molars There's not much difference between the m1 and m2. The paraconid of the first molar is both smaller and situated a bit further towards the labial edge of the crown, and its trigonid is somewhat more open on the lingual side. Even distinguishing them on grounds of comparative length is less than straightforward. On the right mandible of one specimen the m2 is the longer of the pair. However, that's reversed for the left jaw of the type specimen. Both these molars have trigonids double the height of their talonids. Of the three main cusps the paraconid is the smallest. The largest, the protoconid, beats the middling metaconid with ease. The trigonid has a triangular-shaped basin open between the paraconid and metaconid. At the rear of the crown, the talonid basin is relatively deep (p.364). The hypoconid is the dominant talonid cusp in terms of height and size, and the entoconid is smaller than the hypoconulid. That last mentioned cusp is situated about midway between its two colleagues. The third lower molar is present in four of the new specimens, but it was only completely erupted in one instance. As with the other two molars the trigonid is considerably higher than the talonid, but the paraconid cusp is proportionately larger. The trigonid basin is again open lingually. The talonid heel is relatively long but narrow and fairly small in area. Its trio of cusps are similar in size and evenly distributed, with the hypoconulid jutting out to the rear. Affinities An analysis of 16 Cretaceous Asian eutherians and 33 characters was conducted in order to assess their relationships (p.371). The support for Asioryctitheria as a monophyletic taxon was found to be no stronger than weak, and no changes to wider systematic classification were prompted (p.373). Of the critters interrogated Uchkudukodon appears most closely related with Dualestes kulbeckensis, D. inobservablis and Bulaklestes (in that order). Holotype ZIN 79066 is the front of a skull and lower jaws of a subadult animal. It roams around the collection of the Zoological Institute in Saint Petersburg, and the specific name honours the deceased Russian paleontologist, LA Nessov.
Reference:	Archibald & Averianov (2006), Late Cretaceous asioryctitherian eutherian mammals from Uzbekistan and phylogenetic analysis of Asiorytitheria, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 51(2), p.351-376.
	McKenna et al (2000), Earliest eutherian mammal skull from the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian) of Uzbekistan. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 45(1), p.1-54.

Links: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 51(2), p.351-376 http://app.pan.pl/acta51/app51-351.pdf Archibald & Averianov, 2006 is presently freely accessible on-line in pdf format. APP 45(1) http://app.pan.pl/acta45-1.htm#McKenna The abstract of McKenna et Al, 2000.

Genus: Ukhaatherium Novacek MJ, Rougier GW, Wible JR, McKenna MC, Dashzeveg D & Horovitz I, 1997 'brown beast' Family: Asioryctidae Kielan-Jaworowska, 1981

Species:	Ukhaatherium nessovi Novacek et al, 1997
Place:	Ukhaa Tolgod
Country:	Mongolia
Age:	Campanian, Upper Cretaceous
Remarks:	What follows is based upon my reading of Novacek et al, 1997. "An important transformation in the evolution of mammals was the loss of the epipubic bones. These are elements projecting anteriorly from the pelvic girdle into the abdominal region in a variety of Mesozoic mammals, related tritylodontids, marsupials and monotremes but not in living eutherian (placental) mammals". So opens page 483. Epipubic bones have also been termed marsupial bones. They've been viewed as pegs to hang pouches on, as demonstrated by many mummy marsupials. However, daddies have them too, though smaller ones, (p.485). They can also be found inside of pouchless females and, as stated above, duck-billed platties and some protomammals. This suggests they're more than pouch pegs. Other functions include supporting the weight of fanatically suckling youngsters and for the purposes of locomotion. They seem to be a universal sign of mammalosity, other than in the case of we derived eutherians. Ukhaatherium was a basal eutherian. It came equipped with epipubic bones sticking out from its hips. Remains from the mammal mines This is based on a reasonably complete skeleton and skull from a stunningly productive location, which was first discovered in 1993, which has been the honey pot of joint collecting by teams from the Mongolian Academy of Sciences and the American Museum of Natural History. Amongst the booty are excellent skeletons of dinosaurs, (as well as eggs and embryos), birds, lizards and over 500 mammal skulls, many of which are also attached to skeletons. Two of these, this taxon and a zalambdalestid akin to Zalambdalestes, definitely had these epipubic things. Looking for a relationship Also from page 483: "Ukhaatherium nessovi bears a close resemblance to the Mongolian Late Cretaceous monotypic eutherians Asioryctes and Kennalestes, here united in the Asioryctitheria..." The similarities between Uk and As suggest they're part of the same family. These three genera show other 'primitive' eutherian characteristics. The most readily grasped is the presence of five incisors on each side of the upper jaw, but there are also various traits in the detailed structure of the skull and, (where known), the construction of the feet and vertebrae. The dental formula is: upper- 5 incisors, 1 canine, 4 premolars, 3 molars per side; lower- 4-1-4-3. This gives a reasonably impressive total of fifty teeth. According to Horovitz 2003, these are fully mature teeth. The holotype is an adult. Nice hips Also worthy of note is an element of the hips, (p.485). A feature termed the ischial arc has an acute v-shape, as opposed to the now more standard placental model, which is broader. This acuteness is a feature of many marsupials and some eutherians which give birth to poorly-developed babies. This seems to suggest a relatively short period of gestation. A more detailed look at the skeleton has been provided by Horovitz, 2003. I've used this study as a basis for attempting a brief, non-expert introduction to mammalian anatomy. Ukhaatherium, the naked eutherian Holotype The holotype is known as PSS-MAE 102. Its got a skull-length of about 3cm. The whole skeleton, (tail not inclusive), is around 12cm long. MAE 102 shares its home with half-a-dozen colleagues, several of whom are also represented by skeletons as well as skulls. The species name honours Dr Lev Nessov, a pioneer of Mesozoic mammals in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Reference:	Novacek et al (1997), Epipubic bones in eutherian mammals from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Nature 389, p.483-486.

Links: Scientific Visualization Animations, AMNH http://research.amnh.org/idl/scivizgallery/galleries.html Includes a "Quicktime movie" of the skull. Living mammals are placentals (eutheria), marsupials and monotremes< http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/f01.htm Musings on the background of modern mammals. Competent and comprehensible. I don’t know who wrote this, but I’m grateful they took the trouble. Ukhaatherium http://www.angellis.net/Web/DFG-mam/Ukhaatherium.htm One of VRW’s sketches.

The following is derived from my reading of Horovitz, 2003. My copy lacks the original page numbers. UKHAATHERIUM, the naked eutherian: a quick sketch of a skeleton. Rather than attempt to compress the rich detail available in this paper, I thought I'd use it as an opportunity to burst into song. You might know the one. 'Them bones, them bones' and so on. The head bone's attached to the... Cervical vertebrae: The holotype of Ukhaatherium comes equipped with some of its neck bones, which is what cervical vertebrae are. These include a partial atlas, which is part of what the head bone was held on with. Four other elements are present suggesting two are missing. We mammals are ultra-conservative with our necks. Where known, all fossil representatives have seven of these bones. With only a few exceptions, the same is true for the 4.500 or so mammalian species alive today, and the non-eucynodont Thrinaxodon of the Lower Triassic. The neck bones are joined to the... Dorsal and sacral vertebrae: This concerns the back and its hip attachments. Thoracic vertebrae are the ones which connect with the ribs. Ukhaatherium had at least nine and possibly more. Although ribs are preserved, they're damaged at this juncture, which leaves the precise number unclear. Dorsal vertebra 12 is probably from the lumbar region, which is below the ribcage. Some elements are missing after number 13. Then come four more vertebrae followed by probably the first (or only) sacral vertebra. A second specimen shows there might have been two. This is where the spine joins the pelvis. And the back bone's attached to the... Caudal vertebrae: This is the top of the tail. Five, (and an isolated, damaged vertebra in another specimen), are preserved. These are more slender than the aforementioned bones. A dash back up the body brings us to the... Clavicle: This is the collar bone and probably represented by a thin, isolated element. Both ends are missing. However, it's curved, and the concavity is set in the direction of the skull. If correctly identified, this was connected to the... Scapula: Both shoulder blades are preserved. The right one was deliberately detached to allow for fuller preparation and study. An unusual characteristic is its extreme narrowness, though this is also known in a few existing mammals, eg. golden moles of Africa. Other apparently eccentric features may be results of postmortem damage. And the shoulder's attached to the... Humerus: This is the upper arm bone. It's a bit over 1.5cm long. Both are complete but slightly damaged. It's also joined to... Radius and Ulna: These are the lower arm bones. The radius connects to the wrist on the side with your little finger, and the ulna's next to it. In the Ukhaatherium holotype, both the right and left radii (plural) are still articulated with the ulna and the humerus above. It's a couple of mm longer than the upper arm bone. The ulna is a bit longer still, (1,8cm). This bone narrows along its length but then widens again at the distal end, (which is nearest the wrist). At this point, its diameter is about the same as that of the radius. And both these bones are connected to the... Manus: This is Latin for hand, which gives a clue as to the origins of the word manual. Some pieces of finger are present in specimens other than the holotype, but a more precise identification is uncertain. Parts are missing and the relevant ends of the radius and ulna, and the proximal part of the metacarpals are broken. Some fragments are mixed up with components of the wrist. On a specimen other than the holotype, (PSS-MAE 105), all five right metacarpals are present, though only one is complete. Its colleague, PSS-MAE 106, preserves four which are broken at both ends. Partial specimens are also found on the holotype, PSS-MAE 102. The other finger bones, (phalanges), are disarticulated. A couple show that Ukhaatherium had sharp claws. And now it's time to ascend the arm, journey back down the spine and return to the sacral vertebra, (or -brae), which is attached to the... Innominate: This is the upper part of the pelvis. It involves three main bones and many, many details. I think I'll stick to the main features. The previously mentioned sacral vertebra (or -brae) joins onto the ilium, which is almost 1cm long. Below this bone are the pubis (at the front) and the ischium (at the back, and a bit longer than 0.5cm). The meeting point of all three bones forms a socket. This is a useful device for attaching a leg to. Unlike any existing eutherian, this area of Ukhaatherium also involves epipubic bones. These are mentioned in the above entry. And the hip bones are joined to the... Femur and Patella: Well, just the femur. The upper leg bone is the longest in your body, but you're a strangely built, bi-pedal primate rather than a Ukhaatherium, for which that's not the case. Its femur is 1.7cm long in the holotype. Several cracks mean this figure had to be estimated. The patella is the kneecap. In Ukhaatherium it's sort of ovoid-rectangular in shape, and the front is convex. (Rolling up my trousers to study another mammalian specimen, this doesn't seem surprising). And the knee bone's attached to the... Tibia and Fibula: The tibia's the longest bone for Ukhaatherium; 2.1cm. Its diameter is a bit larger than that of the fibula, which is 2cm in length. And these bones are connected to the... The ankle. However, that's the subject of a separate study, (mentioned below), so I'll skip down to the... Pes: That's what anatomists call a back foot. Whilst the ankle merits a paper of its own, there's not much left of the rest of the feet. Some metatarsals and phalanges have been identified, but things are a bit mixed up. One metatarsal, possibly from one of the middle three toes, is nearly 0.5cm in length. Horovitz observes that this skeleton is reminiscent of generalized insect eaters such as tenrecs, although it's more basal than any known placental mammal. This paper contains far more detail than I've alluded to, in language which is of course highly specialized. It also has some fine photos. Figure 1 shows the skeletons of two specimens, and further images present more intimate details. As no-one is credited in the Acknowledgements I presume these must be the work of the author. Ankles Having mentioned the study of the ankle, the following is based upon my attempted reading of Horovitz, 2000. Apart from knowing that my ankles used to be unusually purple due to illness-related low blood circulation, I've never paid much attention to the subject. People used to come round and ask if they could have a look. This study concentrates on ankles in rather more detail. It also compares the tarsus of Ukhaatherium to those of other eucynodonts. The ankle of therians differs significantly from the construction in eucynodonts more basal than tritylodontids, and the differences appeared over time. "One of the most interesting features is the overlap of the astragalus on the calcaneum present in the living groups", (p.547). In contrast to existing lineages, cynodonts more basal than tritylodontids had only a slight overlap of the astragalus on the calcaneum. These bones were pretty much arranged side by side. Their function was the transmission of weight between the leg and the ground. As each leg was doubly supported, the structure provided much stability. The modern situation is that the astragalus overlaps the calcaneum, and at least most of the weight is supported on the tibia. This is still stable enough. The advantage is that more force is delivered to the front of the foot, rather than simply downwards, because both tarsal bones can convey it in that direction. If struggling with this concept, relax, take your shoes and socks off and wiggle your toes. Stroll around on your heel, on the flat of the foot and on your toes. These ankle bones are agents of flexibility. Of course, we also owe gratitude to many other participants. This transition involved significant changes in the positions of joints, and the dimensions and shapes of bones. Eutherians developed a tenon and mortise approach for the upper ankle. In its purest form, a projection of the astragalus fits into a cavity in the tibia above, (the lateral astagalotibal facet), and a second attachment is made with the fibula behind, (astragalofibular facet), though that second mentioned joint is often not present. This enhances the stability of the upper ankle joint and permits faster locomotion. A looser arrangements favour flexibility of movement. Given my lack of familiarity with the terminology and concepts involved, I can't think of much more I can usefully add here. In Ukhaaterium, both calcanea are known. They look vaguely like upsidedown crescent moons wearing hats. Its greatest length is about 3mm and the maximum width is 2.4mm, (p.549). A joint with the tibia is evident, but it's unclear whether there was also an attachment with the fibula. Only the right astragalus is present. This is shaped something like a mushroom. The maximum height is 2.1mm and the width reaches 1.6mm.

Other reports: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A. some basal eutherians B. Asioryctitheria C. Gypsonictopidae