Lycaenops (Permian gorgonopsian) skull specimens species status (free pdf)

[Ben Creisler]

Ben Creisler

bcre...@gmail.com

Not yet mentioned:

Free pdf:

Naiomi Cookson & Arjan Mann (2025)
Cranial osteology and reassessment of the historically collected South African gorgonopsians FMNH UC 1513 (Lycaenops cf. L. angusticeps) and AMNH FARB 5537 (Lycaenops angusticeps).
Vertebrate Anatomy Morphology Palaeontology 13: 48-66
doi: https://doi.org/10.18435/vamp29406
https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/vamp/index.php/VAMP/article/view/29406

Free pdf:
https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/vamp/index.php/VAMP/article/view/29406/21469

Lycaenops contains one of the most anatomically complete gorgonopsian specimens (AMNH FARB 2240) known and is thought to represent one of the more taxonomically diverse forms, with several species historically attributed to it. Despite this, many species in this complex, aside from the type species, L. ornatus, are not well defined, requiring substantial revisions. At present, Lycaenops likely represents a ‘wastebasket taxon’, as an overly generic morphological grouping that includes any medium-sized gorgonopsians with a reduced postcanine series, long snout, slender skull arches, and moderate to minor cranial pachyostosis.

Here we provide a reassessment of the cranial osteology for two specimens previously assigned to Lycaenops including AMNH FARB 5537, the holotype of ‘L. angusticeps’, and FMNH UC 1513, the holotype of ‘Scymnognathus major’ that was later assigned to ‘L. cf. L. angusticeps’. Furthermore, FMNH UC 1513 has never been comprehensively assessed, with the original description being both brief and dated. Our anatomical and phylogenetic assessment of both specimens support their assignment to Lycaenops. We suggest that ‘L. angusticeps’ be regarded as a nomen dubium and refer FMNH UC 1513 to a yet to be described Lycaenops species pending a more comprehensive study of variation (e.g., differing proportions of the snout among other characteristics) within the genus.

=====