taxonID	type	description	language	source
038840438350FFD0FF6DFEFDFE42FDA9.taxon	description	The type and only known specimen of Amphidon superstes seems to be better interpreted as an amphilestid with worn­down molars rather than a typical ‘‘ symmetrodont’ ’ (Rougier et al., 2001). There are five molariforms preserved in the type and only specimen (YPM 13638) traditionally interpreted as p – last m 1 – 4. The first preserved tooth shows little wear in contrast with the heavily worn posterior molariforms, indicating that this element had a deciduous predecessor and that it erupted later than the more distal teeth. A deciduous predecessor would make this tooth, by definition, a premolar (Clemens and Lillegraven, 1986; Luckett, 1993). The morphology of this tooth, however, agrees closely with that of the first molariform of Amphilestes and Phascolotherium in showing five cusps that are fairly symmetrically arranged, as well as a faint basal cingulum (the smaller cusp b is damaged). Replacement of molariforms is known in the putative amphilestid gobiconodonts Gobiconodon and Hangjininia (Jenkins and Schaff, 1988; Godefroit and Guo, 1999); additionally, the tooth identified as m 1 in zhangheotheriids has a deciduous predecessor (personal obs). Therefore, the dentition preserved in Amphidon can be interpreted as m 1 – m 5, which agrees well with the almost universal presence of five molariforms among amphilestids. The somewhat triangular aspect of the crown of Amphidon is, in our opinion, caused by the extreme wear of cusps b and c, and by the labial bulging of the base of cusp a. A few other mammals have been included in Amphidontidae (Yabe and Shikama, 1938; Trofimov, 1980; Yadagiri, 1985; Krusat, 1989), with Manchurodon (Yabe and Shikama, 1938) and Gobiotheriodon (Trofimov, 1980, 1997) based on the most complete specimens. These materials, however, do not shed additional light on the morphology of the Amphidontidae, if there is such a group at all. Manchurodon has been lost since the brief original description. It is unclear if the dental morphology described really corresponds to a full buccal view or simply to the exposed labial surface of the molariforms. In the published source, there is very little to link Manchurodon with Amphilestes. The affinities of Manchurodon are at present better left unresolved.	en	ROUGIER, GUILLERMO W., SPURLIN, BARTON K., KIK, PETER K. (2003): A New Specimen of Eurylambda aequicrurius and Considerations on ‘‘ Symmetrodont’ ’ Dentition and Relationships. American Museum Novitates 3398: 1-15, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2003)398<0001:ANSOEA>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282003%29398%3C0001%3AANSOEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
