In today's world, Dihoplus is a topic of great interest and relevance. Whether in the political, social, cultural or scientific field, Dihoplus has captured the attention of people of all ages and from different parts of the world. As Dihoplus continues to be the subject of debate and analysis, it is important to understand its impact on our society and the world at large. In this article, we will explore different aspects of Dihoplus, from its origin to its possible implications for the future. We will also examine the various perspectives and opinions that exist around Dihoplus, with the aim of offering a comprehensive and complete vision of this topic that is so relevant today.
Dihoplus Temporal range:
| |
---|---|
![]() | |
Dihoplus schleiermacheri holotype skull | |
Scientific classification ![]() | |
Domain: | Eukaryota |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Class: | Mammalia |
Order: | Perissodactyla |
Family: | Rhinocerotidae |
Tribe: | Dicerorhinini |
Genus: | †Dihoplus Brandt, 1878 |
Type species | |
†Rhinoceros schleiermacheri Kaup, 1832
| |
Species | |
|
Dihoplus is an extinct genus of rhinoceros that lived in Eurasia from the Late Miocene to Pliocene.[1]
Species of Dihoplus were large rhinoceroses, with the body masses of Dihoplus schleiermacheri and Dihoplus pikermiensis estimated at 2,122 kilograms (4,678 lb) and 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb) respectively.[2] The head bore two horns. The nasal septum was not ossified, with a nasal notch above the frontmost premolars. The toothrow is placed posteriorly within the skull. The first upper premolar is absent, though the lower second incisor is present.[1]
Members of Dihoplus were long placed in Dicerorhinus (which contains the living Sumatran rhinoceros). Sometimes these species are placed in the related Stephanorhinus. The genus is now generally considered distinct,[3] though there is still debate as to which species should be included; for example, Deng (2011) listed Merck's rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis) under Dihoplus.[4] Species recently placed in the genus include:[5]
"D." megarhinus (de Christol, 1834) from the Late Miocene-Pliocene of Europe, Anatolia, China and Transbaikalia,[1][5] since 2021 has been placed instead in the genus Pliorhinus along with "Dicerorhinus" miguelcrusafonti from the Pliocene of Europe.[6][7] "D." ringstoemi is either considered a synonym of "D." megarhinus[1] or placed as a separate species within Pliorhinus.[8]
The monophyly of the genus has been questioned, with some studies suggesting that D. pikermiensis is more closely related to Stephanorhinus and Coelodonta (which contains the woolly rhinoceros) than to the type species D. schleiermacheri.[7]
Morphological phylogeny after Pandolfi (2023), excluding living African rhinoceros species.[7]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
D. pikermiensis and D. bethlehemsis are suggested to have been browsers.[9][5]