Research history Early history In 1804, the French naturalist
Georges Cuvier established multiple fossil species as belonging to the genus
Anoplotherium other than
A. commune. One of the species he named was
A. medium, which he said had slender, elongated, and didactyl (two-toed) feet. He thought that
Anoplotherium had didactyl hooves instead of tridactyl (three-toed) hooves, which would have separated it from the other "
pachyderm"
Palaeotherium. Based on the hooves and dentition, he concluded that
Anoplotherium was similar to
ruminants or
camelids. In 1807, Cuvier gave further elaboration to his thoughts on the limb bones, suggesting that it superficially resembles those of
llamas. He explained that the third
phalanx of
A. medium differed from those of llamas by its slightly larger proportions. He put forward his argument that because its third phalanx more closely resembled those of ruminants, it was more closely related to the mammal group than
A. commune was to them. Cuvier also said that other postcranial morphologies of the
femoral head and
tibia more closely resembled those of ruminants than those of
camels. He attributed damaged
lumbar vertebrae to
A. medium in 1808. Cuvier published his drawings of skeletal reconstructions of two species of
Anoplotherium in 1812 based on known fossil remains including
A. medium. He noted that he had no evidence for
torso or tail bones of
A. medium but that he had fossils of its skull, neck, tibia, and tarsus bone, adding to the hind foot evidence that he described years prior. He stated that in contrast to the more robust
A. commune,
A. medium was more gracile in form and therefore would have been built for cursoriality similar to extant
ungulates such as
gazelles or
roe deer. He hypothesized, therefore, that unlike
A. commune which he thought had semi-aquatic habits,
A. medium could not have lived in marshes or ponds. Instead, he said, it would have grazed on herbs and shrubs on dry lands and had more "timid" behaviours not unlike gracile ruminants. Cuvier also proposed that it probably did not have a long tail unlike
A. commune and that it had mobile ears like deer for hearing danger in advance.
A. medium, according to the naturalist, had short fur and probably did not ruminate. In 1822, Cuvier established the subgenus
Xiphodon for the genus
Anoplotherium and changed the species name
Anoplotherium medium to
Xiphodon gracile because he felt that it was a more fitting species name. He argued that the species has a head roughly the shape plus shape of the "corinne" (an archaic term for the
dorcas gazelle) with sharp
snouts and differs from
A. commune on the basis of long and sharp
molars. However, he also suggested that the two species do not differ on the genus level. It alongside other
Paris Basin fossil species were depicted in 1822 drawings by the French palaeontologist
Charles Léopold Laurillard under the direction of Cuvier, although the restorations were not as detailed as Cuvier's. The genus name
Xiphodon means "sword tooth" and is a compound of the
Ancient Greek words (, 'sword') and (, 'tooth'). '' fawn, of the "Tertiary Island" of the
Crystal Palace Dinosaurs assemblage In 1848, the French naturalist
Paul Gervais affirmed that
Xiphodon was a distinct genus from
Anoplotherium. He similarly conveyed that
X. gracile was slender like
antelopes but was slightly smaller than dorcas gazelles. He erected the second species
X. gelyense from the French
commune of
Saint-Gély-du-Fesc. He also reclassified
Hyopotamus (=
Bothriodon)
crispus into
Xiphodon. The validity of
Xiphodon as a genus was also supported by the British naturalist
Richard Owen the same year, who also erected
Dichodon. Owen emended the species
X. gracile and
X. gelyense to
X. gracilis and
X. Gelyensis, respectively in 1857.
X. gracilis was amongst the fossil taxa depicted in the
Crystal Palace Dinosaurs assemblage in the
Crystal Palace Park in the
United Kingdom, open to the public since 1854 and constructed by English sculptor
Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. Benjamin apparently either refused to acknowledge the genus name or was unaware of it, meaning that sculptures of the species were referred to as "
A. gracile". The extant sculptures of
A. commune were historically confused with "
A. gracile", the result of both species having been listed in the earliest Crystal Palace guidebooks. An illustration of Hawkins' workshop reveals that four sculptures representing "
A. gracile" were constructed by him, three of which vanished without any traces. The fourth sculpture was mistaken as a
Megaloceros giganteus fawn and was associated with the
Megaloceros sculptures for an unknown amount of time. The sole surviving sculpture measures long from the snout to the tail and has a llama-like appearance given its long neck, small head, large eyes, robust body, camel-like nose, branched lips, and a narrow snout. The sculpture's appearance overall matches up with Cuvier's anatomical description of the species, the main inaccuracy being the reconstruction of additional small
digits similar to
A. commune. Its design and intended representation as a herd were likely inspired by South American llama appearances and behaviours. The illustration of Hawkins' workshop implies that the
Xiphodon gracilis sculptures were intended to represent a relaxed herd. In 1876, British naturalist
William Henry Flower expressed being unsure whether
Dichodon was distinct enough from
Xiphodon. As he disliked the concept of having multiple closely related genera, he chose to place in
Xiphodon the newly erected species
X. platyceps. The same year, Kovalevsky erected a newly determined smaller species that he named
X. castrense after the French commune of
Castres. He also stated that its sharp
premolars justified the genus etymology "sword tooth". Gervais erected another species that he tentatively assigned to
Xiphodon the same year as well, naming it
X? tragulinum. In 1884, the French naturalist
Henri Filhol erected the species
X. magnum based on a lower jaw fossil, arguing that the species was larger than
X. gracilis. The British naturalist
Richard Lydekker reviewed the known species of
Dichodon and
Xiphodon in 1885, confirming that both are distinct genera. He also reaffirmed the validities of both
X. gracilis and
X. gelyensis then synonymized
Xiphodontherium, erected previously by Filhol in 1877, with
Xiphodon, thus reclassifying
Xiphodontherium secundarius into
Xiphodon. He also suggested that
Xiphodon platyceps may be synonymous with
Dacrytherium ovinum. He did not reference
X. castrense in his catalogue. In 1886, the German palaeontologist
Max Schlosser transferred "
X. gelyense" into the newer genus
Phaneromeryx. In 1910, the Swiss palaeontologist
Hans Georg Stehlin synonymized
Xiphodontherium with
Amphimeryx, also making
X. primaevum and
X. secundarium synonymous with
A. murinus in the process. He stated that
X. platyceps was most likely synonymous with
Dichodon cuspidatum, considered
X? tragulinum to be a
dubious name, and expressed doubt that
X. magnum if valid truly belongs to
Xiphodon. He also created the species
X. intermedium based on dental measurements intermediate between the smaller
X. castrense and the larger
X. gracile. In 2000, Jerry J. Hooker and Marc Weidmann listed
X. castrensis as an emended name for
X. castrense. According to Jörg Erfurt and Grégoire Métais in 2007,
X. castrensis and
X. intermedium lack definite differential diagnoses other than dental sizes.
Classification Xiphodon is the
type genus of the
Xiphodontidae, a
Palaeogene artiodactyl family endemic to western Europe that lived from the Middle
Eocene to the Early
Oligocene (~44 Ma to 33 Ma). Like the other contemporary endemic artiodactyl families of western Europe, the evolutionary origins of the Xiphodontidae are poorly known. While
Xiphodon had been thought to have appeared as early as MP10 of the
Mammal Palaeogene zones based on one locality, this allocation is based on very poor fossil material. More specifically, the first xiphodont representatives to appear were the genera
Dichodon and
Haplomeryx.
Dichodon and
Haplomeryx continued to persist into the Late Eocene while
Xiphodon made its first appearance by MP16. Another xiphodont
Paraxiphodon is known to have occurred only in MP17a localities. The phylogenetic relations of the Xiphodontidae as well as the
Anoplotheriidae,
Mixtotheriidae and
Cainotheriidae have been elusive due to the
selenodont morphologies (or having crescent-shaped ridges) of the molars, which were convergent with
tylopods or ruminants. Some researchers considered the selenodont families Anoplotheriidae, Xiphodontidae, and Cainotheriidae to be within Tylopoda due to postcranial features that were similar to the tylopods from North America in the Palaeogene. Other researchers tie them as being more closely related to ruminants than tylopods based on dental morphology. Different
phylogenetic analyses have produced different results for the "
derived" (or of new evolutionary traits) selenodont Eocene European artiodactyl families, making it uncertain whether they were closer to the Tylopoda or Ruminantia. Possibly, the Xiphodontidae may have arisen from an unknown
dichobunoid group, thus making its resemblance to tylopods an instance of
convergent evolution. {{clade| style=font-size:85%; line-height:85% In 2020, Vincent Luccisano et al. created a phylogenetic tree of the basal artiodactyls, a majority endemic to western Europe, from the Palaeogene. In one clade, the "bunoselenodont endemic European" Mixtotheriidae, Anoplotheriidae, Xiphodontidae, Amphimerycidae, Cainotheriidae, and Robiacinidae are grouped together with the Ruminantia. The phylogenetic tree as produced by the authors is shown below: In 2022, Weppe created a phylogenetic analysis in his academic thesis regarding Palaeogene artiodactyl lineages, focusing most specifically on the endemic European families. He stated that his phylogeny was the first formal one to propose affinities of the Xiphodontidae and Anoplotheriidae. He found that the Anoplotheriidae, Mixtotheriidae, and Cainotherioidea form a clade based on
synapomorphic dental traits (traits thought to have originated from their most recent common ancestor). The result, Weppe mentioned, matches up with previous phylogenetic analyses on the Cainotherioidea with other endemic European Palaeogene artiodactyls that support the families as a clade. As a result, he argued that the proposed superfamily Anoplotherioidea, composing of the Anoplotheriidae and Xiphodontidae as proposed by Alan W. Gentry and Hooker in 1988, is invalid due to the
polyphyly of the lineages in the phylogenetic analysis. However, the Xiphodontidae was still found to compose part of a wider clade with the three other groups. Within the Xiphodontidae, Weppe's phylogeny tree classified
Haplomeryx as a sister taxon to the clade consisting of
Xiphodon plus
Dichodon. == Description ==