Konobelodon

Konobelodon is an extinct genus of amebelodont proboscidean from the Miocene of Africa, Eurasia and North America.

Konobelodon Temporal range: Miocene, 12–5.3 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N
Mandible of Konobelodon britti on display at the State Museum of Pennsylvania
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Proboscidea
Family:	†Amebelodontidae
Genus:	†Konobelodon Lambert, 1990
Species
K. atticus (Wagner, 1857) K. britti (Lambert, 1990) (type) K. robustus Wang, Shi, He, Chen, and Yang, 2016[1] K. cyrenaicus (Gaziry, 1987)

Taxonomy

Restoration of K. britti

Konobelodon was originally coined as a subgenus of Amebelodon,^[2] and was subsequently elevated to full generic rank in a 2014 re-appraisal of "Mastodon" atticus.^[3] Within Amebelodontinae, Konobelodon is closely related to Platybelodon and Torynobelodon.^[1] The genus Konobelodon likely originated in eastern Eurasia, with K. robustus being known from the Liushu Formation in the Gansu Province of China.^[4] Under this hypothesis, it diverged via separate migrations westward into Europe and western Asia, represented by K. atticus, and eastward into North America, where the genus arrived c. 7 Ma and survived until the very end of the Miocene.^[3] The species Konobelodon cyrenaicus is known from the Late Miocene of North Africa, representing the latest surviving amebelodont on the African continent.^[5]

Description

As shovel-tusked amebelodonts, Konobelodon has two pairs of tusks, one growing from the upper jaw and a second from the lower. K. robustus is estimated to have had a body mass between 2,802–7,367 kilograms (6,177–16,241 lb), making it generally larger than most gomphotheres on account of its thicker limb bones. Its standing posture, however, was not likely as column-like as that of extant elephants and American brevirostrine gomphotheres.^[4] The lower tusks were proportionally large, reaching 1.61 metres (5.3 ft) in length.^[6]

Ecology

Konobelodon is suggested to have been a browser, based on dental microwear analysis. The upper tusks were likely used for slicing and scraping, while the lower tusks may have been used for digging.^[7]