中国北方中中新世的乳齿象类戈壁锯齿象(Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn & Granger, 1932)和同心中新乳齿象(Miomastodon tongxinensis Chen, 1978)后来被改为戈壁轭齿象(Zygolophodon gobiensis)。然而,由于它们的臼齿形态介于典型的丘型齿(嵌齿象类)和轭型齿(玛姆象类)之间,它们的系统演化位置一直存在争议。将戈壁锯齿象和同心中新乳齿象的颊齿和下颌与欧亚大陆及北美的类群进行了广泛比较,比较对象包括欧亚的苏黎士轭齿象(Z. turicensis)、亚似貘嵌齿象(Gomphotherium subtapiroideum)、塔氏嵌齿象(G. tassyi), 及北美的麦氏中新乳齿象(Mio. merriami)和进步嵌齿象(G. productum)。结果表明,戈壁锯齿象和同心中新乳齿象与北美的麦氏中新乳齿象具有一些共同特征,包括臼齿比苏黎士轭齿象略显丘型化(例如,釉质层较厚,主齿柱新月嵴较粗,齿谷侧视釉质柱高度达到齿谷一半,以及副齿柱横向较窄以致于整体轮廓较窄), 并且下门齿截面的背腹径大于内外径,使得下门齿截面呈竖立的椭圆形。而在苏黎士轭齿象和进步嵌齿象中,下门齿截面的背腹径小于内外径,使得下门齿截面呈平躺的椭圆形。因此,有必要恢复中新乳齿象属(Miomastodon Osborn, 1922), 它包括那些曾被归为轭齿象属,但牙齿相对丘型化的那一类(即所谓“粗壮型苏黎士轭齿象类群”), 并且下门齿截面呈竖立的椭圆形可以作为中新乳齿象属各种的共衍征。此外,亚似貘嵌齿象和塔氏嵌齿象的臼齿也呈现介于丘型齿和轭型齿的形态,但两者的下颌比中新乳齿象更伸长,下门齿截面呈梨形。中新乳齿象以及亚似貘嵌齿象和塔氏嵌齿象的存在模糊了嵌齿象科和玛姆象科的界线,表明嵌齿象科和玛姆象科的演化历史是深度相关的,并非截然分开。这一点已在胶原蛋白序列分析南方乳齿象(Notiomastodon)、玛姆象(Mammut)和现生象的工作中所揭示,需要进一步的研究。

The elephantimorph proboscideans, Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn & Granger, 1932, and Miomastodon tongxinensis Chen, 1978, from the Middle Miocene of northern China, were revised as Zygolophodon gobiensis (Osborn & Granger, 1932). However, their phylogenetic positions are still being debated because of their intermediate morphology between the typical bunodont (Gomphotheriidae) and zygodont (Mammutidae) elephantimorphs. In the present paper, we compare their dental and mandibular morphology with that of the Eurasian Z. turicensis, Gomphotherium subtapiroideum, and G. tassyi, as well as the North American Mio. merriami and G. productum. It appears that S. gobiensis and Mio. tongxinensis share with Mio. merriami the slightly more bunodont molar morphology than that of Z. turicensis, e.g., the thicker enamel, thicker pretrite crescentoids, higher interlophid enamel pillars in buccal view, and the narrower contour majorly caused by the narrower posttrite half loph(id)s. S. gobiensis and Mio. merriami also possess an “erected oval cross-sectioned mandibular tusk”, in which the cross-section is mediolaterally compressed (dorsoventral diameter being larger than the mediolateral one). Whereas, in Z. turicensis and G. productum, the mandibular tusk is “laid oval cross-sectioned”, in which the cross-section is dorsoventrally compressed (dorsoventral diameter is smaller than the mediolateral one). Therefore, it is reasonable to revive the genus Miomastodon Osborn, 1922, which contains the species that were previously attributed to Zygolophodon, but they have relatively bunodont molar morphology (i.e., the robust type of the Z. turicensis group). The mandibular tusk with erected oval cross-section seems to be a synapomorphy of Miomastodon species. Furthermore, the molar morphology of G. subtapiroideum and G. tassyi also exhibits intermediate status between the typical bunodonts and zygodonts. However, the mandibular symphysis of G. subtapiroideum and G. tassyi is stronger than that of Miomastodon, and the mandibular tusk is pyriform cross-sectioned. The validity of Miomastodon and G. subtapiroideum/tassyi obscures the boundary between the Gomphotheriidae and Mammutidae, and suggests that the evolutions of the Gomphotheriidae and Mammutidae are deeply involved in with each other, rather than straightforwardly detached. This phenomenon has been revealed by a collagen sequence analysis among Notiomastodon, Mammut, and extant elephants, which should be further studied.