related forms such as Repenomamus ( Li et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2001; Meng et al., 2003), notwithstanding the fact that some of the characteristics that diagnose this group are not available in our specimen (e.g., characters of the upper dentition and tooth formula). Argentoconodon and gobiconodontids are dis- similar in that gobiconodontids present a very distinct cusp f, possess carnassial notches, and the main cusps present a distinctive lanceolate profile. Gobiconodontids lack cingular cusps and do not have overlapping between succes- sive molars.

Despite the paucity of the Gondwanan record of triconodonts, these few specimens are particularly relevant for comparisons with Argentoconodon. From the Late Triassic and Jurassic of India a variety of tricondonts has been described and variously attributed to Morganucodontidae or Amphilestidae (Yadag- giri, 1984; Datta and Das, 1996, 2001; Prasad and Manhas, 2002). Among the teeth de- scribed as morganucodontids, Gondwanodon tapani {Datta and Das, 1996) shows, as does Argentoconodon, the relative reduction of the cingulum and Kuhnecone, as well as a subtle recumbency of the main cusps. The morphol- ogy of this taxon is enigmatic and the attribution to morganucodontids is tentative {Kielan-Jaworowska et al., 2004). The height