It has an uncertain stratigraphic range, but some sources suggest that it was present in the Oligocene after the Grande Coupure turnover event of western Europe.

The latter trait, along with the typical flexible limb morphologies of anoplotheriids, led Hürzeler to hypothesize that it was specialized for fossorial behaviors, meaning that it may have burrowed and eaten grounded plant material.

Hürzeler also established that H. filholi, erected previously by Richard Lydekker in 1889, was not a species of Diplobune based on dental and postcranial differences.

The exact evolutionary origins and dispersals of the anoplotheriids are uncertain, but they exclusively resided within the continent when it was an archipelago that was isolated by seaway barriers from other regions such as Balkanatolia and the rest of eastern Eurasia.

The Dacrytheriinae is the older subfamily of the two that first appeared in the middle Eocene (since the Mammal Palaeogene zones unit MP13, possibly up to MP10), although some authors consider them to be a separate family in the form of the Dacrytheriidae.

After a significant gap of anoplotheriines in MP17a–MP17b, the derived anoplotheriids Anoplotherium and Diplobune made their first appearances in western Europe by MP18, although their exact origins are unknown.

It is suggested that Ephelcomenus may have been present in the middle Oligocene of western Europe, which if true would have meant that it extended far past the Grande Coupure extinction event.

[6][4] Conducting studies focused on the phylogenetic relations within the Anoplotheriidae has proven difficult due to the general scarcity of fossil specimens of most genera.

[6] The phylogenetic relations of the Anoplotheriidae as well as the Xiphodontidae, Mixtotheriidae, and Cainotheriidae have also been elusive due to the selenodont morphologies of the molars, which were convergent with tylopods or ruminants.

[7] 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.

[9][10] In an article published in 2019, Romain Weppe et al. conducted a phylogenetic analysis on the Cainotherioidea within the Artiodactyla based on mandibular and dental characteristics, specifically in terms of relationships with artiodactyls of the Palaeogene.

They determined that the Cainotheriidae, Robiacinidae, Anoplotheriidae (represented below by Anoplotherium and Dacrytherium), and Mixtotheriidae formed a clade that was the sister group to the Ruminantia while Tylopoda, along with the Amphimerycidae and Xiphodontidae split earlier in the tree.

[10] The phylogenetic tree published in the article and another work about the cainotherioids is outlined below:[11] Eurodexis russelli Dichobune leporina Amphimeryx murinus Xiphodon castrense Paratoceras coatesi Eotylopus reedi Parvitragulus priscus Lophiomeryx chalaniati Archaeomeryx optatus Mixtotherium cuspidatum Anoplotherium latipes Dacrytherium ovinum Robiacina lavergnesis Robiacina minuta Robiacina quercyi Palembertina deplasi Paroxacron bergeri Paroxacron valdense Oxacron courtoisii Cainotherium laticurvatum Caenomeryx filholi Caenomeryx procommunis Plesiomeryx cadurcensis Plesiomeryx huerzeleri In 2022, Weppe created a phylogenetic analysis in his academic thesis regarding Palaeogene artiodactyl lineages, focusing most specifically on the endemic European families.

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.

[1] The mandible is diagnosed as rapidly increasing in height by the rear end, which Jean Viret in 1961 cited to be a trait differing it from Anoplotherium and Diplobune.

The subfamily Anoplotheriinae differs from the Dacrytheriinae by the molariform premolars with crescent-shaped paraconules and the lower molars that lack a third cusp between the metaconid and entoconid.

He also said that Diplobune minor would not have had burrowing behaviours even if it had similar phalanx morphologies on the grounds that lengths and arrangements of digits III and IV reflect more use of balance movements such as arborealism.

[4][9][24][25] It also likely could have coexisted with other mammals such as the Perissodactyla (Palaeotheriidae),[26] Primates (Adapoidea and Omomyoidea),[27] Hyaenodonta (Hyaenodontinae, Hyainailourinae, and Proviverrinae),[28] Carnivoramorpha (Miacidae), Carnivora (small-sized Amphicyonidae),[28] and endemic rodents (Pseudosciuridae, Theridomyidae, and Gliridae).