Eusmilus bidentatus ( Filhol, 1872 )

Bonis, Louis de, Gardin, Axelle & Blondel, Cécile, 2019, Carnivora from the early Oligocene of the ‘ Phosphorites du Quercy’ in southwestern France, Geodiversitas 41 (15), pp. 601-621 : 618

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5252/geodiversitas2019v41a15
publication LSID	urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9DD3CC29-3AEA-44B8-8E8F-6AD882DF5B1C
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3703564
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A48799-1A73-FF8D-FEA4-FF556F59FA41
treatment provided by	Valdenar
scientific name	Eusmilus bidentatus ( Filhol, 1872 )
status

Treatment

Eusmilus bidentatus ( Filhol, 1872)

( Fig. 5K, L View FIG )

TYPE MATERIAL. — Lectotype, edentulous hemi-mandible, MNHN.F.QU9475, from the Quercy phosphorites, was designated by Peigné & Brunet (2001: 660).

NEW MATERIAL. — Fragment of upper canine UM VD 3; right P4 UM VD 2.

RERMARKS

Part of the tip of an elongate and bucco-lingually much compressed canine with mesial and distal trenchant and crenulated carenae is characteristic of a sabre-toothed carnivore ( Fig. 5K View FIG 1 View FIG , K 2 View FIG ). It is impossible to know if it is a milk tooth or a permanent one because these are very similar ( Peigné & Brunet 2001). Too small to belong to Dinailurictis , smaller and more elongated than that of Nimravus , it fits the genus Eusmilus . The latter, first described as Machairodus ( Filhol 1872a) includes two European species, E. villebramarensis Peigné & Brunet, 2001 from early Oligocene deposits (MP 22) and E. bidentatus ( Filhol, 1872) from undated old collections of Quercy and from Soumailles (MP 21), where a complete skeleton was recovered ( Ringeade & Michel 1994a, b). The canines of the first species, whether permanent or milk teeth, are larger ( Peigné & Brunet 2001) and UM VD3 is closer to E. bidentatus . An isolated P4 ( Fig. 5L View FIG 1 View FIG , L 2 View FIG ) of which the protocone is broken off corresponds to a medium-sized feloid-like carnivoran (L = 15 mm; Wmts = 5.2; Lmts = 6.7). It has a robust parastyle and an elongate metastyle. It differs from Proailurus, which is smaller and lacks a large parastyle. Eofelis edwardsi ( Filhol, 1872) is too small and does not have a parastyle. The P4 of the larger Eofelis species, E. giganteus Peigné, 2000, is unknown but probably did not have parastyle, like in the smaller species. Nimravus does not have parastyle and Dinailurictis is too large. The size and the robust parastyle indicate Eusmilus . By its size we may refer this carnassial to E. bidentatus . Taking into account the occurrence of the large E. villebramarensis in Villebramar (MP 22), which is not far away, we conclude that two different species were present in the same area and at the same time.