Scontromeryx magnus ( Mazza et Rustioni, 2011 )

Van Der Geer, Alexandra A. E., 2014, Systematic revision of the family Hoplitomerycidae Leinders, 1984 (Artiodactyla: Cervoidea), with the description of a new genus and four new species, Zootaxa 3847 (1), pp. 1-32: 20

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3847.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C7BDD136-2686-4049-B395-684797B26406

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D287A2-FD1A-3717-FEF7-FE69FD91F821

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Scontromeryx magnus ( Mazza et Rustioni, 2011 )
status

 

Scontromeryx magnus ( Mazza et Rustioni, 2011) 

cf. Amphimoschus Gray, 1852  — Mazza & Rustioni 1996: p. 96, fig. 6 [SCT 20].

large-sized artiodactyl (present-day fallow deer sized)— Mazza & Rustioni 1996: p. 94, fig. 1 [SCT 18]. Hoplitomeryx magnus Mazza & Rustioni, 2011  — Mazza & Rustioni 2011 (partim): p. 1304, 1324, 1325, 1328, 1330, figs 4, 5, tables 1, 2 [SCT 18, SCT 20, SCT 86].

Holotype. Left hemimandible SCT 20 ( Figure 4 View Figure , J, K, L, in Mazza & Rustioni 2011).

Paratypes. Maxillaries SCT 18 (juvenile), SCT 86.

Original diagnosis. See Mazza & Rustioni (2011).

Revised diagnosis. Large species with brachyodont cheek teeth. M 1 with very reduced entostyle; paracone supported by robust and prominent median rib; external rib of metacone absent; well-developed and lingually protruding parastyle and mesostyle; metastyle very weak; cementum absent and smooth enamel in upper cheek teeth. Mandible with horizontal ramus massive lateromedially, ventral profile moderately convex under cheek teeth corpus. Lower molars with widely spaced, triangular, backwardverging labial cuspids and with flattened mesial enamel walls; protoconid and hypoconid isolated in unworn molars; in worn molars protoconid connected mesially with metaconid and distally with entoconid, and hypoconid connected with postprotocristid and postentocristid; lower molars with lingual cuspids relatively less worn than labial cuspids; metastylid and postentocristid prominent, but blunt; ectostylids blunt and robust; third lower molars with tear-shaped hypoconulid and entoconulid not fused distally; labial enamel wall rugose, lingual wall smooth in lower cheek teeth; protoconids with faint traces of cingulum at their base.

Differential diagnosis. Larger than all other Scontromeryx  species. Differs from S. minutus  , S. falcidens  , S. apulicus  and S. apruthiensis  by pachyostosis of the mandible. Differs from S. mazzai  , S. apulicus  and S. apruthiensis  by the presence of robust ectostylids in lower molars. Differs from S. falcidens  and S. apulicus  by rugose labial enamel in lower molars. Differs from S. mazzai  and S. apruthiensis  by smooth lingual enamel in lower molars.

Derivation of name. Refers to the particularly large dimensions of the individuals of the species.

Preservation and deposition. Soprintendenza Archeologica dell’Abruzzo (Chieti, central Italy).

Type locality and horizon. Tortonian Scontrone Member of the Lithothamnium Limestone ( Patacca et al. 2008; 41 ° 45 ' 15.54 ''N, 14 °02' 13.14 ''E), outskirts of Scontrone, southern border of the National Park of Abruzzi, L’Aquila, central Italy.

Description. See Mazza & Rustioni (2011). Additional characters shown by paratypes revised after Mazza & Rustioni (2001). This is the largest of the species represented in the sample from Scontrone. SCT 18 is a very fragmental maxillary of a young specimen with DP 4 in substitution, P 3 and P 4 (both erupting), M 1 and M 2. SCT 86 is a left fragmentary maxillary with P 4 -M 1. DP 4 is molariform, with very robust paracone labial rib; no metacone rib; well-developed parastyle and metastyle; very strong mesostyle. Protocone larger than metacone. Postprotocrista bent forward. As wear progresses, postparacrista and postprotocrista fuse to premetaconule crista. Small entostyle. P 3. Strong styles and external rib of paracone. Protocone fairly small, centrally situated, lingually directed and fused to robust metaconule. Metacone relatively small. Two strong spurs issue from lateral enamel walls of lingual cusp, one from preprotocrista, the other from postmetaconule crista. Lingual enamel wall rougher than labial one. No entostyles. M 1 –M 2. Robust parastyle and even stronger mesostyle. Strong external rib of paracone, metacone with no labial rib. Postprotocrista and postmetaconule crista fairly robust, and lingual crescents closely spaced. Lingual enamel wall more rugose than labial one. No entostyle.

Measurements. See Table 2.