Cynelos, JOURDAN, 1862

Maguire, Kaitlin Clare & Schmitz, Joshua X. Samuels and Mark D., 2022, The fauna and chronostratigraphy of the middle Miocene Mascall type area, John Day Basin, Oregon, USA, PaleoBios 35, pp. 1-51 : 14

CYNELOS JOURDAN, 1862

Cynelos sinapius ( MATTHEW, 1902) HUNT, 1998

Referred specimens —From CIT 113: right dentary with i3 through m2, CIT 207. From UCMP V 4835: left calcaneum, UCMP 39304. From JDNM-4*: right M3, JODA 2315.

Occurrence —CIT 113, UCMP V 4835, JDNM-4*.

Description and Remarks —The fourth premolar through second molar of CIT 207 have broken crowns; p1-p3 are worn and the canine is heavily worn on the medial side. Stock (1930) assigned CIT 207 to Amphicyon sinapius Matthew, 1902 based on comparisons with specimens from the lower Snake Creek and Pawnee Creek beds. Amphicyon sinapius was recombined as Cynelos sinapius by Hunt (1998). Confirmation of identification is based on the size of m1 (ap= 38 mm), which falls within the range reported in Hunt (1998). In addition, the lower third premolar is the same size as p2 and neither have accessory cusps. p1 is lost and p4 does not have posterior accessory cusps. Overall the premolars are slender and laterally compressed and m2 is rectangular. The locality description is listed as Dayville, Oregon so exact location in unknown; however, Stock (1930) mentions that the specimen was found in Mascall deposits and he was aware of issues associated with Rattlesnake and Mascall faunas mixing in the area. UCMP 39304 has a maximum anteroposterior length of 85.07 mm and transverse width at the sustentaculum of 42.6 mm. It is assigned to C. sinapius based on size, however, this is a tentative identification. JODA 2315 is also tentatively assigned to C. sinapius . It has an anteroposterior length of 10.23 mm and a transverse width of 15.48 which is small for the species. This specimen was collected by the Weatherfords; however, if it came from the Rattlesnake it would mean either that C. sinapius ranges higher than the Mascall, or that there is a Hemphillian amphicyonid with very similar morphology. Given that there are no known Hemphillian records of amphicyonids in North America ( Hunt 1998) we place this specimen in the Mascall Formation.