Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein, 1799)

Suraprasit, Kantapon, Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, Chaimanee, Yaowalak, Chavasseau, Olivier, Yamee, Chotima, Tian, Pannipa & Panha, Som, 2016, The Middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from Khok Sung (Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand): biochronological and paleobiogeographical implications, ZooKeys 613, pp. 1-157: 52-54

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein, 1799)


Taxon classification Animalia Artiodactyla Bovidae

Capricornis sumatraensis (Bechstein, 1799) 

Referred material.

A left M2, DMR-KS-05-03-18-16; three m3-DMR-KS-05-04-05-4 (right), DMR-KS-05-03-27-5 (left), and DMR-KS-05-03-28-10 (left posterior fragment).

Material description.

Isolated teeth are almost complete (for measurements, see Tab. 16), with the exception of the specimen DMR-KS-05-03-28-10 that preserves only a posterior lobe (Fig. 33G). Molars show typical features of Capricornis  characterized by hyposodont crowns, smooth enamel, and distinct styles and stylids, and an absence of the ectostylids (Fig. 33). The parastyle, mesostyle, and metastyle on the M2 are perpendicular to the buccal wall (Fig. 33A). On the m3, the mesostylid is more developed than the other stylids and the posthypoconulidcristid protrudes posteriorly (Fig. 33C, E).

Taxonomic remarks and comparisons.

We assign these isolated teeth from Khok Sung to Capricornis sumatraensis  (Sumatran serow) because they are comparable in size and morphology to the extant specimens (Fig. 34). Among congeneric species, Capricornis sumatraensis  is larger than Capricornis crispus  as well as two goral  species ( Naemorhedus goral  and Naemorhedus caudatus  ), but is smaller than Capricornis milneedwardsi  . In addition, it differs from Capricornis crispus  in having more developed metastylid and entostylid and a presence of back fossettes on the slightly worn m3 and from Capricornis milneedwardsi  in having less developed metastylid and posthypoconulidcristid on the m3.

Compared to other fossil records, Capricornis sumatraensis  from Khok Sung is smaller than that from the Late Pleistocene of Lang Trang in Vietnam ( de Vos and Long 1993), Tam Hang South in Laos ( Bacon et al. 2011), Padang Cave in Sumatra ( Hooijer 1958), and Xianrendong in China ( Chen and Qi 1978, Chen and Li 1994) (Fig. 34) and from the late Middle Pleistocene of Guanyindong ( Li and Wen 1986) in China. The Khok Sung material also matches morphologically that of the subspecies Capricornis sumatraensis kanjereus  from the Middle Pleistocene of Yenchingkuo in China ( Colbert and Hooijer 1953) and from the late Middle Pleistocene of Thum Wiman Nakin in Thailand ( Tougard 1998). However, Capricornis sumatraensis  from Khok Sung is larger than that from Thum Wiman Nakin and Naemorhedus  from Thum Prakai Phet. It differs from Capricornis sumatraensis qinlingensis  described from the middle Early Pleistocene of Gongwangling in northern China ( Hu and Qi 1978, Zhu et al. 2015) in having its smaller size and less developed parastyle and metastyle on the M2. However, we do not assign the material to the subspecies level based on the few isolated teeth.