Rhinolophus wenzensis Woloszyn, 1988

Popov, Vasil V., 2004, Pliocene small mammals (Mammalia, Lipotyphla, Chiroptera, Lagomorpha, Rodentia) from Muselievo (North Bulgaria), Geodiversitas 26 (3), pp. 403-491 : 412-415

Rhinolophus wenzensis Woloszyn, 1988 ( Fig. 7 )

Rhinolophus wenzensis Woloszyn, 1988: 243-248 , pl. 11: 2, tables 12-15.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — 10 fragments of mandible (Ms174-183), 33 left c1 (Ms184), 28 right c1 (Ms185), 9 p4 (Ms186), 13 m 1 (Ms187), 12 m 2 (Ms188), 11 m 3 (Ms189), 35 left C1 (Ms190), 22 right C1 (Ms191, 197), 2 P4 (Ms192), 6 M1 (Ms193, 198), 10 M2 (Ms194, 199), 12 M3 (Ms195, 200), 25 fragments of humerus (Ms196).

MEASUREMENTS. — See Table 1.

DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISONS

C1: the tooth is more massive than in the comparative material of modern Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) from North Bulgaria. The crown outline in occlusal view is irregularly oval, elongated antero-posteriorly; the posterolabial margin is convex, while the postero-lingual one is slightly concave. The tooth is less compressed antero-posteriorly in comparison with the tooth of the modern species, so, from the labial view, the posterior undulation of the cingulum forms a right angle (sharp in the recent species).

P4: the tooth is elongated transversely; the talonid is well developed postero-lingually; the anterior margin is slightly concave.

M1-M2: these molars are relatively large. The posterior emargination is well pronounced, especially on M1; this tooth also shows a well developed talon. In these respects, the teeth resemble those of the recent Rh. ferrumequinum . As compared with Rh. wenzensis ( Woloszyn 1988) the width of molars from Muselievo is considerably greater. At the same time, they are slightly narrower than the molars of Rh. kowalskii Topál, 1979 , Rh. estramontis Topál, 1979 , and Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens Topál, 1979 ( Topál 1979) . Most probably, these disagreements reflect some differences in the measurement systems used by the various authors.

M3: this tooth is relatively large and more massive than in the recent species and in Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens . In this respect, it is similar to Rh. kowalskii and Rh. estramontis .

c1: it is somewhat compressed oro-caudally (more than in the recent species) in occlusal outline. In size it is comparable with Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens and Rh. wenzensis ( Table 1) and is more massive than in the recent species.

p3: this tooth is lacking, but judging by the size and position of the alveolus it can be said that it is larger and not so displaced labially as in Rh. estramontis from Osztramos-1f and especially in comparison with the recent species. Most probably, the crowns of p2 and p4 were not contiguous as in the case of modern Rh. ferrumequinum . At the same time, p3 seems more reduced than in some specimens of Rh. kowalskii from Podlesice and Rh. cf. kowalskii ssp. from Csarnóta-2 ( Topál 1979). In this respect, it is similar to Rh. wenzensis ( Woloszyn 1988) .

p4: p4 is robust. In occlusal view, the outline of the crown is a shortened irregular trapezium with the shorter and slightly convex base oriented labially. This tooth exceeds in dimensions those of Rh. kowalskii , Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens and the recent species Rh. ferrumequinum . In this respect it is similar with Rh. wenzensis although this species shows a slightly, on average, more elongated p4 ( Table 1).

m1 and m2: m1 and m2 are nyctalodontic and massive. They are larger than the respective molars in Rh. kowalskii , Rh. estramontis , Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens and the modern comparative material of Rh. ferrumequinum .

m3: nyctalodontic. The talonid is relatively large, wider than in the modern Rh. ferrumequinum (taWm3 recent = 0.92-1.02-1.35, N = 20), Rh. kowalskii and Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens , being nearly identical with Rh. wenzensis ( Table 1).

REMARKS

The teeth available have a structure and arrangement characteristic for the large sized species of horseshoe bats, belonging to “ ferrumequinum ” group. They are however larger than in the modern species from Bulgaria ( Figs 4 A-C; 5B, C; 6A-C) and similar in this respect to the fossil species Rh. kowalskii , Rh. estramontis , Rh. macrorhinus anomalidens ( Topál 1979) , although in some measurements the material from Muselievo shows even larger values. According to the teeth dimensions, and especially those of p4 and m3, the examined material is practically identical with Rh. wenzensis ( Woloszyn 1988) . In general, the size, teeth structure and arrangement of the form from Muselievo correspond to the original diagnosis of Rh. wenzensis ( Woloszyn 1988) : “A large representative of Rhinolophus , close in dimensions to Rh. kowalskii Topál, 1979 differing from this species in its massive teeth, a robust p4, whose crown is almost square in outline, a massive talonid on m3 and more strongly reduced p2”.

The remains from Muselievo show that with regard to the structure of the anterior part of dentition we deal with an early-specialized form. In this respect, the examined material substantiates the Woloszyn’s (1988) suggestion that “ Rh. wenzensis is more progressive than other Miocene and Pliocene species of that group”. On the other hand, this species retains some less specialized features such as the relatively large talonid on m3, not so reduced p3, moderately displaced outward from the tooth row so that the crowns of p2 and p4 are probably not contiguous. For the time being, the described remains are the second record of the species. Its presence in Muselievo constitutes an important fact, indicating that it is not an endemic form as supposed by Woloszyn (1988).

Figures

FIG. 7. — Rhinolophus wenzensis Woloszyn, 1988; A, right upper canine, Ms197, buccal view; B, the same, lingual view; C, the same, occlusal view; D, left fragment of mandible with c1, p4, and m1, Ms174, lingual view; E, the same, labial view; F, the same, occlusal view; G, right P4, Ms192, occlusal view; H, right M2, Ms199, occlusal view; I, right M1, Ms198, occlusal view; J, right M3, Ms200, occlusal view; K, left m1, Ms176, lingual view; L, the same, occlusal view; M, the same, buccal view. Scale bar: 1 mm.