identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
85F5AA1EDF0752EF941A3014D10D6B6D.text	85F5AA1EDF0752EF941A3014D10D6B6D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lartetium africanum (Lavocat 1961)	<div><p>Lartetium africanum (Lavocat, 1961)</p><p>Fig. 4 A, B</p><p>Material and measurements.</p><p>One right i 1 (L: 1.90) (IPS-PAM 207-30), one left m 1 (L: 1.25; TRW: 0.82; TAW: 0.91) (IPS-PAM 207-31).</p><p>Description.</p><p>i 1 (Fig. 4 B). The i 1 is a bicuspulate element. The root is almost equal in length to the crown. The crown and the root display only an inconspicuous bending between both, almost standing along a straight axis. There is a well-developed cingulid covering the labial base of the enamel.</p><p>m 1 (Fig. 4 A). The m 1 has a talonid wider than the trigonid, although both parts of the tooth are quite similar in length. The protoconid is the highest cuspid of the tooth, followed by the metaconid and the hypoconid. The entoconid is a small cone-shaped cuspid placed just anteriorly from an almost completely reduced entostylid. The paraconid is quite similar in height to the entoconid. The blades of the protolophid and the paralophid are remarkably notched. The hypolophid and the oblique cristid descend regularly from the hypoconid towards the entostylid, and to the middle height of the protoconid, respectively. A marked labial cingulid outlines the base of the paralophid in occlusal view.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>In the preliminary identification of the material (Tesón et al. 2010), this taxon could only be identified to the tribe level, following the proposal of Furió et al. (2007). Considering the relative lengths of the talonid and trigonid of the m 1, and the slight bending between the root and the crown of the lower incisor, this form was classified as an archaic member of the family Crocidosoricinae, more specifically as an undetermined Oligosoricini species.</p><p>The study by Hugueney et al. (2015), describing unpublished material of Lartetium africanum, shed new light on the oldest fossil shrews from the African continent. Beyond the extreme similarities in the morphologies of i 1 and m 1, the measurements of these elements from the Ouarzazate material fall entirely within the range of the Beni Mellal assemblage, as provided by Hugueney et al. (2015): (FSL 66873) m 1: L = 1.26 × TRW = 0.83 × TAW = 0.93; (FSL 66874) m 1: L = 1.20 × TRW = 0.80 × TAW = 0.88; (FSL 66875) m 1: L = 1.28 × TRW = 0.87 × TAW = 0.93; and (FSL 66876) i 1: L = 1.98.</p><p>In the absence of any alternative hypothesis that could challenge this ascription, this identification likely indicates a species that persisted in North Africa for several million years without undergoing any remarkable change in size or morphology.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/85F5AA1EDF0752EF941A3014D10D6B6D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Piñero, Pedro;Agustí, Jordi;Blain, Hugues-Alexandre;Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel;Tesón, Eliseo;Teixell, Antonio;Furió, Marc	Piñero, Pedro, Agustí, Jordi, Blain, Hugues-Alexandre, Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel, Tesón, Eliseo, Teixell, Antonio, Furió, Marc (2025): A new Late Miocene small vertebrate assemblage from the Ouarzazate Basin (High Atlas, Morocco) and its biochronological and paleoenvironmental significance. Fossil Record 28 (2): 377-395, DOI: 10.3897/fr.28.175508
CFB240CAA1F154FBB9C74AC508D4E318.text	CFB240CAA1F154FBB9C74AC508D4E318.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Myocricetodon ouaichi Jaeger 1977	<div><p>Myocricetodon cf. ouaichi Jaeger, 1977</p><p>Fig. 4 G – I</p><p>Material and measurements.</p><p>One left M 1 (L: 1.66; W: 0.93) (IPS-PAM 207-02); one left M 1 (L: 1.57; W: 0.95) (IPS-PAM 207-03); one right m 1 (L: 1.55; W: 1.00) (IPS-PAM 207-13).</p><p>Description.</p><p>M 1 (Fig. 4 G, H). A low cingulum is present on the anterior wall of both teeth. The anterocone is composed of two alternating lobes, separated by a groove. The anterior arm of the protocone is connected to the labial lobe of the anterocone. The posterior wall of the protocone is connected to the lingual wall of the paracone. A well-developed, isolated lingual accessory cuspule is present in one of the teeth (Fig. 4 G) but absent in the other (Fig. 4 H). The anterior arm of the hypocone is connected directly to the posterior wall of the paracone in one case (IPS-PAM 207-02), while in the other tooth the hypocone and paracone are isolated (IPS-PAM 207-03). The hypocone is connected posteriorly to the metacone.</p><p>m 1 (Fig. 4 I). Although broken, it appears that the anteroconid was wide. A well-developed lingual anterolophid is present. The protoconid is directly connected to the metaconid. There is no longitudinal ridge, the sinusid being connected to the mesosinusid, separating the protoconid from the entoconid. The hypoconid and entoconid are directly connected. A small, rounded posterolophid is present.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>The sample of Myocricetodon from PAM 207 was preliminarily assigned to Myocricetodon cf. afoudensis . New comparisons reveal that the studied sample shows larger dimensions than those of this species (Benammi 2001). Similarly, the studied teeth are larger than those of Myocricetodon jaegeri (see Benammi 2001). In contrast, the M 1 fits both in size and morphology with Myocricetodon seboui from Oued Zra and Guefait- 1 (Jaeger 1977; Agustí et al. 2023), and Myocricetodon ouaichi from Tafna 2 (Mahboubi et al. 2015). The dimensions of the m 1 fall within the upper limit of variability of M. seboui and match the size of M. ouaichi . Although fragmented, the anteroconid of the m 1 exhibits a more complex morphology than the small, simple, rounded anteroconid of M. seboui . In contrast, it matches the wider anteroconid of M. ouaichi, described for the first time by Coiffait-Martin (1991), which has a large anteroconid and a well-developed labial anterolophid.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CFB240CAA1F154FBB9C74AC508D4E318	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Piñero, Pedro;Agustí, Jordi;Blain, Hugues-Alexandre;Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel;Tesón, Eliseo;Teixell, Antonio;Furió, Marc	Piñero, Pedro, Agustí, Jordi, Blain, Hugues-Alexandre, Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel, Tesón, Eliseo, Teixell, Antonio, Furió, Marc (2025): A new Late Miocene small vertebrate assemblage from the Ouarzazate Basin (High Atlas, Morocco) and its biochronological and paleoenvironmental significance. Fossil Record 28 (2): 377-395, DOI: 10.3897/fr.28.175508
AFEC178E9C2159D68D703CC36A10D197.text	AFEC178E9C2159D68D703CC36A10D197.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Progonomys mauretanicus Coiffait-Martin 1991	<div><p>Progonomys mauretanicus Coiffait-Martin, 1991</p><p>Fig. 4 J – P</p><p>Material and measurements.</p><p>one left M 1 (L: 2.05; W: 1.27) (IPS-PAM 207-01); one fragment of right M 1 (W: 1.16) (IPS-PAM 207-04); one left M 2 (L: 1.49; W: 1.32) (IPS-PAM 207-05); one left M 2 (L: 1.39; W: 1.17) (IPS-PAM 207-06); one left m 1 poorly preserved (IPS-PAM 207-12); one right m 2 (L: 1.44; W: 1.25) (IPS-PAM 207-11); one left m 3 (L: 0.98; W: 0.88) (IPS-PAM 207-00).</p><p>Description.</p><p>M 1. (Fig. 4 J, K) The t 1 is displaced posteriorly relative to the t 3. The t 1 bis and the t 2 bis are absent. A short spur on the t 3 is directed toward the t 5 – t 6 intersection. There is no connection between the t 5 and the t 1 or t 3. A spur on the t 6 is directed toward the t 9, but both tubercles are widely separated. The t 4 and t 8 are basally connected by a low, thin ridge. The t 7 is absent. The low, well-developed t 12 is connected to the t 8 but remains separated from the t 9.</p><p>M 2. (Fig. 4 L, M) The t 1 and t 3 are isolated and oval, the former being larger than the latter. The t 4 is connected basally to the t 8 by a low, narrow ridge. A deep valley separates the t 6 and t 9. The t 7 is absent. There is a small, low t 12 attached to the intersection between the t 8 and t 9.</p><p>m 1. (Fig. 4 N) The only m 1 is poorly preserved anteriorly and labially. However, it can be distinguished that the labial cingulum reaches the anteroconid. The anteroconid complex is connected to the metaconid – protoconid complex. The protoconid and hypoconid are slightly displaced posteriorly relative to the metaconid and entoconid. The longitudinal spur is absent. The oval-compressed posterior cingulum is slightly displaced lingually.</p><p>m 2. (Fig. 4 O) The only specimen is somewhat worn. There is no longitudinal spur. The labial cingulum is moderately developed and bears a large labial anteroconid. The small posterior accessory cuspid (c 1) is attached to the hypoconid. Another small, rounded accessory labial cuspid is attached to the protoconid. The posterior cingulum is oval.</p><p>m 3. (Fig. 4 P) The hypoconid-entoconid pair (posterior complex) is separated from the protoconid-metaconid complex. Neither the labial anteroconid, labial cingulum, nor posterior accessory cuspid (c 1) is present.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Originally, the murid sample from PAM 207 was identified as Paraethomys cf. miocaenicus (see Tesón et al. 2010). However, the separation between the t 6 and t 9 in the M 1 and M 2 allows us to discard its assignment to this genus. By contrast, the examined teeth show features characteristic of the genus Progonomys, including their small size, elongated and narrow shape, the posterior placement of the t 1 relative to the t 3, the connection between the t 4 and t 8, the clear separation of the t 6 and t 9, the absence of t 7, and an overall lack of longitudinal connections.</p><p>The PAM 207 sample can be distinguished from Progonomys minus (Turkey; Sen, 2003), Progonomys morganae (Siwalik; Pakistan; Kimura et al. 2017), Progonomys shalaensis (China; Qiu and Li 2016), and Progonomys manolo (Lebanon; López-Antoñanzas et al. 2019) by its larger size. Progonomys hispanicus (Spain; Michaux 1971), Progonomys debruijni (Pakistan; Jacobs 1978), and Progonomys yunnanensis (China; Qiu and Storch 1990) were excluded from the genus Progonomys by Mein et al. (1993). Nevertheless, the studied teeth are larger than those of these three species. By comparison, Progonomys woelferi (Europe; Bachmayer and Wilson 1970) and Progonomys sinensis (China; Qiu et al. 2004) are distinguished from the studied molars by their larger size.</p><p>In North Africa, two species of Progonomys have been recorded: Progonomys cathalai and Progonomys mauretanicus . The specimens from PAM 207 fall within the uppermost part of the size range of Progonomys cathalai from its type locality (Montredon, France; Michaux 1971), with the exception of the m 2, which is distinctly larger than those from Montredon. Similarly, the teeth from PAM 207 reach the upper size limit of Progonomys cathalai from Masía del Barbo 2 B (Spain; Van de Weerd 1976), Híjar (Spain; Brandy 1979), and Montredon niveau supérieur (France; Aguilar 1982). However, the sample from PAM 207 exceeds the size of Progonomys cathalai from Guefaït- 1 (Morocco; Agustí et al. 2023), Peralejos A (Spain; Van de Weerd 1976), La Bastida (Spain; Agustí 1981), Bayraktepe II (Turkey; Ünay 1981), and Biodrak (Greece; de Bruijn 1976), among others. Furthermore, the studied specimens display more derived traits than Progonomys cathalai, such as the presence of a slight ridge on the t 6 of M 1. For these reasons, attribution to Progonomys cathalai can be confidently ruled out.</p><p>The molars of Progonomys from PAM 207 exhibit diagnostic traits of Progonomys mauretanicus, including the absence of a connection between t 1 and t 5, the presence of a spur on t 3 and a very slight crest on t 6 in M 1, the absence of a connection between t 6 and t 9 in M 2, and a labial cingulum reaching the anteroconid in m 1. Moreover, the size range of the studied molars corresponds to that of Progonomys mauretanicus from its type locality (El Hiout), and Mekhencha, Maatgua, Oued el Arbi, and Bab el Ahmar (Algeria; Coiffait-Martin 1991), except for the M 1 fragment (IPS-PAM 207-04) and the m 3 (IPS-PAM 207-00), which are slightly smaller. By comparison, the samples of Progonomys mauretanicus from Guergour Ferroudj and Zighout Youcef (Jaeger 1977; Coiffait-Martin 1991) are slightly larger than those from PAM 207. Considering both morphological and biometric criteria, the specimens from PAM 207 are identified as Progonomys mauretanicus .</p><p>The earliest evidence of Progonomys in North Africa dates back to at least 11 Ma, as indicated by the record of Progonomys cathalai in Bou Hanifia 5 (10.9 Ma; Sen 1986). This suggests that the genus may have dispersed simultaneously towards both the northern and southern Mediterranean margins (Jaeger et al. 1977; Coiffait-Martin 1991; Agustí et al. 2023). The arrival of Progonomys in North Africa from southern Asia likely occurred via the Levant corridor, while its entry into Europe is thought to have followed an eastern Asian route (López-Antoñanzas et al. 2019). Progonomys mauretanicus is considered a phyletic descendant of Progonomys cathalai in North Africa (Coiffait-Martin 1991). The species has been recorded from several early and middle Turolian (upper Tortonian – lower Messinian) localities in Algeria, including El Hiout, Bab el Ahmar, Bou Adjeb, Guergour Ferroudj, Maatgua, Ouled el Arbi, Sidi Salem, Zighout Youcef, Sidi Messaoud, and Mekhencha, as well as from the site of As Sahabi in Libya (Jaeger 1977; Coiffait-Martin 1991; Agustí 2008; Stoetzel 2013).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AFEC178E9C2159D68D703CC36A10D197	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Piñero, Pedro;Agustí, Jordi;Blain, Hugues-Alexandre;Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel;Tesón, Eliseo;Teixell, Antonio;Furió, Marc	Piñero, Pedro, Agustí, Jordi, Blain, Hugues-Alexandre, Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel, Tesón, Eliseo, Teixell, Antonio, Furió, Marc (2025): A new Late Miocene small vertebrate assemblage from the Ouarzazate Basin (High Atlas, Morocco) and its biochronological and paleoenvironmental significance. Fossil Record 28 (2): 377-395, DOI: 10.3897/fr.28.175508
A71E4C05451258F49F16D10DA79060F2.text	A71E4C05451258F49F16D10DA79060F2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Zramys salemi Jaeger 1977	<div><p>Zramys cf. salemi Jaeger, 1977</p><p>Fig. 4 F</p><p>Material and measurements.</p><p>One fragment of right M 1-2 (IPS-PAM 207-07) (W: 1.30); one right m 3 (L: ca. 1.99; W: 1.44) (IPS-PAM 207-10).</p><p>Description.</p><p>m 3 (Fig. 4 F). The anterior wall of the tooth is absent, but a very low, residual labial anterolophid can still be recognized at the base of the protoconid. A deep mesosinusid is directed forward. A transverse, deep sinusid is also present. The hypoconid and entoconid are fused, forming a round cusp, with no evidence of a posterosinusid.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Although in the preliminary classification by Tesón et al. (2010) the m 3 of Zramys from PAM 207 was assigned to Zramys cf. hammamai, this tooth is larger than that species, as well as larger than the m 3 of Zramys gueltae, Zramys dubius, Zramys semmnensis, Zramys jaegeri, and Zramys cavatus (see Jaeger et al. 1973; Jaeger 1977; Robinson et al. 1982; Ameur 1984; Coiffait-Martin 1991). In size, it matches the m 3 of Zramys haichai from Oued Zra (Morocco) and Zramys salemi from the type locality of Sidi Salem (Algeria; Jaeger et al. 1973). However, the m 3 from PAM 207 exhibits a more simplified pattern than the m 3 of Z. haichai from Oued Zra, with the hypoconid-entoconid pair reduced to a single round cusp, not delimiting a ring as in the type population of Oued Zra (Jaeger 1977, pl. 4, fig. 7). Therefore, we refer this material to Zramys cf. salemi . In addition to the m 3, a fragment of M 1-2 retains the labial wall of the paracone and the hypocone. The posterior ectoloph of the paracone does not reach the anterior wall of the hypocone.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A71E4C05451258F49F16D10DA79060F2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Piñero, Pedro;Agustí, Jordi;Blain, Hugues-Alexandre;Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel;Tesón, Eliseo;Teixell, Antonio;Furió, Marc	Piñero, Pedro, Agustí, Jordi, Blain, Hugues-Alexandre, Blanco-Lapaz, Ángel, Tesón, Eliseo, Teixell, Antonio, Furió, Marc (2025): A new Late Miocene small vertebrate assemblage from the Ouarzazate Basin (High Atlas, Morocco) and its biochronological and paleoenvironmental significance. Fossil Record 28 (2): 377-395, DOI: 10.3897/fr.28.175508
