identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
79665A34BA685811FC33FAA5FA44FACC.text	79665A34BA685811FC33FAA5FA44FACC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Samotherium Forsyth-Major 1888	<div><p>Genus Samotherium Forsyth-Major, 1888</p><p>Type species Samotherium boissieri Forsyth-Major, 1888</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/79665A34BA685811FC33FAA5FA44FACC	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	Parizad, Elnaz;Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie;Mashkour, Marjan;Kostopoulos, Dimitris S.	Parizad, Elnaz, Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie, Mashkour, Marjan, Kostopoulos, Dimitris S. (2020): Samotherium Major, 1888 (Giraffidae) skulls from the late Miocene Maragheh fauna (Iran) and the validity of Alcicephalus Rodler & Weithofer, 1890. Comptes Rendus Palevol 19 (9): 153-172, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9
79665A34BA685818FC5AFA02FE2DFA8F.text	79665A34BA685818FC5AFA02FE2DFA8F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Samotherium boissieri Forsyth-Major 1888	<div><p>Samotherium cf. boissieri</p><p>(Figs 2; 3; Table 1; Appendices 2; 3; 5)</p><p>REFERRED MATERIALS. — Two almost complete skulls (PRCI/M350- 351), and four mandibles (PRCI/M310-313).</p><p>PROVISIONALLY ASCRIBED MATERIALS. — Two metapodials (PRCI/ M174, 312) and six astragali (PRCI/M294, 296-300), from the Ruhanioon locality, Maragheh, Iran.</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Two hornless skulls (PRCI/M350-351) were discovered. The skull PRCI/M350 belongs to an older adult individual. The back of the brain case and the premaxillary part of the face are not preserved in this specimen (Fig. 2). The skull PRCI/M351 is from an adult individual. It preserves most of the skull except the premaxillary part (Fig. 3). Both skulls are a little compressed laterally, but they preserve most of their morphometrical features.</p><p>The opisthocranium is especially short in relation to the face (Fig. 3A, C, E). The basicranial angle (i.e., the angle between the basicranial surface and the occlusal surface of the cheek teeth) is around 15°. The occipital condyles are strong and point postero-ventrally (Fig. 3 C-E). The basioccipital is short (Fig. 3F) and triangular, with much stronger posterior than anterior tuberosities. The paraoccipital processes are broken, but clearly placed in front of the condyles. The foramen magnum is filled with paste but seems to be quadrangular. The occipital face looks rectangular with a characteristically fan-shaped occiput (Fig. 3D). The nuchal crest is strong, posteriorly projected and has a median notch (Fig. 3D). The braincase roof is undulated in lateral aspect (Figs 2B; 3B) with a slightly convex rostral and a concave caudal part, exaggerated by the strong nuchal crest. Temporal crests are strong (Figs 2A; 3A); they slightly diverge rostrally and converge caudally.</p><p>The upper margin of the external auditory meatus is below the lower orbital level (Fig. 3C). The alveolar level is subparallel to the naso-parietal one (Figs 2; 3C, E). The zygomatic arches run parasagittally. The frontals are wide and slightly concave. Extended lachrymal sinuses form a small hump in the rostro-dorsal part of the orbit, at the level of the fronto-lachrymal suture (Figs 2; 3C, E). The nasals are elongated and thin. Their widened posterior part is placed above the M2-M3 level (Figs 2A; 3A). A small ethmoidal fissure is formed by the nasal, lachrymal and maxillary bones. Its posterior margin is placed above M1-M2 (Fig. 3C, E). A triangular lachrymal depression, with an anterior limit above P3/P4, is defined by the nasals, and a blunt crest running obliquely from the fronto-lachrymal area (Figs 2; 3C, E). A slightly developed facial crest extends up to M1 (Figs 2; 3C, E). The infraorbital foramen opens above and slightly in front of P2 (Fig. 3C). The orbit is round and its upper half is above the nasal level (Figs 2; 3C, E) having an elevated “periscopic” position. The anterior margin of the orbit is placed above the posterior lobe of M3 (Figs 2; 3C, E). The supraorbital process of the frontals is well developed and extended (Figs 2A; 3A). The thickness of the frontals is about 20 mm at the orbital region. The choanae are open, “V”-shaped, and extend rostrally to the middle of M3 and anterior to the lateral indentations of the palate (Fig. 3F).</p><p>The length of the upper toothrow ranges from 183 to 185 mm (n = 2) with a premolar/molar length ratio of 65.6-69.0 (Figs 2F; 3G). The p2-m3 length is 189-190 mm with a lower premolar/molar length ratio from 58 to 63 (mean = 60.5, n = 4). Detailed morphological descriptions of the upper dentition, mandibles and lower dentition (Appendix 2) are provided in the Supplementary Material (Appendix 1). Descriptions and measurements of the postcranials (Appendix 5) provisionally associated with the studied cranial material are also given in the Supplementary Material (Appendix 1).</p><p>COMPARISON</p><p>The cranial, dental and postcranial morphology and proportions of the studied material preclude ascription to Sivatheriinae: with much larger size, larger premolars compared to the molars, unmolarized p3, more massive metapodials; or Giraffinae: comparatively shorter braincase, domed nasals, more complex dental morphology, dolichopodial limbs; suggesting affiliations to Palaeotraginae (Hamilton 1978; Geraads 1986). The two studied skulls are determined as females because of the absence of ossicones and related bumps on the frontals. As seen in specimens from Greece, Turkey, Iran and China, “hornless” females are rather common within the subfamily Palaeotraginae, although occasional thin ossicones on females sometimes occur (Bohlin 1926; Kostopoulos 2009b).</p><p>Three palaeotragine genera are reported from Maragheh: Palaeotragus, Samotherium and Alcicephalus (Bohlin 1926; Mecquenem 1924 -1925; Solounias &amp; Danowitz 2016). The backward position of the orbit, the large toothrow and especially the large molars, the short upper premolar row compared to the molars, the strong paracone and metacone pillars, the weak metastyle, the non-constricted lingually protocone, the presence of a medial spur on the mesial flange of the hypocone on the upper molars, the undistinguished paracone and metacone on the upper premolars, the short diastema compared to the toothrow (p2-m3) length (length ratio well below 1), and the reduced talonid of the lower p3 and p4, differentiate the studied crania and mandibles from the similar-sized Palaeotragus coelophrys (Rodler &amp; Weithofer, 1890) from Maragheh (Bohlin 1926; Geraads 1986, 1994; Hamilton 1978; Kostopoulos 2009b).</p><p>Alcicephalus versus Samotherium</p><p>Recent revisions have revived the debate over the validity of the genus Alcicephalus, originally introduced by Rodler &amp; Weithofer (1890) for the large Maragheh samothere. According to Hou et al. (2014), the occipital of Alcicephalus does not form a protruding backward shelf as in Samotherium and Palaeotragus, lying on the same flattened or slightly concave surface along with the mastoids. This morphology is mainly observed on two Chinese crania from Gansu ascribed to Alcicephalus (NS 20 HMV 0948 and NS 8 HMV 0947; see Hou et al. 2014: fig. 1 and fig. 4D1, D2). However, Hou et al. (2014: 92) recognized a similar occipital pattern on a braincase from Maragheh, referred to the same taxon [specimen MNHN MAR651, Fig. 4 A-C, originally described and illustrated by Mecquenem (1924 -1925: pl. II, fig. 3) as Camelopardalis attica Gaudry &amp; Lartet, 1856 and incorrectly listed as MNHN MAR681 by Hou et al. (2014) and Solounias &amp; Danowitz (2016);]. Because MNHN MAR651 is widely accepted as conspecific with the holotype palate of A. neumayri [NHMW 2019/0018/0006, Fig. 4E, F, previously reported as NHMW A4903 and incorrectly listed as MNHNW A4960 by Solounias &amp; Danowitz (2016)], Hou et al. (2014) suggested Alcicephalus is a distinct genus, admitting however the similarities with Samotherium in size and morphology. These specimens (MNHN MAR651 and NHMW 2019/0018/0006; Fig. 4) together with some isolated ossicones, dentitions, and postcranials from Maragheh (stored in NHMW, MNHN Paris, MMTT Iran, AMNH New York, and BSPG Munich) contributed to the hypodigm of A. neumayri in Solounias &amp; Danowitz (2016), and allowed these authors to provide a composite reconstruction of its skull (idem: fig. 5). In distinction of Samotherium, Alcicephalus is also reported as having a notably small masseteric fossa, inward curved ossicones, low mandibular ramus, and short lamina and lack of a dorsal tubercle on the atlas (Hou et al. 2014; Solounias &amp; Danowitz 2016).</p><p>In our view, the occipital of MNHN MAR651 clearly shows a protruding fan-shaped shelf placed on a more caudal level than the mastoids (Fig. 4C), similar to Samotherium and Palaeotragus (Fig. 4D 3, D 4) and in contrast to the Chinese crania (Fig. 4D 1, D 2) studied by Hou et al. (2014). The basicranial morphology of the specimen (Fig.4A) is also completely compatible to that of Samotherium from Samos and China. Furthermore, we were not able to trace any significant difference in the degree of masseteric fossa development between the badly preserved NHMW 2019/0018/0006 (Fig. 4E, F) and most Samotherium crania from Samos or in the depth of the mandible (with the height of the mandible between p4-m1 nearly equal to the length of m3). The inward curvature of the ossicones does not seem to be a valid character for genus distinction, as for instance, ossicones of the closely related Palaeotragus may be quite variable depending on the species (Athanassiou 2014; Bohlin 1926). Hence, cranial, mandibular and dental features of the Maragheh material are consistent with the characteristics of the genus Samotherium and not sufficient for the re-establishment of Alcicephalus . As a consequence the generic attribution of the Gansu crania studied by Hou et al. (2014) needs reconsideration.</p><p>Cranial comparisons among Samotherium boissieri, S. neumayri and S. major Several scholars suggested synonymizing S. neumayri (Rodler &amp; Weithofer, 1890) with S. boissieri Major, 1888 or S. major Bohlin, 1926 (Erdbrink 1978; Gentry et al. 1999). Although cranial and dental size and morphology of S. neumayri are quite similar to those of S. boissieri (Fig. 5A, B). Postcranials from Maragheh referred to S. neuma yri appear proportionally intermediate between those of S. boissieri and S. major (Geraads 2017; Hou et al. 2014; Kostopoulos 2009b; Rios et al. 2017; Solounias &amp; Danowitz 2016; Appendix 6) and therefore are in favor of its distinction as a separate species. Although generic disparity is suggested for S. boissieri and S. major (Solounias 2007), data support the presence of two distinct species (Geraads 1994; Kostopoulos 2009b; Rios et al. 2017). Samotherium boissieri, S. neumayri and S. major share the large size and the long-pointed frontal appendages (unknown in S. neumayri), the reduction of the posterior lobe of p4, the relatively elongate p2, the short premolar row, and the large and rather massive limbs (Geraads 1986; Hamilton 1978; Kostopoulos 2009b).</p><p>The elevated “periscopic” position of the orbit is more developed in S. boissieri than in S. major . It means that while half of the orbit is placed above the upper surface of the nasal level in S. boissieri, only 1/3 of the orbit exceeds this level in S. major . In addition, the orbit is more posteriorly placed in S. major than in S. boissieri (Kostopoulos 2009b) . In all these respects the new samothere material from Maragheh is closer to S. boissieri than to S. major . Comparison with S. neumayri is restricted to the holotype palate NHMW 2019/0018/0006, which is seriously damaged at the orbito-nasal area (pers. obs. and Rodler &amp; Weithofer 1890: taf. II, fig. 2). However, the orbit appears to have a quite advanced elevated “periscopic” position and its anterior edge is above the M3 (Fig. 4E, F), similarly with the studied crania. The lachrymal depression in S. major is much wider and longer than in S. boissieri and the new Maragheh crania. The ethmoidal fissure is defined by the same bone elements in both taxa, but it is much smaller in S. major . The posterior margin of this fissure is above the M 3 in this species, but above M1-M 2 in S. boissieri and in the new Maragheh crania. Unfortunately, these features are not securely recognizable in the holotype of S. neumayri . In S. boissieri and the new Maragheh specimens the choanae are open “V”-shaped, reaching the middle of M3. Whilst in S. major it is U-shaped, invading farther anteriorly (until the anterior border of M3). In S. neumayri the choanae open slightly behind the lateral indentations, in contrast to the studied material (MAR 350-351; Figs. 2D; 3F), where the lateral indentations are retracted at the distal edge of M3 and the choanae open anterior to them, reaching the middle of M3.</p><p>The paroccipital processes in S. major have a more vertical position than in S. boissieri and S. neumayri . They reach below the condyle level, whereas the basioccipital is also longer in S. major but with a similar structure. In opisthocranial features the studied Maragheh crania more resemble S. boissieri and S. neumayri than S. major . Metrical skull characters of the new Maragheh specimens are generally smaller than those of S. major and closer to S. boissieri and S. neumayri (Figs 5; 6). The general shape and outline of the mandible is similar between S. major and S. boissieri . However, the ventral profile of the horizontal ramus is more open “S” shaped in S. boissieri and in the Maragheh specimens studied here than in S. major . No complete mandible of S. neumayri is known for comparison.</p><p>Dental comparisons of Samotherium boissieri, S. neumayri and S. major</p><p>The tooth morphology of S. boissieri is generally similar to that of S. major and S. neumayri and a distinction is difficult, given that great morphological variability observed in samotheres (e.g. Bohlin 1926; Kostopoulos 2009b). The upper and lower dental metrical features (length of premolar to molar row, and length of tooth row to length of premolar and molar row) of the studied Maragheh samotheres are smaller than those of S. major and within the range of S. boissieri, but also close to the known values for S. neumayri (Fig. 5). An investigation of dental differences between the similar-sized S. boissieri from Samos and S.neumayri from old Maragheh collections (MNHN, NHMW, MMTT) is attempted. The comparison focuses on the lower premolar morphology considered by some authors to be more diagnostic (e.g. Geraads 1978, 1994; Hamilton 1978). It should be noted, however, that the sample is just indicative (n = 8-12) and that old Maragheh collections do not always have precise stratigraphic provenience, meaning that there is a risk that the sample considered here as representing S. neumayri may contain specimens of different dating (and possibly species taxonomy).</p><p>Similar to S. boissieri and different from S. neumayri (but observations based only on the MNHN MAR 528 mandible and an uncatalogued p4-m3 series in NHMW), the studied lower molars have a weakly expressed parastylid and more triangular-shaped hypoconid (instead of strong parastylid and highly convex and wide hypoconid in S. neumayri). In two of the four available mandibles bearing the second premolar (Appendix 4 A-B), the p2 length represents 80.5-84.5% of the p3 length. In S. boissieri from Samos, the p2 to p3 length ratio ranges from 75.2-85.5 (n = 5), whereas in S. neumayri the p2 appears relatively shorter (70.7-72.0%; n = 2). In all studied samples the p3 length represents about 80-90% of the p4 length, whereas the talonid to trigonid length ratio of p4 ranges from 30 to 48% (n = 10), though a p 4 in NHMW shows an even shorter talonid (26%). There are three main morphotypes of p3: those in which the metaconid fuses earlier with the entoconid than with the paraconid (type I), those in which the metaconid fuses earlier with the paraconid than with the entoconid (type II), and those with a fully molarized lingual wall even from unworn stage (type III). The last type appears in every one of the studied samples and usually these p3s look like perfect copies of the corresponding p4s. Type I of p3 rather characterizes S. boissieri from Samos and it also occurs in two out of the three studied p3s (Appendix 4). Type II appears in one of the two known p3s attributed to S. neumayri (MNHN MAR528), and the other (uncatalogued specimen in NHMW) represents type III.</p><p>All three p4s from the Ruhanioon locality show a short hypoconid-entostylid complex associated with a short and almost mesio-distally arranged entoconid, sometimes leaving the posterior valley open distally (type 1). Four of the five p4s of S. neumayri known to us show an elongated entoconid and a long continuous hypoconid-entostylid complex, closing the posterior valley (type 2). The fifth p4 follows type 1. In S. boissieri from Samos there are variants of both morphotypes (Kostopoulos 2009b: fig. 8). All three p4s from the Ruhanioon locality show a strong parastylid resembling S. neumayri more than S. boissieri .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/79665A34BA685818FC5AFA02FE2DFA8F	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	Parizad, Elnaz;Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie;Mashkour, Marjan;Kostopoulos, Dimitris S.	Parizad, Elnaz, Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie, Mashkour, Marjan, Kostopoulos, Dimitris S. (2020): Samotherium Major, 1888 (Giraffidae) skulls from the late Miocene Maragheh fauna (Iran) and the validity of Alcicephalus Rodler & Weithofer, 1890. Comptes Rendus Palevol 19 (9): 153-172, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9
79665A34BA7D5805FE82FCE0FA71FC4E.text	79665A34BA7D5805FE82FCE0FA71FC4E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Samotherium boissieri Forsyth-Major 1888	<div><p>Samotherium cf. boissieri</p><p>(Appendices 2-5)</p><p>REFERRED MATERIALS. — Upper toothrows of cranial specimens PRCI/M350, PRCI/M351, and four mandibles (PRCI/M310-313)</p><p>PROVISIONALLY ASCRIBED. — Two metapodials (PRCI/M174, 312), and six astragali (PRCI/M294, 296-300).</p><p>SITE. — Ruhanioon locality, Maragheh, Iran.</p><p>D ESCRIPTIONS</p><p>Upper dentition</p><p>The P2-M3 length ranges between 183 mm (PRCI /M350) and 185 mm (PRCI /M351) (Table 1), with a premolar/molar ratio of 65.6 and 69.0, respectively. P2 and P3 are lingually rounded without evidence of a protocone-hypocone distinction.P3 compared to P2 has a stronger parastyle and a weaker metastyle, but none of them shows distinction of paracone from metacone. A hypoconal fold (spur) is present on both the P2 and P3. P4 is similar to P3,but much wider with strong parastyle and metastyle (Figs 2F; 3D). It has an almost flat and oblique lingual wall.</p><p>The molars, especially M2 and M3, are characterized by strong styles and paracone pillar. Well developed buccal and thin lingual cingula, and weak basal pillars attached to the distal lobe are present (Figs 2F; 3D). The protocone is more projected lingually than the hypocone, but none of them appears lingually constricted. On the less worn specimen (PRCI /M351) the mesial flange of the hypocone of M2 and M3 shows a small spur. It contacts the distal flange of the protocone, whereas the labial end of the mesial hypoconal flange contacts the distolingual part of the paracone. The enamel is finely rippled.</p><p>Mandibles and lower dentition</p><p>The preserved mandibles represent individuals ranging in age from young adult to old.The studied material includes:two right mandibular rami with p2-m3 (PRCI /M312, Appendix 4B; PRCI /M311, Appendix 4D), and two left mandibular rami with p2-m3 (PRCI /M310, Appendix 4C; PRCI /M313, Appendix 4A). The mental foramen is visible in some of the specimens. It opens about 50 mm in front of p2, suggesting the diastema is shorter than the check teeth row (Appendix 2). The horizontal ramus has a concave ventral profile between the mental foramen and the p2 (Appendix 4A 1, A 2, B 1, B 2, C 1, C 2, D 1, D 2). The mandibles have a generally wide angle, which slightly projects postero-ventrally. The vertical part of the ramus is not preserved, but in PRCI /M313-312 (Appendix 4A, B), the anterior margin of the ascending ramus behind the m3 forms a 60-70° angle with the alveolar level. The pterygoid and the masseteric fossae are shallow and slightly marked in some specimens. The p2-m3 length ranges between 189-190 mm (Appendix 2). The lower premolar/molar ratio ranges from 58 to 63 (mean = 60.5, n = 4).</p><p>The p2 is simple and long, representing 80-90% of the p3 length. An antero-lingual stylid is well developed and distinct. The entoconid, entostylid, hypoconid, and parastylid are well-developed on p2. The metaconid is present and centrally placed.It is rounded, and independent. The paraconid is absent. The p3 is molarized though the metaconid and the paraconid remain independent till advanced wear stage (Appendix 4A (3), B (3), C (3)). Buccally, the hypoconid is clearly distinct from the protoconid but not much projected. The parastylid is strong. The entoconid is obliquely placed. The p4 looks like a large version of p3 but the paraconid and the metaconid are fully merged (Appendix 4A 3, B3, C3). Connection of the postmetacristid and entoconid is visible with wear. Both the p3 and p4 show a reduced talonid compared to the trigonid Appendix 4A 3, B3, C3).</p><p>The molars are simple, moderately wide, with well-marked paraconid and weak parastylid and metastylid (Appendix 4A 3, B3, C3). The longer anterior and wider posterior lobes are well developed and separated by a deep labial notch. The third lobe of m3 is round to elliptical shaped in occlusal view, single cuspid and arranged along the longitudinal axis of the tooth.</p><p>Postcranials</p><p>A few postcranials from Ruhanioon locality are provisionally associated with the cranial material described above (Appendix 5). The material includes a metacarpal (PRCI /M174, Appendix 5 D-F), a metatarsal (PRCI /M312, Appendix 5 A-C), and six astragalii (PRCI /M294, 296-300, Appendix 5 G-R). Measurements are provided in Appendix 3. The medial and lateral epicondyles (sensu Rios et al. 2016: fig. 1) of Maragheh metacarpal are subequal but asymmetrical. There is a groove in the center of the medial epicondyle, while the lateral one has an oblique groove. The metatarsals also possess asymmetrical proximal epicondyles. The medial epicondyle is broad and a groove split it into two surfaces. It is shorter than the lateral epicondyle, which is confined and rounded. An oval-shaped body, which protrudes proximally, is wedged between epicondyles. A central trough with medium depth is present on the shaft of metapodials, defined by a rounded medial ridge, and a sharp lateral one. The keels of the distal condyles also extend into the distal shaft.</p><p>The trochlea of the astragalus shows a higher and thicker lateral proximal edge than the medial one. The central fossa is large, as high as wide. The distal intracephalic fossa is large and rather deep laterally. The medial surface of the collum tali bears a prominent crest. The medial side of the distal astragalar head is more massive than the lateral one. The trochlea distinguishes laterally from the head by a clear notch.</p><p>POSTCRANIAL COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION</p><p>By their absolute size, the studied metapodials and astragali are clearly smaller than those of Samotherium major from Samos and smaller than postcranials ascribed to S. neumayri from Maragheh (based on postcranial collection in MNHN. Paris) (Appendix 6). They fall well within the range of variation of Samotherium boissieri Major, 1888 from Samos and Palaeotragus coelophrys Rodler &amp; Weithofer, 1890 from Maragheh (based on postcranial collection in MNHN. Paris) (Appendix 6). Postcranial distinction between the two latter palaeotragine taxa is, however, much more delicate and proportionally infeasible. As the presence of Palaeotragus coelophrys in Ruhanioon locality is more than expected, though not yet confirmed by cranial or dental material, we focus our comparison on some morphological features that may serve discriminating postcranials of these two taxa.</p><p>In both the metacarpal and the metatarsal from Ruhanioon locality in Maragheh, the passage from the distal diaphysis to distal epiphysis is rather abrupt forming a clear “neck” feature that gives to the distal epiphysis a more rectangular shape in both anterior and posterior views. Though variability exists, metapodials of S. boissieri in NHMUK show the same pattern. Metapodials of Palaeotragus rouenii Gaudry, 1861 and large-sized Palaeotragus ascribed to P. ex. gr. coelophrys (including two specimens in MNHN. Paris collection and the specimen NHMUK M4711 from Maragheh identified as P. coelophrys) show a more evenly transition from the distal diaphysis to the distal epiphysis and thus a more triangular outline.</p><p>As in S. boissieri, most of the studied astragali show a strong distal intracephalic fossa, oblique medial ridge, and a clear lateral notch on the lateral dorsal edge. A sharp medial scala and a well-marked angle between the lateral ridge of the trochlea and the lateral distal head of the astragalus also exist. The specimen PRCI /M297 (Appendix 5K, Q) is the one in which most of these features are not apparent. In a restricted but indicative sample of large-sized Palaeotragus astragali from several institutions (including a few Maragheh specimens), the lateral edge of the dossal surface is fairly straight and the notch much less expressed. The distal intracephalic fossa is weak, and the medial ridge runs along the very medial edge of the ventral side. The medial scala is weaker. Although most of the above mentioned postcranial differences have to be cross-checked based on a large sample, they indicate that the majority of the studied postcranials better match S. boissieri than P.coelophrys .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/79665A34BA7D5805FE82FCE0FA71FC4E	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	Parizad, Elnaz;Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie;Mashkour, Marjan;Kostopoulos, Dimitris S.	Parizad, Elnaz, Ataabadi, Majid Mirzaie, Mashkour, Marjan, Kostopoulos, Dimitris S. (2020): Samotherium Major, 1888 (Giraffidae) skulls from the late Miocene Maragheh fauna (Iran) and the validity of Alcicephalus Rodler & Weithofer, 1890. Comptes Rendus Palevol 19 (9): 153-172, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2020v19a9
