taxonID	type	description	language	source
1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444.taxon	description	(Figs 2; 3) urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: 7 BB 81069 - CE 07 - 4658 - 9 F 6 B- 0 D 577 CBEDEF 0	en	Martinez-Navarro, Bienvenido, Lucenti, Saverio Bartolini, Palmqvist, Paul, Ros-Montoya, Sergio, Madurell-Malapeira, Joan, Espigares, M. Patrocinio (2021): A new species of dog from the Early Pleistocene site of Venta Micena (Orce, Baza Basin, Spain). Comptes Rendus Palevol 20 (17): 297-314, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17
1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS. — Medium-sized canid; M 1 paracone higher and enlarged compared to the metacone; strong and lobed buccal cingulum; large M 1 protocone and crest-like metaconule; M 2 hypocone reduced; p 3 alveolus lower than those of p 2 and p 4 on the alveolar plane of the mandible; short-crowned lower premolars; buccolingually compressed m 1; m 1 metaconid reduced; sinuous crista transversa connecting m 1 hypoconid and entoconid; m 1 entoconid reduced; m 2 metaconid reduced compared to the development of the protoconid and hypoconid. DERIVATIO NOMINIS. — From the town of Orce, in the vicinity of which the site of Venta Micena is located.	en	Martinez-Navarro, Bienvenido, Lucenti, Saverio Bartolini, Palmqvist, Paul, Ros-Montoya, Sergio, Madurell-Malapeira, Joan, Espigares, M. Patrocinio (2021): A new species of dog from the Early Pleistocene site of Venta Micena (Orce, Baza Basin, Spain). Comptes Rendus Palevol 20 (17): 297-314, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17
1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444.taxon	description	HYPODIGM. — Cranial fragments. VM- 2258, maxillary fragment with P 4 - M 2; VM- 2260, maxillary fragment with P 4 - M 2; VM- 2262, maxillary fragment with M 1 - M 2; VM- 10308, maxillary fragment with M 1 - M 2. Upper teeth. VM- 10375, right I 2; VM- 10405, left I 2; VM- 10378, right I 3; VM- 10479, left I 3; VM- 10376, left P 2; VM- 10498, right P 2; VM- 10488, right P 3; VM- 10379, right P 4; VM- 10467, left P 4; VM- 10480, left P 4; VM- 10494, left P 4; VM- 10495, left P 4; VM- 4109 _ 1, right M 1; VM- 10408 c, left M 1; VM- 10466, left M 1; VM- 10470, left M 1; VM- 4109 _ 2, right M 2; VM- 4585, left M 2; VM- 10382, left M 2; VM- 10497, left M 2. Mandible. VM- 2253, right hemimandible with p 4 - m 2; VM- 2254, right hemimandible with m 2; VM- 10408 a, hemimandible with m 2; VM- 13295 _ 4, right hemimandible. Lower dentition. VM- 10390, right i 1; VM- 10391, left i 1; VM- 10361, left i 2; VM- 10388, left i 2; VM- 10483, right p 1; VM- 10484, left p 1; VM- 10360, left p 2; VM- 10485, right p 2; VM- 10468, left p 4; VM- 13295 _ 1, right p 4; VM- 9322, right m 1; VM- 10403, left m 1; VM- 10404, left m 1; VM- 13295 _ 2, left m 1; VM- 13306, right m 1; VM- 4440 _ 1, right m 2; VM- 4440 _ 2, right m 2; VM- 10406, left m 2; VM- 10408 d, right m 2; VM- 13295 _ 3, right m 2 (Table 1). DESCRIPTION Upper dentition The I 1 and I 2 have two small basal cuspules, one on each side of the main cusp. The I 3 is caniniform, with no accessory cuspulids, and shows a well-developed distobuccal cingulum. The upper canine is flattened buccolingually, with an oval outline in occlusal view. The P 1 is single-rooted, with a conical crown. The P 2 has no accessory cuspules. The P 3 is similar in morphology to the P 2 but shows a single accessory cusp. The P 4 has a reduced protocone, poorly expanded lingually and rather close to the paracone. The latter is well-developed and stout. The cingulum extends on the distolingual part of the tooth. Of the buccal cusps of M 1, the paracone is larger and higher than the metacone. The protocone is well-developed, prominent and individualized. No protoconule is present. The postprotocrista is shallow and connects the protocone directly to the distal cingulum, as the metaconule is reduced to a shallow crista. The hypocone is prominent and rather individualized from the lingual cingulum. The trigon basin is wider and deeper than the talon basin. The latter is shallow and well-developed. The M 2 is smaller than the M 1, but similar in occlusal morphology. It is buccolingually elongated. The M 2 paracone is larger than the metacone, the protocone is well-developed and the hypocone is cingular. The cingulum is well-developed (Fig. 2). Mandible The corpus is low and slender, with a curved ventral border and a slightly arched toothrow with labial convexity, in dorsal view. When observed in lateral view, the ramus is high and forms a right angle with the corpus. On the buccal side of the mandible, the masseteric fossa is deep and broad. VM- 2253 is the best-preserved hemimandible and may belong to an adult individual not displaying the p 1 and m 3 alveoli (though the former seems to have been reabsorbed after the tooth was lost during life). The condyloid process is developed and medially inclined (Fig. 3). Lower dentition The incisors are flattened buccolingually, with a single distal accessory cuspulid. The p 1 is single-rooted and single-cusped. The p 2 is elongated mesiodistally, with a slightly enlarged distolingual portion and a small distal accessory cuspulid on the distal cingulid. The p 3 is similar to the p 2 but mesiodistally larger. It has a high protoconid and a small cuspulid on the distal cingulid. The p 4 is mesiodistally larger than the p 3, being elongated mesiodistally with the distolingual portion slightly inflated. It has two well-developed accessory cuspulids, individualized from the distal cingulid. A small cuspulid is evident on the mesiolingual cingulid. The m 1 paraconid is well-developed and higher compared to the p 4 protoconid, if observed in buccal view. The mesial margin of the paraconid is inclined distally. The m 1 has a high and distally inclined protoconid as well as a smaller mesial paraconid. The metaconid is reduced but rather individualized from the protoconid. Its tip is pointed distally, especially in VM- 10403. Regarding the talonid cuspids, the hypoconid is larger than the entoconid. There is a prominent transverse cristid between both cuspids, with a prominent sinuous outline in occlusal view. The talonid basin is deep, although it is small and closed lingually by a cristid-like entoconulid. Mesially to this cuspulid, there is a shallow cristid that develops to the distal side of the metaconid. The mesial margin of the hypoconid shows a crest. A small accessory tubercle is present on the distobuccal wall of the protoconid. The distal portion of the lower carnassial generally shows a variably developed cristid-like cingulid, which separates a shallow space between the hypoconid and the entoconid. A distobuccal cingulid is present. VM- 10403 also possesses a mesiolingual cingulid. The m 2 has an almost oval shape, in occlusal view. The mesiobuccal cingulid is markedly enlarged, especially compared to the distal portion of the tooth. The m 2 possesses two mesial cuspids, a large and stout protoconid and a smaller metaconid. Distally, the well-developed hypoconid is the only cuspid of the talonid. The protoconid is generally higher than the other two cuspids. A high cristid bounds the distolingual margin of the tooth, enclosing the well-developed talonid basin (Fig. 3). A B E C D F MORPHOLOGICAL AND MORPHOMETRIC COMPARISONS Comparisons with C. arnensis and C. etruscus from Italy The general size and tooth morphology are close to C. arnensis (and C. mosbachensis) but smaller than C. etruscus (see Figs 4; 5). In upper teeth morphology, C. orcensis n. sp. differs from the type sample of C. arnensis from Il Tasso and that of Poggio Rosso (Bartolini Lucenti & Rook 2016) as well as from that of C. etruscus from Olivola, Upper Valdarno and Pantalla (Cherin et al. 2014) in several features, including a P 4 protocone that is reduced in lingual development and does not possess a sharp-pointed cusp, unlike C. arnensis and C. etruscus. In C. orcensis n. sp., the M 1 paracone is considerably larger than the metacone, which differs from C. arnensis, where the cusps are of similar size, but also from C. etruscus, in which the difference is less marked and the metacone is generally girdled by a prominent cingulum. In the latter, the molars are elongated buccolingually in occlusal view, whereas in C. orcensis n. sp. they do not, and show a marked distolingual curvature. The trigon basin in the M 1 of C. orcensis n. sp. is deeper than the talon one, whereas these basins have equal depth in both C. etruscus and C. arnensis (Fig. 5), and the talon basin does not tend to reduction as in C. orcensis n. sp. Moreover, the M 2 of C. etruscus is mesiobuccally enlarged compared to the more-slender morphology of C. orcensis n. sp. in occlusal view. Additionally, C. orcensis n. sp. lacks other peculiar features of C. arnensis from Il Tasso and Poggio Rosso, and of C. etruscus from Olivola, Upper Valdarno and Pantalla, like e. g., the well-developed metaconid of m 1, generally lingually displaced; the strongly developed P 4 protocone and the absence of cuspulids on the lingual margin of m 1 of C. etruscus; as well as the reduced difference between the hypoconid and entoconid of m 1; and the presence of accessory cuspids on the lingual side of m 2 of C. arnensis. Comparisons with C. etruscus and C. accitanus from Fonelas P 1 and C. borjgali from Dmanisi As noted above, two small-to-medium-sized Canis species have been described in the Spanish site of Fonelas P 1: Canis etruscus, and the species erected by Garrido & Arribas (2008), C. accitanus. In comparison to C. etruscus from this site, in addition to the above-mentioned differences, C. orcensis n. sp. shows a greater development of the M 1 buccal cingulum as well as a M 1 metacone (Fig. 5), a metaconule and a M 2 protocone that are all proportionally reduced. In the type specimen of C. accitanus, the development of the P 4 protocone does not resemble that of C. orcensis n. sp. In the former, it is large and expands lingually, whereas in the latter the protocone is less separated from the paracone, smaller and characterized by a blunt cusp. The cingula of the M 1 (i. e., the buccal and the mesial ones) in C. accitanus are poorly developed compared to those of C. orcensis n. sp (Fig. 5). The former also shows an evident protoconule and a tubercular metaconule, in contrast to the features of the sample from Venta Micena. The M 2 of C. accitanus possesses similarly sized buccal cusps, whereas C. orcensis n. sp. shows a markedly enlarged M 2 paracone in comparison to the metacone. The buccal cingulum of C. orcensis n. sp. is continuous along the buccal side of the M 2. In contrast, in C. accitanu s, it girdles the buccal cusps and forms a feeble yet visible notch between them. Fonelas P 1 is roughly coeval to the site of Dmanisi, which preserves one of the most remarkable records of Canis historically attributed to C. etruscus (Vekua 1995). A recent revision questions this attribution due to the absence of several diagnostic features of C. etruscus (Bartolini Lucenti et al. 2020). Compared to C. orcensis n. sp., this sample shares also the differences above-mentioned, although it also shows some similarities. In the upper teeth, the P 4 protocone is reduced, the M 1 buccal cingulum is more developed compared to C. etruscus of Fonelas P 1 and Italy, the M 1 metaconule is reduced although still tubercular, rather than crest-like as in C. orcensis n. sp (Fig. 5). Of the features of the lower teeth that resemble C. orcensis n. sp., the most prominent are the short morphology of the lower premolars in buccal view, the reduction of the m 1 metaconid compared to C. arnensis and C. etruscus from Fonelas P 1 and the Italian sites, and the sinuous transverse cristid connecting the hypoconid and the entoconid.	en	Martinez-Navarro, Bienvenido, Lucenti, Saverio Bartolini, Palmqvist, Paul, Ros-Montoya, Sergio, Madurell-Malapeira, Joan, Espigares, M. Patrocinio (2021): A new species of dog from the Early Pleistocene site of Venta Micena (Orce, Baza Basin, Spain). Comptes Rendus Palevol 20 (17): 297-314, DOI: 10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17, URL: https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a17
