identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444.text	1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Canis orcensis Martinez-Navarro & Lucenti & Palmqvist & Ros-Montoya & Madurell-Malapeira & Espigares 2021	<div><p>Canis orcensis n. sp.</p><p>(Figs 2; 3)</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 7BB81069-CE07-4658-9F6B-0D577CBEDEF0</p><p>Canis etruscus mosbachensis – Agustí et al. (1986) — Pons-Moyà (1987): 110 -112, figs 3, 4.</p><p>Cuon priscus – Agustí et al. (1986) — Pons-Moyà (1987): 113 - 114, fig. 7.</p><p>Canis etruscus – Martínez-Navarro 1992: 28-30, pls. 5, 8, 9.</p><p>Canis aff. arnensis – Rook (1993): 72 -80, pls. 20-21.</p><p>Canis mosbachensis – Martínez-Navarro (2002) — Boudadi-Maligne (2010) — Brugal &amp; Boudadi-Maligne (2011) — Ros-Montoya et al. (2012) — Madurell-Malapeira et al. (2014).</p><p>SYNTYPES. — VM-2253, right hemimandible with p4-m2; VM-2258, maxillary fragment with P4-M2; and VM-4109, right M1 and M2.</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Medium-sized canid; M1 paracone higher and enlarged compared to the metacone; strong and lobed buccal cingulum; large M1 protocone and crest-like metaconule; M2 hypocone reduced; p3 alveolus lower than those of p2 and p4 on the alveolar plane of the mandible; short-crowned lower premolars; buccolingually compressed m1; m1 metaconid reduced; sinuous crista transversa connecting m1 hypoconid and entoconid; m1 entoconid reduced; m2 metaconid reduced compared to the development of the protoconid and hypoconid.</p><p>DERIVATIO NOMINIS. — From the town of Orce, in the vicinity of which the site of Venta Micena is located.</p><p>HYPODIGM. — Cranial fragments.VM-2258, maxillary fragment with P4-M2; VM-2260, maxillary fragment with P4-M2; VM-2262, maxillary fragment with M1-M2; VM-10308, maxillary fragment with M1-M2.</p><p>Upper teeth. VM-10375, right I2; VM-10405, left I2; VM-10378, right I3; VM-10479, left I3; VM-10376, left P2; VM-10498, right P2; VM-10488, right P3; VM-10379, right P4; VM-10467, left P4; VM-10480, left P4; VM-10494, left P4; VM-10495, left P4; VM-4109_1, right M1; VM-10408c, left M1; VM-10466, left M1; VM-10470, left M1; VM-4109_2, right M2; VM-4585, left M2; VM-10382, left M2; VM-10497, left M2.</p><p>Mandible. VM-2253, right hemimandible with p4-m2; VM-2254, right hemimandible with m2; VM-10408a, hemimandible with m2; VM-13295_4, right hemimandible.</p><p>Lower dentition. VM-10390, right i1; VM-10391, left i1; VM-10361, left i2; VM-10388, left i2; VM-10483, right p1; VM-10484, left p1; VM-10360, left p2; VM-10485, right p2; VM-10468, left p4; VM-13295_1, right p4; VM-9322, right m1; VM-10403, left m1; VM-10404, left m1; VM-13295_2, left m1; VM-13306, right m1; VM-4440_1, right m2; VM-4440_2, right m2; VM-10406, left m2; VM-10408d, right m2; VM-13295_3, right m2 (Table 1).</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Upper dentition</p><p>The I1 and I2 have two small basal cuspules, one on each side of the main cusp. The I3 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 P1 is single-rooted, with a conical crown. The P2 has no accessory cuspules. The P3 is similar in morphology to the P2 but shows a single accessory cusp. The P4 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 M1, 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 M2 is smaller than the M1, but similar in occlusal morphology. It is buccolingually elongated. The M2 paracone is larger than the metacone, the protocone is well-developed and the hypocone is cingular. The cingulum is well-developed (Fig. 2).</p><p>Mandible</p><p>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 p1 and m3 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).</p><p>Lower dentition</p><p>The incisors are flattened buccolingually, with a single distal accessory cuspulid. The p1 is single-rooted and single-cusped. The p2 is elongated mesiodistally, with a slightly enlarged distolingual portion and a small distal accessory cuspulid on the distal cingulid. The p3 is similar to the p2 but mesiodistally larger. It has a high protoconid and a small cuspulid on the distal cingulid. The p4 is mesiodistally larger than the p3, 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 m1 paraconid is well-developed and higher compared to the p4 protoconid, if observed in buccal view. The mesial margin of the paraconid is inclined distally. The m1 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</p><p>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 m2 has an almost oval shape, in occlusal view. The mesiobuccal cingulid is markedly enlarged, especially compared to the distal portion of the tooth. The m2 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).</p><p>A B E C D F</p><p>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 &amp; 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 P4 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 M1 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 M1 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 M2 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 m1, generally lingually displaced; the strongly developed P4 protocone and the absence of cuspulids on the lingual margin of m1 of C. etruscus; as well as the reduced difference between the hypoconid and entoconid of m1; and the presence of accessory cuspids on the lingual side of m2 of C. arnensis .</p><p>Comparisons with C. etruscus and C. accitanus from Fonelas P1 and C. borjgali from Dmanisi</p><p>As noted above, two small-to-medium-sized Canis species have been described in the Spanish site of Fonelas P1: Canis etruscus, and the species erected by Garrido &amp; 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 M1 buccal cingulum as well as a M1 metacone (Fig. 5), a metaconule and a M2 protocone that are all proportionally reduced. In the type specimen of C. accitanus, the development of the P4 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 M1 (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 M2 of C. accitanus possesses similarly sized buccal cusps, whereas C. orcensis n. sp. shows a markedly enlarged M2 paracone in comparison to the metacone. The buccal cingulum of C. orcensis n. sp. is continuous along the buccal side of the M2. In contrast, in C. accitanu s, it girdles the buccal cusps and forms a feeble yet visible notch between them. Fonelas P1 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 P4 protocone is reduced, the M1 buccal cingulum is more developed compared to C. etruscus of Fonelas P1 and Italy, the M1 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 m1 metaconid compared to C. arnensis and C. etruscus from Fonelas P1 and the Italian sites, and the sinuous transverse cristid connecting the hypoconid and the entoconid.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1152ED2F89022937044AFB9B4DEE6444	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	Martinez-Navarro, Bienvenido;Lucenti, Saverio Bartolini;Palmqvist, Paul;Ros-Montoya, Sergio;Madurell-Malapeira, Joan;Espigares, M. Patrocinio	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
