Meles meles (Linnaeus, 1758)

Marciszak, Adrian, Hilpert, Brigitte & Ambros, Dieta, 2024, The remarkable record of mustelids from Hunas (Bavaria, Germany), Comptes Rendus Palevol 23 (23), pp. 339-383 : 343-344

Meles meles (Linnaeus, 1758)

Meles sp. Heller, 1983: 209; pl. 8/10-11. – Groiss 1983: 354; table 48. – Koenigswald & Heinrich 1999: 96. – Ambros 2006: 54. – Baumann 2011: 8. – Rosendahl, Ambros, Hilpert, Hambach, Alt, Knipping, Reisch & Kaulich 2011: 19; table 3/2.

Meles meles Ambros, 2006: 54 ; table 75.

REFERRED MATERIAL. — Mandible with p4-m1 and metatarsal 3 .

DESCRIPTION

The mandibular body is long and stout. Its height measured behind m1 is larger than m1’s length. On the buccal side, under the teeth row, a shallow, wide depression runs, which reduces in distally. Three rounded mental foramina are moderately spaced and located under the distal roots of p2, p3 and p4. The first and the second are situated on similar levels, while the third is placed slightly below. The mandibular body has a moderately convex lower margin, with the maximum convexity under m1. The teeth row is straight, and the teeth are set close to each other. Alveoles of the missing p2 and p3 show the presence of large, two-rooted teeth, with their distal parts oriented slightly disto-lingually. Large and proportionally wide p4 is two-rooted and high crowned. It possesses an asymmetric protoconid in the lateral view, pushed slightly mesially. From its apex, running mesially and distally, two thin ridges, which end on contact with the cingulum. The crown widens distally, with strong, disto-lingual curvature. The mesial margin is rounded, and the buccal straight and distal margin is blunt. Stronger cingulums are present on the mesial and distal margins of the crown.

The elongated m1 has a short trigonid and long and relatively narrow talonid. The trigonid is curved buccally and concave lingually. From the base of the high protoconid arises a short, low ridge that runs disto-buccally to the mesial wall of the hypoconid. From the buccal side this ridge is separated by a small groove. The metaconid and the paraconid are equal in height, and are separated by a deep, U-shaped valley. From the paraconid apex runs two thin and sharp ridges in the buccal and distal directions. The deeply basined talonid is notably broader than the trigonid, with a lower distal wall. On its surface are many low enamel folds and wrinkles. The large, high hypoconid is elongated and bears two ridges, which run mesially and distally from the apex of the cusp. Distally to the hypoconid is situated a large hypoconulid, which also bears two ridges. It is separated from the distal wall of the talonid by a fine groove. On the lingual wall is situated a large, high entoconid, after which is situated a small, low postentoconulid. The weak cingulum is located mesio-buccally.

The incomplete mt 3 lacks proximal epiphysis and is a robust, short bone. The bone has a massive, curved diaphysis, front-distally flattened and rectangular. Distal articulation is relatively large, rounded and irregularly shaped. The medial epicondyle is more prominent than the lateral one. Metrically and morphologically, this mt 3 from Hunas is indistinguishable from the mt 3 of M. meles ( Table 2).

REMARKS

Because of great morphological variability, the taxonomy of the Pleistocene badgers is still frequently discussed and uncertain. Previously for the European Early and early Middle Pleistocene as a characteristic subspecies was regarded Meles meles atavus ( Kormos, 1914) ( Kormos 1914; Wolsan 2001; Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a, b). The form was determined as a distinct species on the vague feature of a presence of an additional cuspid between the protoconid and the hypoconid on m1. However, the presence or absence of this supernumerary cuspid is within the normal range of variation of extant M. meles , which was already questioned by Kretzoi (1938, 1941a, b) and later by other authors ( Wolsan 2001; Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a, b; Marciszak 2012; Marciszak et al. 2021). Cranial and mandibular characteristics have sometimes been used as diagnostic features for species determination ( Arribas & Garrido 2007). These characters are sexually and ontogenetically highly variable and as such, these features should not be employed for taxonomic purposes ( Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a, b; Mecozzi et al. 2019; Mecozzi 2022).

The Hunas badger has a long but proportionally narrow tooth ( Table 3). The tooth falls into the range variability of Early and early Middle Pleistocene and the extant M. meles . In both dimensions the Hunas badger stayed closer to the mean of Early-Middle Pleistocene than to the mean of extant M. meles ( Table 3; Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a). Also, the talonid breadth to the L m1 ratio of the Hunas badger (43.8) is closer to the mean of the Early Pleistocene (43.1) than to that of the extant M. meles (47.0) ( Table 3). This index demonstrated the presence in Hunas of a less evolved form, with elongated and narrower m1 and with a well-developed talonid. Of course, a single specimen cannot be regarded as a decisive factor, but signals the presence of an individual that is morphologically intermediate between the primitive features displayed by the Early and early Middle Pleistocene and the more progressive morphology of the extant M. meles ( Wolsan 2001; Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a, b). Early and early Middle Pleistocene M. meles cannot be readily encompassed within the range of variation of extant M. meles ( Madurell-Malapeira et al. 2011a; Mecozzi et al. 2019; Mecozzi 2022). The large number of extant badger subspecies can be explained by the long divergence during the Plio-Pleistocene and by the wide, Eurasian distribution. Meles meles appeared around 1.5 mya and became the only badger present in European sites. The radiation of the genus Meles occurred during the general climatic changes that took place during between the 2.6-2.2 mya and resulting environmental shifts across Eurasia ( Faggi et al. 2024)