Promeles palaeattica ( Weithofer, 1888 )

Geraads, Denis & Spassov, Nikolaï, 2016, Musteloid carnivores from the upper Miocene of South- Western Bulgaria, and the phylogeny of the Mephitidae, Geodiversitas 38 (4), pp. 543-558 : 553

Promeles palaeattica ( Weithofer, 1888)

HOLOTYPE. — Unnumbered cranium and associated mandible, in the Institut für Paläontologie, University of Wien, Austria ( Weithofer 1888: pl. 10, figs 1-11).

DIAGNOSIS. — As for genus.

REFERRED MATERIAL FROM BULGARIA. — K-9502, an incomplete cranium; K-9503, incomplete mandible.

DESCRIPTION

K-9502 ( Fig. 5A ) and K-9503 are probably of the same individual but, like many specimens from Kalimantsi, they are imperfectly preserved. In general shape and size, the skull does not differ from other specimens of P. palaeattica . The only visible cranial characters are that the front border of the orbit is above P4, and that its anterior rim overhangs the infra-orbital foramen. The incisors are inserted in a shallow arch, with I3 distinctly larger than the subequal I1 and I2. The canines are broken off; their basal outline is a poorly compressed oval. A noticeable feature is the absence of P1 on both sides, P2 coming almost in contact with the canine. The right P3 is triangular in buccal view, with minute mesial and distal cingular accessory cusps; the left cheek-teeth are missing. The P4 is short, with a thin blade; its protocone reaches farther mesially than the paracone. The very large M1 is incomplete bucally; lingually, the cingulum is widely expanded, increasing both the width and length of the tooth.

On the mandible, i2 and i3 are larger than i1; the canine is conical, separated by a very short diastema from p2; p4 has no clear distal accessory cuspid. On the incomplete m1, the protoconid is not much taller than the paraconid; the talonid is deeply basined, and bordered by a sharp rim of which the hypoconid is the tallest and most distinct cuspid. Dental measurements are provided in Table 3.

COMPARISONS

Besides the type locality, Pikermi, Promeles palaeattica has been reported from Samos, Maragha and Dorn-Dürkheim ( Kaya et al. 2005, and references therein), and Perivolaki ( Koufos 2006). New species names have been erected for the specimens from Maramena in Greece ( Promeles macedonicus Schmidt-Kittler, 1995 ) and Esendere in Turkey ( Promeles smyrnensis Kaya, Geraads & Tuna, 2005 ) on the basis of some differences in the proportions of P4, the position of its protocone, the thickness of its blade, the size of the lingual expansion of M1, the shape of its buccal side, and the proportions of m1. Given the observed variations in the Pikermi population, it may well be that all these forms can be accommodated within P. palaeattica . For instance, the M1 of NHMUK M9028 is distinctly more expanded distally than that of M9029, both from Pikermi, and on M9028 the buccal cingulum is much stronger along the paracone than along the metacone, whereas it is of regular thickness on M9029. However, we refrain from synonymizing all these names because at least the specimens from Samos (MCGL S272) and Esendere seem to have less expanded M1s than at Pikermi. In any case, K-9502/K-9503 is more like the Pikermi fossils, and we ascribe it to P. palaeattica with confidence.

Figures

FIG. 5. — A, Promeles palaeattica (Weithofer, 1888), right upper tooth row of skull K-9502 from Kalimantsi; B, Simocyon sp., unnumbered right M1 from Hadjidimovo. Scale bar: 4 cm.