Demecquenemia rodleri ( Pilgrim & Hopwood, 1928 ) Kostopoulos & Bernor, 2011

Kostopoulos, Dimitrios S. & Bernor, Raymond L., 2011, The Maragheh bovids (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): systematic revision and biostratigraphiczoogeographic interpretation, Geodiversitas 33 (4), pp. 649-708 : 658-661

Demecquenemia rodleri ( Pilgrim & Hopwood, 1928) n. comb.

Gazella rodleri Pilgrim & Hopwood, 1928: 16 . — Bernor 1978: 82.

Gazella capricornis Rodler & Weithofer, 1890: 15 , pl. 5, fig. 1; pl. 6, fig. 1. — Mecquenem 1925: 30, pl. 3, fig. 3. Non Gazella capricornis ( Wagner, 1848) .

Oioceros rodleri – Pilgrim 1939: 45. — Solounias 1981: table 4.

Procapra (Vetaprocapra) rodleri – Korotkevich 1976: 184.

? Hispanodorcas rodleri – Gentry & Heizmann 1996: 383.

HOLOTYPE (by monotypy). — Frontlet NHMW A4898 (Table 6; Rodler & Weithofer 1890: pl. 5, fig. 1; pl. 6, fig. 1).

TYPE LOCALITY. — Maragheh, Iran (late Miocene).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — MNHN.F: Frontlet MAR1030, 1022, 1023, 2098+2099, 3140, 1110, 1118; right horncores MAR1100, 1103, 1104, 1107; left horn-cores MAR1093, 1106, 1108, 1394, 1398; part of horn-core MAR1102. — NHML: frontlets A34, C23.

AGE. — Late Miocene, Turolian.

DIAGNOSIS. — Small sized bovid with fairly thick and not very long horn-cores of weak homonymous torsion; horn-cores moderately curved backwards in side view, set close together at the base and increasingly divergent towards their tips; deep postcornual fossae; wide orbital rims; absence of postorbital lamina; thickened hollowed frontals between the horn-cores.

OTHER OCCURENCES. — Belka, Nova Emetovka 2 ( Ukraine),?Taraklia ( Moldova).

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

Apart from the type frontlet in Vienna illustrated by Rodler & Weithofer (1890: pl. V, fig. 1 and pl. VI, fig. 1), Demecquenemia rodleri n. comb. is represented in the Paris collection from Maragheh by 12 individuals at least (MNI according to the horn-core elements; Table 6). The species is characterized by wide dorsal orbital rims, small and oval-shaped supraorbital foramina without surrounding depressions, complicated fronto-parietal suture, depressed frontals behind the horn-cores, slightly pinched midfrontal suture, presence of a parietal hump well behind the fronto-parietal suture, large elliptical and deep postcornual fossae placed posterolaterally, short pedicles posteriorly but moderately high anteriorly. The frontal region between the horn-cores is thickened and hollowed (MNHN.F. MAR1023, 1030, 1118), with several small sinuses marginally extending into the pedicles. The horn-cores are proximally converged, short (<110 mm) with weak homonymous torsion ( Fig. 6A, C ), weak posterior curvature ( Fig. 6B ), increased divergence toward the tips ( Fig. 6C ), wellmarked posterior grooves ( Fig. 6A ) and occasional presence of an anterior furrow.The basal cross-section of the horn-cores is elliptical with rather flat lateral and convex medial sides (contra to Rodler & Weithofer 1890: pl. V, fig. 1); the mediolateral compression ranges from 67 to 81% at the base (mean CI = 72%; n = 21) and weakly decreases towards the horn tips (55-85% at 7 cm above the base, mean CI = 67.5%; n = 9) (Table 6). The same morphological features have been also seen in two additional frontlets of the “Savage collection” in London, also from Maragheh (NHML A34 and C23; Table 6). Unfortunately no

Kostopoulos D. S. & Bernor R. L.

dental material from Maragheh can be attributed to this species at present.

Korotkevich (1976) assigned to the same species a large sample from Belka, Nova Emetovka 2 and other Ukranian sites referred to as Procapra (Vetaprocapra) rodleri . Although the Belka sample in Kiev is not accessible because of storage problems, examination of a single skull in exhibition ( Korotkevich 1976: pl. X, figs 1, 2) as well as of some islolated frontlets from other Ukrainian late Miocene sites confirms that the Maragheh and the Black Sea species are identical. Korotkevich (1976) preferred assigning the species to Procapra Hodgson, 1846 instead of Gazella based largely on the absence of horns in females. Nevertheless, a comparison of Korotkevich’s illustrations (1976: pl. VII-XII) with living Procapra gutturosa (Pallas, 1777) , does not provide convincing evidence of co-generic affinity; the absence of horns in females is additionally a character commonly seen in several Late Miocene bovid lineages.

Obviously, the combination of skull and horn-core features (homonymous and markedly divergent horncores; strongly thickened and hollowed frontals without postorbital lamina; wide orbital rims) remove the Maragheh species from Gazella as Pilgrim (1939) and Bouvrain (1996) previously stated.Even though some living gazelles might occasionally show a tendency to horn torsion mostly in their tips, this character does not usually extend to the horn-cores in recent or fossil Gazella species and if it does it is heteronymous (e.g., Pilgrim 1939; Bouvrain & Bonis 1988; pers. obs.). In comparison with the similar-sized Gazella deperdita from Mont Lubéron ( France), the horncores of Demecquenemia rodleri n. comb. are larger, especially at the base ( Fig. 7), and more compressed mediolaterally. Obviously the species should be also excluded from Oioceros , which shows much stronger horn-core torsion associated by well-developed keels and furrows and weaker medio-lateral compression.

Apart from the shared homonymous horn-core torsion, there are very few similarities linking the Late Miocene Hispanodorcas from Spain and Greece ( Thomas et al. 1982; Bouvrain&Bonis1988) with the Maragheh and Belka species.Unlike them, Hispanodorcas shows more intense homonymous horn twisting, shorter pedicles anteriorly, laterally placed and smaller postcornual fossae, direct opening of the supraorbital foramina into the orbits, absence of frontal sinuses, and horn-cores rather gracile and less inclined backwards, set wider apart on the frontals and with a rather characteristic lateral furrow. Furthermore, the opisthocranial morphology of D.rodleri n. comb. from Belka is quite different from that of the late Miocene Hispanodorcas orientalis Bouvrain & Bonis, 1988 from Greece, the braincase of which is shallower and less curved downwards posteriorly, the condyles are directed more posteriorly and the basioccipital has larger anterior tuberosities and a well-developed median longitudinal groove. Since the Maragheh antelope cannot be affiliated either to Gazella , Oioceros , Hispanodorcas or to any other known late Miocene genus, we suggest to refer it to a new genus, Demecquenemia n. gen., but a wider review including the bulk of the Black Sea samples is certainly needed. The phylogenetic relationships of Demecquenemia n. gen. with recent bovid tribes are questionable but the thickened hollowed frontals and the homonymous torsion of the horn-cores might indicate a caprine rather than an antilopine.

Figures

FIG. 6. — Demecquenemia rodleri (Pilgrim & Hopwood, 1928) n. comb. frontlet (MNHN.F.MAR1030) from Maragheh in caudal (A), lateral (B) and frontal (C) views. Scale bar: 5 cm.