Tragoportax Pilgrim, 1937

Kostopoulos, Dimitrios S. & Bernor, Raymond L., 2011, The Maragheh bovids (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): systematic revision and biostratigraphiczoogeographic interpretation, Geodiversitas 33 (4), pp. 649-708 : 692-695

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5252/g2011n4a6
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EE374D-576E-C969-FCBE-FCA6FBD3FB3C
treatment provided by	Marcus
scientific name	Tragoportax Pilgrim, 1937
status

Treatment

Genus Tragoportax Pilgrim, 1937

TYPE SPECIES. — Tragoportax salmontanus Pilgrim, 1937 .

Tragoportax cf. amalthea (Roth & Wagner, 1854) ( Figs 27 View FIG ; 28 View FIG )

Capra amalthea Roth & Wagner, 1854: 453 : pl. 6, fig. 2.

Tragocerus amaltheus var. rugosifrons – Mecquenem 1925: 34.

Miotragocerus monacensis – Solounias 1981: table 4; text-fig. 31.

TYPE LOCALITY. — Pikermi, Greece (late Miocene).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — MNHN.F: Male cranium, MAR1395 ( Mecquenem 1925: pl.VI, fig. 3); partial male cranium, MAR3207; female cranium, MAR3208; part of occipital bone, MAR1058; left P3-M2, MAR1866, 1867; right M1-M3, MAR1868 (LM = 64.5 mm); mandible, MAR1009 (illustrated by Mecquenem 1925: pl. V, fig. 6 and VI, fig. 3 as part of the skull MAR1395 with old catalogue number 20950); right p3-m3, MAR1007, 1008; left p3-m3, MAR1069; right p3-m2, MAR1075; left p4-m3, MAR1067; right p2-m3, MAR1070; right p3-m3, MAR2970; right p2-m1, MAR1837; left p2-m1, MAR2969; right p2-p4, MAR1081; left p2- p4, MAR1087; right m1-m3, MAR1077; left m1- m3, MAR1835; left p3-m2, MAR1086. — HUW: frontlet MMTT13/1339; palate, MMTT13/1346 ( LPM = 102.3 mm, LP = 45.0 mm, LM = 63.4 mm); left P2-P4, MMTT7/2160 ( LP = 47.6 mm); right P2, MMTT13/1279; right p2-m3, MMTT7/2317; left p2-m1, MMTT7/1987 (19501/RV7914); right p4-m3, MMTT13/1334.

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

Solounias (1981: fig. 31) erroneously referred the cranium illustrated by Mecquenem (1925: pl. VI, fig. 3) to Miotragocerus monacensis . The basic morphological characters of the two available male crania (MNHN.F.MAR3207 and 1395; Fig. 27 View FIG ,Table 18) clearly point to a representative of Tragoportax (sensu Spassov & Geraads 2004) : rather short, wide and low braincase with large occipital condyles trending posteroventrally ( Fig. 27A View FIG , C-E), strong external occipital protuberance, large square-shaped foramen magnum ( Fig. 27C View FIG ), large mastoids facing posterolaterally, occiput facing posteriorly ( Fig. 27C, E View FIG ), zygomatic arches running parallel to the braincase sides that slightly widen anteriorly ( Fig. 27A, B View FIG ), temporal crests far apart, large and ridge-like posterior tuberosities of the basioccipital perpendicular to the sagittal plane and separated by a wide, shallow furrow ( Fig. 27D View FIG ), small anterior tuberosities of the basioccipital with a longitudinal crest running in front of them along the medial axis of the basisphenoid ( Fig. 27D View FIG ), foramina ovalia facing ventrally, strong paroccipital processes curved medially, large fronto-parietal rugose area limited by strong crests

Kostopoulos D. S. & Bernor R. L.

( Fig. 27B View FIG ), short but wide intercornual plateau, hollowed frontals and pedicles, supraorbital foramina small, not sunken into depressions and associated with narrow furrows to the front, moderately deep lacrimal fossa ( Fig. 27A View FIG ), choanae opening well behind the M3, anterior rim of the orbit above the front lobe of M3 ( Fig. 27A View FIG ), premolar row rather short compared to the molars (~74% in the upper and 68-72% in the lower toothrow), horn-cores moderately long with a weak heteronymous torsion, triangular basal cross-section and strong anterior keel without demarcations but with small to moderate irregularities along it ( Fig. 27A, B View FIG ). The overall skull morphology is very similar to that of Tragoportax amalthea from Pikermi, Greece (Table 18) and Tragoportax rugosifrons from Hadjidimovo, Bulgaria ( Spassov & Geraads 2004) and dimensionally closer to the latter form. It differs from both of them in the longer and more triangular shaped basioccipital without clear medial furrow and with a rather strong basisphenoid crest. Typical Tragoportax rugosifrons from Samos, Greece is more distinct in its longer untwisted horn-cores, parallel braincase sides, less posteriorly expanded rugose area, shorter basioccipital, shallower and probably larger lacrimal fossa and trapezoidal-shaped occiput.

The Maragheh dentitions appear slightly larger than that of T.amalthea from Pikermi but within the range of T. rugosifrons from Hadjidimovo and T. rugosifrons from Samos.Dental discrimination between these two species is rather hard because of their similar size and great morphological variability especially on accessory features (cingula, folds, pillars, etc.). The upper dentition of the skull MAR1395 differs from both typical T. rugosifrons and T. amalthea in its less asymmetrical P3, the protocone-hypocone lingual division of P4, the weak to absent basal pillars on the molars and the presence of a lingual cingulum on the posterior lobe of M1 and M2. The dental characters of the palate MMTT13/1346 (see below) are very similar to those of MAR1395, whereas the specimens MAR1867 and MMTT7/2160 appear closer to the amalthea or rugosifrons morphotypes. The lower dentition of both the MNHN.F and MMTT-HUW samples ( Table 19; Mecquenem 1925: pl. V, fig. 6; pl. VI, fig. 3) shows well-developed basal pillars in all m1s (15 specimens), in most m2s and in 8 out of 10 m 3s. Most m2s (8 out of 13 specimens) and a few m3s (2 out of 11 specimens) bear a basal lingual tubercle between the two lobes. A weak goat fold is rarely present on m3 (in 2 out of 11 specimens). The p3 is simple with elongated metaconid placed distally and directed posteriorly. All available p4s (n = 16) have an anteroposteriorly expanded metaconid of “T” or more often “Y” type with strongly developed anterior flange that comes into contact with the strong and posteriorly curved paraconid in early wear, closing quickly the anterior valley. This morphotype appears more advanced than that of T.amalthea from Pikermi and T. rugosifrons from Hadjidimovo, Bulgaria and Axios valley, and similar to that of T. rugosifrons from Perivolaki, Greece ( Spassov & Geraads 2004; Kostopoulos 2006).

Some more cranial specimens warrant further discussion. The cranium MAR3208 mentioned by Mecquenem (1925: 34; Fig.27F View FIG ) belongs to a female individual, since it lacks horn-cores.The frontals above the orbits are neither depressed nor rough. The dentition is about 10% smaller than that of MAR1395 but with very similar morphological features, even though the P4 is of the T. amalthea type. This cranium is fully compatible with those of hornless female skulls attributed to T.rugosifrons or related forms (see discussion in Kostopoulos 2006:175 and alternative views in Spassov & Geraads 2004).

Systematic revision of Maragheh Bovids, Iran

The specimen MMTT13/1339 (casts MAR 3204 in MNHN.F and AMNH 101999 in AMNH; Fig. 28 View FIG , Table 18) is a frontlet with partially preserved horncores. The supraorbital foramina are small, round, not sunken in pits and placed far from the horn bases. The area between them and the horn-cores is weakly swollen. There is no postcornual fossa. The midfrontal suture is complicated, slightly constricted between the horn-cores and open in front of them. The frontals between and behind the horn-cores are smooth without any rugosities. The frontals are in the same plane as the dorsal orbital rims. The horncores are thin (Table 18) and rather long (> 160 mm) placed above the back of the orbital roof, far apart each other at their base, moderately tilted and weakly curved backwards ( Fig. 28 View FIG ). In frontal view they appear weakly divergent. They show a very weak heteronymous torsion and their great basal axis is almost perpendicular to the sagittal plane.They bear no keels and their basal cross-section is rather triangular with flat posterior and anterolateral faces; at their junction an incipient posterolateral dihedral is shown. The overall morphological characters of this specimen suggest that it is a juvenile of Tragoportax . This frontlet excavated very close to the palate MMTT13/1346 ( Fig. 28 View FIG ) and they may represent a single individual (Bernor pers. obs.). As already discussed, the dentition of MMTT13/1346 is very similar to that of MAR1395 supporting the assertion that this is a young adult individual of the same species, which is here referred to Tragoportax cf. amalthea .