Rhinolophus, LACEPEDE, 1799

Rosina, Valentina V. & Rummel, Michael, 2019, The Early Miocene Bats (Chiroptera, Mammalia) From The Karstic Sites Of Erkertshofen And Petersbuch 2 (Southern Germany), Fossil Imprint 75 (3 - 4), pp. 412-437 : 415-416

Rhinolophus aff. lemanensis REVILLIOD, 1920

Text-fig. 2a–e

M a t e r i a l. Erkertshofen 1: SNSB-BSPG 1962 XIX 4199, left mxl with M1–2; BSP 1962 XIX 4181, left mxl with P4–M2; BSP 1962 XIX 4182, left mxl with P4; BSP 1962 XIX 4179–4180, BSP 1962 XIX 4183–4191 (11 isolated upper teeth); BSP 1962 XIX 4176, right mnd with m3; BSP 1962 XIX 4172–4175, 4177–4178 (6 isolated lower teeth).

Erkertshofen 2: BSP 1974 XIV 1167, left mxl with P4; BSP 1974XIV 1168, right mxl with P4; BSP 1974 XIV 1165, right mxl with M2–3; BSP 1974 XIV 1164, right mxl with M2–3; BSP 1974 XIV 1166, right mxl with M2; BSP 1974 XIV 1158–1163, 1169–1180, 1181–1187 (25 isolated upper teeth); BSP 1974 XIV 1139, left mnd with p4–m1; BSP 1974 XIV 1144, right mnd with p4; BSP 1974 XIV 1156–1157, right mnd with m3; BSP 1974 XIV 1137–1138, 1140–1141, 1143, 1147–1155 (14 isolated lower teeth).

Petersbuch 2: BSP 1976 XXII 5520, 5523, PCMRCh59–65, 108–109 (11 maxillary fragments with and without teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 5521, 5538, 5539, PCMRCh58a–v, 66, 67a–d, 68a–i, PCMRCh69a–i, 70a–j (58 isolated upper teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 5513–5517, 5531–5534, 5546, PCMRCh77a–e, 78a–h, 79, 80a–b (26 mandibles with teeth); BSP 1976 XXII 5525–5530, 5535– 5537, 11071, PCMRCh80c–g, 81a–f, 82a–f, 83a–f, 84a–d, 85a–p (53 isolated lower teeth).

M e a s u r e m e n t s. See Tab. 3.

D e s c r i p t i o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n. The material is composed of fragments of the maxillary and mandibular bones with cheek teeth and isolated teeth. The fossils bear all the morphological traits typical of R. lemanensis as described in detail earlier ( Rosina and Rummel 2012: 467– 468). Most of the fossil Rhinolophus species known from Europe exhibit significant differences in size. The dentition of the large Rhinolophus from Petersbuch 2, Erkertshofen 1 and Erkertshofen 2 is robust ( Tabs 3, 4). This species has the following odontological peculiarities: the talon of upper M1 protrudes slightly into the maxillary bone with a short tooth apophysis which is not a true root and has no alveolus. As a result, the alveolus of the lingual root of M1 has an additional posterolingual groove. The M2 also has a broad talon but it is smaller than that of the M1. Accordingly, the posterolingual groove of the lingual root of M2 is faint. In most specimens the p3 or its alveolus is reduced and displaced buccally ( Text-fig. 2e ). The degree of its displacement varies. This large species of Rhinolophus from Petersbuch 2, Erkertshofen 1 and Erkertshofen 2 compares well in morphology with the forms of R. aff. lemanensis from the early Miocene (MN 3) localities Wintershof-West, Stubersheim 3 ( Ziegler 1993, 1994), Petersbuch 28 and Petersbuch 62 ( Rosina and Rummel 2012). Rhinolophus lemanensis from the type locality Saint Gérand (MN 2a) is very sparsely represented ( Revilliod 1920) and the size range of this species is unknown. However, the only known measurements of the R. lemanensis holotype and the two paratypes published by Revilliod (1920) and Ziegler (1993: 136) lie very close to the range of samples of R. aff. lemanensis from Petersbuch 2, Erkertshofen 1 and Erkertshofen 2 (compare with Tab. 3). Additionally, the nominative species R. lemanensis differs from all the above-discussed forms in having a less reduced m3. All forms of R. lemanensis s. str. overlap significantly in dimensions; there are no clear hiatuses. The nominative form of R. lemanensis from Saint Gérand has the smallest premolar, while the third molar is the largest of the later forms of R. aff. lemanensis from Wintershof-West and Stubersheim 3 and R. aff. lemanensis from Petersbuch 28 and Petersbuch 62. Thus, there is a gradual increase in size of the p2 but a reduction in m3 during the Neogene evolution of the rhinolophids (compare Tab. 3 with Ziegler 1993: 136). Since there is a significant overlap of the dimensions of all the discussed forms, as well as their significant morphological correspondence, we assign the samples from Petersbuch 2, Erkertshofen 1 and Erkertshofen 2 to R. lemanensis. The other forms of Rhinolophus , e.g. R. delphinensis, are slightly smaller than R. lemanensis s. str. ( Ziegler 2003: 456, tab. 2).

Figures

Text-fig. 2. a–e – Rhinolophus aff. lemanensis: a – PCMRCh65, left mxl with P4–M3, Petersbuch 2, ventral view; b – PCMRCh79 right mnd with C inf., Petersbuch 2, lingual view; c – PCMRCh66, right C sup., Petersbuch 2, lingual view; d – BSP 1976 XXII 5515, left mnd with m2–3, Petersbuch 2, occlusal view; e – BSP 1974 XIV 1139, left mnd with p4–m1; Erkertshofen 2, occlusal view; f, i, k–m – R. dehmi: f – BSP 1974 XIV 1118, right C sup., Erkertshofen 2, lingual view; i – BSP 1976 XXII 5507, left mnd with p4–m1, Petersbuch 2, occlusal view; k – PCMRCh32, right mxl with C sup., P4–M1, Petersbuch 2, ventral view; l – PCMRCh37, left mnd with m1–2, Petersbuch 2, occlusal view; m – PCMRCh89, right mnd with C inf., Petersbuch 2, lateral view; g–h – R. cf. delphinensis: g – BSP 1976 XXII 5522, right mxl with P4, Petersbuch 2, ventral view; h – BSP 1962 XIX 4153, left mnd with m1–3, Erkertshofen 1, occlusal view; j, n, o – R. grivensis: j – PCMRCh43, left C sup., Petersbuch 2, lingual view; n – BSP 1976 XXII 5543, left mxl, Petersbuch 2, ventral view; o – BSP 1976 XXII 5548, left mnd with m2–3, Petersbuch 2, occlusal view.