Sus arvernensis Croizet & Jobert, 1828
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5376630 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/11352538-A713-FFEF-72FD-FEEB0364FAC0 |
|
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
|
scientific name |
Sus arvernensis Croizet & Jobert, 1828 |
| status |
|
Sus arvernensis Croizet & Jobert, 1828 ( Fig. 4 View FIG )
MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Right M3 ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 7); left calcaneum ( MAA).
MPV 186 ALA-4c, left m3 ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 1); MPV not numbered, right m1 ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 2); MPV 186 ALA-4a, left I1 ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 5); MPV 186 ALA-4b, right M1 ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 3); MPV not numbered, fragment of left lower molar ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 8); MPV not numbered, right M2 ( MCNV).
Left M3 ( MNCN) ( Van der Made & Belinchón 1991: pl. 1, fig. 6).
Alc 22, upper C; P2; right M1; two left M2; right M2; right M3; left M3; right p4; right m1; two left m2; right m3 ( MNHN).
NOMENCLATURE AND MEASUREMENTS. — The nomenclature and measurements follow Van der Made (1996). See Measurements in Appendix: Table 3.
DESCRIPTION
The m3 has a simple third lobe with pentaconid and pentapreconid placed on the axis of the tooth. Such morphologies occur in Sus arvernensis , Propotamochoerus palaeochoerus (Kaup, 1833) , Propotamochoerus sp. (sensu Fortelius et al. 1996) and Propotamochoerus provincialis (Gervais, 1859) , though in the latter species also a morphotype with a large hexaconid occurs. The specimen is smaller than its homologue in P. provincialis and the few specimens known of Propotamochoerus sp. , but is in the metrical range of P. palaeochoerus and S. arvernensis ( Fig. 5 View FIG ).
The m2 ( Fig. 4A, B View FIG ) and m1 are narrow as is common in the Suinae. They are smaller than the same teeth in P. provincialis and P. palaeochoerus , but are within the metrical ranges of their homologues in Propotamochoerus sp. and S. arvernensis ( Fig. 5 View FIG ).
The p4 ( Fig. 4 View FIG C-E) has the protoconid placed close to the axis of the tooth. The metaconid is not well developed as an individual cusp and, though worn off, its tip must have been close to that of the protoconid, but placed more to the back. The hypoconid is relatively high, but still much lower than the protoconid. The protoprecristid ends just a little above the anterior cingulum. The morphology of the tooth is very similar to that of several species of Propotamochoerus Pilgrim, 1925 , including Propotamochoerus sp. and P. provincialis , but differs from that of P. palaeochoerus , which has the metaconid developed as a separate cusp, placed more lingually. In Sus arvernensis from Villafranca, the hypoconid and the anterior end of the protoprecristid are higher, and the tooth resembles more the typical Sus - type p4. The p4 from Alcoy is smaller than the homologues of P. palaeochoerus and P. provincialis , but is close in size to Propotamochoerus sp. and S. arvernensis .
The M3 ( Fig. 4I, L View FIG ) has a third lobe that consists of a lingually placed pentacone and several minor cusplets. This is the common morphology in all the species considered here. The specimens from Alcoy are smaller than the M 3 in Propotamochoerus sp. and P. provincialis , but comparable in size to those of S. arvernensis and P. palaeochoerus ( Fig. 6 View FIG ).
The M2 ( Fig. 4J, K View FIG ) and M1 have the common suid morphology. They are smaller than the homologues in P. provincialis and P. palaeochoerus , the M2 is also smaller than in Propotamochoerus sp. , and both specimens are within the ranges of S. arvernensis .
The P2 ( Fig. 4 View FIG F-H) is a low and elongate tooth. Behind the paracone, there is a smaller and lower metacone. There is a well developed anterior cingulum. It cannot be seen whether there was a mere postero-lingual cingulum, or a well developed protocone, since this part of the tooth is broken. The large anterior cingulum is more like in Propotamochoerus than in S. arvernensis . However, the small number of specimens available, may not well represent true variability. The specimen is a little longer than the P2 of Sus arvernensis and only slightly shorter than the shortest specimen of P. palaeochoerus and clearly shorter than in P. provincialis and seven specimens of Propotamochoerus sp.
The I1 has a well developed main cusp and a small, but well individualized, distal cusp. Both cusps are well worn and show a dentine islet. At this stage of wear they are still separated by a groove. The crown extends much distally from the distal cusp. At the labial side, the crown is high, higher than in P. palaeochoerus , but comparable to the other species.
A C
F
There are not many specimens to compare with, but the tooth is slightly larger than the specimens available of S. arvernensis and Propotamochoerus sp. and within the ranges of P. palaeochoerus and P. provincialis ( Fig. 7 View FIG ).
The calcanaeum lacks the upper part and the major part of the sustentaculum tali. What remains of the sustentacular facet is concave, as in suids and unlike in ruminants. The size is very close to that of three specimens of S. arvernensis from Villafranca, stored in the NMB.
DISCUSSION
The suid fossils from Alcoy have been assigned to Hyotherium soemmeringi (von Meyer, 1829) , Sus palaeochoerus Kaup, 1833 , Hyotherium palaeochoerus (Kaup, 1833) or Korynochoerus palaeochoerus (Kaup, 1833) [= Propotamochoerus palaeochoerus (Kaup, 1833) in present usage] and Sus arvernensis or its synonym Sus minor Depéret, 1890 . Gervais (1853) described and figured specimens from Alcoy, which either got completely lost, or else, remnants of that material are the specimens from the MNHN collections described here. Van der Made & Belinchón (1991) described part of the suid material from Alcoy (MCNV, MNCN and MAA collections), noted that the size is closer to that of Sus arvernensis , but that I1 morphology was closer to that of Propotamochoerus (“ Korynochoerus ”) than to a number of species of the genus Sus , though they had not studied S. arvernensis I1. They could not decide whether the p4 figured by Gervais (1853), was of the dicoryphochoerine type or Sus type, and assigned the material to Korynochoerus palaeochoerus .
Propotamochoerus palaeochoerus was considered to range from the late middle Miocene to the latest Miocene ( Ginsburg 1980; Van der Made 1990a, b; Hellmund 1995). However, Fortelius et al. (1996) believed that P.palaeochoerus is replaced by a different species, Propotamochoerus sp. , that is more related to the Chinese P. hyotherioides . Bonis & Bouvrain (1996) assigned material from the Greek Turolian to P. hysudricus , a species known from Pakistan. It seems to be accepted that a small Propotamochoerus occurs in Turolian deposits. It is not P. palaeochoerus , though it is not yet clear what species it is.
Given this setting, the Alcoy suid had to be reviewed. The p4 does not help us much in the assignation to either Sus View in CoL or Propotamochoerus . Dimensions of the cheek teeth are closer to S. arvernensis than to the other species. Sus arvernensis , Propotamochoerus sp. and P. provincialis differ in general size, but have the same proportions. P. palaeochoerus has comparatively small M3 and M2 (a primitive character), and small P3 (an advanced trait). The suid from Alcoy follows the pattern of the former three species.
The I1 from Perpignan and Villafranca (both from the NMB) are unlike typical Sus incisors in having a well developed endocrista, having a small distal cusp, a less prominent lingual cingulum, in being less hypsodont and in being relatively large. In these characters they resemble Propotamochoerus more than other species of the genus Sus . Sus arvernensis has the I1 and I2 close in size and proportions to Propotamochoerus palaeochoerus ; it is noteworthy that the I2 is relatively short (DMD, Fig. 7 View FIG ) and wide (DLL, Fig. 7 View FIG ). Propotamochoerus provincialis and in particular Propotamochoerus sp. have more elongate I2. Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 has small I1 and I3 and narrow I2, though the species is larger than S. arvernensis . Also other species of Sus , including S. strozzii Meneghini, 1881 (which lost the I3), have relatively small upper incisors.
Tooth proportions and morphology, in particular of the incisors, suggest that S. arvernensis is not only the oldest species of Sus known, but that it is also still very close to the presumably ancestral genus Propotamochoerus . This closeness is reflected in similarities in many minor details of the dentition and is the reason why during a century and a half the asignation of the scarce material from Alcoy has been controversial. We assign the material here to Sus arvernensis .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |
|
|
Genus |
Sus arvernensis Croizet & Jobert, 1828
| Montoya, Plinio, Ginsburg, Léonard, Alberdi, María Teresa, Made, Jan Van Der, Morales, Jorge & Soria, María Dolores 2006 |
Propotamochoerus
| Pilgrim 1925 |
Propotamochoerus
| Pilgrim 1925 |
P. hysudricus
| Stehlin 1899 |
S. arvernensis
| Croizet & Jobert 1828 |
Sus arvernensis
| Croizet & Jobert 1828 |
Sus
| Linnaeus 1758 |