Ursus ingressus Rabeder, Hofreiter, Nagel, and Withalm, 2004
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.26879/581 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1766284A-FFF8-DB49-FF67-9F6AFE8BFA73 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Ursus ingressus Rabeder, Hofreiter, Nagel, and Withalm, 2004 |
status |
|
Ursus ingressus Rabeder, Hofreiter, Nagel, and Withalm, 2004
Specimens. Left, damaged fibula (JSJ/Ui/1) and left damaged pisiform (JSJ/Ui/2).
Description. The form was represented by only two postcranial bones, which failed to yield useful metric and morphological data. The pisiform is large and massive, the distal epiphysis in medial view is transversely much more pronounced than in Ursus arctos . The elongated and rounded palmar surface is more pronounced and larger, while the lateral and medial surfaces are longer and more convex. Fibulae of U. spelaeus and U. arctos are difficult to distinguish morphometrically and morphologically. According to Petronio et al. (2003), the morphology of the two forms shows no substantial differences and some minor differences like relatively more massive build in U. spelaeus generally overlap.
Remarks. Genetic studies of Ursus spelaeus sensu lato material from the Sudety Mts showed only the presence of U. ingressus ( Baca et al., 2014) . The material from Solna Jama Cave also represents this species, which was confirmed by analysis of ancient DNA. That means that U. ingressus was the only speleoid bear known till now, which inhabited the area of Sudeten Mountains during the late Pleistocene ( Baca et al., 2014).
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.