Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.26879/581 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1766284A-FFFF-DB4E-FEFA-9B73FC5DFB85 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 |
status |
|
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 View in CoL
Specimens. Right complete metatarsale III (JSJ/ Cl/1); left metatarsale V (JSJ/Cl/2); complete ph III (JSJ/Cl/3).
Measurements. Metatarsal III (JSJ/Cl/1): L, 99.89 mm; pL, 18.46 mm; pB, 13.49 mm; mL, 7.61 mm; mB, 10.58 mm; dL, 13.89 mm; dB, 13.19 mm. Mtts V (JSJ/Cl/2): pL, 13.92 mm; pB, 18.29 mm; mL, 10.81 mm; mB, 8.29 mm.
Remarks. The three postcranial bones (NISP = 3) belonged to a large and robust individual (MNI = 1), of general size and proportions comparable to those of big modern C. lupus . Although the individual was not small, much larger and massive specimens are known from other sites, also in the Sudetes, for example like Niedźwiedzia Cave. Unfortunately, no tooth remains, which would permit distinction between the different forms of C. lupus were found, and the few skeletal remains are insufficiently diagnostic. For this reason the large canid was classified simply as C. lupus .
The late Pleistocene Canis lupus is sometimes regarded as an ecomorph/chronosubspecies C. lupus spelaeus ( Goldfuss, 1823) . After its first description, this form was sometimes mentioned from different European sites, but usually only briefly, and almost never described in detail. The form/subspecies category tends to be employed rather freely in canid palaeontology. No statistically morphologically reliable features were given, which would allow to distinguish it as a separate form. Preliminary analysis of abundant, well-preserved material from Polish and Czech sites, however, indicates that the form differed somewhat in its morphology from the Holocene and modern specimens. Apart from the larger average size, it was also characterised by broader teeth and more robust postcranial bones. These differences require a more detailed analysis and are now under study.
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.