Bransatoglis cf. infralactorensis Baudelot & Collier, 1982
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/geodiversitas2023v45a20 |
|
publication LSID |
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A8246B9C-1181-4074-B8EC-4746C75C6578 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10166298 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BC4E87DB-FFC5-2E02-7F2A-03AF8979F74F |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Bransatoglis cf. infralactorensis Baudelot & Collier, 1982 |
| status |
|
Bransatoglis cf. infralactorensis Baudelot & Collier, 1982
( Fig. 5 View FIG A-G)
LOCALITIES. — MAB0A, MAB0B, MAB3, MAB5, and MAB11.
MATERIAL. — MAB 0A: 2 m2, 1 m3 ; MAB 0B: 1 m2 ; MAB3 : 1 p4, 1 m1, 2 m2, 1 M3 ; MAB5 : 1 m2 ; MAB11 : 1 m1, 1 m3 .
MEASUREMENTS. — Appendix 7
DESCRIPTION
p4 (MAB3)
The tooth is subrectangular in occlusal view, and has wide and high crestids and deep valleys. The anterolophid is short. The anterotropid is well developed. The metalophid is labially connected to the anterolophid. The metalophid is lingually isolated. There are no centrolophids. The mesolophid is completely isolated. The posterotropid is well developed. The posterolophid is long, curved and isolated. There is no difference between the labial and lingual cuspids.
m1 ( MAB 3)
The tooth is rectangular in occlusal view, with narrow valleys and straight and wide crestids. The anterolophid is short and connected to the endolophid. The anterotropid is connected to the anterolophid. The metalophid is long and without contact with the endolophid. The centrolophid is long. The mesolophid and the posterolophid are long and they are well interconnected in the lingual side. The posterotropid is well developed. The labial cuspids are larger than the lingual ones. The m1 from MAB 11 is similar to the one described here.
m2 ( MAB 5)
The tooth is rectangular in occlusal view, with narrow valleys and wide crestids. The anterolophid is long. The endolophid is divided in two. The anterotropid is present. The metalophid is long and not in contact with the endolophid. The centrolophid is long. The mesolophid and the posterolophid are long and interconnected in the lingual side. The posterotropid is well developed. The labial cuspids are more developed than the lingual ones. The material found in MAB 0B and MAB 3 is similar to the one just described, but in the specimen from MAB 0A the crestids are more irregular and the posterior side is more rounded.
m3 ( MAB 0A)
The tooth is elongated and D-shaped in occlusal view, with narrow valleys and wide crestids. The anterolophid is of intermediate size. The endolophid is interrupted. There is a long anterotropid. The metalophid is long and without contact with the endolophid. The centrolophid is long and isolated. The mesolophid and the posterolophid are long and they are interconnected in the lingual side. The posterotropid is well developed. The labial cuspids are more developed than the lingual ones. The enamel is slightly wrinkled. The m3 from MAB 11 also fits in this description.
M3 ( MAB 3)
The tooth is broken, and it has narrow valleys and wide crests. The anteroloph is long and isolated lingually, and labially its contact is low. The precentroloph is short, and the postcentroloph is long. The protoloph and the metaloph are connected in the lingual side, forming a V-shape.
REMARKS
The systematics of this genus needs a deep review. Some authors, such as Freudenthal & Martín-Suárez (2007b, 2019) divide this genus into three distinct ones ( Bransatoglis , Paraglis , and Oligodyromys ); but, since the main difference between them is size, others authors like De Bruijn et al (2013) only accept Bransatoglis . This genus is characterized by a long geologic record, which extends from the upper Eocene to the Upper Miocene. The Miocene species are Bransatoglis cadeoti Bulot, 1978 , Bransatoglis concavidens Hugueney, 1967 , Bransatoglis spectabilis (Dehm, 1950) , Bransatoglis astaracensis (Baudelot, 1970) , Bransatoglis infralactorensis ( Baudelot & Collier 1982) , Bransatoglis fugax (Hugueney, 1967) , and Bransatoglis complicatus Ünay, 1994 ( De Bruijn et al. 2013). Most of the species described in the Miocene are very rare in the fossil assemblages, and have a high intraspecific variability; so their distinction was initially based on size. However, these species can be differentiated into two large groups based on the complexity and number of crests ( De Bruijn et al. 2013).
The size and morphology of the material found in the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin approach those of B. infralactorensis from Estrepouy (MN3) and B. cf. infralactorensis from Belchatow C (MN4) ( Baudelot & Collier 1982; Kowalski 1997); B. infralactorensis is more similar to the older B. fugax ( De Bruijn et al. 2013) and smaller than B. cadeoti from La Romieu and B. concavidens from Ulm Westtangente ( Bulot 1978, Werner 1994). Bransatoglis astaracensis is morphologically similar to our material, but its larger size allows us to discard this ascription ( Baudelot & Collier 1982). Bransatoglis infralactorensis differs from Bransatoglis bosniensis De Bruijn, Markovic & Wessels, 2013 , B. spectabilis and B. concavidens in its reduced number of extra crests ( Bulot 1978; Werner 1994; De Bruijn et al. 2013). The m 2 in our material is like the m2 of B. ingens from Ulm Westtangente and Jugingen, but the m1 is less chaotic than the m1 from these localities ( Werner 1994). Therefore, and because of the scarcity of material and the lack of upper molars, we decided to leave the adscription of specimens from the Ribesalbes-Alcora Basin as B. cf. infralactorensis .
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.