Pliopentalagus

Tomida, Yukimitsu, Jin, Chang-Zhu, Winkler, Alisa J. & Oshima, Mitsuharu, 2024, Aztlanolagus Revisited And The Dynamic Evolution Of Pliopentalagus (Leporidae, Lagomorpha) In The Holarctic Region, Fossil Imprint 80 (2), pp. 229-238 : 234-235

Pliopentalagus fossil records in Europe

The genus Pliopentalagus was first described by Gureev and Konkova in 1964 (in Gureev 1964: 129) from the locality Budǎi, Moldavian SSR (currently Republic of Moldova) with the type species Pl. moldaviensis . The specimens are rather poorly preserved, but illustrations show these characters of the genus: p3 has five reentrant angles with the posterior walls of PIR and PER crenulated, and M2 has a deep reentrant angle with many fairly deep crenulations on the anterior and posterior walls. A second species, Pl. dietrichi , was first described as Alilepus dietrichi by Fejfar in 1961, from Ivanovce near Trenčín, ČSSR (currently Slovak Republic). Daxner and Fejfar (1967) redescribed the material of Fejfar (1961) with additional material from the same locality. Pl. moldaviensis is a poorly known species of the genus, and the differences from Pl. dietrichi are unclear. Probably, they could be synonymized as Daxner and Fejfar (1967) pointed out, and in fact Čermák and Wagner (2013: 104) also synonymize this species. Pl. dietrichi is also documented from Germany, Romania, and Bulgaria ( Čermák and Wagner 2013).

The geologic age of Ivanovce is currently correlated with the Early Pliocene (late Ruscinian, MN 15b) ( Čermák and Wagner 2013). We follow the descriptions of Pl. dietrichi by Daxner and Fejfar (1967) and do not repeat them here. We examined the condition of PIR (either enamel lake or open reentrant angle) on p3 and noted presence/absence of AER on p4–m2, based on the literature ( Fejfar 1961, Daxner and Fejfar 1967).

There are seven adult p3s, all of which are illustrated in Fejfar (1961: fig. 2a–d) and Daxner and Fejfar (1967: fig. 1a–c). Six of them possess PIR, instead of an enamel lake, and one (No. 65139, paratype) possesses PIR and PER connected, but PIR is still an open reentrant angle. Thus, counting No. 65139 as having an open PIR, all seven specimens possess PIR, and none have an enamel lake (0 %). Daxner and Fejfar (1967) listed 25 p4–m 2 adult specimens, including those in the mandible and isolated. Although not all the specimens are illustrated, 13 are and none of them have an AER. In addition, Fejfar (1961) and Daxner and Fejfar (1967) describe tooth morphology in detail, but they never mention the presence of AER. Thus, we conclude that Pl. dietrichi does not possess AER on p4–m2 (0 %) ( Tab. 1). One of the reviewers supported our conclusion by mentioning that he never found AER in p4– m2 out of a complete type series (Čermák, pers. comm., Sept. 9, 2024).

One specimen (No. 651377; Daxner and Fejfar 1967: fig. 4a), a partial maxilla with dentition, shows the position of the palatal fossa, but the entire palatal bridge is not preserved. Thus, the length/width ratio of the palatal bridge is not available.