Protoryx cf. enanus Köhler, 1987

Kostopoulos, Dimitris S. & Sen, Sevket, 2016, Suidae, Tragulidae, Giraffidae, and Bovidae, Geodiversitas 38 (2), pp. 273-298 : 292-293

aff. Protoryx cf. enanus Köhler, 1987

( Fig. 13 )

MATERIAL AND MEASUREMENTS. — Küçükçekmece West: basal part of right horn-coreMNHN.F.TRQ631 (HCBDT = 24.5 mm, HCBAPD = 37.7 mm); distal part of left horn-core TRQ629; part of horn-core TRQ626. Provisionally attributed: left M2 TRQ410 (L = 15.3 mm, W = 12.5 mm); right M3 TRQ409 (L = 15.9 mm); right m1/2 TRQ412 (L = 15.8 mm, W = c. 9.5 mm); right m3 TRQ413 (L = 22.1 mm, W = 10.2 mm).

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

This poorly known medium-sized bovid with simple “gazellelike” horn-cores is characterized by hollowed frontals,though the sinuses do not invade the pedicels ( Fig.13A, B ). The postcornual groove is narrow and deep. The frontals are slightly depressed at their posterior part and the interfrontal suture is crest-like ( Fig. 13A ).The pedicels seem to be short. The greater axis of the horn-core base is parasagittal. The lateral face of the horn-core is flat whereas the medial one is strongly convex. There are no keels.Judging from the specimenMNHN.F.TRQ629 ( Fig.13B ), the horn-cores slightly curve backwards at their distal parts.

A few isolated molars could be ascribed to this species on a size basis. The molars are not very hypsodont with the hypsodonty index estimated at about 110 for an unworn m1/2 and 75 for a slightly worn m3. The upper molars show strong styles, angular protocone and hypocone, well-developed paracone and low basal pillar ( Fig. 13C ). The lower molars have not mesial fold, the parastylid is strong, the hypoconid and the protoconid are angular, and the metaconid is well protruding lingually. A low basal pillar is present in all lower molars. The third lobe of m3 is single-cuspid with concave lingual wall ( Fig. 13D ).

The horn-core and frontal morphology suggest relationships with early caprine-like bovids and their relatives. The Küçükçekmece West species is significantly smaller than the Turolian Skoufotragus Kostopoulos, 2009 , Protoryx Forsyth-Major, 1891 and Sporadotragus Kretzoi, 1968 species ( Fig. 14 ). It is also smaller than the Astaracian-Vallesian (MN 8-9) “ Protoryx ” solignaci Robinson, 1972 from Tunisia and Turkey ( Fig. 14 ), which additionally differs in the stronger mediolateral compression of the horn-cores, the presence of a sharp anterior keel in the upper part, the hollowed pedicels and the shallow and small postcornual fossa ( Gentry 2000). The same features differentiate the Küçükçekmece West species from Protoryx sp. from Pentalophos, Greece ( Bouvrain 1997; though the fossil assembly of this taxon needs a revision) ( Fig. 14 ). The roughly contemporaneous Aragoral mudejar Alcalá and Morales, 1997 from the Vallesian of Spain also differs from the Küçükçekmece species in its larger size, completely pneumatized pedicels and keeled horn-cores ( Alcalá & Morales 1997).

The overall size, the rather short pedicels without sinuses, the slightly raised and hollowed frontals, the absence of keels and the oval cross-section of the Küçükçekmece West horncores match Protoryx enanus Köhler, 1987 , known only from the MN 7 mammal assemblages of Çatakbağyaka and Sofça ( Turkey). According to Bouvrain (1997) and Gentry (2000) the absence of sinuses in the pedicels leaves doubts about the generic attribution of this species to Protoryx . Actually, the set of morphological features seen in “ Protoryx ” enanus and the Küçükçekmece species indicates stronger relationships with the middle Miocene Tethytragus Azanza & Morales, 1994 than with Protoryx / Skoufotragus , and a revision is needed.

The scarcity of MN7-MN10 data cannot allow further comparison. Nevertheless, Bouvrain et al. (1994) mentioned the presence of a “form close to a small Protoryx ” in the MN9 assemblage of Yassiören (material not located), whereas Gentry (2003) referred to as Protoryx solignaci several fragmentary teeth from Loc. 104 (MN8), 94 and 4 (MN9) of Middle Sinap. To what extend these two references may be related to the poorly known Capra bohlini Ozansoy, 1965 from Lower and Middle Sinap is not yet clear. Though comparable in size, the Küçükçekmece West horn-cores differ from those of “C”. bohlini in the stronger mediolateral compression (64.9 in MNHN.F.TRQ631 vs 79-90 in 5 specimens of “C” bohlini in MNHN), the absence of torsion, and the more parasagittal orientation of their great basal axis. Avoiding nomenclature implications, we suggest referring the Küçükçekmece West species to as aff. Protoryx cf. enanus , pending for more data.

Figures

FIG. 13. — Aff. Protoryx cf. enanus from Küçükçekmece West,Turkey:A, proximal horn-core, MNHN.F.TRQ631 dex in lateral (left) and dorsomedial (right) views; B, distal horn-core, MNHN.F.TRQ629 sin in lateral view; C, M2 sin, MNHN.F.TRQ410 in occlusal (up) and buccal (down; reversed) views;D, m3 dex, MNHN.F.TRQ413 in occlusal (up) and buccal (down) views. Scale bars: 2 cm.

FIG. 14. — Comparison of basal horn-core dimensions of several middle-late Miocene caprine-like bovids., Küçükçekmece West sample; ¢, aff. Protoryx enanus, Turkey;, “Protoryx” solignaci (Robinson, 1972) from Turkey;, Skoufotragus Kostopoulos, 2009 from Samos; D, Sporadotragus Kretzoi, 1968 from several sites;, aff.Protoryx from Pentalophos,Axios valley,Greece.Data from Köhler (1987), Kostopoulos (2009), and pers. data.