Semigenetta huaiheensis Qiu & Gu, 1986

Wang, Xiaoming, Jiangzuo, Qigao, Grohé, Camille, Bonis, Louis de, Chaimanee, Yaowalak & Jaeger, Jean-Jacques, 2024, A review of the Asian Semigenetta Helbing, 1927 (Viverridae, Feliformia, Carnivora) with a description of two new species, Semigenetta qiae n. sp. from South China and Semigenetta thailandica n. sp. from Thailand, Comptes Rendus Palevol 23 (26), pp. 417-432 : 426-427

Semigenetta huaiheensis Qiu & Gu, 1986

( Figs 3; 6; Table 1)

Semigenetta huaiheensis Qiu & Qiu, 2013: 147 .

Semigenetta elegans – Kargopoulos et al. 2021: 25.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Holotype. China. Songlinzhuang, Sihong area, Jiangsu Province. Sihong Fauna , Xiacaowan Formation ; IVPP V8068 , partial right dentary with p1 alveolus, p2-m1, and m2 alveolus.

REFERRED SPECIMEN. — IVPP V8069 , partially preserved left p4 (Qiu Z.-X. & Gu 1986: 21) .

DIAGNOSIS. — Size comparable to the larger individuals of the smallest species of the genus, S. elegans , but differs from it by a more trenchant m1 talonid due to a more dominant, cuspid-like hypoconid at the expense of a low and narrow entoconid ridge and the more anterior position of the mandibular foramen. The convexity of the lower border of the lower jaw shows markedly at the level of m2 (modified from Qiu Z.-X. & Gu 1986).

LOCALITY. — China, Songlinzhuang, Sihong area, Jiangsu Province. Sihong Fauna, Xiacaowan Formation (Qiu Z.-D. &Qiu 2013), late Early Miocene Shanwangian (Qiu Z.-X. et al. 2013).

COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION

In their original description, Qiu Z.-X. & Gu (1986) considered their S. huaiheensis to be closest to S. elegans in lower carnassial size, but smaller than S. sansaniensis . They noted that the Chinese form has an entoconid ridge on m1 talonid, in contrast to more cuspidate condition in S. elegans , and in this feature, it is more comparable to S. sansaniensis . In particular, they emphasized the more convex outline, in the initial form of a subangular lobe, in the lower border of the mandible in S. huaiheensis , which seemed to differ from all other European taxa and thus constitute one of the main bases of a new species.

Kargopoulos et al. (2021), however, suggested that all characters listed in Qiu Z.-X. & Gu (1986) fall within intraspecific variations of European species. Kargopoulos et al. further argued that large geographic distance between China and Europe alone should not be a criterion for morphospecies recognition. As a result, Semigenetta huaiheensis was synonymized with S. elegans .

In evaluating the above controversy, we point out that Semigenetta huaiheensis seems to have a more trenchant m1 talonid due to a more dominant, cuspid-like hypoconid at the expense of a low and narrow entoconid ridge ( Fig. 3). Apparently based on Dehm’s (1950: figs 221-227) published figures, Qiu Z.-X. & Gu (1986) suggested that the type materials for S. elegans from Wintershof-West have cuspidate m1 entoconid and hypoconulid, instead of crestlike ones in S. huaiheensis , an observation also confirmed by Kargopoulos et al. (2021: 31) in their revised diagnosis of S. elegans . Kargopoulos et al. also noted that materials from other localities seem to show variations of this feature, citing Heizmann (1973) and Viret (1951). Viret’s (1951: 69, 70) observation, however, was based on materials of S. sansaniensis from La Grive Saint-Alban. Therefore, Qiu Z.-X. and Gu’s contrast between S. huaiheensis and S. elegans may still stand, given that talonid shapes are often a key indicator of evolutionary trends in carnivorans. Such a tendency toward a slightly more hypercarnivorous lower carnassial in S. huaiheensis is in contrast to its incipient subangular lobe, which is often associated with more hypocarnivorous dental morphology, such as in basal canine canids Nyctereutes Temminck, 1838 and Urocyon Baird, 1858 ( Tedford et al. 2009). If the above observation is correct, there may be grounds to tentatively leave S. huaiheensis as a distinct species, pending verification of additional materials in the future.

We are unable to personally examine all the European materials, nor apparently were Kargopoulos et al. able to examine the Chinese forms. Overall, it is difficult to evaluate the merits of either side of above arguments, especially since not all published species has high quality photographs and illustrations. While some of Qiu Z.-X. & Gu’s (1986) diagnostic characters may fall within the variations of European species, it may be prudent to wait for larger sample to become available, as the only way to fully address this issue is if new and more complete materials become available.

Regardless of the species status of Semigenetta huaiheensis , given its overall morphological similarity to S. elegans , it seems likely that the Chinese form represented an early dispersal from Europe to East Asia during the early middle Miocene, as also implied by Kargopoulos et al. (2021). Furthermore, because of the distinct morphological differences between S. huaiheensis and the new species from middle and late Miocene of China and Thailand described below, we may safely conclude that S. huaiheensis was an isolated dispersal event unrelated to the other Asian forms.