Palaeoryx pallasi
Creators: name: Kostopoulos, Dimitris S.
name: Karakütük, Seval
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2013
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Artiodactyla
Bovidae
Palaeoryx
Palaeoryx pallasi

description: Palaeoryx pallasi (Wagner, 1857)
Fig. 4.
Material. —MYŞE PV-2573, right upper tooth row with P2– M3; MYŞE PV-1293, right upper tooth row with P3–M3; MYŞE PV-1294/B, partial left upper tooth row with M2–M3; MYŞE PV-1295, partial left upper tooth row with P4–M1; MYŞE PV-1599, left mandibular body with p2–m3; MYŞE PV2574, right mandibular body with p2–m3; MYŞE PV-2552, partial of right mandibular body with m2–m3.All from Şerefköy-2, Turkey, Late Turolian (Late Miocene).
Description. —Specimens from Şerefköy-2 referable to this taxon are limited to some upper and lower tooth rows, representing at least two individuals. The premolars are long compared to the molars (Fig. 4, SOM 3: Tables 1, 2), with upper and lower premolar/molar ratios of 70.8% (n = 1) and 64.3–66.7% (n = 2), respectively. P4 is narrower than both P3 and P2, and P2 is shorter than P3. The anterior style is weakly developed on P2, but sharp, posteriorly curved and joined to the anterolabial cone on P3 (Fig. 4C). The “metaconule” is barely recognisable on P2 and P3, which have a distinctly convex lingual wall, and absent on P4, in which the anterolingual and posterolingual crista of the lingual cone are symmetrically developed (Fig. 4C). The anterior style of P4 is more pronounced than the anterolabial cone, with the latter having a more central position on the labial wall of the tooth than on P3 (Fig. 4C). All upper molars bear a fossetta (central islet) and low, double entostyles, originating from both the protocone and the metaconule (Fig. 4C). The anterior lobe of M1 and M2 is narrower than the posterior one. The development of the mesostyle on the upper molars ranges from weak in MYŞE PV-2573 to strong in PV-1293 and PV-1294.
The p2 has a simple and strong anterior stylid and no anterior conid. The mesolingual conid is also simple, short and placed both anteriorly and almost perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the tooth (Fig. 4A, B). The posterior stylid on p3 is much less developed than the posterolingual conid, with both structures becoming fused during late stages of wear (Fig. 4A, B). The anterior conid and the anterior stylid are indistinct, thus forming a robust anterior cuspid. The mesolingual conid is elongated and slants distally, joining the talonid at advanced stages of wear (Fig. 4A). The p4 resembles p3, but is larger, and retains and open posterior valley until the onset of late stages of wear (Fig. 4A, B). The posterolabial conid is indistinct on p2 and p3, and weakly developed on p4. The lower molars have a strong mesostylid, moderate ectostylids (basal pillars), and no anterior cingulid (goat fold). The third lobe of m3 is rather large and bears a flat entoconulid, as well as a bulbous hypoconulid (Fig. 4A).
Remarks.— Palaeoryx Gaudry, 1861 is mainly known from Turolian sites of the sub-Paratethyan zoogeographic province (e.g., Kostopoulos and Bernor 2011 and literature therein), although it may have appeared during the Vallesian (e.g., Vislobokova 2005). In Turkey, records of the genus are restricted to the localities of Kayadibi, Eski Bayırköy, and Mahmutgazi (Köhler 1987), as well as Kemiklitepe-A, B and Akkaşdağı (Bouvrain 1994; Kostopoulos 2005). Kostopoulos (2005, 2009a) recognised two species in the Aegean region, P. pallasi and P. majori Schlosser, 1904, which differ from each other mainly in terms of their cranial and horn core morphology. In addition, a larger species or variety might exist in Maragheh (Iran) and Ukraine (Kostopoulos and Bernor 2011).
The specimens from Şerefköy-2 differ from P. majori from Samos and Akkaşdağı in having a relatively (compared to the premolars) and absolutely longer upper molar row (60.7–62.0 mm vs. 64.8–65.4 mm, based on the material from Akkaşdağı), as well as in lacking a central fold (hypoconal spur) on P3 and P4, and an anterior cingulid on the lower molars (Fig. 5; Kostopoulos 2009a). In addition, P. majori from Samos differs from the Şerefköy-2 material in the presence of basal pillars on the upper molars and in having a p4 bearing a centrally placed mesolingual conid and a fused posterolingual conid and posterior stylid. By contrast, the Şerefköy- 2 specimens resemble P. pallasi from Samos and Pikermi in all of these characters, as well as in the presence of a posteriorly curved anterior style on P3, a more centrally placed anterolabial cone on P4 (relative to P3), a strong mesostyle on the upper molars, a weak posterolabial conid on p3 and p4, and a tendency for the mesolingual conid of p4 to be oriented anteroposteriorly. P. pallasi from Pikermi differs, however, in having distinct posterolingual and mesolingual conids on p3, as well as distinct anterior and mesolingual conids on p4, although the degree of variability of these features within P. pallasi is not well known.
Palaeoryx pallasi Palaeoryx sp. Palaeoryx Şerefköy-2 Kemiklitepe Dytiko-2 majori Pikermi Samos Maragheh Perivolaki Samos
There is considerable size variation of both the upper and lower tooth rows within Palaeoryx. The lower tooth row from Şerefköy-2 (Lpm = 138.9 mm) appears close to that from Maragheh (LPM = 139.3 mm). By contrast, the upper tooth row (LPM = 111.5 mm) is considerably smaller than both that from Maragheh (LPM = 140.8 mm) and a particularly large specimen from Pikermi (MNHN PIK2447; e.g., Kostopoulos and Bernor 2011), but close to P. pallasi from Samos and other specimens from Pikermi. The available data are insufficient for statistically sound conclusions; nevertheless, in the absence of marked morphological differences, we suggest that the observed size variation may be intraspecific.
Stratigraphic and geographic range.—Upper Miocene; Balkans to Iran.
description: Published as part of Kostopoulos, Dimitris S. & Karakütük, Seval, 2015, Late Miocene bovids from Şerefköy- 2 (SW Turkey) and their position within the sub-Paratethyan biogeographic province, pp. 49-66 in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60 (1) on pages 52-54, DOI: 10.4202/app.2012.0129, http://zenodo.org/record/10626287