identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
E97287E44C427A0E1F8AFBFAFB60CC7A.text	E97287E44C427A0E1F8AFBFAFB60CC7A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lophiomerycidae Janis 1987	<div><p>Family Lophiomerycidae Janis, 198733.</p> <p>Included genera. Lophiomeryx, Zhailimeryx, Krabimeryx, Chiyoumeryx nov. gen.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C427A0E1F8AFBFAFB60CC7A	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C427A0C1FEAFB6CFADACDC2.text	E97287E44C427A0C1FEAFB6CFADACDC2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Krabimeryx Metais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq	<div><p>Genus Krabimeryx Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq, 200117.</p> <p>Etymology. Krabi— from Krabi Basin, where the fossils were found, and— meryx is the Greek word for ruminant.</p> <p>Diagnosis [modified after Métais et al. 17]. Small primitive ruminant with lower molars morphologically close to those of Zhailimeryx. Krabimeryx differs from Zhailimeryx in: more laterally compressed lingual cuspids in the lower molars; an entoconid displaced to anterior with respect to the hypoconid; the lack of both a paraconid and a hypoconulid in m1 and m2; a p4 with a mesolingual conid that is located more posterior and less individualized; a p4 without a distinct posterolingual conid. Krabimeryx differs from Lophiomeryx by less selenodont labial cuspids in the lower molars, the presence of a developed external postmetacristid, and by a distinct groove on the anterior side of the entoconid, the entoconidian groove. Krabimeryx can be distinguished from Iberomeryx in having a well-marked entoconidian groove; the lack of a clear external postprotocristid; the third lobe of m3 not forming a complete buckle; and a more transversely compressed hypoconulid in the m3. Krabimeryx possesses a huge notch in lingual view between the entoconid and the third lobe in the m3.</p> <p>Type species. Krabimeryx primitivus Métais, Chaimanne, Jaeger, and Ducroq, 200117.</p> <p>Included species. Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 198220).</p> <p>Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 198220).</p> <p>Figure 1A and Figure S1.</p> <p>*v pars1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis — Miao: 532, Table 3, Figs. 6 and 720.</p> <p>v non1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis ?— Miao: 536, Fig. 820.</p> <p>v pars1987 L. gracilis — Janis: 21133.</p> <p>v pars 1997 L. gracilis — Vislobokova: Fig. 321.</p> <p>v pars 2000 L. gracilis — Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.</p> <p>v pars 2001 L. gracilis — Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq: 239, 24117.</p> <p>v pars 2012 L. gracilis — Mennecart: 6234.</p> <p>Scientific Reports |</p> <p>3</p> <p>Neodiagnosis. Krabimeryx gracilis has an m2 that is wider than the m3; this is the other way round in K. primitivus. Moreover, the entoconid is less anterior relative to the hypoconid in K. gracilis than it is in K primitivus. Te ectostylid is large in K. gracilis, while it is absent in K. primitivus. Te cingulum on the upper molars in K. gracilis is more developed than in K. primitivus.</p> <p>Holotype. IVPP V 6546, partial skull with right and lef M1–M3 (IVPP V 6546-1) and an associated right fragmented mandible with m2–m3 (IVPP V 6546-2) found in occlusion with the skull.</p> <p>Additional material. IVPP V 6549, right m3 on fragmented mandible; IVPP V 6550 lef fragmented mandible with m1–m2; IVPP V 26638, right m1. Measurements are given in Table S1.</p> <p>Localities. Shinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China; Xiaerhete locality, Jiminay County, Xingjiang, China. Late Eocene.</p> <p>Taxonomical attribution. Te herein described specimens were first attributed to the genus Lophiomeryx 20. However, the thorough reassessment of the specimens now leads to the conclusion that Lophiomeryx gracilis sensuMiao 20 contains three different species and genera, but none of them can be assigned to Lophiomeryx.</p> <p>Based on the presence of a strong lingual cingulum in upper molars and a short anteroposteriorly oriented postprotocrista, as well as the absence of a premetacristid and an anterior fossa widely open in the lower molars, we can conclude that the specimens, IVPP V 6546-1, IVPP V 6546-2, IVPP V 6549, and IVPP V 6550, belong to Lophiomerycidae or Tragulidae 35, 36. However, the absence of a large paraconid and the absence of an elongated external postmetacristid distinguish the specimens from primitive Tragulidae 17, 36. In Zhailimeryx jingweni, the cuspids are more slender than in the herein described specimens 14, a feature the taxon shares with K. primitivus. In Z. jingweni, m1 and m2 are of relative similar width 14, while in K. primitivus and the herein described specimens from Shinao the m2 is clearly bigger than the m 117. Similarly to K. primitivus, the herein described specimens differ from Z. jingweni in its lower molar lingual cusps being more laterally compressed, and in an entoconid that is slightly shifed to anterior with respect to the hypoconid, while it is more posterior in Z. jingweni 14, 17. Furthermore, K. primitivus and the herein described specimens from Shinao both lack the rudimentary paraconid present in Z. jingweni 14, 17.</p> <p>Like K. primitivus, the here-described specimens differ from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. (described below) and the Lophiomeryx species L. mouchelini, L. chalaniati and L. angarae by having more massive and more bunomorph lowermolars 16, 17, 24, 34, 37. Furthermore, Zhailimeryx jingweni, K. primitivus, and the herein described specimens differ from Lophiomeryx by the presence of a developed external postmetacristid and by a distinct entoconidian groove on the anterior side of the compressed entoconid 14, 17. In Lophiomeryx, the back fossa of m3 is widely open due to the strong reduction of the posthypoconulidcristid 34, 37. In contrast to this, Krabimeryx primitivus possesses a clearly developed posthypoconulidcristid forming a buckle on the m3 back basin 17, similarly to the specimens from Shinao described here.</p> <p>Summing up, the general morphology of the teeth in the herein described specimens is most similar to the one observed in K. primitivus. Tey both share a similar huge notch in lateral view between the third lobe of m3 and the entoconid and the entoconidian groove, features that clearly distinguishing them both from Lophiomeryx and Zhailimeryx. Tus, we attribute the specimens IVPP V 6546-1, IVPP V 6546-2, IVPP V 6549, and IVPP V 6550 to the genus Krabimeryx. However, significant differences occur with the type species, ruling out the synonymisation of K. gracilis nov. comb. and Krabimeryx primitivus. While both species are very similar in size, K. primitivus has an m3 wider than m2, while it is the converse for K. gracilis nov. comb. Moreover, the entoconid is less shifed to the anterior with respect to the hypoconid in K. gracilis nov. comb. than in K primitivus. Tere is no ectostylid in K. primitivus, while it is large in K. gracilis nov. comb., forming a transverse cristid between the protoconid and the hypoconid. Te cingulum on the upper molars is more developed in K. gracilis nov. comb. than in K. primitivus.</p> <p>Due to these differences we decided to create the new combination Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C427A0C1FEAFB6CFADACDC2	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C407A0B1F8AFA37FE5FC98A.text	E97287E44C407A0B1F8AFA37FE5FC98A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chiyoumeryx Mennecart & Aiglstorfer & Li & Li & Wang 2021	<div><p>Chiyoumeryx nov. gen.</p> <p>ZooBank LSID. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:464C46E0-5A69-4AC1-A9DD-8A7DF76D5CC0.</p> <p>Etymology. Chiyou is a tribe leader of the ancient China, about 5–4 k years ago. Chiyou’s tribe was believed to be in relation with the peoples in southern China; - meryx means ruminant in Greek.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from Zhailimeryx and Krabimeryx notably by the absence of the entoconidian groove. Te lower teeth are more laterally compressed in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and the metaconid is linguo-labiallly more central than in the two other genera. Te posthypoconulidcristid in the lower molars of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. is longer than in Krabimeryx and its p4 is posteriorly extended, while this part is reduced in Krabimeryx. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from Lophiomeryx by the shape of the mandible. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. there is no diastema between p1 and p2 and the diastema between c and p1 is extremely reduced. Te outline of the mandible in occlusal view is relatively straight in this species. Lophiomeryx possesses a long diastema between c and p1 and a small one between p1 and p2, as well as a regularly curved occlusal outline of the corpus. Te lower premolars of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. are laterally compressed giving a more elongated aspect to these teeth than in Lophiomeryx. Te trigonid is smaller than the talonid in m1 and m2</p> <p>Scientific Reports |</p> <p>in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and the preprotocristid terminates centrally and does not reach the lingual side. In Lophiomeryx the trigonid and talonid are of similar size and the preprotocristid is longer and reaches the lingual side. Moreover, in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen., the posthypoconulidcristid is longer than in Lophiomeryx. Te shape of the P4 in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from the one in Lophiomeryx: the posterolingual crista does not meet the posterolabial crista.</p> <p>Type species. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 198220).</p> <p>Included species. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.;? Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus (Flerow 193838).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C407A0B1F8AFA37FE5FC98A	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C477A0A1F8AFE7FFD51CB2C.text	E97287E44C477A0A1F8AFE7FFD51CB2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chiyoumeryx shinaoensis Mennecart & Aiglstorfer & Li & Li & Wang 2021	<div><p>Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 198220).</p> <p>Figure 1B and Figure S2.</p> <p>*v1982 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis — Miao: 530, Table 3, Figs. 3– 520.</p> <p>v1987 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis — Janis: 203, 204, 211, 212, Fig. 8B 33.</p> <p>v 1997 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis — Vislobokova: Fig. 321.</p> <p>v 2000 L. shinaoensis — Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.</p> <p>v 2001 L. shinaoensis — Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq: 239–241, 24117.</p> <p>v 2012 L. shinaoensis — Mennecart: 6234.</p> <p>Neodiagnosis. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis is bigger than Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. but smaller than? Chiyoumeryx turagicus. Te transversely oriented anterior conid in the p4 in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis differs from the obliquely oriented one in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov.sp. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the posterolingual conid is vestigial on p4. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis has no anterior cingulid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. there is a tiny anterior cingulid. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis possesses lower crowns than? Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. possesses an ectostylid, which is absent in? Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus.</p> <p>Holotype. IVPP V 6531, right mandible with p2–m3 and tooth socket of p1.</p> <p>Paratype. IVPP V 6532, right fragmented maxillary with P4–M3.</p> <p>Additional material. IVPP V 6533, right mandible with p2–m3 and tooth socket of i1 –p1; IVPP V 6534, lef fragments mandible with m1–m3; IVPP V 6535, right fragmented mandible with m1–m3; IVPP V 6536, lef fragmented mandible with p4–m3; IVPP V 6537, right fragmented mandible with p4–m2; IVPP V 6538, lef p4; IVPP V 6539, right maxillary with P3–M3; IVPP V 6540, right maxillary with P4–M2; IVPP V 6541, right maxillary with M2–M3; IVPP V 6542, lef maxillary with P3–M1; IVPP V 6543, right maxillary with M1–M3; IVPP V 6544, Lef M3; IVPP V 6545, lef maxillary with P4–M3. Measurements are given in Table S1.</p> <p>Locality. Shinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.</p> <p>Taxonomical attribution. Miao 20 attributed the here described specimens to the genus Lophiomeryx assuming that these fossils belong to a traguloid. “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis clearly is a Lophiomerycidae: anterior and posterior fossae are open on the lower molars due to the absence of a premetacristid and the extreme reduction or absence of a postentocristid, there is no external postprotocristid, there is a mesolingual conid on the p4, the symphysis of the mandible extends backward up to the p 12, 36. It also shares with undisputable Lophiomerycidae a reduced posthypoconulidcristid that does not enclose the third lobe lingually.</p> <p>“ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis differs from Zhailimeryx and Krabimeryx in the absence of the entoconidian groove 14, 17. Moreover, the teeth are more laterally compressed in “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis and the metaconid is linguo-labially more centeral 14, 17. Te posthypoconulidcristid in “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis is more elongated than in Krabimeryx and its p4 has an extended posterior part, while it is reduced in Krabimeryx 17.</p> <p>Contrary to what was suggested by Métais and Vislobokova 2, Miomeryx altaicus 24 is currently known only by its holotype, which is an upper tooth row (AMNH 20383, see Matthew and Granger 24). Comparable to M. altaicus, the postprotocrista reaches the premetaconulecrista on the M2 in “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis. Tese two cristae fuse totally on the M3 in the here described specimens. However, even if both genera also bear a very strong cingulum, “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis clearly differs from M. altaicus in having broader and squarer molars and straighter lingual cristae in the P4.</p> <p>Miao 20 compared the here revised fossils with the seven Lophiomeryx species considered valid at that time. Unfortunately, very few specimens document most of these species and there is considerable doubt considering the genus attribution of most of them 34, 36 – 39. In any case, we agree with Miao 20 (p. 535) that “ L. [= Praetragulus] gobiae is readily distinguished from other known Lophiomeryx species as well as from L. shinaoensis by the absence of p1, the anterior flange of metaconid joining protoconid crescent.”. Miao 20 (p. 535) already noticed that “ Lophiomeryx chalaniati, Lophiomeryx gaudry [= Iberomeryx minor], and Lophiomeryx benarensis are radically different from the present specimens in the anterior branches of the protoconid crescent [= preprotocristid], of m1 and m2 not reaching the lingual border while the posterior branches of hypoconid crescent [= posthypocristid], doing so”. “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis shares this condition with the Mongolian Lophiomeryx angarae 24. However, the trigonid is smaller than the talonid on m1 and m2 in “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis and the preprotocristid ends in the labio-lingual axis of the molars, while trigonid and talonid are of more similar width</p> <p>5</p> <p>combined with a longer preprotocristid in the European Lophiomeryx species and L. angarae 16, 34, 37. Te shape of the P4 in “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis is very different from Lophiomeryx (see Brunet and Sudre 37, Figs. 4 and 6). In Lophiomeryx, the posterolingual crista fuses with the posterolabial crista. In “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis, the curved posterolingual crista does not join the distal end of the posterolabial crista but reaches the labial side. Furthermore, “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis clearly differs from L. angarae L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati in the shape of the mandible. Tese three species of Lophiomeryx possess a very elongated diastema between c and p1 and a small one between p1 and p 224, 36, 37. As part of the genus diagnosis, Mennecart 34 (p. 62 and p. 67), adapted from Brunet and Sudre 37 and Métais and Vislobokova 2, noticed that “the corpus mandibulae presents [in Lophiomeryx: L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati 24, 34, 37] a concave ventral profile just behind the mandible symphysis, then it becomes regularly convex until the beginning of the ramus, where there is a rounded incisura vasorum. […] On the anterior part of the mandible there are two foramen mentale.” Moreover he wrote that the “p1 is always reduced and leaf-like, separated from c and p2 by diastemata.” (Mennecart 34, p. 67). In “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis there is no diastema between p1 and p2 and the diastema between c and p1 is extremely reduced. Te p1 is relatively big considering the root size. Te lower outline of the mandible in lateral view is relatively straight. “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis shares these characteristics with “ Lophiomeryx ” turgaicus 40.Miao 20 (p. 535) already noticed strong similarities between “ Lophiomeryx ” turgaicus and “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis. Te lower premolars of “ Lophiomeryx ” turgaicus and “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis are strongly laterally compressed and the p4 is rectangular, giving the lower premolar toothrow an more elongated aspect than in L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati 20, 24, 30, 38, 40. Moreover, in these two species, the posthypoconulidcristid is of similar length, longer than in L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati.</p> <p>Based on these observations, we can assume that “ Lophiomeryx ” shinaoensis and “ Lophiomeryx ” turagicus cannot be assigned to the genus Lophiomeryx and may both belong to the same new Lophiomerycidae genus that we here name Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis differs from? Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus nov. comb. in being lower crowned, smaller, possessing an ectostylid, having the symphysis starting under p1, and a shorter diastema.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C477A0A1F8AFE7FFD51CB2C	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C467A091F8AFC80FBAACB52.text	E97287E44C467A091F8AFC80FBAACB52.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chiyoumeryx flavimperatoris Mennecart & Aiglstorfer & Li & Li & Wang 2021	<div><p>Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.</p> <p>Figure 1C and Figure S3.</p> <p>v1961 cf. Miomeryx sp. — Xu: 316, 323, 32426.</p> <p>v pars1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis — Miao: 532, Table 3, Fig. 9a,b 20.</p> <p>v non1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis ?— Miao: 536, Fig. 820.</p> <p>1983 Lophiomeryx sp. — Wang &amp; Zhang: 122, 12741.</p> <p>v 1983 cf. Miomeryx sp. — Wang &amp; Zhang: 12341.</p> <p>v 1997 Miomeryx sp. — Vislobokova: Fig. 321.</p> <p>v pars 1997 L. gracilis — Vislobokova: Fig. 321.</p> <p>v 1999 cf. Miomeryx sp. — Zhang, Long, Ji, &amp; Ding: 7, Table 527.</p> <p>v pars 2000 L. gracilis — Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.</p> <p>v pars 2001 L. gracilis — Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducrocq: 239, 24117.</p> <p>v 2007 Miomeryx sp. — Métais and Vislobokova: 1942.</p> <p>v pars 2012 L. gracilis — Mennecart: 6234.</p> <p>ZooBank LSID. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1DF6F58C-F08B-4657-BD4A-7C597653926F.</p> <p>Etymology. meaning yellow (flavor-) emperor (imperatoris) in latin. Chiyou fought with the Yellow Emperor, the ancestor of Chinese, but was defeated.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. shows the above-mentioned characteristics of the genus. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. is smaller than Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis and? Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus. Te p4 of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. differs from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis by an oblique anterior conid, which is labio-lingually oriented in the larger species. A very short posterolingual conid is located between the posterolabial cristid and the transverse cristid in the p4 of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp., while it is absent on Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp., there is a tiny anterior cingulid, while it is absent in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis.</p> <p>Holotype. IVPP V 6547, right mandible with p4–m3 (previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis 20).</p> <p>Paratype. IVPP V 6548, lef mandible with p4–m3 (previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis 20).</p> <p>Additional material. IVPP V 2600, lef p4–m2 (previously attributed to cf. Miomeryx sp. 26). Measurements are given in Table S1.</p> <p>Localities. Yangjiachong locality lying in the Caijiachong marls, Qujing, Yunnan, China; Shinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.</p> <p>Scientific Reports |</p> <p>Taxonomical attribution. IVPP V 6547 and IVPP V 6548 from Shinao were previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis 20, while IVPP V 2600 from Caijiachong marls was first described as cf. Miomeryx sp. 26. All these specimens share the same size and dental morphology, and originate from a similar stratigraphic position. Tat is why we attribute them to the same species.</p> <p>None of these specimens can be attributed to Krabimeryx or Zhailymeryx, as the entoconidian groove is absent 14, 17. Furthermore, the external postmetacristid is more marked in the considered specimens than in Krabimeryx and Zhailymeryx, forming a deep groove. Te third basin is also very different in the here-described specimens from Krabimeryx and Zhailymeryx: the third lobe is a little tilted parallel with the prehypoconulidcristid and posthypoconulidcristid. Te back fossa of m3 is very narrow.</p> <p>Furthermore, the here-described specimens can be distinguished from K. gracilis (previously attributed to the same species), by a smaller size and a slenderer shape. Te ectostylid is smaller than in K. gracilis. Te anterior cingulid in the lower molars is stronger in K. gracilis than in the here-considered specimens. Te small postentocristid (especially on m3) of the here-described specimens is absent in K. gracilis.</p> <p>Te here-described specimens possess all characteristics in the lower molars that are typical for Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and distinguish this genus from Lophiomeryx 24, 34, 37. Furthermore, as in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the p4 is laterally compressed giving it a more elongated aspect than in Lophiomeryx 24, 34, 37. Terefore, we consider it justified assigning the here-described specimens to Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. However, they differ from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis in as smaller size and the morphology of the p4: (1) the anterior conid is oblique while it is labio-lingually oriented in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. (2) Tere is a tiny anterior cingulid that is absent in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. (3) Tere is no additional cristid on the mesolingual conid, which is a well-rounded conid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, there is a short posterolingual cristid. (4) Te posterolingual conid stands between the posterolabial cristid and the transverse cristid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the posterolingual conid is very small and oblique between the transverse cristid and the posterior stylid and does not join the posterolabial cristid. Due to these distinct differences we erect a new species: Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov.sp.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C467A091F8AFC80FBAACB52	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C457A091F8AFC62FC6DCDA8.text	E97287E44C457A091F8AFC62FC6DCDA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iberomeryx Gabunia	<div><p>Genus Iberomeryx Gabunia, 196443.</p> <p>Diagnosis (modified from Mennecart et al. 36). Small-sized ruminant with upper molars possessing the following combination of characters: well-marked parastyle and mesostyle in small-column shape; strong paracone rib; metacone rib absent; metastyle absent; unaligned external walls of metacone and paracone; strong postprotocrista stopping against the anterior side of the premetaconulecrista; continuous lingual cingulum, stronger under the protocone. Lower dental formula is primitive (3–1–4–3) with non-molarized premolars. Tooth c is adjacent to i3. Tooth p1 is single-rooted, reduced and separated from c and p2 by a short diastema. Te premolars have a well-developed anterior conid. Teeth p2–p3 display a distally bifurcated mesolabial conid. Tooth p3 is the largest premolar. Tooth p4 displays no mesolingual conid and a large posterior valley. Regarding the lower molars, the trigonid and talonid are lingually open with a trigonid more tapered than the talonid. Te anterior fossa is open, due to a forward orientation of the preprotocristid and the presence of a paraconid. Te internal postprotocristid is oblique and the external postprotocristid reaches the prehypocristid. Te internal postprotocristid, postmetacristid and preentocristid are fused and Y-shaped. Protoconid and metaconid display a weak Tragulus fold and a well-developed Dorcatherium fold, respectively. Te mandible displays a regularly concave ventral profile in lateral view, a marked incisura vasorum, a strong mandibular angular process, a vertical ramus, and a stout condylar process.</p> <p>Type species. Iberomeryx parvus Gabunia, 196443 from Benara (Georgia), late Oligocene 44.</p> <p>Included species. I. minor 45, Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C457A091F8AFC62FC6DCDA8	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
E97287E44C457A081F8AFA3DFA72CBF7.text	E97287E44C457A081F8AFA3DFA72CBF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Iberomeryx miaoi Mennecart & Aiglstorfer & Li & Li & Wang 2021	<div><p>Iberomeryx miaoi nov.sp.</p> <p>Figure 1D and Figure S4.</p> <p>v 1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis ?—Miao: 536, Fig. 820.</p> <p>ZooBank LSID. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:EE3F88E9-0EAF-4EC6-A46F-8623241E614B.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Iberomeryx with a very large paraconid, which is smaller in Iberomeryx minor and Iberomeryx parvus. Te metastylid is not strong but is more developed than in the other species. Te ectostylid is big on m1, smaller on m2 and absent on m3, while I. minor displays an ectostylid on all molars and I. parvus none at all. Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp. is of similar size to I. minor and its m2 is smaller than the one of I. parvus. It differs from I. minor by a thin anterior cingulid. Moreover, its protoconid is positioned slightly more anterior than in I. parvus. Te molars appear to be more massive and bulkier in this species than in I. minor and I. parvus.</p> <p>Holotype. IVPP V 6551, lef mandible with m1–m3 (only specimen known). m1 5.1 × 3.5, m2 5.2 × 4.1, m3 8.0× 4.0.</p> <p>7</p> <p>Etymology. We dedicate this species to Prof. Miao Desui who was the first to describe the Shinao fauna.</p> <p>Locality and horizon. Shinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.</p> <p>Taxonomical attribution. Tis minute ruminant was referred to Lophiomeryx gracilis ? by Miao 20. However, he already noticed that the size of this individual was smaller than in the other specimens attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis.Miao 20 excluded an attribution of IVPP V 6551 to " Lophiomeryx " gaudryi due to a closed posterior section of the posterior fossa on the m3. However, in both teeth, the posterior fossa is still open by the reduction of the postentocristid.</p> <p>Te here-described specimen clearly differs from Lophiomeryx by the presence of an external postmetacristid forming a slight Dorcatherium fold, a developed external postprotocristid (clearly visible at least on m2), and a largeparaconid 36. Furthermore the external postprotocristid and prehypocristid are connected on their distal ends and the third basin of m3 forms a well-formed buckle, unlike the condition in Lophiomerycidae 14, 16, 33, 36, 37. Te combination of these characters is typical for Tragulidae 36.</p> <p>Very few taxa are so far known in the early evolution of the Tragulidae. Only Archaeotragulus, Iberomeryx, and Nalameryx are recognized as potential Paleogene Tragulidae 17, 36, 46, of which Archaeotragulus is currently the oldest representative described 17, 47. Archaeotragulus possesses lower molars with a broadened talonid in comparison to the trigonid and displays an entoconidian groove 36. In the case of IVPP V 6551, the trigonid and talonid are of similar size and no specific entoconidian groove can be observed. Mennecart et al. 36 considered Nalameryx a Tragulidae notably based on the presence of the M structure (the external postmetacristid, the internal postmetacristid, the internal postprotocristid, and the external postprotocristid are interconnected forming a M in occlusal view), including the Tragulus fold and Dorcatherium fold, and the absence of a rounded mesolingual conid in the p 435. IVPP V 6551 differs from Nalameryx in having an m3 wider than m1 and similar m1 and m2 widths 17. In size proportions and molar morphology, IVPP V 6551 resembles the genus Iberomeryx. In IVPP V 6551, the relative size of the m2 is more similar to I. minor. In Iberomeryx minor, the anterior cingulid is big 36, 46, while in Iberomeryx parvus the cingulid is thin 48 like in IVPP V 6551. Te teeth of IVPP V 6551 appear to be more massive and bulkier than in I. minor and I. parvus 36, 48. Similarly to I. minor, the protoconid of IVPP V 6551 is a little more anterior than in I. parvus 36, 48. IVPP V 6551 clearly differs from I. parvus and I. minor by the presence of a very large paraconid, which is smaller in the two other species 36, 48. Moreover, the metastylid in IVPP V 6551 is slightly more developed than in I. minor and not present in I. parvus 43, 48. Iberomeryx minor displays an ectostylid on all molars 36, while this structure is absent from I. parvus 48. Te ectostylid in IVPP V 6551 is large on m1 to absent on m3. Based on these differences we decided to erect the new species Iberomeryx miaoi nov.sp.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/E97287E44C457A081F8AFA3DFA72CBF7	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mennecart, Bastien;Aiglstorfer, Manuela;Li, Yikun;Li, Chunxiao;Wang, ShiQi	Mennecart, Bastien, Aiglstorfer, Manuela, Li, Yikun, Li, Chunxiao, Wang, ShiQi (2021): Ruminants reveal Eocene Asiatic palaeobiogeographical provinces as the origin of diachronous mammalian Oligocene dispersals into Europe. Scientific Reports 1: 1-12, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96221-x
